Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-03-18• • E IDIAN--- s CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to the best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: David Zaremba Joe Borton Charlie Rountree ~ Keith Bird / Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance: 3. Community Invocation~b~y~ P~(astor Shawn Ragan with Church of God Seventh Day: 5~~`~`7"~.' - ri ~ ~9-y~.2 ~'~n~ -~ C~~ 4. Adoption of the Agenda: ~ ~ ~ ~,,( 5. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of February 12, 2008 City Council Special Workshop B. Approve Minutes of February 19, 2008 Pre-Council Meeting: C. Approve Minutes of February 19, 2008 Regular City Council Meeting: D. Approve minutes of February 26, 2008 Pre-Council Meeting: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: SHP 08-001 Request for a Short Plat to create 4 building lots on 2 acres in a C-G zone for Destination Place Subdivision No. 2 by Boise Valley Commons, LLC - 2295 East Cinema Drive: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -March 18, 2008 Page 1 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. r~ ~I F. Findings of Fact and Conclusion 08-002 Request for Short Plat condominium units in an existing Medical Millennium Condominiu 1828 South Millennium Way: s of Law for Approval: SHP approval for 4 commercial building in an L-O zone for m by The Land Group, LLC - G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: RZ 07- 013 Request for a Rezone of 1.76 acres from L-O to C-N zone for Strada Bellissima Commercial by Strada Bellissima Commercial, LLC - NWC of Meridian Road and Victory Road at 114 and 156 West Victory Road (Lots 2 & 3, Block 2, Strada Bellissima No. 1 Subdivision): H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: CUP 07- 019 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval of a drinking establishment in a proposed C-G zone for Rockin KB Saloon by Patrick McKeegan - 3163 East Lanark: I. Resolution No. ~~~~ V3 Proposed Fee Increase for Planning Department: J. Renewal of Contract for Prosecution Services with the City of Boise: K. Change Order No. 1 for Black Cat Road Water Main Extension Phase 2 Design Project with Civil Survey Consultants, Inc. for $3,000: L. Water Main Easement Agreement for EI Dorado Building No. 6 by Kimball Properties: M. Approve Standard Form of Agreement with Irminger Construction for Bower Street Water Main Improvements Construction Project for $37,774.00: N. Change Order No. 1, of Contract with Treasure Vallev Drilling for Construction of Well 27 for site Grading, Fencing, Artesian Flow Well Head Assembly and Drilling Material /Labor for Artesian Well for a Cost Not to Exceed $35,000.00: O. Public Right of Wav Easement between the City of Meridian as Grantor to ACHD for Sidewalks at the new Meridian Citv Hall: P. Amended Agreement for Bittercreek Meadows: ImAiV`~-u ~.~~ Mendian City Council Meeting Agenda -March 18, 2008 Page 2 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~ ~ 6. Presentation of Cit of Meridian 2007 E Award to Sunbelt: ~v.e~R„t~. ~ ~ ~ 7. Department Reports: A. Mayor's Offce 1. Proclamation for Fair Housing: 2. Resolution Creatin Affordable Housin ~~~ ~ o B. Planning Department 1. Discussion of Elevation Changes Commercial, Bridgetower Crossing Bridgetower Crossing Commercial: Task Force: ~ ~~ ~- Nww~ for Verona Office and A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 07-017 Request for Rezone of 5.29 acres from R-8 zone to C-G zone (1.62 acres) and L- O zone (3.67 acres) for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC - Northeast Comer of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 07-022 Request for. Preliminary Plat approval of 12 commercial lots and 2 other lots on 18.82 acres in the proposed C-G and L-O zoning districts for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Northeast Comer of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 07-018 Request for a Rezone of 12.64 acres from R-4 to an L-O zone for Bridgetower Crossing Office by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Southwest Comer of West McMillan Road and North Linder Road: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 07-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 commercial lots and 2 other lots on 10.2 acres in the proposed L-O zoning district for Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -March 18, 2008 Page 3 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~ ~ Bridgetower Crossing OfFce by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Southwest Comer of West McMillan Road and North Linder Road: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 07-022 Request for a Rezone of 7.37 acres from C-G and R-4 to C-N zones and a Rezone of 5.88 acres from R-4 to L-O zones for Bridgetower Crossing Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -east of North Ten Mile Road and south of West McMillan Road: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 07-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 commercial lots and 1 other lot in the proposed C-N zone for Bridgetower Crossing Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC - east of North Ten Mile Road and south of West McMillan Road; 8. Items Moved from Consent Agenda: ~ ~ lM ~P d ~~ ~ J 9. Request for Reconsideration for Denial of RZ 07-019 for Rockin KB Saloon by Patrick McKee, gan ~a~t 314 3 East Lanark: 10. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: RZ 07-019 Request for a Rezone of 0.602 of an acre from I-L to C-G zone for Rockin KB Saloon by Patrick McKeega~n~- 3163 E~ s~ na 11. FP 08-002 Request for Final Plat approval for 52 single-family residential building lots, 2 commercial building lots and 8 common lots on 19.80 acres in an L-O zone for Meadowlake Village Subdivision No. 1 by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley -Southeast Comer of Franklin Road and Touchmark Road: 12. FP 08-004 Request for Final Plat approval for 65 single-family building lots and 5 common lots on 20.51 acres in an R-4 and R-8 zone for Olive Tree at Spurwing Subdivision by Spurwing Limited Partnership -north of West Chinden Boulevard and west of North Spurwing Way: ~' 13. Public Hearing: TE 08-001 Request for approval of an 18-month Time Extension to record the Final Plat for Redfish Subdivision (aka Whitewater Subdivision) by Jake Miller - 4120 North Linder Road: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -March 18, 2008 Page 4 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • • 14. Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2008: ZOA 07-002 Request for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the current provisions in Chapter 3, Article E (Temporary Use Requirements) of the UDC (Title 11) and the definition of Temporary Use found in Chapter 1, Article A for Temporary Use UDC Text Amendment byy t~ ridian City Plannin Department: 15. Public Hearing: RZ 07-020 Request for Rezone of 10.1 acres from R-4 to R-40 zoning district for Selway Apartments by Meridian Apartments, LLC -west of North Goddard Creek Road and north of McMillan Road: '~~,~ 3 ~ ~ ~ u,~,-tux. 16. Public Heari- ng: dRZ 07-023 Request for Rezone of 0.62 acres from R-4 to an R-8 zone for Blackstone No. 2 by Landmark Enginee 'n~ Planning, Inc. - 4700 West Aspen Creek Street: use w~ ~ tea. ~~~~ 17. Public Hearing: PFP 07-004 Request for Combined Preliminary /Final Plat approval of 3 residential lots on 0.59 of an acre located in the R-4 zoning district for Blackstone No. 2 by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. - 4700 West Aspen Creek Street: ~.~~ f 2~-~ 18. Public Hearing: AZ 07-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.81 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -Northwest Comer of East Ustick Road and Forth LgGUSt Grove Road: p~pPv~tr~ u~l Oa a f f~ ~-c?~ 19. Public Hearing: PP 07-027 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval with 3 residential building lots and 1 common lot in a proposed R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -Northwest Corner of , East Ustick Road and orth Locust Grove oad: 20. Public Hearing: CUP 07-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 122 multi-family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone on approximately 21.8 acres for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -Northwest Comer of East Ustic aRoad~o~rt~h~Lo,~~t Grove Roa ~ ~ ~~ 21. Public Hearing: AP 08-001 Request for City Council Review of an Appeal of the Planning Director's Determination to deny an application to modify a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow a private education institution within an I-L zone for Treasure Vallev Technical Center by Metro Commercial Properties -1250 West Overland Road: (,~s~lc.v~- csr` ~ ~-v~-cv~~ ~ ~ ~~- 22. Ordinance No. ~~b ~ 3 5,3 Amendment to Pretreatment Ordinance: ~~r~~ ~,~~~ (~ ~.GG Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -March 18, 2008 Page 5 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • E IDIAN~~~- ~~ CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, March 18, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. `Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected to be truthful and honest to the best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: David Zaremba Joe Borton Charlie Rountree Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Pledge of Allegiance: 3. Community Invocation by Pastor Shawn Ragan with Church of God Seventh Day: 4. Adoption of the Agenda: 5. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of February 12, 2008 City Council Special Workshop B. Approve Minutes of February 19, 2008 Pre-Council Meeting: C. Approve Minutes of February 19, 2008 Regular City Council Meeting: D. Approve minutes of February 26, 2008 Pre-Council Meeting: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: SHP 08-001 Request for a Short Plat to create 4 building lots on 2 acres in a C-G zone for Destination Place Subdivision No. 2 by Boise Valley Commons, LLC - 2295 East Cinema Drive: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -March 18, 2008 Page 1 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. F. Findings of Fact and Conclusion 08-002 Request for Short Plat condominium units in an existing Medical Millennium Condominiu 1828 South Millennium Way: • s of Law for Approval: SHP approval for 4 commercial building in an L-O zone for m by The Land Group, LLC - G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: RZ 07- 013 Request for a Rezone of 1.76 acres from L-O to C-N zone for Strada Bellissima Commercial by Strada Bellissima Commercial, LLC - NWC of Meridian Road and Victory Road at 114 and 156 West Victory Road (Lots 2 & 3, Block 2, Strada Bellissima No. 1 Subdivision): H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: CUP 07- 019 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval of a drinking establishment in a proposed C-G zone for Rockin KB Saloon by Patrick McKeegan - 3163 East Lanark: I. Resolution No. Proposed Fee Increase for Planning Department: J. Renewal of Contract for Prosecution Services with the City of Bo~se• K. Chance Order No. 1 for Black Cat Road Water Main Extension Phase 2 Design Project with Civil Survey Consultants, Inc. for $3,000: L. Water Main Easement Agreement for EI Dorado Building No 6 by Kimball Properties: M. Approve Standard Form of Agreement with Irminger Construction for Bower Street Water Main Improvements Construction Project for $37,774.00: N. Chance Order No. 1, of Contract with Treasure Vallev Drilling for Construction of Well 27 for site Grading, Fencing, Artesian Flow Well Head Assembly and Drilling Material /Labor for Artesian Well for a Cost Not to Exceed $35,000.00: O. Public Right of Way Easement between the Citv of Meridian as Grantor to ACHD for Sidewalks at the new Meridian City Hall: P. Amended Agreement for Bittercreek Meadows: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -March 18, 2008 Page 2 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • • 6. Presentation of Citv of Meridian 2007 Environmental Excellence Award to Sunbelt: 7. Department Reports: A. Mayor's Office 1. Proclamation for Fair Housing: 2. Resolution Creating Affordable Housing Task Force: B. Planning Department 1. Discussion of Elevation Changes for Verona Commercial, Bridgetower Crossing Office and Bridgetower Crossing Commercial: A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 07-017 Request for Rezone of 5.29 acres from R-8 zone to C-G zone (1.62 acres) and L- O zone (3.67 acres) for Verona Commercial by Primetand Development Group, LLC - Northeast Comer of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 07-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 commercial lots and 2 other lots on 18.82 acres in the proposed C-G and L-O zoning districts for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Northeast Comer of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 07-018 Request for a Rezone of 12.64 acres from R-4 to an L-O zone for Bridgetower Crossing Office by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Southwest Comer of West McMillan Road and North Linder Road: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 07-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 commercial lots and 2 other lots on 10.2 acres in the proposed L-O zoning district for Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -March 18, 2008 Page 3 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • • Bridgetower Crossing Office by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Southwest Comer of West McMillan Road and North Linder Road: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 07-022 Request for a Rezone of 7.37 acres from C-G and R-4 to C-N zones and a Rezone of 5.88 acres from R-4 to L-O zones for Bridgetower Crossing Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -east of North Ten Mile Road and south of West McMillan Road: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 07-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 commercial lots and 1 other lot in the proposed C-N zone for Bridgetower Crossing Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC - east of North Ten Mile Road and south of West McMillan Road; 8. Items Moved from Consent Agenda: 9. Request for Reconsideration for Denial of RZ 07-019 for Rockin KB Saloon by Patrick McKeegan at 3163 East Lanark: 10. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: RZ 07-019 Request for a Rezone of 0.602 of an acre from I-L to C-G zone for Rockin KB Saloon by Patrick McKeegan - 3163 East Lanark: 11. FP 08-002 Request for Final Plat approval for 52 single-family residential building lots, 2 commercial building lots and 8 common lots on 19.80 acres in an L-O zone for Meadowlake Village Subdivision No. 1 by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley -Southeast Comer of Franklin Road and Touchmark Road: 12. FP 08-004 Request for Final Plat approval for 65 single-family building lots and 5 common lots on 20.51 acres in an R-4 and R-8 zone for Olive Tree at Saurwing Subdivision by Spurwing Limited Partnership -north of West Chinden Boulevard and west of North Spurwing Way: 13. Public Hearing: TE 08-001 Request for approval of an 18-month Time Extension to record the Final Plat for Redfish Subdivision (aka Whitewater Subdivision) by Jake Miller- 4120 North Linder Road: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -March 18, 2008 Page 4 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~ • 14. Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2008: ZOA 07-002 Request for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the current provisions in Chapter 3, Article E (Temporary Use Requirements) of the UDC (Title 11) and the definition of Temporary Use found in Chapter 1, Article A for Temporary Use UDC Text Amendment by the Meridian City Planning Department: 15. Public Hearing: RZ 07-020 Request for Rezone of 10.1 acres from R-4 to R-40 zoning district for Selwav Apartments by Meridian Apartments, LLC -west of North Goddard Creek Road and north of McMillan Road: 16. Public Hearing: RZ 07-023 Request for Rezone of 0.62 acres from R-4 to an R-8 zone for Blackstone No. 2 by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. - 4700 West Aspen Creek Street: 17. Public Hearing: PFP 07-004 Request for Combined Preliminary /Final Plat approval of 3 residential lots on 0.59 of an acre located in the R-4 zoning district for Blackstone No. 2 by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. - 4700 West Aspen Creek Street: 18. Public Hearing: AZ 07-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.81 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -Northwest Comer of East Ustick Road and North Locust Grove Road: 19. Public Hearing: PP 07-027 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval with 3 residential building lots and 1 common lot in a proposed R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -Northwest Comer of East Ustick Road and North Locust Grove Road: 20. Public Hearing: CUP 07-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 122 multi-family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone on approximately 21.8 acres for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -Northwest Comer of East Ustick Road and North Locust Grove Road: 21. Public Hearing: AP 08-001 Request for City Council Review of an Appeal of the Planning Director's Determination to deny an application to modify a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow a private education institution within an I-L zone for Treasure Valley Technical Center by Metro Commercial Properties -1250 West Overland Road: 22. Ordinance No. Amendment to Pretreatment Ordinance: Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -March 18, 2008 Page 5 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • • Meridian City Council Meeting March 18, 2008 A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, March 18, 2008, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, and David Zaremba. Members Absent: Joe Borton. Others Present: Bill Nary, Jaycee Holman, Anna Canning, Tracy Basterrechea, Mark Niemeyer, Thomas Barry and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X David Zaremba O Joe Borton X Charlie Rountree X Keith Bird X Mayor Tammy de Weerd De Weerd: I will go ahead and open tonight's meeting. It is, for the record, Tuesday, March 18th. It is 7:30. We apologize for the delay in the beginning of this meeting. When we have Pre-Council it sometimes bleeds over, so we apologize and thank you for your patience. We will start tonight's meeting with roll call attendance. Mrs. Clerk. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: De Weerd: Thank you. Item No. 2 is our pledge of allegiance. We will ask you to, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of Allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation: De Weerd: Item No. 3 is typically our community invocation. Since our pastor is not here tonight and neither is our backup layman, we will go ahead and skip Item No. 3. We would ask you, though, to, please, reflect on your place of faith and remember that - - that we are all a community and we all want the best thing for the City of Meridian. Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: So, with that said I will move to Item No. 4, adoption of the agenda. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? • a Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 2 of 69 De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: On the Consent Agenda, Item I, the resolution number is 08-603. Item P has been requested to move off of the Consent Agenda to Item 8. And item -- on the regular agenda, Item 12, has been asked to be vacated from the agenda. And Item 22, the ordinance number is 08-1353. And with those indications, I move that we adopt the agenda as adjusted. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to adopt the agenda as changed. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carves. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of February 12, 2008 City Council Special Workshop B. Approve Minutes of February 19, 2008 Pre-Council Meeting: C. Approve Minutes of February 19, 2008 Regular City Council Meeting: D. Approve minutes of February 26, 2008 Pre-Council Meeting: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: SHP 08-001 Request for a Short Plat to create 4 building lots on 2 acres in a C-G zone for Destination Place Subdivision No. 2 by Boise Valley Commons, LLC - 2295 East Cinema Drive: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: SHP 08-002 Request for Short Plat approval for 4 commercial condominium units in an existing building in an L-O zone for Medical Millennium Condominium by The Land Group, LLC - 1828 South Millennium Way: G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: RZ 07- 013 Request for a Rezone of 1.76 acres from L-O to C-N zone for Strada Bellissima Commercial by Strada Bellissima Commercial, LLC - NWC of Meridian Road and Victory Road at 114 and 156 Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 3 of 69 West Victory Road (Lots 2 & 3, Block 2, Strada Bellissima No. 1 Subdivision): H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: CUP 07- 019 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval of a drinking establishment in a proposed C-G zone for Rockin KB Saloon by Patrick McKeegan - 3163 East Lanark: I. Resolution No. 08-603 Proposed Fee Increase for Planning Department: J. Renewal of Contract for Prosecution Services with the Ci of Boise• K. Chance Order No. 1 for Black Cat Road Water Main Extension Phase 2 Design Project with Civil Survey Consultants, Inc. for $3,000: L. Water Main Easement Agreement for EI Dorado Building No 6 by Kimball Properties: M. Approve Standard Form of Agreement with Irminger Construction for Bower Street Water Main Improvements Construction Project for $37,774.00: N. Change Order No. 1, of Contract with Treasure Vallev Drilling for Construction of Well 27 for site Grading, Fencing, Artesian Flow Well Head Assembly and Drilling Material /Labor for Artesian Well for a Cost Not to Exceed $35,000.00: O. Public Right of Wav Easement between the Citv of Meridian as Grantor to ACRD for Sidewalks at the new Meridian City Hall: De Weerd: Item No. 5. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we adopt the Consent Agenda with the following notes: That Item I is resolution number 08-603 and that Item P is removed from the Consent Agenda. And for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 4 of 69 De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? You're removing Item P to the regular agenda item? Zaremba: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Since there is no discussion, Mrs. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Presentation of City of Meridian 2007 Environmental Excellence Award to Sunbelt: De Weerd: Okay. Item No. 6 is a presentation of the City of Meridian for the 2007 Environmental Excellence Award and I will ask that our pre-treatment manager, please, come forward and introduce our business that we want to recognize tonight. Maneck: Well, thank you. It's my pleasure to introduce Sunbelt Rentals, located at 483 East Franklin Road as a recipient of the 2007 Environmental Excellence Award. This annual award is presented to a company that displays outstanding environmental efforts that greatly impact city services and the general public. The specific reason why this company was selected is because they have built a new building and in that new structure they put a -- a very nice high tech water reclaim system that's associated with their operation, their washing of the construction equipment, and they reclaim and use the same water over and over again. So, we estimated they save several thousand gallons of water every month. So, that greatly impacts our natural environment and our city services. Established in 1983 and headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina, metro area, Sunbelt Rental has evolved from a small local operation into the second equipment rental company in the United States, with sister companies operating worldwide. Sunbelt Rentals has -- now has over 450 locations nationwide, including one hundred Sunbelt Rentals at Lowe's locations. I'm pleased to present the Environmental Excellence Award plaque to Sunbelt Rentals and Everett Evans, the project manager, is here to receive that award. De Weerd: Okay. Everett, I will ask you to come forward and we will both present you with your plaque. I will read what this plaque says. It's City of Meridian 2007 Environmental Excellence Award, presented to Sunbelt Rental for adopting environmental friendly practices, equipment, and technologies. This is a very important program in the City of Meridian. We appreciate the good stewardship your company has shown and we are thrilled with your new building. You're not a new business to our community, but we certainly appreciate the standards that you have set, that you have set the bar high, and we are thrilled to have you in our community. Thank you so much. • Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 5 of 69 Item 7: Department Reports: A. Mayor's Office 1. Proclamation for Fair Housing: De Weerd: Okay. I see we have a couple of Boy Scout troops here. We have someone from Troop 138. Thank you for joining us. And what troop were -- Troop 28. Thank you for being with us tonight. Okay. Item No. 7 under departmental report, I do have a proclamation to read this evening. The proclamation pertains to fair housing and we have here: Whereas the year 2008 marks the 40th anniversary of the passage of Title 8 of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, commonly known as the federal Fair Housing Act and whereas the Idaho Human Rights Commission Act has prohibited discrimination in housing since 1969 and whereas equal opportunity for all, regardless of race, color, religion, sex, disability, national origin, is a fundamental goal of our nation, state, and city and whereas equal access to housing is an important component of this goal, as fundamental as the right to equal education and employment and whereas housing is a critical component of family and community health and stability, and whereas housing choice impacts our children's access to education, our ability to seek and retain employment options, the cultural benefits we enjoy, the extent of our exposure to crime and drugs, and the quality of health care we receive in emergencies and whereas the laws of this nation and our state seek to insurance such equity of choice for all transactions involving housing, and whereas ongoing education, outreach, and monitoring are key to raising awareness of fair housing principals, practices, rights and responsibilities and whereas only through continued cooperation, commitment, and support of all idahoans can barriers to fair housing be removed. Thereafter, I, Tammy de Weerd, Mayor of the City of Meridian, do hereby proclaim the importance of fair housing in the City of Meridian to promote awareness of equal housing opportunities. And this is signed and dated the 18th of March 2008. This is one of the programs that we have with the City of Meridian as an entitlement city, that we are committed to fair housing for all and it is the month to proclaim that. 2. Resolution Creating Affordable Housing Task Force: De Weerd: The next item is a resolution creating an Affordable Housing Task Force and I have it under the Mayor's office, but I was thinking that maybe the city attorney might have a report from our City Attorney Emily Kane. Since he is not here right now, we will delay that item until he is present with us. B. Planning Department Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 6 of 69 1. Discussion of Elevation Changes for Verona Commercial, Bridgetower Crossing Office and Bridgetower Crossing Commercial: A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: RZ 07-017 Request for Rezone of 5.29 acres from R-8 zone to C-G zone (1.62 acres) and L- O zone (3.67 acres) for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC - Northeast Comer of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 07-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 commercial lots and 2 other lots on 18.82 acres in the proposed C-G and L-O zoning districts for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Northeast Comer of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: 12Z 07-018 Request for a Rezone of 12.64 acres from R-4 to an L-O zone for Bridgetower Crossing Office by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Southwest Comer of West McMillan Road and North Linder Road: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 07-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 commercial lots and 2 other lots on 10.2 acres in the proposed L-O zoning district for Bridgetower Crossing Offcice by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Southwest Comer of West McMillan Road and North Linder Road: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: IZZ 07-022 Request for a Rezone of 7.37 acres from C-G and R-4 to C-N zones and a Rezone of 5.88 acres from R-4 to L-O zones for Bridgetower Crossing Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -east of North Ten Mile Road and south of West McMillan Road: Meridian Ciiy Council March 18, 2008 Page 7 of 69 F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 07-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 commercial lots and 1 other lot in the proposed C-N zone for Bridgetower Crossing Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC - east of North Ten Mile Road and south of West McMillan Road; De Weerd: So, I will skip to Department Report under the Planning Department, Item 1, and turn this over to Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- is this on? Oh, it is on? It doesn't sound right. I'm sorry. Okay. Good. Thanks. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, when you heard all the Verona and Bridgetower projects, we suggested at that time that the Council review some additional photos that you wanted included with the development agreement at the time the development agreement was signed. The findings are before you tonight. We had the photos. We thought we would go ahead and get them into the findings, rather than wait until the development agreement. So, I have several images just to show you for the projects associated with the Bridgetower and Verona development agreements. You may recall that most of the photographs we had were of smaller buildings and the applicant wanted to include some larger buildings, so I have six or seven. If there is any you would like to take out, just let me know. They are numbered, so that you can easily reference them. Building one. Building two. I think the yellow vehicle in the front is a temporary. So, all of these show larger buildings with different styles of development. A lot of these appear to be taken from the Black Eagle Commercial Center. Would you like me to go through them again? Were there any you would like to take out? De Weerd: Council, I guess we could have gone like, don't like, but what would you like? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I would just suggest that we take out the tenth example. Canning: Okay. Bird: Bring it back. De Weerd: You were counting? Good job. Rountree: They are all numbered. De Weerd: Oh, yeah. I don't have my glasses on. I didn't like that one either. Zaremba: I would be happy to have that one removed as well. Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 8 of 69 Rountree: Was that a test? Canning: You passed if it was. With that done, I think that the findings could be approved with adding those images, just removing item -- or building number ten from the approved images. De Weerd: Okay. Council, anything further? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we need a motion on the findings. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the findings on 7-B, 1- A and B. Does that also include Bridgetower? Canning: It's for all of them, sir. Rountree: C and D. Canning: E and F. Rountree: E and F. De Weerd: Okay. And to include the exhibits as shown? Rountree: Including the exhibits as shown. De Weerd: Okay. Second agree? Zaremba: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Is there any discussion? Okay. We have a motion to approve item 7-B-1, A through F. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: • • Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 9 of 69 P. Amended Agreement for Bittercreek Meadows: De Weerd: Okay. There was an item removed from the Consent Agenda. That was Item P. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Bird: We need to put that to the end, if at all possible, because they are negotiating right now. Item 9: Request for Reconsideration for Denial of RZ 07-019 for Rockin KB Saloon by Patrick McKeegan at 3163 East Lanark: De Weerd: Okay. We will go ahead and move on to Item 9. There is a request for reconsideration for denial of RZ 07-019 for Rockin KB Saloon. You do have a letter in front of you, Council, and you do have a transcript of a phone call we got after this denial was made. Is there any information you would like from the applicant? Would you like to hear from them, if he has any clarification on his letter, or what would you like at this time? Rountree: Madam Mayor, seeing no further information required, I would move that we deny the request for reconsideration for Item No. 9. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny or not consider the request for reconsideration. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 10: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Denial: RZ 07-019 Request for a Rezone of 0.602 of an acre from I-L to C-G zone for Rockin KB Saloon by Patrick McKeegan - 3163 East Lanark: De Weerd: Okay. Item 10 is Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law of RZ 07-019. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we approve Item 10, RZ -- the denial of RZ 07-019. • Meridian City Council March 1 S, 2008 Page 10 of 69 Rountree: Second. • De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to accept Item No. 10 and the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: FP 08-002 Request for Final Plat approval for 52 single-family residential building lots, 2 commercial building lots and 8 common lots on 19.80 acres in an L-O zone for Meadowlake Villaae Subdivision No. 1 by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley -Southeast Comer of Franklin Road and Touchmark Road: Item 12: FP 08-004 Request for Final Plat approval for 65 single-family building lots and 5 common lots on 20.51 acres in an R-4 and R-8 zone for Olive Tree at Spurwina Subdivision by Spurwing Limited Partnership -north of West Chinden Boulevard and west of North Spurwing Way: De Weerd: Items 10 and 11 are final plats. Anna, have the applicants agreed with the conditions placed by staff? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we have a letter from Meadowlake Village Subdivision No. 1. That one is -- we have a letter from the applicant stating they are in agreement with the conditions of approval. We asked that the Item No. 12 was actually vacated from the agenda. De Weerd: Okay. Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve Item No. 11, Meadowlake Village Sub No. 1 with staff and comments from the applicant. Bird: Second. Zaremba: Second. • Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 11 of 69 De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second on Item 11 to approve. If there is no discussion, Mrs. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. So, Item 12 has been requested to vacate. Do I need a motion? Bird: Yes. Rountree: Yes. De Weerd: To do that? Okay. Do I have a motion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we vacate FP 08-004 from the agenda. Rountree: Second. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 13. I'm sorry. Item 12. I almost jumped ahead of you. If there is no discussion, Mrs. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 13: Public Hearing: TE 08-001 Request for approval of an 18-month Time Extension to record the Final Plat for Redfish Subdivision (aka Whitewater Subdivision) by Jake Miller - 4120 North Linder Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 13 is a Public Hearing on TE 08-001. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is the Redfish Subdivision project. It's also known as Whitewater. It's located at 4120 North Linder Road, just north of the Sawtooth Elementary School. And the application before you is a time extension for a final plat. We previously granted an approval and an 18 month time extension to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat for Redfish Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 12 of 69 • Subdivision. That was granted at the director level. The preliminary plat consists of five commercial lots and two other lots on 2.52 acres in an L-O zoning district. The preliminary plat was approved by City Council on July 12th, 2005. Then, the applicant applied for and the director granted an 18 month time extension on January 12th -- or up to July 12th, 2005. I'm song. I skipped a line. With the previous time extension, the applicant was given two months to enter into a development agreement for the site. And I did want to just note that, because they did go and get that development agreement. So, that was recorded on October 19th, 2006. De Weerd: Anna, excuse me for a minute. We can't hear you. Can all of you hear staff? Is there a volume thing that we can tum up? Canning: Testing. Testing. Testing. De Weerd: That's much better. Canning: Is that better? I thought it didn't sound right earlier. There we go. De Weerd: You can all hear that; right? Thank you. Canning: Shall I start again. No? Rountree: We heard enough. Bird: We heard enough. De Weerd: It was very interesting. Rountree: It was very inspiring. Zaremba: Is it going to change from what you said the last time? Canning: The applicant did file for the second time extension prior to the project expiring. I just wanted to make that clear. Because a little time has gone past since then. The applicant states the primarily reason for the time extension is to resolve issues related to the sewer service and to our knowledge there are no outstanding issues for City Council. With all time extensions, the city may require compliance with the current provisions of the UDC as a condition for granting the time extension. However we did not feel that there were any additional conditions we needed to place on this project. With that, I will answer any questions Council may have, now that they can hear me. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 13 of 69 Bird: I have none. Rountree: None. Zaremba: No. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Okay. I'm sorry, Mr. Bird. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to provide testimony on this application? Thank you. If you would, please, state your name and address for the record. Miller: My name is Jake Miller and the address is 4120 North Linder Road. That's the address for the property. De Weerd: Thank you. Miller: Our major concern on this is the sewer system and I have been working with Public Works trying to figure out -- because on the original construction drawings it was supposed to be stubbed across the ditch -- or the drain ditch there into our property and I have got a -- I have got this, but it never was done. And we thought it was the subdivision, Baldwin Park, which is behind the property, but I think that that line was provided by the City of Meridian. De Weerd: Staff, do you know who was supposed to provide that line? Dolsby: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, it was my understanding that Baldwin Park put in the sewer that was to and through their development. We put in that trunk line through there a little while back that goes -- I think it's an 18 inch line that goes just to the south of Baldwin Park that goes through there. I wasn't aware of any stub that we had planned to go underneath the canal. I know that -- I know the applicant's been working with our development services department pretty -- throughout this whole process to get sewer to his development, to drag it either from -- there is a position out -- in Baldwin Park where he could bring sewer from -- that's a little bit to the -- I guess it doesn't really show it. It's a little bit to the east of his development down near the southern tip of the development. He can run through the common lot there that's south of the properties is one option that we had presented to him. Beyond that he could grab it from the 18 inch as well that goes -- it isn't shown on there, south of the development a little bit. And there is not a sewer going on the frontage on Linder Road at the moment, but another option would be if that property develops off to the west of the property, we would require them to run sewer down Linder Road and, then, he could just pick it up right there. But that would require waiting for them to develop. I'm not sure exactly why sewer wasn't brought -- or whether sewer was promised by someone • Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 14 of 69 else that maybe was brought undemeath the canal. I'm not aware of anything that we planned to bring under there, though. De Weerd: Yeah. Typically, our policy has been neighboring developments bring it to and through. Dolsby: Yeah. De Weerd: And stub it at their property line. Miller: On the original construction drawings that I have it shows them coming across the ditch. I have got this right here. De Weerd: That was probably a staff level issue to work out with staff. Miller: Okay. De Weerd: But, typically, whoever that ditch property is on is typically responsible for it. So, if the ditch is on your property you will bring it under. Miller: Well, I don't think that the ditch is on our property. I think that's -- I think that's an easement. I'm sure that's not on our property. De Weerd: I can guarantee you Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District will not pay for it to go undemeath their canal, if that's -- Dolsby: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, typically when we put in those trunk line, sewers, too, we just put the trunk in and we don't stub out to individual properties or under canals when the trunks go in. It looks like that's an 18 inch trunk that runs through there that goes to Baldwin Park. So, we would have to put the trunk in. I wasn't involved in the project, but typically, you know, the trunk -- the sewer projects that we do, we put the trunk in and, then, the individual developments are responsible for coming off the trunk into their developments. De Weerd: Uh-huh. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Clint, I think we surely have the set of prints at the bid when this trunk line was done and -- Dolsby: Yes. Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 15 of 69 Bird: -- and we should have the as-builts also. Dolsby: Yes. Correct. Bird: So, they should tell us -- if that was in the print to go under -- Dolsby: Then, they should be there. Bird: -- we should know -- we should know why it didn't go in there. Dolsby: Uh-huh. Bird: And we should have the as-builts. So, I'm like the Mayor, I think this is something that Nampa can't and Public Works can work out. I don't think it's a level that we need to be involved with much on that. Dolsby: Yeah. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I would agree that with. We could get the record drawings for that trunk line and figure out exactly where it went and work with them on-that. Miller: That would be super. De Weerd: Fantastic. Anything else? Miller: No. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Miller: That was it. De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anything further by any member of the public who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Council, seeing none -- Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing for TE 08-001. Rountree: Second. • Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 16 of 69 • De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 13. I'm song. To close the Public Hearing on Item 13. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Any further information needed from Council? Bird: Not me. Rountree: I need none. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve TE 08-001. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 13. Any discussion? Mrs. Clerk, will you call roll Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from March 4, 2008: ZOA 07-002 Request for a Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the current provisions in Chapter 3, Article E (Temporary Use Requirements) of the UDC (Title 11) and the definition of Temporary Use found in Chapter 1, Article A for Temuorary Use UDC Text Amendment by the Meridian City Planning Department: De Weerd: Okay. Item 14 is a continued Public Hearing from March 4th on ZOA 07- 002. I will start this item with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is an amendment to the Unified Development Code regarding temporary uses. Mrs. Kane came and spoke to you about the proposed changes we are recommending to Title 3 of our City Code that would house all the temporary uses. So, what this is -- this is the follow up to take them out of the Unified Development Code, so that they can be in Title 3. So, it was a longer Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 17 of 69 • process. We started it a long time ago and we are just kind of bringing them together here at the end. Staff is -- as I mentioned, staff is proposing to remove the temporary use provisions from Title 11 in anticipating -- okay. I can talk. In anticipation of consolidating them all in Title 3. The Commission did recommend approval of the text amendment at their December 20th, 2007, Public Hearing. Caleb Hood. spoke in favor. There was no one in opposition, commenting, or providing written testimony. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were timing the application to make sure that there is not a time when there are no temporary use standards and there were no key changes to staffs initial recommendation. You did receive a memo since the staff report was written from Mr. Hood and it was with regard to construction sites and that brings me to the outstanding issues. There is two outstanding issues I need you to -- if you're in favor of this amendment, one, I need you to include the items from Mr. Hood and I also had in my notes. Do you have that in Section 11-3-E2? And that's in bold and underlined there. Not the color edits. The second thing I would ask Council to do, if you're inclined to approve the -- this text amendment, is to structure it so that we direct staff to bring back an ordinance to coincide with the ordinance for the Title 3 amendment, so that we can adopt them simultaneously. And with that I can answer any questions. Basically, the only two items we are leaving in the UDC is we are calling out trailers and other construction related equipment associated with an access construction site and, then, temporary uses that are conducted as part of a curricular -- or extra-curricular programming of an education facility. We would deem those accessory uses. So, what that would mean as far as construction sites is you may see larger construction trailers and you may see more of them. This has been a constraint for a lot of folks. We have got some remodels going on of grocery stores that requires a lot of -- a lot more tents and places to store the food while they are remodeling as well. So, it seems to address that concern for the construction sites as well. And with that I will answer any questions Council may have. And Mayor. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any questions from Council? Bird: I have none. Rountree: Not on this one. De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there a member from the public who would like to provide testimony on this application? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Seeing no public testimony, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item -- well -- • Meridian Ciry Council March 18, 2008 Page 18 of 69 Zaremba: Second. Rountree: Okay. We will close it on Item 14. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item 14. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carves. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rountree: Question for Mr. Nary. Mr. Nary, we haven't taken action on Title 3 at this point. Haven't requested resolution. I think we have asked for clarification and some additional information. If we were to approve these amendments and, then, have a resolution and timing at such time as we get that ordinance, is that appropriate and still keeps us with the definition of temporary use? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree, yeah, what we would actually bring back -- when you approve this tonight, if that's your direction, we will, then, bring back an ordinance that deletes that from the UDC -- Rountree: Okay. Nary: -- in conjunction with the ordinance for outdoor sales and temporary uses. Rountree: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Rountree: I need nothing. De Weerd: Okay. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we approve the UDC text amendments as proposed in Item 14 and Anna -- De Weerd: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Zaremba: I'll second that for discussion. De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: And I would ask the maker of the motion if he would add -- Rountree: Mr. Hood's -- • Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 19 of 69 • Zaremba: -- the question that he asked that would direct staff to bring this back with the Title 3 Amendment. Rountree: That's part of -- that's part of Item 13 -- 14, but the thing I would add is that we add Mr. Hood's comments. Zaremba: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further from Council or staff`? Mrs. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 15: Public Hearing: RZ 07-020 Request for Rezone of 10.1 acres from R-4 to R-40 zoning district for Selway Apartments by Meridian Apartments, LLC -west of North Goddard Creek Road and north of McMillan Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 15 is a Public Hearing on RZ 07-020. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Selway Apartments project. It's located on the west side of North Goddard Creek Way, approximately 500 feet north of McMillan Road and about a quarter mile east of Ten Mile Road. The application before you tonight is a rezone. Staff asked the applicant to submit this rezone. This is one of those clean-ups for the planned developments that allowed the use exceptions and we wanted to make sure we got the appropriate zoning on the property for clarity in the future. So, the highlights of the proposed development is that they are requesting the rezone to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation of high density residential and a previous approval for the 171 multi-family dwelling units in 2002 with the Lochsa Falls planned development. The DA for the property currently requires Conditional Use Permit approval prior to construction of the multi-family units. The final plat was approved in June of 2007 and the City Council recently approved the Selway Apartment CUP on December 18th, 2007. The property is approximately ten acres in size and is currently zoned R-4. Commission recommended approval at their February 17th, 2008, Public Hearing. Lisa Bochman spoke in favor. Linda and Jim Ohlman, Sandy and Jim Freeman, Chris Freis and Glenn Titerman spoke in opposition. No one commented, nor provided written testimony. Key issues of discussion by Commission were the R-40 zoning designation -- was the R-40 zoning designation appropriate for the density, which is about 17.1 dwelling units per acre approved for the site and the Commissioners discussed the potential that the rezone may increase the potential for denser development on the site and with regard to those issues, you go back to the original DA, it specifically approved for 171 units and -- • Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 20 of 69 and it does require CU approval for the multi-family. So, there was no key changes to staffs initial recommendation. As far as written testimony, since the staff report we do have a letter from the applicant stating that they are in agreement with the staff report. And with that I will answer any questions that you have. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant's representative here? If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Bochman: Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Lisa Bochman with JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood Avenue, Suite 201, Boise, Idaho. 83709. I think Anna did a good job presenting the project tonight and I don't really have much to add. We are requesting to rezone the property from R-4 to R-40, as it was a condition of approval of the Conditional Use Permit. And I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Bochman: Thanks. De Weerd: Okay. I do have a number of people that have signed up in opposition of this application. When I read your name and indicate either opposed or opposed, if will you, please -- if you would like to provide testimony, please, come forward at that time. Sandy Freeman signed up against. Jim Freeman signed up against. Okay. Linda Ohlman signed up against. Okay. Jim Ohlman also against. Thank you. Glen Titerman signed up against. Okay. Titerman: Good evening. De Weerd: Good evening. Titerman: Glen Titerman, 2432 West Los Flores Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. This -- JUB was required to apply for the change as stated -- as stated for the CUP approval. Zoning -- a zoning change is not required for the Selway go ahead, however, in this case. It's unnecessary from our point of view, mainly because all adjacent residences have been built, so from our point as a neighborhood there is no one to benefit from an • Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 21 of 69 updated zoning map, which seems to be the rationale for this. We have all been in, you guys have heard the arguments before, so we have been -- you know, many of us kind of feel like we have been had by the zoning previously. We think that this should have been done some time ago and as a clean-up we kind of feel like it's too late. We are concerned that future owners with future city leaders could push the density closer to the R-40, possibly building a car structure, maybe going higher with the structures. As an R-4 they are limited to roughly 35 feet, if I remember. It might be 36 in height. As a R-40 that would allow the building structures to go to a maximum of 60 feet. That concerns us. Not that you guys would make that change. We understand that it's written in the -- in the -- De Weerd: Development agreement. Titerman: -- development agreement. Thank you. To limit that. However, we are afraid that that, you know, could change under certain circumstances. I think and I think we as a neighborhood would ask that the Council reassure us as residents of the area and its use by keeping it R-4. Obviously, allowing the apartments to go through has already been approved. But keep the zoning as it is. We would -- we would be a lot more confident with that. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Glen. Any questions from Council? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you. Titerman: Thank you very much. De Weerd: Chris Freis. Freis. Nick Nakakus. Okay. And Ann. Also signed up against. You know, I practiced that when I read it and, then, I get to it and, boy, did I mess that up. It's probably because I messed up Chris's and just threw me totally. Robert Layton signed up against. Thank you. Philip Sosa signed up against. Sir, if you want to provide testimony on the record -- thank you. Brian Katcher signed up against. Thank you. Matt Craig signed up against. Thank you, sir. And Cindy Craig as well signed up against. Thank you. Those are the names on the sign-up sheet. Is there anyone else who would like to provide public testimony on this application? Okay. Any further staff comments? Zaremba: Madam Mayor, may I ask the staff a question? De Weerd: Uh-huh. • • Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 22 of 69 Zaremba: Would a change in the development agreement require a Public Hearing and notice? Canning: Yes, sir. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Maybe that's what you were going to say. Canning: No. Madam Mayor, I think I have consistently said Mr. Titerman's name wrong for a year now and I wanted to apologize and say it correctly for -- at least once. So, that was all. De Weerd: And that's what you wanted to add? Canning: That was it. I'm song. He deserved it. I'm sorry. De Weerd: There you go, Glen. Anna, can you comment to maybe that perception. If it was -- if it did remain the R-4 and under the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit and the development agreement, I do understand what the neighbors are saying, because development agreements have come in under public hearings to seek changes. It does add another step if -- if those changes were sought. So, can you maybe talk about the protections of this? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we have requested consistently to try and get the zoning appropriate to the designation -- or to the land use that was approved under it. It typically presents the motion problem when it comes to the commercial uses that were allow in the residential district, because there is no sign provisions for them or anything related to that. So, those are a larger problem. Perhaps the applicant can speak as to whether the -- the Conditional Use Permit was approved using the R-40 setbacks, as opposed R-4 setbacks. I'm not sure if that's an issue. And the plat issue. If they are platting those lots at all there would have been setback requirements for an R-4 district. One compromise might be to put the R-15 district on it. That would be close -- or keeping with the density. Would still be anon-conforming use, but it would perhaps be better to be a nonconforming use in the R-15 zone than it would in an R-4 zone. And perhaps Mr. Nary could comment on that. It wouldn't. require new notice, because it's a step down from what's currently being proposed, so -- De Weerd: You know, I guess my question is since the CUP was already approved and the rezone hadn't come through yet, are --did we approve different setbacks than what was currently allowed in the current zone? Canning: I believe the rezone was a condition of approval, too, but, you know, that level of detail of the project, I have to confess, I need to ask the applicant if they can comment to that, but -- • • Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 23 of 69 De Weerd: Okay. Please. Bochman: Lisa Bochman, JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood, Boise, Idaho. 83709. For the record. We did meet the zoned dimensional standards for an R-4, because when proposed the conditional use it was under that zoning designation and we did not anticipate having to rezone the properly. In addition, we do meet the multi- family setbacks, which is a little bit more than R-4 setbacks, I believe, for side and rear. I think it's ten to 12 feet. So, we do meet the dimensional standards under the R-4 zoning designation and as far as developing the property under an R-40 with 60 foot tall buildings, we have every intention of complying with the Conditional Use Permit and the site plan that we propose. We have applied for our CZC and should have that in the next few days. So, as far as that concem goes, there is no concem. De Weerd: So, right now you comply with the setback standards in an R-4 zone. Bochman: Yes. That's correct. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I guess what's in front of you -- the direction to the applicant was to request the zone change to be consistent with the uses that are approved on the property. The only real problem is is we don't have an R-18 zoning is really the issue. I think what -- what Mrs. Canning is suggesting is a compromise. We don't have to re-notice if the Council's desire is to do a lesser use, like an R-15. The criticism that the neighbors in the prior hearing had was that they didn't realize what the zoning -- the zoning that was in the adjacent property, they didn't realize that there was a special use exception that was granted for that property. So, the city, then, is trying to remedy that. Well, it works both ways. What Mr. Titerman has stated was that a different Council could certainly view this property differently and allow for a different density. That would require a Public Hearing, because there is a development agreement -- regardless of what the zoning is, there is a development agreement that controls the use on that property. Changes to that development agreement would require a Public Hearing. Changes to the zoning in the future would require a Public Hearing. If you don't do it today, you could do it next week. You could do it next year. You could do it five years from now. You can change the zoning through the development -- or through the process at anytime someone requests it. So, if -- if they are wanting that assurance, it doesn't really make much difference. But it works the other way as well in that their neighbors -- these folks may not live there ten years from now and those neighbors will have the same concerns that they have expressed that they didn't know what the zoning that was allowed there. If you grant R- 15, it's closer to what's being proposed and allowed on that property and it does at least put people on some notice .that it is amulti-family project. They can't build a bigger building or put more density onto that property without the Council's approval, because they have to have a Conditional Use Permit. So, if the Rudeen Development • • Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 24 of 69 Corporation goes away, they sell the property, someone else wants to build a different building than is proposed today, they have to come back in a conditional use, even if you zoned it R-40 and they wanted to build a 60 foot building that had 171 apartments in it, they'd still need your approval. It may match the zone, but you'd still have to approve it. So, I think we are spending a lot of time on an issue that is not hugely significant and consistent with -- as the planning staff has stated, is all the city has done is try to make sure that the uses in the zones match in the future, so that at least that one portion that people have concern with is met. But, again, if you choose not to do it, they are still going to build their project. It's still approved. If someone else wants to come in, they are still gong to have to come in front of you. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: As I understand it, then, what we approved as an R-4 is legal, they can go ahead with their project; right? Nary: Uh-huh. Yes. Bird: Okay. That's all I have. Thanks. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments? Is there any further public testimony? Yes, ma'am. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Ohlman: My Name is Linda Ohlman. I live at 2735 West Root. Creek Street, Meridian. 83646. De Weerd: Thank you. Ohlman: My question -- and maybe I don't understand, but if it's already approved and they can do it now with an R-4, why do we even have to change it to an R-40, why can't we leave it this way? If it doesn't go in, then, it can be changed to an R-40 at a later time. De Weerd: The applicant is following the conditions that staff set out for them that they needed to come in with a rezone request, so that it will be reflected on the Comprehensive Plan accordingly. You know, I guess when it was approved as a planned development; our idea -when developers come in and do this is when they sell houses they show the entire plan. That wasn't shown. And it wasn't reflected on the land use map, because at that time we just showed the net density, which was R-4. The staff is just suggesting aclean-up, so it is adequately reflected on our land use map Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 25 of 69 what the intent was because we found that the neighbors were not showed the master plan of that area. Ohlman: I know at the zoning meeting that we were at it was stated at that time that Rudeen didn't care if it was left either way an R-4 and R-40. That's kind of why I'm thinking if it doesn't matter and the apartments are going in, why not just leave it as an R-4. If it doesn't go in, then, it can be changed as R-40. And I know it's to clean up, but if it doesn't matter to them, it just seems like -- De Weerd: And that's the question that this Council gets to answer. Ohlman: Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify if myself. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Yes, sir. Katcher: Brian Katcher. 5447 North Stanley Creek Avenue, Meridian, Idaho. Kelly Creek Subdivision. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just a couple of quick points I'd like to bring up. One of which I understand Mr. Nary was talking like anything in the future would have to come back in front of a Council, you, someone else. There is the fear somewhere that there will be things that are interpreted differently by Council at a later date, you know, maybe several years from now, that showing something as R- 40 could mean that someone could come in and look at that map and say, well, I can build, you know, 400 apartments. The idea of needing to put it on the map as something that you already have, whether it's four or 15 or 40, whatever you have in place currently, I think most of us kind of look and say, well, if the apartments are built, anyone looking to live there is going to see them and know that there is apartments there. They are not going to need to look at a map like we needed to at a certain point and see a number. They -- moving in they will see apartments and that will take care of that concern. So, to leave it as it's currently R-4 with the stipulation that that 171 apartments are approved, I think in most our minds is where we would like to see it stay. De Weerd: Thank you. Katcher: That's all I have. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further testimony, does the applicant have any concluding remarks? No? Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Canning: If I could, because I think I have more interest in this application than perhaps the applicant does at this point, but I -- you know, (probably -- when the original • i Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 26 of 69 planned development went through we thought the apartments were going to be there when the folks moved and they'd see the apartments and know that they were going to be apartments there. So, there is some value to changing the zoning on the map. It just better communicates to folks, it's a little better understanding, you know, folks come in and see an R-4 designation and an apartment complex, they are going to be a little confused, just as these folks all were when the initial application came through. So, I would like to advocate for some change in the zoning. I can understand the concern with the R-40. We are working on a new zoning category that's between R-15 and R- 40, so that we don't always run into this issue. I think the R-15 would be a nice compromise to at least better communicate what's going on on that property. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any further information needed? Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none. Zaremba: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba: Zaremba: If -- if we did go the R-15 option, that still doesn't change their development agreement, which allows them to build 171, even though that would be denser than the R-15 would allow, they still would be permitted to build what they have been permitted to built all along; is that correct? Canning: That would be correct. Because, really, their approval was in 2002 with R-4 zoning for 171 units on ten acres. That -- that is the ultimate root of their approval. So, even if we rezone this R-15, if it all burned down they could go back and rebuild 171 units on ten acres. So, I don't even believe it would affect their nonconforming status with having a density slightly less than what they were actually approved for. Zaremba: Thank you. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I -- I haven't heard any reason why we should change this from an R-4. If the current owners want to change it, want ourselves, they want to do something else, they'd have to come before us anyway. We approved this with an R-4. I, for one, right now, I haven't heard enough to make me change my mind. I -- it -- I can't vote for anything but leaving it an R-4. l__J Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 27 of 69 u Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I, unfortunately, would take the opposite position. I feel that the zoning on the maps needs to be more reflective of the actual use. Granted, once apartments are built, people can drive by and see the apartments, but Iwill -- there are people that do refer to the maps for their -- their own knowledge and for other reasons in their planning and I would support making the change. I could be just as happy with R-15 as R-40, but I do feel that the maps do need to be more accurately reflecting what is there, so that this kind of confusion doesn't go on. We are, I believe, actively seeking out other planned developments that were approved under the same system and asking them to correct their zoning to the intended use that's already approved and in order to encourage the developers of those lands to go through the process, I think we need to be consistent. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: A reply to that is when they come in with the application, why wasn't the zoning changed to R-40 or 15 at that time? The planned development in 2002 when we brought this thing through was R-4. I'd hate to guess at the low percent that looks at the map when they buy or the seller that suggests they look at the map. So, I -- this project was approved with an R-4 and I don't see any reason why we can -- we need to change it. The setbacks and everything is R-4 setbacks -- are better and that's -- in my book is the way the project was approved and while I agree with the project, don't get me wrong there, I voted for the project, but I don't see any reason we have to change the zoning, because I -- I can tell you right now, I have sat up here, along with two other people, and watched things get changed from one order to another and don't say it don't happen. So, I have a hard time changing the zoning after -- after the fact. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I will be the mystery vote, but I'm going to move that we close the Public Hearing. Bird: I'm going to second it. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item 15. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rountree: Are you going to make a motion? Zaremba: Traditionally, the person that closes the Public Hearing makes the motion, so we are going to sit here and be quiet. Rountree: I think we are going to have a position here. Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 28 of 69 Bird: We are going to change. I move that we deny RZ 07-020, the request of rezone from -- of 10.1 acres from R-4 to R-40 for the Selway Apartments by Meridian Apartments, LLC. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to deny Item 15 for the rezone from R- 4 to R-40. Any discussion? It's already been -- Rountree: It's been said. De Weerd: Mrs. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, nay; Borton, absent. De Weerd: Okay. Two I's and one nay. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Canning: Might I question Council just a tad bit? Just for folks when they come in on other residential ones -- and I don't know how many residential use exceptions there are. Should staff not be seeking the rezone? Should we just be looking for the rezones for the commercial uses that were approved as use exceptions? Bird: Madam Mayor, seeings how I was the maker of the motion -- De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, I have no problem with the rezone change, if we do it at front. But I don't like something being approved at one zoning and, then, come back after it's been approved -- and this was a very tough one to approve. We all know that. And, then, want a rezone. That can be done when they come forward and we get it taken care of. I'm with you, I'd love to see every map be labeled right and be built what it's labeled, but we know it don't happen. But to bring it forward when you bring the original application. Nary: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. • Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 29 of 69 Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that was the order you approved was directing them to bring back to you for a rezone. So, that's the only reason they are here is your order was to do it. Staff recommended it, but you recommend -- you required that they bring it back and it was after the fact. You didn't delay the project to bring it forward, you knew it was coming back. Bird: You're right there, but we don't -- Rountree: Madam Mayor, I guess in response to Anna's question, if you can -- if you can identify these kinds of situations, either by lot, block, section, subdivision in total, I'm in favor of a remedy, but Ithink -- I agree that we do the remedy as soon as we can, as opposed to after the fact. Particularly if there has been no development around some of these areas, that we get them done soon. Canning: Well, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this -- I mean this is -- this subject property just south of here is approved for office uses and it's still zoned R-4. The property just west of there we were able to get them to come in with a commercial zoning. So, I just want to make sure I'm not misdirecting folks to come back and seek the correct designation. Now, the residential to residential I understand the dilemma tonight and this has been a different one that -- that you face tonight. This is the exception. But I just want to make sure I'm still on track on the commercial ones, because I push hard for those to get them correctly zoned and I don't want to be acting against Council's wishes. Bird: You're doing a great job. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I would suggest to Anna that she's doing the job that we have asked her to do and if we take exception with her recommendations occasionally, it's going to happen. Canning: No. That's fine. I just want to -- I just want to make sure I'm on the right track. Rountree: You are on the right track. Canning: Okay. Thank you. That was all. Thank you for letting me -- Bird: You're doing your job. Canning: I'm sorry. All right. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 30 of 69 `~ Zaremba: I would chime in my unconditional support as well. You know my feeling is that I would proactively seek these out and try and get them changed as soon as we can, but I appreciate any effort to identify them, so that people aren't surprised, as in this case. Canning: And without the owner's consent, I have not pursued those at all, so -- De Weerd: You know, Anna, it might be a good future workshop item. Maybe target March or I -- not March. May. To bring a map to Council and show areas that have already been identified, so that they can kind of walk through each of those areas and have some discussion on those. Zaremba: This is just a personal opinion, but we stopped doing it this way five or six years ago, something like that, and there aren't that many large planned developments that qualified for it before that, so -- De Weerd: Yeah. There shouldn't be too many. Zaremba: Not knowing where to look for them, but there can't be that many of them. Canning: I think most of them are right in that comer right there, so, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. So - Item 16: Public Hearing: RZ 07-023 Request for Rezone of 0.62 acres from R-4 to an R-8 zone for Blackstone No. 2 by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. - 4700 West Aspen Creek Street: Item 17: Public Hearing: PFP 07-004 Request for Combined Preliminary /Final Plat approval of 3 residential lots on 0.59 of an acre located in the R-4 zoning district for Blackstone No. 2 by Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. - 4700 West Aspen Creek Street: De Weerd: Enough said. Okay. Items 16 and 17 are public hearings on RZ 07-023 and PFP 07-004. I will open these items with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Blackstone No. 2 project. It's located at the southeast comer of Cheny Lane and Black Cat Road. The applications before you tonight are for a rezone and, then, a combined preliminary/final plat. The development consists of three residential lots. There is -- it's an existing -- it's an existing lot that they are re-platting into three residential lots. The gross residential density is 5.1 units per acre. We have some elevations. I believe these are Flaherity Homes. The commission recommended approval at their February 7th, 2008, Public Hearing. Lenny Richeo spoke in favor, as did Chris Todd, John Carpenter, and Paul Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 31 of 69 Edminster. No one spoke in opposition or commented or provided written testimony. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the five foot landscaping adjacent to the common drive, which is I think easily -- most easily seen along the landscape plan there. Stubbing to the -- stubbing the common driveway on the south side of the property, so that we could provide future access on Black Cat for the parcel south of the proposed development, if the project is -- well, the issue is this property that they were discussing, would it be appropriate to stub the common drive, so that at least one other parcel could take access from that common drive, rather than direct access onto Black Cat. Future development of the southern parcel was a little bit of a question. Then, the density requirement of the R-4 zoning and, then, the issue came up about rezoning the property from R-4 to R-8 to comply with the density requirement of the UDC. And, then, there was also a discussion about the number of homes that can take access from a common driveway and there were no significant changes to staffs initial recommendation and about the only outstanding issues for the City Council were -- they left the question about the future -- they being the Planning Commission -- left the question about future access on Black Cat for the parcel south of the proposed development as kind of an unknown. They didn't require the stub connection, but there was a lot of discussion and no real resolution to that issue. We have received a letter from the applicant stating that they are in agreement with the staff report and the conditions of approval. And with that I'll answer any questions Council may have. And Mayor. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions at this time? Rountree: Anna, I need some clarification, if you would. On the agenda, Item 16, we talk about a rezone from R-4 to R-8 and, then, on Item 17 we are talking about a subdivision in an R-4 zoning district. Which of those is incorrect? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this was a little bit of -- actually, they are both correct, but I'll take a little responsibility here. Rountree: Help me understand that. Canning: We took in the combined preliminary/final plat. The lots actually met the dimensional standards of the R-4. We didn't catch it until very late in the game that the density actually exceeded the allowed density of the R-4 district, which is four units per acre, rather than 5.1. So, the Planning Commission actually directed them go back and request a rezone application. So, the first description -- those descriptions, unfortunately, stay with them the life of the project. So, the first description had the R-4 and that's what they originally applied under, but the Planning Commission made them come back with the R-8 zoning to comply with the standards of the zone. I'm the applicant -- Rountree: I'll think about it. Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 32 of 69 C~ Canning: -- concurs with your shaking of the head with regard to that matter. De Weerd: Wow. Okay. Any other questions? Rountree: None at this time. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Richeo: Absolutely. And before I begin, Mayor, may I, please, hand out some handouts to the Council as well, please. De Weerd: Uh-huh. Richeo: Thank you. Lenny Richeo with Landmark Engineering and Planning. It's a pleasure to be here tonight. We are at 332 North Broadmoor Way and it's a shame to see my crowd is gone. I thought I was going to get some claps and hurrahs when I got done, but apparently not anymore. Well, let me just first touch briefly on the history of this project. If I could ask staff, please, to go to the yellow vicinity map. First and foremost, Paul Edminster, which is the president of Project West, Incorporation, he's the gentleman that brought forth to you Blackstone Subdivision, which is what this lot's a part of. Blackstone Subdivision is surrounding this lot and this lot was left out in order to develop a future commercial site on it. This plat -- the original Blackstone was in front of Council for -- or I believe the final plat got recorded in 2002. So, it's been a few years that the developer was seeking a commercial use on this site. The developer was also interested with the commercial use to purchase the property to the south there that is, I believe, still not annexed into the city. Through working -- through trying to work with the city in the sense of creating a commercial land use designation for this site, there is a number of Comp Plan map changes that occurred from 2002 until the present day. Yet, the city never envisioned this site as being commercial use. And, in addition to that also, the purchasing of the property to the south, the negotiations fell through with that, as well as the owner of that property was asking for a lot of money. So, as a result what occurred is the developer thought the best use of the site, then, was to go forward with something that's compatible with the medium density land use designation and that's the project that's in front of you tonight. It's for three residential lots. This is preliminary plat -final plat approval and as well as a rezone from R-4 to R-8. The reason why the rezone was brought up at Planning and Zoning Commission was because this site met all the requirements of the R-4 zoning. Met the setbacks. Met the dimension sizes, et cetera. The only concern was the density was a concern with staff, as well as Planning and Zoning Commission. However, based upon the hardships of this land and the uniqueness of it as well, Planning and Zoning felt that it was in the best interest of the residences, because this is taking what is stated in the CC&Rs as what will be a future commercial lot and making it into a residential lot, which will be less -- have less impact • Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 33 of 69 on the surrounding area. And just for the hardships for the area, the handout I have presented in front of you is just an example of what would have occurred if this lot was originally not part of the subdivision, if it was just left out for whatever reason, as any other subdivision, what would have occurred with this project is the landscape buffers would have been included within this site and simply by that minimum amount of land this subdivision would have met well below -- would have met the condition of the four density cap. In addition to that, in our preapplication meeting the city stated in regard to the open space that .the open space of this site can be utilized from the existing Blackstone. Planning and Zoning Commission indicated that this was the same reason that should be utilized for the rezone change. And if this parcel was developed with three residential lots that's in front of you tonight with the original Blackstone, the density would have been 3.2 units to the acre, which would have been far below the four density cap. And in addition to that, this site's in -- this site's in agreement with the Comprehensive Plan of the city, as this is a medium density land use and which allows for density anywhere from three to eight units to the acre. And, in addition, we believe that this meets the spirit of the zoning district as taking this site in comparison with the rest of the Blackstone Subdivision and meets the 3.2 units to the acre. In addition to these hardships is also the uniqueness of the site, is that this developer of this project in front of you tonight is the same developer that brought forth to you Blackstone Subdivision. In addition, this is a replat of an existing lot within a subdivision and, lastly, the density -- the overall density, if this site with the three residential lots is included with the original Blackstone meets that requirement. We have Planning and Zoning approval of the rezone request and staffs also on board as well recommending approval of the rezone from R-4 to R-8. I'd like to indicate to the Council that this project is planning on meeting all the requirements of the R-4. However, the only reason that the R-8 zoning designation is requested is only to meet the density requirement. As staff has indicated, this site is at five units to the acre. This site is going to be a quality project. It's going to take -- it's going to take what is now a vacant lot, what is currently fenced off from the rest of the subdivision -- in the CC&Rs, as I previously stated, this site is designated as a commercial lot. However, taking what the developer intended and making it into a residential lot, it's going to be a benefit to the city, it's going to take a vacant lot and utilize it into three residential lots. In addition, it's going to be a benefit to the surrounding neighbors, because it's going to take what's now a vacant fenced off piece of land and created three residential lots. We had a neighborhood meeting on this site a few months ago and we have two families that came out and they had no opposition to the project. In fact, they were happy to see that the site was finally being developed. And as a matter of fact, they were happy to see that it's not going to be a commercial use, but it's going to be a residential use. And with that we believe it's going to be a quality project and request for your approval this evening. Thank you. De Weerd: I guess I have a question. You have mentioned a hardship a couple of times. What is the hardship? Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 34 of 69 Richeo: The hardship is, essentially, that this lot was left out of the original subdivision and this lot, with -- if this lot was part of the original subdivision, that we would have been far below the density requirement of 3.2 units to the acre and, in addition, this site is going to -- and also, the other part of that is this site is going to meet all the requirements of the R-4 zoning, except the density requirement and that is the reason that the Planning and Zoning has recommended approval from the R-4 to the R-8 zoning. De Weerd: I guess I still don't understand what the hardship is, but who caused the hardship? Richeo: The developer would have -- I would believe that the developer through leaving the lot out potentially seemed to create the hardship upon himself. His intent was to create a commercial site here and negotiate with the southern owner in order to create some type of commercial use here. De Weerd: A commercial use that wasn't designated on the land use Comprehensive Plan? Richeo: That is correct. And I guess just the pickle that we are in is the staff indicated that two lots, you know, would be approved previously. However, those -- that's not going to pencil out for the developer and the developer indicated that that -- De Weerd: Because of a hardship he created. Richeo: Yes, ma'am. De Weerd: Okay. Any questions from Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: There was a question about a stub street. Would that provide a stub into the southern lot? Richeo: No, sir, it would not. What's currently going on with the common drive -- because (believe Meridian City Code allows for a maximum of four lots to access a common drive and if this lot was -- or, excuse me, if this road was to stub to the south, it would only provide access for that lot, which currently has access onto Black Cat at this time. With -- when we were reviewing this parcel, along with the southern parcel, for a commercial site, we also held a meeting with ACHD for access onto Black Cat. With that preliminary meeting that we held with ACHD, they indicated that access for that southern lot could be granted with the spacing. So, if there is ever any future r~ ~~ Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 35 of 69 development of that southern site, our preliminary talks that we had with ACHD, they indicated that that could possibly be allowed for a future access point onto Black Cat. Rountree: So, your testimony is that each of these lots are of sufficient size and sufficient frontage to meet R-4? Richeo: Yes, sir, they are. Rountree: The only reason you're asking for R-8 is this is a little tiny subdivision and if it were to be expanded to one acre it would be too dense to be an R-4. It would have to be, then, an R-8. Is that what I'm understanding? It would not be dense enough. Canning: No, sir, I'm not quite sure -- Rountree: I'm lost with this convoluted logic about why they have to rezone it. Canning: The R-4 zoning district only allows up to four dwelling units per acre and this project, because it is small and has three lots on it, the actual density is 5.1 dwelling units per acre. Rountree: I get you. So, tomorrow or at some point in time if this gets approved, they flip this, it's not an R-8. Now we can have at least three duplexes built on here and there is nothing we can do about it and, then, these folks here are going to be real happy with us. Is that correct? Or do we have some way to control that? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Bird, you could always -- Bird. Rountree. Rountree: That wasn't an insult, so -- Canning: The -- you could always tie a DA to this particular subdivision layout with the rezone. Rountree: Well, I --okay. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Zaremba: Would another option be just to understand that this is part of a larger subdivision and if calculated as part of the larger subdivision it would qualify as an R-4? Canning: For purposes of the Comprehensive Ptan that makes sense. For the purposes of zoning I'm not sure that one does. You could ask the applicant to submit a • • Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 36 of 69 variance, instead of the -- instead of the rezone. We tend to not steer people toward variances when there is another remedy. De Weerd: Well -- and what would you -- what, would you approve a variance on a hardship they created? There is no existing hardship. Sorry. Canning: To be a little bit -- to be a little bit trite, I think that's what they usually are, but -- Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Zaremba: Do you know -- the lots that surround this -- this one here, that one, that one and the two or three next to it, are they already built on? Richeo: Yes, sir, they are. This is the only lot that has not been built out of the Blackstone Subdivision. Zaremba: Thank you. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Rountree: You indicated that this lot was part of that plat. Richeo: Yes, sir, it was. Rountree: If it's part of the plat and this is just a subdivision of that plat, it seems to me that the density within the subdivision it was originally platted would be applicable and it could stay an R-4. Zaremba: I thought that was the question I asked. Rountree: I mean it's - De Weerd: It was. Zaremba: Phrased differently. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree -- Richeo: He looks like Councilman Bird to me. • Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 37 of 69 Canning: -- the only -- given that the developer is the same, perhaps that could work. I don't know what to tell you. The code's rather specific. If he brought in one more lot, whether it be a landscape lot or anything else, then, the density probably would work out. So, I don't know if he still owns any of the adjoining properties, if he still has enough room on the landscape berm to bring that lot in -- any of those would meet the strict requirements -- the very strict requirements of the UDC. Rountree: So, if that's the case, Madam Mayor, if we can pursue that, it seems to me that there is a landscape lot there that could be broken out. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree, that common driveway is on a shared access easement, so that's already part of a lot. Rountree: So, that's another lot. Canning: No. The access easement straddles all three lots. Rountree: Okay. Richeo: And that five foot landscape strip is a part of the -- the lot that's in front of you tonight. And I guess we -- we are the representative of the developer and we wanted to pursue the preliminary plat and final plat combination in order to save time, obviously, and to be to construction as soon as possible. We were in front of Planning and Zoning in December. They indicated to us that the rezone of the lot was the best option to go. Obviously, if -- at our pre-application meeting the density was a concern, we could have somehow negotiated with the homeowners association at that time to work in the landscape buffers and simply replat those again and have this site meet the density requirement of the R-4. However, that wasn't considered at the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission indicated to us to go forward with a rezone from R-4 to R-8 and staff indicated that they didn't have a -- I guess an opposition to that at that time. Staff is on board with the request for the R-4 to R-8 and I understand the unique circumstance of this site as it meets all the requirements of the R-4, except the density requirement. Rountree: I'm just trying to understand. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: It seems like an extra step, but since you've already said you intend to build it to the R-4, it would qualify for R-4, rather than the space, would you be willing to have a • • Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 38 of 69 development agreement put that promise in writing, so at some future -- let's say you sold it before you built on it -- Richeo: Uh-huh. Zaremba: -- and some future person doesn't think they are entitled to duplexes or four- plexes or something there, would a development agreement be satisfactory for that? Richeo: I guess the question for staff is is a duplex-type use for an R-8, is that a conditional use or is that a permitted use? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'll have to look it up. I'm sorry. It won't take me very long. Richeo: I guess where I'm going with that is if it's a conditional use -- Zaremba: You'd have to come back anyhow. Richeo: Exactly. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions while Anna is looking that up? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. We will come back to this and I'll see if anyone else has testimony they would like to offer. Richeo: Absolutely. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Thank you. Council, while staff is looking that up, any other information or comments? Okay. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, a single family attached dwelling is conditional in R-4 and permitted in R-8. That's not a duplex, though. And those are where there is two lots and they are attached. And, then, so we have townhouses would be conditional in an R-4, but permitted in R-8. And a duplex is conditional in R-4, but principally permitted in an R-8. So, Madam Mayor, you were right. Zaremba: Well, in that case my question stands. Would you accept a development agreement to limit it to what you're saying you intend to do anyway? • Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 39 of 69 Richeo: That's fine. We can adopt the preliminary plat that's in front of you tonight as part of the development agreement and hold us to that. De Weerd: Okay. Any closing remarks? Richeo: Just with this subdivision that's in front of you tonight, we have the neighbors behind us. Planning and Zoning Commission is recommending approval. Staff is recommending approval of the rezone as well. As Councilman stated, we will go forward with a development agreement, since those higher density uses will be permitted within an R-8. So, in order for the city to -- in order for this subdivision to work out with the city, we will be happy to go forward with a development agreement to adopt the preliminary plat in the subdivision that's in front of you tonight. And with that I thank you for your time. Thank you very much. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Council, anything further on Items 16 and 17? If not, do I have a motion to close? Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I move we close the Public Hearing on 16 and 17. Rountree: Second. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item 16 and 17. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we approve RZ 07-023 and PFP 07-004 with the condition that RZ 07-023 have a development agreement and a condition of the development agreement is that the uses permitted on this land shall conform to R-4 uses. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 16 and 17 with the conditions as stated. Any discussion? Yes, Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm concerned with the motion. I have no idea what that means. Does that mean that -- I don't know. If you'd like to just • Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 40 of 69 • limit them to three units that would be far easier for staff to implement in the future, because Iwasn't -- I'm not sure what happened. Zaremba: Okay. What I was thinking -- I was just reading down the chart that you had displayed. However, let me amend the motion to instead of saying the development agreement will limit it to the R-4 uses, that the development agreement will limit it to one single family dwelling per lot. De Weerd: Totaling three. Zaremba: Uh? De Weerd: Totaling three. Zaremba: A total of three, because there is three lots. Rountree: Second agrees. De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion, Council? Mrs. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 18: Public Hearing: AZ 07-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 21.81 acres from RUT to R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -Northwest Comer of East Ustick Road and North Locust Grove Road: Item 19: Public Hearing: PP 07-027 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval with 3 residential building lots and 1 common lot in a proposed R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC -Northwest Comer of East Ustick Road and North Locust Grove Road: Item 20: Public Hearing: CUP 07-023 Request for Conditional Use Permit for 122 multi-family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone on approximately 21.8 acres for Chalet Marseilles by RC Meridian Partners, LLC - Northwest Comer of East Ustick Road and North Locust Grove Road: De Weerd: Okay. Items 18, 19 and 20 are public hearings on AZ 07-020, PP 07-027, and CUP 07-023. I will open these three public hearings with staff comments. Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 41 of 69 Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Chalet Marseilles project. It's located at the northwest comer of Ustick Road and Locust Grove Road. The applications before you tonight thankfully don't include a rezone, but they do include an annexation, a preliminary plat, and Conditional Use Permit, private street, and alternative compliance. The highlights of the proposed development, they are proposing to develop the site as an active adult community, totaling- 122 condominium units, with units ranging in size from 1,200 to 1,900 square feet. There is a 5,240 square foot clubhouse also proposed for the site. Proposed dwelling types include two individual detached buildings, 14 dual unit buildings, and 23 quad buildings, for a total of 38 buildings on the site and, then, also one more for the clubhouse. The applicant is proposing two build footprints or floor plans for the buildings on the subject site. One is the large floor plan, of which there are 66 of the 120 total -- 22 units and the other is the small floor plan, which totals 56 units. And I have some elevations for you. These are the small footprints, so the 1,200 square foot and these are the 1,900 square foot. These are the rear sides of the duplexes. And there are the two single units. And, .then, this is the clubhouse. The gross residential density is 5.8 dwelling units per acre, which complies with the medium density Comprehensive Plan designation. The Commission recommended approval at their February 7th, 2008, Public Hearing. Daren Fluke spoke in favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition, but Tim Kruppa and Jeff Larsen comments and there was written testimony from John Witson. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the proposed perimeter block wall, the shared driveways and widths of the parking pads slash driveways in front of the units. Road improvements at the intersection of Locust Grove and Ustick Roads. And, then, the applicant was asked to work with the LDS church regarding the location of the decorative wall on the church's property, which is just to the north there of the eastern site. It's just up where the legend is there. And they were also asked to look at the future access point to East Lemay Street. They also discussed an eight foot spite strip that does not allow the extension and connection of the Heritage View Avenue with North Yellow Peak Avenue at the northem property boundary of Wanda's Meadow Subdivision. I have a little blow up of that one. You can see the property in blue is oddly shaped and has a definite eight foot spite strip on it right at the northem edge of Wanda's Subdivision there. Wanda's Meadow. De Weerd: So, Anna, what is that going fo be, then? Just a weedy spite stripe? Canning: For the time being. That's the -- we pushed and pushed this applicant -- you all know I push as hard as I can push and I think that I gave them every incentive to obtain that piece of property that I could. If you look at their development pattern, they are providing the full frontage for that piece of property for future development. So, they were just not able to get the guy to sell. They have done everything they could and everything I insisted that they do to make it work in the future, but for the time being it will be a spite strip. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? i Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 42 of 69 De Weerd: Yes. i Zaremba: I'm sorry, I missed the identification of where the spite strip is. Canning: Do you see that little -- the blue -- the lot outlined in blue. Bird: To the west there, David. Zaremba: You know I'm color blind, so -- Canning: This is the -- oh, I'm sorry. This is the whole property. It's eight feet -- Zaremba: I didn't even see that there was a line there. Canning: Yeah. Zaremba: All right. Thank you. Canning: Okay. Key Commission changes to staffs initial recommendation, the Commission did not require a site directory or site map for the site, so the condition was modified to reflect that. They also did not require the five feet of landscaping adjacent to the shared driveway -- for one of the shared driveways. And the applicant has revised the preliminary plat to reflect staffs and Commission's recommendations. So, all .those are currently in the staff report that you have. They did discuss the drive aisles and parking pad requirements and those additions or -- have been -- are included on the revised site plan. They also modified a condition requiring the applicant to provide at least 60 feet between garage faces, as proposed in the revised site plan. And they added with two new -- two new conditions. One was work with staff and LDS church for future connectivity to East Bonet Street and work with the church regarding the location of the decorative block wall and if the church does not allow the block wall, one is not required. Outstanding issues for City Council, just a general review of the revised preliminary plat site plan and landscape plans. The block walls on the perimeter in relation to the church- property. And we do have a -- one other issue that wasn't raised previously. We did contact the applicant and they are in agreement -- we do think it's appropriate to tie this zoning to a development agreement, so -- have the annexation be tied to this Conditional Use Permit and we have a letter from the applicant stating they are in agreement with the staff report. This is R-15 zoning, so we were proposing the DA. And with that I will answer any questions Council may have. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. i Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 43 of 69 Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: And Director Canning. The Planning and Zoning Commission discussed the road improvements at the intersection of Locust and Ustick. What was the result of that discussion? Canning: I believe the consensus of that discussion was that because all of those are already programmed in the Ada County Highway District work program, that they were not asked -- they had not asked the applicant to fulfill those. But I'm sure the applicant has abetter -- or complete answer. Zaremba: But the applicant is giving the space for it, though? Canning: Yes. Zaremba: I'll ask him when he gets here. Canning: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Anything else, Council? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to comment? Fluke: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Daren Fluke, JUB Engineers, 250 South Beachwood in Boise, representing the applicant on this project. Anna did a good job giving you the numbers. I would just simply clarify that we are down to 120 units that was in response to the request of the Planning and Zoning Commission to modify our driveway somewhat, which we did, and we weren't able to do that without losing a couple of units. We have been through a number of iterations on this project. We started working with staff about six month ago. We have been through a half dozen meetings with staff, a couple of neighborhood meetings. You can see we don't have a lot of neighbors here tonight and that's probably why, we have done a lot of work working with them on the project. Our original iteration of the project has about 154 units. It had an access to Ustick Road right here and that was intended to, again, provide frontage to this long skinny about acre parcel here, just less than a hundred feet in width. It doesn't have a lot of options for redeveloping and so we went through a couple of iterations after that. There was some back and forth between staff and the neighbors and one thing we heard loud and clear from the neighbors was they didn't like Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 44 of 69 the access here. And so we eliminated any access to Ustick Road. We moved our single access to Locust Grove here and the highway district signed off on that location. It would provide access for the church. Anna, maybe we could see a vicinity map real quick. That's good. So, we have got a church right here. You have got the commercial properties from Heritage Commons here. You have got the Meridian school campus here. An elementary school and a charter school. And I believe that the district just came in and asked for some commercial development here on that property. So, with regard to the larger neighborhood and the development pattern in the area, you see it's pretty well situated with regard to services. Pretty much a built out area at this point. But with regard to the church, that road that we are bringing in right here does abut the church and they would be able, upon annexation or some future application in front of the city, be made to take access off that local road and eliminate a couple of driveways here on this arterial, which is now I understand busier that the Locust Grove overpass has been completed, so -- if we could see the layout again. So, with regard to the layout, we bring this access in here, we make a connection to an existing stub street here and we have made every attempt to make a connection to this existing stub street here. As Anna pointed .out to you, there is an eight foot strip of land that runs right along there, does contain a piped imgation structure and it belongs to this piece of property here. And as was the original intent, it was to get a higher price for the piece of land when somebody came in and needed to make that connection and so we were just -- my clients were not able to negotiate a deal that would pencil for the land and so we did the best we could and at the redevelopment of this property they will be required to make that connection. I would point out for the Council's consideration this property is really well set up. You can see -you basically just match the lot lines on Wanda's Meadows and they are going to have a street built for them with utilities in that street. They will only have to make service connections and they will be good to go. Match the density on the surrounding properties and it will be a happy world for them. Bird: How wide is that strip, Daren? Fluke: This strip is eight feet. This property here is just less than a hundred feet in width. And so you can just about get a hundred feet of depth, maybe make them a little bit wider than what you would normally. So, with regard to our project, we are really pleased with this site plan. We are very proud of this project. This is what we refer to often as an empty nester type project. It's meant to appeal to older people. Well, older in the sense that their kids have moved out and they don't really have an interest in taking care of big yards anymore. It will be -- we will come back with a condominium plat on this, so that each of these units can be individually sold and all the common areas will be maintained by the association. This is a really amenity rich project. With the amenities being appropriate to the target market, we have a nice large clubhouse here, which will include a pool. It's got a large commercial kitchen in there for use of the residents and their gatherings. We have got a -- maybe the landscape plan, Anna, do you have that? There we go. So, what we see here is the clubhouse here with the pool. We have also got a system of paths that basically circumnavigate the .project. We • ~ Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 45 of 69 have got a putting green and a rose garden and just a whole bunch of nice stuff. Within the clubhouse there is an exercise room. I mentioned the swimming -- the swimming pool already. We also have a tennis court right here. And, then, there is barbecues and picnic areas in a couple locations in the project. So, this project comes in at about five and a half units to the acre. 5.59 to be exact. So, the Comp Plan does designate it for the three to eight dwelling units to the acre. It is a little bit higher than what's developed around it, but what the neighbors realize when we went through the neighborhood meetings is given the market of this project and who is going to want to live here given the price point of the units, that it's going to be less of an impact on surrounding properties from the standpoint of noise generation, activity generation, and certainly from trip generation, because this demographic just doesn't drive as much as -- as the young population with kids, driving kids around to soccer games all of that sort of thing. So, we are happy with how the project came out. We think we satisfied all the neighbors' concerns, if there were any. And with that we'd just respectfully ask for your approval of the project. De Weerd: Council, questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Madam Mayor. Anna mentioned private streets. Which ones would those be? Fluke: That's a good question. Madam Mayor, Councilman, the public street intersects with the other public street there and comes in like this and is public here to connect to the stub streets, is -- with the existing arterial. The private streets are internal to the project here and here. This street is public as well, so it will be utilized by this guy later on. Rountree: That's nice of you. Fluke: What's that? Rountree: That's nice of you. Fluke: Yeah. It's a nice touch. And, then, we have got private streets here. And I would point out, too -- I didn't mention, but those private streets are built as a wider street section, which does allow for a row of parking on one side. And they do have curb, gutter and sidewalk as well. Bird: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 46 of 69 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Private -- what width are these streets, Daren? Fluke: They are -- Bird: The private ones. s Fluke: Did we do 33 on those, then, or 29? I think that's a 29 foot section that would allow for one row of parking on there with curb and gutter. Bird: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Back to my question about the intersections and how Ustick Road -- are you dedicating or selling or giving ACHD the space to fix that intersection? Fluke: Madam Mayor, Councilman, good question. Thank you for reminding me. Yes, we are being required to dedicate 23 feet of additional right of way on both Ustick and Locust Grove Roads. As well as construct sidewalk on there. The road improvements will be made by the highway district. They are programmed for the next five years. I couldn't tell you exactly when. But if you're familiar with the intersection and you can picture that great old house that's sitting there now, that's the last comer to be improved at that intersection and so the highway district is going to take care of that improvement, but we will be giving the right of way. Zaremba: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions, Council? Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none. Fluke: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. I had a couple of people that signed up. Lavarr Campbell signed up for. Okay. Thank you. And Ardell Baker signed up neutral. Okay. Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 47 of 69 Thank you. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone who would like provide testimony on this application? Staff, any additional information? Canning: Yes, ma'am. The proposed private streets area 36 foot cross-section that includes a five foot sidewalk on one side, a two feet rolled curb, and, then, two ten foot wide travel lanes and an eight foot parking area and, then, one foot ribbon curb. They are wider than our normal -- De Weerd: Right. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, the other issue -- outstanding issue for City Council was the block wall -- perimeter block wall along the church property -- Canning: And I believe all it was -- I think a block wall was required and they were just supposed to work with the LDS church to see if they wanted any breaks in it for future connectivity and if they don't, then, they don't have to do it. Zaremba: And that brings the question of whether we should require cross-access for future driveways. I know they don't exist now, but -- Fluke: Madam Mayor, if I might -- De Weerd: Uh-huh. Fluke: Thank you. I just need to clarify the record on that. I had mentioned block wall I think in the narrative, as well as in the testimony and I was corrected by my client that that's a decorative. concrete wall, so just a slight change and we will work with staff on the design of that, but just to clarify the record, with regard to the LDS church site, which is right here, it was my client's intent to build a wall along -- along here just simply to buffer it and make it more of a discrete project sort of unto itself, but having said that, our right of way comes right up to their property line, so for us to build that wall there we have to negotiate with the church and get them to buy off on it, which we don't know that we can do. Now, we will certainly endeavor to do that, because it's what they want to do, my clients, but there is no guarantee that it will happen, one, and, two, with regard to cross-access, they will -- that property will already have direct frontage on the public right of way. This will be dedicated public right of way. They will front right up to it. We are not leaving a spite stripe there. So, they will -- if there is a wall, we will just negotiate a likely place to provide access, which would be either here or here or both places in that case. Zaremba: And it would be constructed so that that would be easy to do, I take it? I mean if you had to later take a portion of the wall out or something. Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 48 of 69 Fluke: Yeah. Madam Mayor, what it would require is that we actually step that wall as well and have to get lower on either side of that drive aisle, but yeah. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Council, any other questions? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Any final remarks? Was there -- wish to testify? You need -- we did receive written testimony. It is part of the record. Thank you. And that must have been from John -- no? Canning: Madam Mayor, I haven't seen it. I heard that it existed. I forgot until now about that issue. They sent it to the clerk's office. I have not seen it. De Weerd: Okay. I'm sorry. From -- who is the written testimony from, then? Canning: Madam Mayor, I don't know. Perhaps the applicant could just testify briefly as to what was in their letter. Or not the applicant, but the -- Zaremba: Ask them to testify publicly. De Weerd: Is there any written testimony in the record? Rountree: No. Bird: There isn't in our records that we have. Holman: Madam Mayor, I don't see anything in my packet. Fluke: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Fluke: If I could clarify. I do have an a-mail that (received -- apparently I was copied on the a-mail, but didn't receive it until Bill forwarded it to me today. I think our spam filter got it and I wasn't aware of it. So, I'm in receipt of the a-mail and perhaps we should let our neighbors speak to their concems and, then, I can address those concems, because I did look into that today and so rather than me trying to paraphrase their concems, I'll just let them state them and, then, I'll answer them. De Weerd: Anna, if you can give that to the city clerk, we can stamp it in received and maybe she can run and get some copies for the Council. We can certainly ask the -- Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 49 of 69 the authors of the letter if they would like to make comment on it or if you'd like us to just read it. Okay. Canning: It starts off: My wife and I own the five acre parcel just to the west of the northwest block of proposed Chalet Marseilles -- song. I'm trying to get to the vicinity map. They are the five acre parcel right there. We will share approximately 600 feet of property line with the subdivision. We were sorry to have missed your -- you yesterday, speaking about Bill Parsons, as we stopped in the office to review the folder of the development. We submitted to the city clerk a letter with a number of comments just prior to this visit and have attached the text of that letter just following this one. After reviewing the folder at the planning development, my wife and I have come up with a few more questions slash comments regarding the development. We noted in the geological survey comments regarding a wet area in the southwest comer of the northwest block. We would like more information on how the developers intend to dry out this area, as it is due to the presence of an open irrigation lateral that runs the entire length of the shared property line. We also believe that care should be exercised when working near the berm on the east side of the irrigation lateral, as the water level is very high when we have our headgate closed and any damage to this berm will cause flooding onto the development. In addition, we would like more information on exactly how close the proposed stone fence will be to the property line and, hence, to this open irrigation ditch, especially along the southern half of the property line. We can anticipate foundation issues with the stone fence too near an open unlined ditch due to side soak and gophers. We saw on the landscape plan a note to remove the wild plumb trees along the northern half of the property line. These plumbs form a unique wildlife habitat and an effective screen for our garden area in the northeast ,comer of our property. We value these plumbs and a number of these are located on our side of the property line. They are quite entangled. with the ones located on the other side of the property line, requiring care to remove the ones on the east side of the line without damage to the ones on our side of the line. We would like to know how the developers intend to utilize the surFace imgation system for pressurized irrigation. This lateral is on a ten day rotation cycle with only a portion of the time allocated to subdivision usage. How does the subdivision store the allocated amounts of water for usage over the entire period of time via pressurized irrigation system? Number four, we had one additional general observation regarding the green space allocation between the two major blocks of the development. It seems like more green space is allocated to the southeast block over the northwest block. It seems to us that it should be weighted the other way around, as the northwest block will be a quieter comer of the development further from the road noise of Ustick and Locust Grove. This, then, would encourage more use of the green space, which we believe, as the city planners, is required for such spaces. We apologize for not having submitted these questions slash comments sooner, but we were out of the country during January when the previous hearing was held. Thank you for your time and consideration. Wendell Martin, 3404 North Private Lane. And, then, as they noted, they attached the comments sent to the clerk and it states: Dear Commission. We own the five acre parcel directly west of the northwest ten acre ~ ! Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 50 of 69 segment of the proposed Chalet Marseilles Subdivision and will share approximately 600 linear feet of property line with the subdivision. We respectfully request consideration of the following comments regarding the above application. Number one, we request a sewer stub on or near the property line for the potential future hook-up of our dwelling to the city sewer system. Our septic tank currently lies east of our home approximately 100 feet north of our southern property line and 200 feet west of the east property line, the one to be shared with Chalet Marseilles. Two, we request a gate access into the subdivision for the purpose of monitoring and control of the irrigation water flow through gates, ditches, and the of the irrigation ditch that runs along the east side of our property. And, three, we request that the fence that will be constructed along the shared property line to be installed as soon as practical for the developers, as our experience has been that developments attract kids and open water of the irrigation ditch that runs along the property line will attract them. It poses a potential hazard two these children. Sincerely, Wendell Martin, Ann Hutchinson. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. How was this letter delivered to the clerk's office? In person? Last Tuesday. Thank you. And you got that from the Bill Parsons? So, both our --our planning department did have it. It just was a missing item, uh. Holman: Madam Mayor, I will find out tomorrow. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Fluke: Madam Mayor, Daren Fluke, JUB again. I'll just address those issues that were brought up by the neighbors. First of all, with regard to the imgation, as is state law, we do have to deliver their irrigation water where they get it now and we will do that, which is about in the comer of their property here. I did check the topo before I came to the hearing and it appears to me that that box is located on their property and not on our properly. And the same is true for the lateral that runs to the north across this east line here. Their east line, our west line. Having said that, we do have a 30 inch line that comes into the property here. That is the Milk Lateral and that comes to the north. And, then, there is a couple of -- three headgates, I believe, that send property off -- or water off in different directions and what we intend to do -- we haven't worked out the engineering details, of course, because we don't have an approval and you wouldn't go to that level of design until you did. But a couple of points. We do have to work with the irrigation district on the rotation. Just a point about that rotation is that the ten day rotation came about when the Milk Lateral in this location served approximately 111 acres in this area, most of which has been developed now. What's left to serve downstream of us off the Milk Lateral, as we understand it at this point, is approximately 20 acres right in here off the gravity system. And so we will continue to deliver the water there and we will work with the irrigation district on the phasing of that and when the water is delivered. We do have approximately 22 and a half miner's inches for the whole 21 acres, so there is plenty of water to accommodate our pressurized system there. With regard to the sewer stub, I would just point out there is an existing sewer • Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 51 of 69 right there at that stub street that was built by Heritage Commons. It's approximately eight feet deep and it should be adequate to serve the property. If you were to look at our layout, we don't have a very good location to bring sewer there and it's awfully flat, I'm not sure that we could get the grades to work anyway by bringing it through one of these driveways and, then, encumbering it with an easement for a simple service connection that wouldn't be adequate to put a public line in there to serve future development. That's what the stub street had done to the north. And so because that stub street was there, we didn't -- we weren't required to add another stub street, nor a sewer connection to the property, because it's already served, so -- and, then, with access through the wall to the -- to the property, I don't believe it's going to be necessary, because I don't believe we are going to have to get into the headgate that -- orthe box that serves their property, which is right about there just off the property line. And, of course, we still have the engineering details to work out, but you do have adequate conditions of approval in -- in the staff report that, you know, the standard stuff that we have to accommodate our neighbors and make sure that they receive their irrigation water like they do now, where they do now, so -- did I miss anything? Rountree: Plum trees. Drying out the comer. Fluke: Plum trees. On the topo it does show a row of trees all along here and trees here. We will not take down any trees that are not on our property, of course, first of all. Anna, if we could just see the landscape plan. And, then, I believe that -- and we are showing some additional trees in this area and we do have a condition of approval that we work with the city forester to replace anything that we take out. So, I can't say that we can save the trees that are there on our property, but we will comply with the rules of the city for mitigation for trees that we do have to remove. Rountree: What conditions and -- I can't remember which comer. Fluke: Madam Mayor, Councilmen, I believe the condition says anything four inch caliper or greater has to be mitigated at two to one. Is that -- is that correct, Anna? Canning: Is that the question you were asking or the wet area? Rountree: No. I'm talking about wet area conditions. Fluke: Madam Mayor, Councilman, thank you. The wet areas here -- and it does appear to be from a seep from the ditch. The geotechnical report did recommend that we overexcavate that area and, then, put a structural fill in there and we may need to look at -- look at putting a lining in the ditch as well. We will have to work with the neighbors on that, which we will have to do anyway to understand the irrigation patterns in the area. But we do have a geotechnical report on that and a solution for that issue. • i Meridian City Council March 1 S, 2008 Page 52 of 69 De Weerd: To staff, do we have any additional requirements in that regard, if there is a known wet area? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there is nothing in the UDC and if it's a flood plain, then, it falls under those regulations. But, otherwise, it would just fall to the -- to the issues that Mr. Fluke is talking about, just making sure they are addressed. De Weerd: And that isn't in an official flood plain, is it? Fluke: Madam Mayor, no, it's not a flood plain. But, believe me, being aware of it we certainly wouldn't want any subsidence on those buildings and we will take care of that problem. It's only in our client's best interest to do so, so there is -- we have -- we are aware of the issue, we even have it mapped, the extent of that in our geotechnical report and they have proposed a solution for us and so we will definitely comply with that. De Weerd: It doesn't push the moisture on another property, does it? Fluke: Well, no. I mean if water is leaking from the ditch in that area, it would -- what you do is you -- De Weerd: Oh, so it's only from the ditch. Fluke: Correct. De Weerd: Okay. Fluke: So, essentially, we will dig up the foundation two or three or four times more what we would have typically and put a structural fill in there. It's, then, compacted and acts like a -- it acts like concrete almost, to provide a stable base. De Weerd: Okay. Fluke: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any further information needed? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Or clarification. Rountree: None. De Weerd: No further public testimony? • i Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 53 of 69 Zaremba: Madam Mayor. Oh, sorry. De Weerd: Good evening. Hutchinson: Ann Hutchinson at 3404 North Private Lane. The only clarification there is there is a headgate between their subdivision and where we -- where we have #o have access to, that would be the John -- I think his name's Whitlow, he runs it, so I have not dealt with him before. But his headgate seems to fall down regularly and everybody that's below has to get to that to reopen it on our tum and as a subdivision, as well as the 20 acres it mentions that uses that, if you go further over beyond this 20 acres, there is a whole subdivision using that imgation water, so -- and we have all been used to the ten day rotation for many years. It takes that long to get the water across the properties, that they need that long of time. So, in terms of changing the ten day, that may be an issue. But it is larger -- much larger than the 20 acres and I'm sure we can work it out. It wasn't meant to hold up this thing or anything, we were just concerned that we are aware that open ditch is there and that might make construction there difficult and the fact that it should be there first and you got the irrigation season starting. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. And they have a responsibility to make sure that the water is delivered, so that should be protected. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I would observe that if the applicant is intending to fix a leak, they, actually, will have more water available to them than they have had before. De Weerd: Perhaps. Zaremba: Perhaps. De Weerd: Okay. Anything else from Council? Rountree: Need nothing. Bird: I have nothing. De Weerd: Any final comment from the applicant. Okay. Staff? Canning: No, ma'am, other than I apologize to Mr. Martin and Ms. Hutchinson for not having noted their concerns in the presentation. De Weerd: Thank you. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? • , Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 54 of 69 De Weerd: Yes. Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on Items 18, 19 and 20. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 18 through 20. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we approve AZ 07-020, PP 07-027, and CUP 07-023, with a note that CUP 07-023 is now actually for 120 units, not 122. And that approval to include all staff comments and applicant comments. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve these three items and ask if there is any discussion. Canning: Madam Mayor. Clarification. De Weerd: Yes. Canning: On the staff comments does that include a DA for the annexation and zoning to tie them to the proposed CU? Zaremba: Yes, it does. Bird: Second agrees. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Mrs. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. And I might note this really cleans up a nasty comer. I mean the comer there at Ustick and Locust Grove is -- is going to be improved; right? Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 55 of 69 Rountree: Going to lose a nice old house. Item 21: Public Hearing: AP 08-001 Request for City Council Review of an Appeal of the Planning Director's Determination to deny an application to modify a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow a private education institution within an I-L zone for Treasure Vallev Technical Center by Metro Commercial Properties -1250 West Overland Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item 21 is a Public Hearing on AP 08-001. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Treasure Valley Technical Center project. It's located at 1250 West Overland Road within the Treasure Valley Technical Center. The application before you tonight is Council review of a director decision to reject an application for a CU modification. Did you catch that? There is a quiz. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: Okay. Highlights of the proposed development are the applicant had requested a Conditional Use Permit modification application requesting permission to allow a private education institution as an allowed use. So, the subject property shown as industrial on the City of Meridian future land use map and zoned I-L. In 2001 a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development was approved on the site that limited the uses to those allowed within the I-L zoning district and with approval of a detailed Conditional Use Permit you could also ask for a day care center, professional and sales office, or community and neighborhood shopping center. So, it was a very specific planned development. Again, this was one of the very first PD's done with a use exception and we are still feeling the effects today. De Weerd: Did you just mumble? Canning: Yes, I did. Thank you, ma'am. I will .enunciate more clearly. It must be after 10:00. No, not quite. Please note that even at the time that CUP 01-009 was processed and approved in 2001, the private education institutions were not an allowed use in the I-L zoning district, but, rather, they were permitted subject to conditional use approval. So, that's an important distinction. In 2005 the city adopted new development ordinances and with the UDC adoption City Council decided that private education institutions should be prohibited in the I-L zoning districts. And private education institutions are those that follow curricula similar to those of the state. Because the property is shown as industrial on the comp plan and because it has I-L zoning and according to the UDC table for the I-L zoning, the proposed use associated with this • Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 56 of 69 application is prohibited. We rejected -- more specifically, I rejected the application as being incomplete until we had a Comp Plan amendment and a rezone application. So, that's the decision that's being appealed or being asked for you to review tonight. Because they wanted to modify the original CU, which was done as a planned development, to allow this use, but because, for one, we don't have the planned development provisions anymore to allow use exceptions and, two, this is just a prohibited use in the I-L zone, we rejected the application as being insufficient without a Comp Plan amendment and a rezone. And we have had discussions with this property owner for -- since at least last summer. It seems like they are interested in retail uses, but they are unwilling to make the commitment to ask for the commercial zoning. So, at this point it's zoned industrial, with very few use exceptions as allowed in 2001. With that I'll answer any questions Council may have. And Mayor. And I will not mumble. De Weerd: Well, if I was going to get tested on something, I wanted to hear every word. Council, any questions? Rountree: Not right now. Bird: I have none right now. De Weerd: Okay. Applicant have comments? Nickel: Good evening Mr. Mayor -- Mrs. Mayor. Sorry. De Weerd: That's all right. Maybe my -- maybe I'm getting a cold. Nickel: No,' you still sound like a Mrs. Mayor. Council, good evening. I see from the company I keep I get the choice points on the agenda. I appreciate that. Thank you. De Weerd: Well, after that comment you'll continue to have this place on our agenda. Nickel: I kind of like it. I kind of like it. I can see how everyone else does. Madam Mayor and Council, we -- as staff has indicated, we are asking for -- or we asked the planning department to accept a modification to the original Conditional Use Permit and the original planned development application. The property in question sits about right here. It's about three and a half acres, part of the Kennedy Subdivision, industrial subdivision. Community park, I think. And we believe that the -- the use, which is -- would be like auniversity -- will be the University of Phoenix is what we are proposing, but an adult private education facility, does meet the intent of the original Conditional Use Permit and the original planned development. And if you would humor me, I would like to read from the findings from back in 2001. Finding of Fact No. 8 of the Conditional Use Permit states that the proposed application requests a Conditional Use Permit for a planned development to include office, retail, and industrial for proposed Treasure Valley Technical Center. The I-L zoning designation within the City of • • Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 57 of 69 Meridian zoning and development ordinance required a Conditional Use Permit be obtained for most uses, including those requested by the applicant. A further condition, number 12.12 -- or, excuse me, Finding of Fact 12.12 states that the entire site is located within the I-L zone and the following uses shall be limited in the I-L zone with the conditional -- with a Conditional Use Permit, along with any of the allowed I-L uses as part of the planned development. And, then, it goes on to state day care center, professional and sales office, community and neighborhood shopping centers. So, what that states is that in addition to those three uses that they specifically recognize, that it states along with any of the allowed uses in the I-L zone. Now, in 2001 the zoning code allowed or permitted a private educational facility as a Conditional Use Permit. Now, as you know, the planned developments, which are no longer -- are no longer placed in the code, allowed uses that were normally not listed in the allowed use sections of the specific code. For example, the child care center or the professional or sales offices or the community or neighborhood shopping centers, which in this case they allowed. It also states that they were allowed as -- and this is in quotes -- exceptions to the district regulations governing use, density, area, bulk, parking, signs and other regulations as may be desirable to achieve the objectives of the proposed PD, provided such exceptions are consistent with the standards and criteria contained in this chapter. So, what we are arguing is that, again, the intent of that PD back in 2001 was to allow day care centers, professional sales offices, neighborhood shopping centers, in addition to the permitted uses in the I-L zone. So, if one of the permitted uses was a private educational facility, what we are asking for, we believe, is consistent with the original Conditional Use Permit. So, what we are asking for tonight is not for you to approve a conditional use, but, rather, just to advise staff to accept that Conditional Use Permit modification and, then, we would take it back through the process. So, if I confused you, I can explain it again, otherwise, I will stand for any questions. De Weerd: Anyone confused? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? Rountree: Not near as bad as I was with the rezone. Bird: That's clear as mud to me. De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I don't know if this clarifies or not, but I think the distinction is in the definition of the word permitted, which has one meaning -- it's permitted with no further action or -- or CUP or anything, as opposed to allowed with a CUP, which is a different category. Permitted means it can be done without any further review. Allowed with a CUP does not guarantee that it will be approved and I think what we are being asked is to make that distinction on this particular piece of property. I would say first that I believe our director interpreted the ruling the way she had to. There wasn't any other choice for Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 58 of 69 her. I think she did what she had to. I guess the question for us is do we think a private educational institution would be appropriate here and is there some way we can shoe hom it in if we do. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you are not being asked to decide whether it's appropriate tonight. You're just being asked whether or not to accept the application. I would like to say that it has further implications. I mean I think what this does is open up the planned community worm hole again. To me this would say that you can go back to any. previously approved -- I said planned community. I mean planned development. Any previously approved planned development and ask for those same provisions to be in place once again to allow the use exceptions. This is a prohibited use in the zone currently and we are being asked to go back and modify the original CU to allow this as a CU. It's not you're being asked to -- allowed to take in a conditional use application for this -- the use itself, you're being asked to modify the previous Conditional Use Permit for the planned development, to go back and change that approval to allow some something that is now a prohibited use in the zone. Nickel: Madam Mayor, so -- Zaremba: Thank you for the clarification. Nickel: So, Madam Mayor, again, to reiterate the original Finding, it listed three specific uses and, then, it also stated along with any of the allowed I-L uses. So, that developer back in 2001 had -- I guess had reasonable expectation that those uses would be allowed anytime in the future, so I guess if they -- if they were to come in today and ask for a day care center, professionals sales office, or shopping center, and it was not -- and they were prohibited uses today, that he would, again, be allowed those uses. So, I don't see the difference between those three and, then, the allowed uses that were in the zone at the time. I'd also understand what Anna is saying, maybe we are not asking for the right thing, maybe instead of asking for a modification, we should just be asking for acceptance of a Conditional Use Permit, because maybe we don't want to go back and -- we don't want to go back and add that as a specific use, because I guess maybe it's already there as the -- listed under any allowed I-L use. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean I think the director has given her recommendation as to how they could get this exception and that's -- and I think what she originally had stated was that they needed to request a comp plan change, because the ordinance that's in place now -- I mean I don't disagree, in 2001 if they had asked for this under whatever uses existed at the time and this one was allowed, except through conditions, they could have done it. But the code has changed. How would we C~ Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 59 of 69 • ever track the future if every time you changed the zone, any use that might have existed then carries forward from now until the end of time. That doesn't not make any sense. There isn't any case law that supports that notion. They get those specific things they were allowed, they get whatever is allowed at the time they ask for it and whatever -- whatever exists in that zone today when you ask, not what you would have asked for in 2001, but what you ask for now that exists in the code. Because the code can change. Unless we have aspecific -- like in our earlier application, we had a development agreement, we had a specific finding that allowed a specific use -- if you were here asking for a day care center and it was no longer allowed in that zone, your argument would make sense. You said we have already got granted this specific exemption, but everything else that's general, you got to -- you get what's available at the time you ask for it, not what might have been available seven years ago. I don't see any logic to what you're asking for and I don't see any case law that supports it. Nickel: Madam Mayor and Mr. Nary, thank you. See, I look at this as the same thing as a development agreement in the sense that you're establishing conditions and you have established conditions in here that -- or I should say allowed uses that were not currently allowed in the zone. The day care center, the sales office, and a shopping center is not allowed in that zone, so you have allowed it specifically through that -- that PD, but you're also saying that along with the allowed uses in the I-L zone. I would -- I mean I think that's -- it seems to us like it's saying it's allowed -- it's listing those uses out -- they are supposed to be listed in the uses. I know what you're saying also. So -- I mean that's how we feel the intent of that is and I would think the developer would have had some expectation that he could sell those future lots for those uses, because they were -- now, I think in your development agreements today -- or maybe they are conditions in the -- in annexations and rezones or even I guess plats, you state that we have to meet the current -- you have to meet the current zoning requirements at the time, but it seems to be that this PD is allowing for those or establishing those uses for as long as the Conditional Use Permit is good. Nary: But, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that -- those Findings of Facts don't say that you get those uses -- whatever uses existed in 2001 carry forward without approval. Whatever exists in that zone, just like -- like you said, in a development agreement if you have a specific entitlement, like to build 171 apartments, that may carry forward. If you get every other use that exists in the R-4 zone, it's what exists today when you come to ask for it. So, that's what the director has determined that it's not allowed without the Comp Plan amendment, because it's not an allowed use. I mean you're correct in your analysis that it's similar -- not exactly the same, but it's similar to a development agreement, but it doesn't grant you any greater entitlement to a use that doesn't exist and isn't allowed in the zone now. Nickel: Madam Mayor -but it also doesn't say that it doesn't either. It doesn't say either way. It doesn't say your -- you can have those uses, but it doesn't say that those -- it's just you're going to be limited to the uses that are in -- in the current code. • Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 60 of 69 U Nary: The case law says that. Nickel: Yeah. Okay. So, that's all we have. De Weerd: Okay. Nickel: And, again, we are not asking for the -- we are not asking for the approval of the conditional use, just the ability to submit that, which is what we are asking for. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would just comment on the discussion that was had in the committee that was writing or proposing those new UDC -- now several years ago. And I think one of the reasons that it ended up for private education institutions being prohibited in the I-L zone was that other I-L users felt that the impact on them and the complaints that they would get, from aschool-type use, diminish their ability to use the I-L zone the way an I- Lzone should be used. And I think that was some of the reasoning behind why we prohibited it. I would like to suggest that the -- the avenue would be to ask for a change to the Comprehensive Plan that designates this as I-L and see whether that flies. Is that something you would be willing to try? Nickel: Well, I guess one -- Madam Mayor and Councilmen, one of the problems is that -- now that this is a subdivision, you should be looking at just aportion -- you would have, actually -- and I guess, you know, that's something you're interested in -- have a Comprehensive -- a Comp Plan designation that's kind of out in the middle of nowhere. The other problem is that the timing that, obviously, you have to go through to do a Comp Plan amendment. But I mean that's just something we are going to have to look at if you don't approve this appeal. I know a specific use was -- or a specific user was -- was -- was in a time crunch to get this approved, so probably wouldn't be coming back with a Comp Plan amendment. Thank you. De Weerd: Anything further from Council? Nickel: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any other questions from Council? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we close the Public Hearing on Item 21. Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 61 of 69 Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Item 21. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we concur in the denial of this application made by the Planning and Zoning administrator. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to uphold the planning director's determination. Is there any discussion? Mrs. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, nay; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Item 22: Ordinance No. 08-1353 Amendment to Pretreatment Ordinance• De Weerd: Item No. 22 is ordinance number 08-1353. I will ask the City Clerk to, please, read this ordinance by title only. Holman: City of Meridian Ordinance No. 08-1353, an ordinance of the City of Meridian amending Title 9, Chapter 2, Sewer pretreatment, of the Meridian City Code, providing for general provisions, general sewer use requirements, pretreatment of wastewater, wastewater discharge permit application, wastewater discharge permit issuance process, additional reporting requirements, compliance monitoring, confidential information, publication of users in significant noncompliance, administrative enforcement remedies, judicial enforcement remedies, supplemental enforcement action, affirmative defenses to discharge violations, wastewater treatment rates, miscellaneous provisions, providing for effect and validity and providing an effective date. De Weerd: Thank you. You have heard this ordinance read by title only. Is there anyone who would like to hear it read in its entirety? Seeing none, Council. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 62 of 69 • Rountree: I move that we approve Ordinance 08-1353 with suspension of rules. Bird: Second. De Weerd: I have got a motion and a second to approve ordinance on Item 22. Mrs. Clerk, will you, please, call role. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 8: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: P. Amended Agreement for Bittercreek Meadows: De Weerd: We are at the end of our agenda. Oh, I'm sorry. Rountree: We moved Item 8 something forward. P. De Weerd: Oh, yeah. That item that just won't go away. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Oh. And there is a leader. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the item is not totally gone away yet. Mr. Bany and I met with Mr. Jewett, we have -- I don't have to tell any of you this has been very painful to get this agreement to where we are. But I believe we have an agreement. We had some other worrying changes, as you can imagine, Mr. Barry and I have been a little busy this week, but in between other things we have put this agreement back with Mr. Jewett, we had some issues tonight, I think we finalized them all - in fact, to the point that Mr. Jewett's comfort level was he felt he could leave and come back if you needed him to. But Idon't -- as complicated as this agreement has been, I certainly don't want to -- I have amended while we have sat here, but I don't feel comfortable in putting it in front of you for approval without one more go around by Mr. Barry and myself and Mr. Glenhill and Mr. Jewett, but I think we have an agreement. My only concern is timing. Mr. Jewett has made commitments to get some things started by -- I think he told us the 27th of this month. Is there a meeting next Tuesday that we can put this on? If there isn't, is there an opportunity to do a special meeting this week to get this approved, so we can get it done with? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 63 of 69 Bird: I concur with Mr. Nary that I'm not going to approve something that I don't get to read a finished product. And I -- I will be here the 25th. Rountree: I will not be. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Zaremba: I can be here the 25th -- I expect to be here the 25th, unless we don't have a quorum, but Iwill -- I agree that I would want to see Mr. Jewett's signature on it. Nary: Right. Zaremba: As well as reading it ahead of time before we approve our part of it. De Weerd: Which is the process you generally follow. Bird: Could you have something ready by -- when are you leaving, Charlie? Sunday? Rountree: I will be leaving Tuesday. So, if we met Monday. Bird: On Monday. We could meet Monday. Nary: If we could do a special meeting -- I would love to be done with this thing, so if we could do a special meeting even .Monday, if we do not have a quorum on Tuesday -- I don't know about Councilmember Borton, if he's available Tuesday. Zaremba: I would be available Monday, the 24th. Bird: You will? Zaremba: I will be available -- Bird: Okay. De Weerd: Do we have items on the 25th? Rountree: We could a couple. Holman: I don't have a -- Charlie has the agendas there. Rountree: I have got them. • Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 64 of 69 Zaremba: I have heard that Councilman Borton may not be here the 25th as well. Bird: I understood he was -- they always take off on Spring Break. Zaremba: Easter week. Rountree: We have two public hearings and some findings on the Consent Agenda, but it's a pretty weak agenda in terms of timewise. Bird: For Tuesday? Rountree: For Tuesday. So, I think we could -- if we don't have a meeting, if there isn't a quorum, it could be moved into April fairly easy. Nary: Madam Mayor, I will have -- I will have -- well, I finished it tonight, so -- I finished the agreement tonight. I just need to send it to the parties. We can have it Friday, we could -- surely, if we are going to have an agreement and signed by Mr. Jewett, we should have it Monday, if Council would be willing to do a special meeting in the daytime on Monday, that's certainly available to me, so -- Bird: I don't see -- Zaremba: I would be happy to trade Monday for Tuesday, if we are not having a meeting on Tuesday, Monday is -- Monday I can do. Rountree: We can do it. If you can make the agreement happen and get it to us -- Bird: Yeah. Nary: I will work with the clerk's office on the noticing and we will look for a Monday daytime meeting, in the noon time, like we have done the special meetings, if we can get -- if we get a signature, what I will direct to Mr. Jewett is we want a signature Friday, so that you have an opportunity -- but you will have the document to review prior to Monday. Bird: Tell him to come in here and sign it here and we can notarize it. Rountree: Yeah. We can have a signing ceremony on Monday. Bird: Yeah. We can notarize it. De Weerd: We can have a party. Okay. ~~ Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 65 of 69 Nary: Thank you, Council. De Weerd: It sounds like we have more noticing to do to postpone these Public Hearings as well, so - Item 7: Department Reports: A. Mayor's Office 2. Resolution Creating Affordable Housing Task Force: Holman: Madam Mayor -- and one more thing. I was out of the chambers for a few minutes following up on that resolution for affordable housing. Is that something that we still needed to do on this agenda? Bird: Yeah. De Weerd: Yeah. Since none of us knew what that was. And it was under my department report, but I didn't know what it was. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, when we had the -- and I apologize, Madam Mayor, for that. With the -- the proclamation for fair housing, Mrs. Kane, who has been administering our CDVG grant, that was a condition that was part of the grant that was approved. That was what the propose of the resolution was. So, the discussion that we had on Friday, unfortunately, obviously, not with you, Madam Mayor, was that it seemed appropriate if we were going to do one proclamation, that we do the resolution at the same time. We have already committed in the grant to do it, and so that was the reasoning why she did that is she did send it to the clerk's office. It didn't get to your office, so I apologize. It doesn't have to be done tonight. It will need to be done at some point. So, we can put it on another agenda if you would like. It was really the matter that we were tying them to one you were already doing. But it doesn't have to be tonight, if you would prefer another time, we can put it on then. De Weerd: Okay. Well, we have a resolution, Certainly we can read it. Council, what would you like to do? Have you read it? Rountree: I have not. Bird: I haven't read it. I haven't seen it. Holman: Madam Mayor, I have copies for everyone and I did go through when I left and went into my office, it is attached -- there were two items underneath that -- I'm sorry, on the laser fiche how we -- you folks access it. I did find it there and I did have a copy in my packet, but I printed out copies, because I was unclear, I thought maybe somehow it Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 66 of 69 hadn't made it to the laser fiche portion of your agenda. So, it is on there, but I did print out copies if you all would like to see this. Zaremba: It appears to be short, we could read it in a minute or so, if we want to pass them around. De Weerd: Sounds good to me. Holman: Councilman Zaremba, that's your copy, because it has the number on it. Will you pass these down please. De Weerd: Mrs. Clerk, will you, please, read this resolution -- if I could get a number. What number would that be? Holman: Madam Mayor, this will be resolution number 08-604. De Weerd: Okay. If you will, please, read resolution number 08-604 by title only. Holman: Madam Mayor. Resolution number 08-604, a resolution of the Mayor and the City Council of the City of Meridian, establishing an affordable housing task force and providing an effective date. De Weerd: Okay. Council, you have heard this read by title. What would you like to do? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Zaremba: I move that we approve resolution zero -- having had the opportunity to read the whole resolution for myself, I move that we approve resolution 08-604 and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve resolution 08-604. Is there any discussion? And a second. Mrs. Clerk, will you call role. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. De Weerd: Thank you. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 67 of 69 De Weerd: Yes. Canning: May I comment on the 25th agenda briefly? I just -- under the category of lack of planning on my part does not constitute an emergency your part, I did want to mention that the temporary uses -- a big driving force in our schedule for this has been trying to get everything in place for the Parade of Homes. Hopefully, it won't slip much further, because we -- it's slipped so many times now that we are just on the brink of not being able to get them the approvals they need, but we have dealt with that in the past, we can deal with it another year. I'm not too concerned, but -- De Weerd: Do we want to put that on Monday, if we are going to meet on Monday. Rountree: I'm not sure we will be ready to act on that ordinance. I mean there was a lot of the comments that need to be addressed. Canning: It requires three readings. So, this -- I think the second one is next week and, then, you would have an opportunity for a third one. But Ijust -- keep that in mind as that clicks along that we are trying to get that in place for Parade of Homes. But we can deal with it if it doesn't work, but -- De Weerd: Well, we can do a third -- or a second reading and have the discussion on the third reading the following week. Canning: Oh. Bird: When is the Parade of Homes this year? Canning: I forget the exact date, sir. I'm sorry. But that would work if we just read it on Monday, that would help. Bird: We need to see if we are going to have a quorum for Tuesday night, too. I'd prefer to keep -- if we are going to have a Tuesday quorum, we'd just have it on Tuesday night myself, have a regular meeting and get stuff taken care of. I agree with you, Anna, we need to get done for. Canning: And, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- Bird: They are probably having enough time with -- Canning: Councilmember Rountree, we are talking to Teri tomorrow about her concerns with the -- the sign provisions that were added, so -- Rountree: Good. And I -- are those online? Because Ihaven't -- the hard copy I had isn't the same. Didn't even have the sign provisions in it. • • Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 68 of 69 Canning: They were added at the very last minute. I will ask Mrs. Kane to re-send -- or send out the new copy. Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. We will put it on next Monday for the second reading to have the third reading and discussion, then, the following week. Does that sound fair. On April Fool's Day. Yes, Anna. Canning: I was just going to have thumbs up. De Weerd: Okay. Sony, I didn't have my glasses on. I saw --okay. Zaremba: When you wave, I'd appreciate it if you used all of your fingers, please. Canning: Not just one -- De Weerd: Okay. Further business from Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I would make a motion that we authorization and establish the budget for position of Public Works plant operations manager. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Mrs. Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. De Weerd: Okay. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Council, we are at the end of our agenda. Is there any further business for discussion? Okay. Hearing none, do I have a motion to close? Meridian City Council March 18, 2008 Page 69 of 69 Rountree: So moved. Bird: Second. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: Or that means adjourned. All those in favor of adjourning? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:16 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPRO ~~ G~~ MAYOR TAM De WEERD i 4'-~ ~ 22 ~ D~ DATE APPROVED ATTESTED: JAYCE L. HOLMAN, CITY ~~'~~°•,, ~ "~' ; a ; SEAL - ~ ,~ •, ~'! ~` ~ .`' i~ ~~ r s' , /' + ,III -~ a i ~ ~ ~ ~' a v ~ ~~` March ] 4, 2008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2008 APPLICANT ITEM NO. S-A REQUEST Approve Minutes of February 12, 2008 City Council Special Workshop Meeting: ___ AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: COMMENTS CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public mee4ings shah become property of the Cif y of Meddtan. March 14, 2~8 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2~8 APPLICANT ITEM NO. S-B REQUEST Approve Minutes of February 19, 2~8 Pre-Council Meeting: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: COMMENTS o~w~ / ,/ OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meddlan. March 14, 2008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2008 APPt.ICANT ITEM NO. S-C REQUEST Approve Minutes of February 19, 2t~8 City Council Regular Meeting: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTMER: Contacted: Date: Phone: _ Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at pubNc meetings shall become properly of the CHy of Meridian. C~ March 14, 2008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2008 APPLICANT ITEM NO. S-D REQUEST Approve Minutes of February 26, 2008 Pre-Council Meeting: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: (~.~~~le Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at pubOc meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • March 14, 20(}8 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING • SH P 08-001 March 18, 2008 APPLICANT BoiseValley Commons, LLC ITEM NO. S-E REQUEST Findings of Fact 8~ Conclusions of Law for Approval-Request for a Short Plat t~ create 4 building lots on 2 acres in a C-G zone for Destination Place Subdivision No. 2 - 7795 E_ Cinema Drive AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See attached Minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See attached Findings CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: ` ~ ~p~U V `~ CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: ~{7 (la ~_~~ Date: ~~' Phone: `~~Cj- d(,~ 3Lo Emailed• Staff Initials: Materials presented at public eelin9s shall become properly of the City of Meridian. ~R~CEIVED MAC 13 2000 City ®f Meridian. City Clerk ®i~ce CITY OF MERIDIAN E IDIAN~~ FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ~~~~ DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of Destination Place Subdivision No. 2 Short Plat consisting of 4 building lots on 2 acres in a C-G zone, by Boise Valley Commons, LLC. Case No(s). SHP-08-001 For the City Council Hearing Date of: March 4, 2008 (Findings on the March 18, 2008 City Council agenda) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 4, 2008 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 4, 2008 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 4, 2008 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 4, 2008 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-SA. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). SHP-08-001 -1- • 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected parry requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, Short Plat, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 4, 2008 incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's Short Plat as evidenced by having submitted the Short Plat dated 2/6/08 is hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached StafF Report for the hearing date of March 4, 2008 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Short Plat Duration Please take notice that approval of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat within two (2) years of the approval of the preliminary plat or one (1) year of the combined preliminary and final plat or short plat. In the event that the development of the preliminary plat is made in successive phases in an orderly and reasonable manner, and conforms substantially to the approved preliminary plat, such segments, if submitted within successive intervals of eighteen (18) months, maybe considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-6B-7.A, the Director may authorize a single extension of time to record the final plat not to exceed eighteen (18) months. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the City Council maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or City Council may require the preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. If the above timetable is not met CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). SIB-08-001 -2- • • and the applicant does not receive a time extension, the property shall be required to go through the platting procedure again. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of March 4, 2008. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). SHP-08-001 -3- By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the ~ ~ day of ~tr~Y. , 2008. COUNCIL MEMBER DAVID ZAREMBA VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON VOTED' COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD VOTED VPOL. MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED ~ (TIE BREAKER) Attest: Jaycee HSblman, City Clerk Copy served upon Applicant, Attorney. Ma~~p,>;,~' y, de Weerd ~~~ ~~° °~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ` The Pl'//'~anrii4~g, '@~fi;~~Public Works Department and City -~ ri ~+ B Dated: 3-ar~ `~ ity Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). SHP-08-001 -4- CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~ING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPAR~ENTS STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT: ~ IDIAN~ HEARING DATE: March 4, 2008 ~ TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Jenny Veatch, Assistant City Planner 208-884-5533 Scott Steckline, Development Services Coordinator 208-898-5500 SUBJECT: Destination Place Subdivision Number Z Short Plat Request for Approval of Destination Place Subdivision Number 2 Short Plat Consisting of 4 Building Lots on 2 Acres in a C-G Zone by Boise Valley Commons, LLC (File# SFIP-08-001) We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following conditions of the applicant. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: .~, Summary of City Council Public Hearin: ~, In favor: Donna Dodson. representative for Boise_Vallev Commons. LLC iL opposition: None ~, Commenting: None lY. Written testimony: None Y. Staff presenting application: Anna Canning yi. Other staff commentine on application: None jz, ev Issues of Discussion by Council: ~. None ~, K_ ev Counci Chafes to Staff Recommendation ~. one PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a short plat as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-SB-3, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: February 11, 2008, and February 25, 2008 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: February 8, 2008 APPLICATION SUMMARY & LOCATION The applicant, Boise Valley Commons, LLC, has applied for short plat approval of 4 commercial building lots on 2 acres in a C-G zone for Destination Place Subdivision Number 2. SHP-08-0O1 Destination Place Subdivision Number 2 SHP.doc PAG)= CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~ING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPAR~ENTS STAFF REPORT Destination Place Subdivision Number 2 is located at 2295 East Cinema Drive on the south side of I-84, north of E. Overland Road in the SW 1/ of Section 17, T.3N., R.IE. This property was previously platted as a portion of Lot 1 and Lot 2, Block 1 of Destination Place Subdivision. The subject property meets all of the applicability requirements as stated in UDC 11-6B-SA. Staff recommends approval of Destination Place Subdivision Number 2 Short Plat with the comments and conditions stated in this report. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a short plat as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-SB-3, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: February 11, 2008 and February 25, 2008 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: February 8, 2008 REQUIItED FINDINGS FROM UDC 11-6B-6 In consideration of a short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: A. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; The Comprehensive Plan designates the future land use of this property as Mixed Use -Regional. The current zoning district of the proposed subdivision is C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial). The proposed subdivision plat complies with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; City Council fords that public services are available to accommodate the proposed development. Water and sewer services are proposed to be extended into each lot from adjacent streets. Fire, police, solid waste and irrigation services are all adequate. The adjacent public roadways have been completed to the required design and approach standards. C. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvements program; City Council finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. All sewer and water extension for this area were planned to be developer driven. All required utilities are either in place or will be put in as a requirement of the developer and any easements shall be granted. D. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; City Council finds that the development will not require major expenditures for providing supporting services. The developer and/or future lot owners will finance the extension of sewer, water, utilities and pressurized irrigation to serve all lots is this project. E. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and SHP-08-001 Destination Place Subdivision Number 2 SHP.doc PAGE CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~ING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPAR~NTS STAFF REPORT City Council recognizes the fact that traffic and noise may increase with the approval of this subdivision; however, staff does not believe that any additional amount generated will be detrimental to the general welfare of the public in the surrounding area. City Council finds that the development of this site will not involve uses that will create nuisances that would be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. F. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. City Council is not aware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features associated with the development of this site that the Director and City Engineer should be aware of. PLANNING & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS -SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 1. Comply with all applicable conditions of Destination Place Subdivision. 2. Complete the Certificate of Owners. 3. If the City Engineer's signature has not been obtained by 03/18/09, the Short Plat approval for this subject project shall expire. 4. For all private roadways, driveways, and as each lot develops a drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. Storm water treatment and disposal shall be designed in accordance with Department of Environmental Quality 1997 publication Catalog of Storm Water Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties and City of Meridian standards and policies. Off-site disposal into a surface water is prohibited unless the jurisdiction which has authority over the receiving stream provides written authorization prior to development plan approval. The applicant is responsible for filing all necessary applications with the Idaho Department of Water Resources regarding Shallow Injection Wells. 5. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (UDC 11-3B-6-D). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions of the Unified Development Code does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. GENERAL REQUIItEMENTS Per UDC 11-3A-6 all imgation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department prior to plan approval. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 2. Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, sewer line shall be installed and passed air test and video inspection, and road base shall be approved prior to applying for building permits. SHP-08-001 Destination Place Subdivision Number 2 SHP.doc PAGE CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~ING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPART7l~IENTS STAFF REPORT 3. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% shall be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 4. All development improvements, including but not limited to water, sewer, fencing, micro-paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 5. A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, landscape designer or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan upon completion of the landscape installation. The Certificate of Completion shall verify that all landscape improvements, including plant materials and sprinkler installation, are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan. 6. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat. 7. Compaction test results must be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 8. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 9. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that maybe required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 10. All development features shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 11. Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those trees that have to be removed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the short plat for Destination Place Subdivision Number 2 (S13P-08- 001) with the above stated conditions. Ezhibits 1. Submitted Short Plat SHP-08-001 Destination Place Subdivision Number 2 SHP.doc PAGF CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~ING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPAR~NTS STAFF REPORT Submitted Short Plat NOTES p'.~@ RFp4~Mrv1%'~ tOr: V.rQL .w R.C) II9 SM4L K : YN6Ttl6t4 Sr 'P0i4D~.9 IS~YS.Rd¢~O u .ssssssivrs s~ sue.-scaEVU wlasrw msvcl nmc. rxs vs<uert sxa. ror maws uc fasroaros o wop-~.® aas+irs w rrurrs ra e00r 1@CLOM9Y Crrl 0.AlC U)CS~. OiQm~f- ~ ~MnQq u0 OOYrI~bM [18E~ lW r~ tE LSO Ari~~~ BalAfuY/ mNb. W~I~OA~45 fLY wi~r rK~4G~00i gW TIC 9~P ~r~Pl.i)MD P55)ffilW6 )0 N: ISLOI~w It .DI CWYIY. II5m1EWIYLY r1EROf 1100..199 5001 1)r IM9 ~I 555WF0 Bf la Rm6/.rCn/~tA)152 ptlTYEI. 9 . 0) Ymtt 1m! tpmHG~K Wf0 OwLLI N .mJO¢rr t0 rlq 040a-P-Y.~ V f09f CP0[N W.O. m1w 04L0eMlw rl1) A•O 0w)N C80IDMlm0 0rg1¢ Ilo B1RL Q 11Mt0KV 0t 1K 0100 Yule CNV10v8 OMI605 ~• 1960fur4w i ry ----------c : - •---1 a ~,~~ -•--- y~ •~ ~ i ~• ~ y~ e t g ^e 1 s ac•srR 5 to w'.~ i P06v1 ~ a GMOYltC ~ 7 ~ p ,'i m' p e I I - 9taYrN•6 505)1' i IJ tl 1 ^I 1 u z 15' pll. i sl I X BLOQ 1 I ~, 7 I ~ b It ~ .. 1 a $I N 8972'59 Y 260.63' , ~s I~I 1 p I 1~ t i ~ gt ~ IJ - fg Z I _ _ - _ ~ ~ e. a..... e ~ s ir.) 5 89'32'19' E 206.31' )a.) )~2I ° c~i cwai°<a~wrv~w roc, ... ................, ._- Y IB 17 fvH 0iw'~)55.0 '~ - 409.95'~i'S %9055' 19 10 EA$T OVERLAND ROAD BASK D< BEARSNO 17 20 TEALEY'S LAND 3UR' PLAT OF DESTINATION PLACE SUBDIVISION NO A RESUAD1ML90N OF A POR110N OF LOT i AND ALL OF LOT 2, BI.OQ( 1, DESIUVAR{NJ PLACE SUDO LONG P! 7HE SiY t/4, ~CDON 17, T.3N., R.IE., B.N., 11ERRIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2008 I~ ~~ 2 ',f8 90 YJ 0 90 mD 190 SC1LE Pv ST:E* r = 90' a ~~ex! r ~~ ~~'~ r pn tr~~~~ "~q r$ ..~~.{C~/P °~~cu ~/ LEf.END - - - - BOin»Wr ikm _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ EnssilEnr imumsae - - - EEwr6R L0K 6 room 82A6s CAo o vaum yr man nN - w.s n3+v • sET 1?•20•mON O%./CV ^ GLEOLATEO SgNi. )mr SET L1Q TAeIE L95E %iamE CEBGTw L-~ smror.rr mas• . wrorr• f %a~ CURVE TABLE cwrE moors OELTS LEwcni eEisuc EWFU Wm' m'ie'+• w . c-. ~w~ 9vm~ e9.0)vr nsfroe- virn• ti•%'wr mea' n•fr9rr 9).r.• s.a ~r8•r uoi' n>9r Exhibit 1 March 14, 2008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2~8 SHP 08-002 APPLICANT The Land Group, LLC ITEM NO 5-F REQUEST Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law for Approval -Request for Short Plat approval for 4 commercial condominium units in an existing building in an L-O zone for Medical Millennium Condominium - 1828 South Millennium Way AGENCY C{TY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: COMMENTS See attached Minutes See alMched FindMgs ~~~ror~2~ Contacted: ~ ~ ~ Date: ~ ~ Phone: q - ~~ Emailed: c.1 Staff Initials: Materipla presented lic meettnps shall become properly of the Cily of Meridian. • RECEIVEIs MAC ~ ~ 200 City +~f !Yleridian City Clerk ®~ce CITY OF MERIDIAN E IDIA1`~T~~ FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ~ DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of Medical Millennium Condominiums Short Plat consisting of 4 Commercial Condominium units within 1 building on 1.259 acres in an L-O zoning district, by The Land Group, Inc. Case No(s). SHP-08-002 For the City Council Hearing Date of: March 4, 2008 (Findings on the March 18, 2008 City Council agenda) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 4, 2008 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 4, 2008 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 4, 2008 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 4, 2008 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-SA. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). SHI'-08-002 -1- 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Short Plat and Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 4, 2008 incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's Short Plat as evidenced by having submitted the Short Plat dated 01/04/08 is hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of March 4, 2008 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Short Plat Duration Please take notice that approval of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat within two (2) years of the approval of the preliminary plat or one (1) year of the combined preliminary and final plat or short plat. In the event that the development of the preliminary plat is made in successive phases in an orderly and reasonable manner, and conforms substantially to the approved preliminary plat, such segments, if submitted within successive intervals of eighteen (18) months, maybe considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-6B-7.A, the Director may authorize a single extension of time to record the final plat not to exceed eighteen (18) months. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the City Council maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or City Council may require the preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). SHP-08-002 -2- • the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. If the above timetable is not met and the applicant does not receive a time extension, the property shall be required to go through the platting procedure again. E. Notice of Final Action and Right to Regulatory Takings Analysis 1. The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of March 4, 2008 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). SHP-08-002 -3- By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 1$~ da of Y 2008. COUNCIL MEMBER DAVID ZAREMBA VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON VOTEDh~ COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE VOTED ~ICa COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD VOTED yea MAYOR TANIMY de WEERD VOTED -~ (TIE BREAKER) Attest: Jaycee Ho'~man, City Clerk Copy served upon Applicant, ~~ ~ Mayor T de Weerd ~® ~~~ ~ -~ Ther~~ ~!' , ht, Public Works Department and City rf-N1~t1 ~a1~~ Attorney. B Dated: 3'~'o~ 'ty Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). SHP-08-002 -4- ~ i CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT: HEARING DATE: March 4, 2008 E IDIAI~T~;--- TO: Mayor and City Council ~ ®q ~ ,~ FROM: Kristy Vigil, Assistant City Planner 208-884-5533 Scott Steckline, Development Services Coordinator~~ 208-898-5500 SUBJECT: Medical Millennium Condominiums Request for Short Plat Approval of Medical Millennium Condominiums consisting of 4 Commercial Condominium units within 1 building in an existing L-O Zone by The Land Group, Inc (File# SFIP-08-002). We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following conditions of the applicant. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION .~, ummarv of City Co nc'1 Pub is Hea 'n i. In favor: None ii. In onnosition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: None y. Staff nresentina annlication: Anna Canning vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b. ev Issues of Discussion by Co nc'l: i. None c. ev Council Cha ges to Staff Recommendafion i. None PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a short plat as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-SB-3, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. b. Newspaper notifications published on: February 11, 2008, and February 25, 2008 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: February 8, 2008 APPLICATION SiJ1VIlVIARY & LOCATION The applicant, The Land Group, Inc., has applied for short plat approval of 4 condominium units within 1 building on 1.259 acres in an L-O zone for Medical Millennium Condominiums on Lot 3, Block 1 of Resolution Subdivision. A building permit has been issued for the subject building and the building is currently under construction. SHP-08-002 Medical Millennium Condominiums SHP.doc PAGF CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS STAFF REPORT Medical Millennium Condominiums are located south of Overland Road and approximately a'/z mile east of Locust Grove Road at 1828 S. Millennium Way in the NW '/ of Section 20, T.3N., R.1 E. The subject property meets all of the applicability requirements as stated in UDC 11-6B-SA and is eligible to be processed as a short plat. Staff recommends approval of Medical Millennium Condominiums Short Plat with the comments and conditions stated in this report. REQUIRED FINDINGS FROM UDC 11-6B-6 In consideration of a short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: A. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; The Comprehensive Plan designates the future land use of this property as commercial and high density residential. The current zoning district of the proposed plat is L-O (Limited Office District). The Comprehensive Plan allows for other uses in the high density designation, if the development is a approved as a planned development. Resolution Subdivision received planned development approval June 6, 2000. Therefore, the proposed subdivision plat complies with the Comprehensive Plan. B. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Staff finds that public services are available to accommodate the development. Water and sewer services have already been installed with the Resolution Subdivision improvements. Fire, police, solid waste and irrigation services are all adequate. The adjacent public roadways have been completed to the required design and approach standards. C. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvements program; Staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. All sewer and water extension for this area were planned to be developer driven. All required utilities are either in place or will be the responsibility of the developer. D. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff finds that the development will not require major expenditures for providing supporting services. The developer and/or future unit owners will finance the extension of sewer, water, utilities and pressurized irrigation to serve the project. The primary public costs to serve the future tenants will be fire and police services. E. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and Staff does not believe that any additional traffic or noise will be generated with the approval of this plat; the approval for the subject buildings was previously granted. This subdivision will not be detrimental to the general welfare of the public in the surrounding area. Staff finds that the subject subdivision will not involve uses that will create nuisances that would be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare. SHP-08-002 Medical Millennium Condominiums SHP.doc PAG): CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS STAFF REPORT F. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Staff is not aware of any significant natural, scenic or historic features associated with the development of this site that the Director and City Engineer should be aware of. PLANNING & PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT -SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS Revise or add the following plat notes on the face of the plat prepared by The Land Group, Inc., and dated 01/04/08: l .) Delete note. 7.) Include instrument number. 10.) Revise to read, "...set forth in Lr ro nn n~ c~ nr ro nn ni ~~ ..,.a CUP-00-017." *.) Add a note, "This plat is subject to a development agreements recorded as instrument numbers 100056509 and 107005524 of Ada County Records." 2. Complete the Certificate of Owners. 3. Add a signature space for the City Clerk 4. If the City Engineer's signature has not been obtained by 03/18/09, the Short Plat approval for this subject project shall expire. 3. Comply with all conditions of Resolution Subdivision. 4. Comply with all conditions of the Ada County Highway District as they relate to this short plat. 5. Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions of the Unified Development Code does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. All development features shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act (if applicable). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Medical Millennium Condominiums Short Plat (SHP-08-002) with the above stated comments and conditions. EXHIBITS 1. Submitted Short Plat (4 pages) SHP-08-002 Medical Millennium Condominiums SHP.doc PAGF CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS STAFF REPORT ~-~ " ~ ~ I woo•ao'oo°e ~ ~,~ ~~ i ~ ~ ~ m w Z sear 1 ws ~ O ~ aao' i Y slr ~ A N^~I m ~ l 1 ~ y D - - - -- ' -- ---- - - - - . .. - I C - z ~ p O ~ ~I z N ~ 1 ~ ~ C' ~ ^t W u O. W' p CI C ? 11. ~O ~ ~'~ 2e _ ~~ $ ~ N C ~ a -~ m V Yn {+ 1 O ~ \~~ ~ w or ~ 8 17.so' N d j 0 o ~ ~ m rn ?Z d O k1 o --~ 0~ T7 '~ O N O = W ...>, ~ ? h ~ 1217 y, ~ \ S o nj O ~ o ~ Z Oog, O O ~ ~ g, ~ ~ ~ ~Q Sl.aa O- ~ ~ 0da/'1 l 1 s y c ~ ~ 9 m o O ~~ ~./ - ---~- I ------~_ ~ Z I ~ # - d .. 7 ~ ~ i ~ O O e7.m ~ •~ o s A o ~ y _ ~ urns _ ~+ Q~ ~ ~ ~k a #a~Ff ~ ~ ~~ ~ lp ~ ~ a -' T~ M V1 ° '~~~ o ~ ~~~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s o a+ ~ 7 r CF ` Y ~ ~ ~ ~ p~~oeem ~ - ~ Q Exhibit 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS STAFF REPORT N ~'~ ws N00'00'00'E ax 7 r ~~r o ~ ~ i mZ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~^ - aoo---~_ ~~_`_'_~- nor -- to O l 1 ~ Amr o y ~' o ~,,.~ m P o ~ h"'~ Y - =mar Q _~ - oar 4 P ~ ~ Y D~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ aDO oA ~ aZ m b m C~ W~~ 7 ~ i g ~ O $ Z OD ~ ~ (A ~-~1 ~. ~ ~ S ~ ~~ O 61 a ^ 3 ~ l 1 (Q W ~ O i i ~ ~ m - - - - O --~--------~------- y~t~ ~a0 ~~ _~ ~ .~' a o_ ~ i ~w~ r vh.`Mi~ tD W ~. ~ F~1 § 41 A ~ M-~1 r r ~ O ~eTI#~~ S'~= ~ a s o ~ ~ 7 $o3'b0 Y o ~ ~yQ~~ ~Na ~ ~ ~ ~ V N ~ n l~D ~'~~,~ : F ~De~ ~~ ~ Q Exhibit 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS STAFF REPORT ~yil Ia t ~~~~~ ~~ ~~g y g m €I ~~. gm3 O e~j Cf m N ~ A _ ~ya ~ ~~ t N ~ q ~ ~ O m ~~ ~ '~ ~b0 6 90 ~ m ~~ r ~Q~ g r O OZ xo~ ~^~ y ~ l 1 ~o~ ~m r O y ~ C .n~. O ~ ~~ ~~r ~Qr o<m ~~_~~ NOS O ~"' G 7 W ~ 3 ~~ ~ ~ 3 N ~ ~ (fl O p~j d /'1 7 ~ l 1 y 01 O ~ ~ O y O ~ O O _~ ~ ~ Zu o tL~~ o ~ 1--1 ~ ~ ~7 ~o ~~ Exhibit 1 l~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS STAFF REPORT ~ ~ ~ .~ -r---- -'------ ---- ` I ~ I i$ c~ ~ g~ I~ I~ L { u ~ 7 A~ ~~~ o ~ ~~ 4 ~~ ~~ z ~~~ ,~ ~ ~~ \ ~' CQ ~ #~ ~~, ~ ~ ~ / ~;~ %,, L~ / / LAtpb ~ ( I ,t t~ / / I I M4 N ~~~ -- ----- ---- ~, i~1 .y 2~ `~ ~~ ~~ I ~ ~ I s ~~ I I I ~ g wr I -~ d _ ~M I I ~ ~ ~ ~c~ ~s I I ~i ~ ~i ~ ~ aka ~F ~ ~ ~ I a t I i ~ ~ ~ ~~ €~i I 1 1 -L---_______-_~---- I ---- -12-00 ~~~ 17^~ ~ $ K ~~m n~ ~$~ s i Q s ~ S S ~ L 9~~ l~ . \ ~ ~ .~c g ~ p ~a~ I ~ a l 9p~ 1 ~ ~ ` ~ $ ~. _ I ` ~~ I ~ ~~ ` \ ~ 1 ~ f 1 ^ e I #1 I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ / I ~ a ~ rs ~ ~ ~ g g N a S f I + ~ I a I w M > m rr m ~ + I I ppAyjiI 2/+~ ~ ~ = ~ Y ~ I I s S m v ~ ~ I ~1 $ffi ~ e ,, ~ ,. (s . 1 I ~ I y ~ I I ~ y 1 ,y I i I 50007'41'f' 2020G lurzal.oaci I I VALENCN PIATASUBDIVLSON R - 4 Q - - SWT/p'W 9Uttq IAT1 eLOQC1 VAIENClA PI eve SUBDIV$UN -- ~I 1~ ~ I ~ n ^~~~ I R § l i sooxnraceio~sa eooxmencEZmw j: ~ e~~ I q ~ ; ~! ~ ~ I ^q ~ i I I I ~ ~ d o •0® ~ I I :>• ~ _ _ _ ~ I I\\\ _ SCTt1Y6's `I r M300' I ~~~ ~ N III 3~4~ i i I F~jK~aou a ~<~~~r{~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~t ~?}$G~s ~ ~ ~ ` I 6 L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~~~Ps~~~~~a~ ~~ ~~ k ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~m ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ r O O ~~c- 111 111 A ~ O y m ~ 7 (p C mar -~<~ D° y a 3 0 y y 7 N O 'O O uu 0 ~ W ~ ~ ~ OZ ~ d ?m 3 ,-~ <p O y C1 7 ~ W 6i O ,~ O O .y.~~ 7 goo n y ~ ~ ~S d ~'i fp ~;' d~ 07 A =o~ ~~ ~. s~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ s g~€ ~ ~~ ~ m~ ~~ g ~~~ ~~ Bq ~~ ~b ~~ ~ a Exhibit 1 ~ r March 7 4, 2008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 200$ RZ 07-013 APPLICANT Strada Bellissima Commercial, LLC ITEM No. 5-G REQUEST Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law for Denial -- Request for a Rezone of 1.76 acres from L-O to C-N zone for Strada Bellissima Commercial - __ -- NWC of Meridian Road and victory Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: COMMENTS See cdtached Findings See atbched Findings for Denial ~~UvC_. Contacted: ~~~(~,~ C~)~ Date: 3•~ Phone• g8~-~]~LpO Emailed: 1>(11ChQ~IC f~annd(`lc_-etrl4tn[P~rS.C~if Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shah become properly of tire Ctiy of Meridian. BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR ) RE-ZONING OF 1.76 ACRES FROM LOW ) DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL ) BY ) STRADA BELLISSIMA COMMERCIAL, LLC ) APPLICANT. ) Case No. RZ 07-013 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for public hearing on March 4, 2008, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m., Anna Canning, City Planning and Zoning Administrator for the Planning and Zoning Department and Richard Evans representing Strada Bellissima Commercial, LLC, Meridian, Idaho, appeared and testified, and the City Council having duly considered the evidence and the record in this matter therefore make the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The notice of public hearing on the application for annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to said public hearings scheduled for March 4, 2008, before the City Council, the first publication appearing and written notice having been mailed to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred (300') feet of the external boundaries of the property under consideration more than fifteen (15) days prior to said hearings and with the notice of public hearings having been posted upon the property FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL STRADA BELLISSIMA; CASE NO. RZ 07-013 PAGE 1 OF 5 ~ ~ under consideration more than one week before said hearing; and that copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations as public service announcements; and the matter having been duly considered by the City Council on March 4, 2008, public hearing; and the applicant, affected property owners, and government subdivisions provided services within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian, having been given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence. 2. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Idaho Code §§67-6509 and 67-6511, and §11-SA, Municipal Code of the City of Meridian. 3. The City Council takes judicial notice of its zoning, subdivisions and development ordinances codified at Title 11, Municipal Code of the City of Meridian, and all current zoning maps thereof, and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382, and maps and the ordinance Establishing the Impact Area Boundary. 4. The property is approximately 1.76 acres in size and is generally located at the northwest corner of Meridian Road and Victory Road in Section 24, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, state of Idaho. 5. Strada Bellissima Commercial, LLC, whose address is 9560 W. Pebblebrook Lane, Garden City, Idaho 83714, is the current property owner and applicant. 6. The subject property is currently zoned L-O (Limited Office District). 7. The Applicant requests the property be zoned C-N (Neighborhood Business District). The property which is the subject of this application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL STRADA BELLISSIMA; CASE NO. RZ 07-013 PAGE 2 OF 5 8. The entire parcel of property is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following manner: to allow retail and restaurant uses adjacent to the existing residential development. 10. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map designates the subject property as L-O (Limited Office). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The City of Meridian has discretionary authority to annex real property upon written request for annexation and the real property being contiguous or adjacent to city boundaries and that said property lies within the area of city impact as provided by Idaho Code §50-222. The Municipal Code of the City of Meridian § 11-SB-3 provides the City may annex real property that is within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. The provisions of Idaho Code §50-222 govern the conditions upon which the City may exercise its authority to annex territory, but the exercise of that authority is discretionary as determined by the City Council. DECISION AND ORDER NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, the City Council does hereby order and this does order: That the application for re-zoning is denied for the following reasons: The proposed development is not compatible with the surrounding area if zoned C-N. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL STRADA BELLISSIMA; CASE NO. RZ 07-013 PAGE 3 OF 5 ~ ~ NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAHINGS ANALYSIS The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code §67-8003, the Owner may request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code §67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by this decision may, within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order, seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the ~~~ day of March, 2008. ROLL CALL: COUNCILMAN DAVID ZAREMBA VOTED COUNCILMAN JOE BORTON VOTED /~~ COUNCILMAN CHARLIE ROUNTREE VOTED ~,~(~Q COUNCILMAN KEITH BIRD VOTED ~cG~ ~ MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD (TIE BREAKER) VOTED ~ DATED: ~~~ _ ZOOS MOTION: APPROVED: ~_ DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL STRADA BELLISSIMA; CASE NO. RZ 07-013 PAGE 4 OF 5 MAYOR MY de WEERD ~~ti~~,. it !lj ,~ ATTEST: `\~,~`~~`{ 'd,,~J ~~ ; ~ _ JAYCEE OLMAN, CITY CLERK, ~ ~:~ 9'~t t~~ ° .~+. Copy served upon Applicant, the P1~~~anPl,, ,,a§b`4iing Department, Public Works o ~~+ Deparhnent, and City Attorney. By' Dated: ~ ~ a5 -0 8' Cler 's Office FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL STRADA BELLISSIMA; CASE NO. RZ 07-013 PAGE 5 OF 5 March 14, 2008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING • CUP 07-019 March 18, 2008 APPLICANT Patrick MCKeegan ITEM NO. 5-H REQUEST Findings for Denial -Request for Conditional Use Permit approval for a drinking establishment in a proposed C-G zone for Rockin KB Saloon - 3163 E. Lanark AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: ~Q ne COMMENTS See attached Minutes See attached Findings A~~~- ihhcn ~irom c~unonyrnoUS C~l.ll~,r Contacted: ~ ~_ Date: ' Phone: ~2.4'g~$ Emailed: Staff Initials: Materi~s presents at publk meetinga shall become properly of fhe C(ty of Meridian. • • BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL C/C 03/11/08 1N THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR CONDITONAL USE PERMIT TO APPROVE A DRINKING ESTABLISHMENT IN A PROPOSED C-G ZONE Case No. CUP 07-019 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL BY PATRICK MCKEEGAN APPLICANT The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing before the City Council on February 26, 2008, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m. at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, and the City Council takes judicial notice of its action of the denial of the application for annexation and zoning in Case No. RZ-07-019, and the hearing was opened on the conditional use permit application and Anna Canning, City Planning and Zoning Administrator for the Planning and Zoning Department and Patrick McKeegan and Kevin Kelly, appeared and testified, and the City Council based upon its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order in Case No. RZ-07-019 does hereby deny the application for Conditional Use Permit. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ROCKIN KB SALOON; CASE NO. CUP-07-019 PAGE 1 OF 3 FINDINGS OF FACT It is found that the Recommendation to City Council of the Planning and Zoning Commission is not reasonable nor appropriate for the conditions of approval of the conditional use permit due to the denial of the annexation and zoning in Case No. RZ-07-019. DECISION AND ORDER Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code Section 11-SA-6 and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND THIS DOES ORDER, that based upon the denial of the annexation and zoning in Case No. RZ-07-019 the Council does hereby deny the application for conditional use permit approval. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAKINGS ANALYSIS The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code §67-8003, the Owner may request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code §67-6521. An affected person being a person who has FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ROCKIN KB SALOON; CASE NO. CUP-07-019 PAGE 2 OF 3 • an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by this decision may, within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order, seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 1 ~ day of March, 2008 ,~~ ~~~~ MAYOR MY de WEERD ~~~~,, ATTEST: a,,``~`~'t~ ~ ~~~°`°°,~ ~ ~~~ '=~ - ~~~L = JAYCEE OLMAN, CITY CIS ~ ~~ ~~ '~q r ~ ~~ , ~ `sue 6.`(7e lfitl H1 Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works Department, and City Attorney. BY~ , Dated: ~ ' °~5 -~ ~ ~ Ity Clerk's O ce FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ROCKIN KB SALOON; CASE NO. CUP-07-019 PAGE 3 OF 3 • March 14, 2008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MafCh 18, 2008 APPLICANT City of Meridian Planning Department ITEM NO. S-~ REQUEST Resolution -Proposed Fee Increase for Planning Department: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: COMMENTS See attached ResolvHon ®~r X03 ccd~~~ c~ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall becmne properly of the CNy of Meridian. • CITY OF MERIDIAN BY THE CITY COUNCIL: RESOLUTION NO. ~~" X03 BIRD, BORTON, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA A RESOLUTION RATIFYING THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL'S APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S FEE INCREASES, FEE DECREASES, AND NEW FEES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on February 26, 2008, the City Council of Meridian held a hearing on the adoption of changes regarding proposed fee increases, proposed fee decreases, and proposed new fees for the Planning Department and to explain the reasons for such action as shown by Attachment "A" and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, after such hearing, the City Council, by formal motion, did approve said Planning Department Fee Schedule; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO: Section 1. That the Planning Department proposed changes for fee increases, fee decreases, and proposed new fees is hereby adopted. A copy of the fee schedule is attached as Exhibit "A". Section 2. That the Director of the Planning Department is hereby authorized to implement and carry out the collection of said fees. Section 3. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect on the 1~ day of April, 2008. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho ~ day of March, 2008. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this I~S~ay of March, 2008. APPROVED: ~' _ f~ ~~® YqR T de WEERD ATTEST: ~ ~" - ~~ - =/ ~ ~~' ` JAYCE HOLMAN, CITE'- t ~ ~@~~`~~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT PROPOSED FEE"~5~,~~3POSED FEE DECREASES, AND PROPOSED NEWFEES - 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT `A' PLANNING DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE Table 6: Full List of Proposed Fee Changes Proposed Existing Permit/Decision Faa FPP Accessory use for daycare or home occupation 160 163 Additional hearing (post reconsideration) 692 142 Alternative compliance 160 100 Annexation, staff prepared consensual 2,086 1,206 Annexation/rezone 1,826 906 Annexation/rezone w/out concurrent application 2,092 1,206 Certificate of zoning compliance 453 375 Certificate of zoning compliance w/prior approval 187 125 City council review (appeal) 692 603 Comprehensive plan map amendment 2,409 1,018 Comprehensive plan text amendment 1,431 606 Conditional use (or Commission level modification) 1,369 1,046 Conditional use modification 378 206 Director determination 213 250 Design review 173 100 Development agreement 303 459 Development agreement modification 502 459 Inspections, additional 53 50 Miscellaneous hearing item 937 459 Planned unit development 2,251 1,267 Planned unit development, per exception fee 107 100 Plat, combination 2,189 1,228 Plat, final 1,242 718 Plat, final per lot P8Z and PW fee 36 28 Plat, final, modfication to condition 541 350 Plat, preliminary 2,264 1,276 Plat, preliminary per lot P&Z and PW fee 24 20 Plat, short 868 410 Private road 198 50 Property boundary adjustment 365 149 Sign 53 50 Sign, planned sign program 67 63 Sign, temporary 27 25 Surety fee 133 0 Temporary use 133 125 Time extension, Commission or Council 493 444 Time extension, Director 133 75 Unified development code amendment 1,723 806 Vacations (including recorded plat notes) 589 375 Variance 1,056 603 Zoning verification letter 53 50 `-- --- Formatted Ta61e March 14, 2008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2008 APPLICANT ITEM NO. S-.I REQUEST Renewal of Contract for Prosecution Services with the City of Boise: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: Cf1Y SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION; SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted• Emailed: COMMENTS See attached a~ Date: Phone: _ Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meeting shall become property of the Cffy of Meridian. ,- .~ BY THE COUNCIL: RESOLUTION 20Q15 BISTERFELDT, CLEGG, EBERLE, JORDAN, SHEALY AND TIBBS A RESOLUTION APPROVING ADDENDUM NO. S TO AN AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF BOISE CITY (LEGAL DEPARTMENT) AND THE CITY OF MERIDIAN FOR THE PROVISION OF LEGAL/ PROSECUTORIAL SERVICES TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AND ATTEST SAID ADDENDUM NO. S ON BEHALF OF BOISE CITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. .~ NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL OF THE ~CITY~ OF BOISE CITY, IDAHO: Section 1. That Addendum No. 5 to an Agreement by and between the City of Boise City and the City of Meridian, a copy of said Addendum No. 5 marked Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated~herein by reference, be, and the same is hereby, approved as to both form and content. Section 2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be, and they hereby are, authorized to respectively execute and attest-said Addendum No. 5 for and on behalf of the City of Boise City. Section 3. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. ADOPTED by the Council of the City of Boise City, Idaho this 4th day of ~~ , 200$. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Boise City, this ~~ , 2008;~,~,~,~ _ 4th day of R-101-08 CITY OF BOISE Mayor and Council 'To: FROM: Steve Rutherford RD:IN.A,NCE or RESOLUTION NUMBER' O DATE: February 26, 2008 Meridian CitS' Prosecution Services Contract SUBJECT UIRED: Approval ACTION REQ RECOMMENDATION: ~J Ci will pay the City of LICATIONS: Meridian tY GET ~ al le al services for the 2008 fiscal FISCAL IMpA,CTB~ d crimin ~ 20115 per month for prosecution an ount is calculated to ful y Boise $ e ~~ amount of the contract is $241,380. This am yew' ~ roviding this service. . . cover the cost of p otiated this contract late summer and The City Attorney s Office neg tion of theix BACKGROUND: cce ted the terms of the attacheda ~o~~i~t on of .the exis~ng fall of 2007. Meridian a while somewhat delayed, is this contract is et This contract, t of this office and Meridian City, 2008 budg oversigh relationship. Due to mutual royal. lust now coming to You for app Number 5 to the 2002 Agreement for ATTACHMENTS' Resolution, Addendum secution Services, and Contract Extension - Fy-2008 ° Pro March 14, 2r~8 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2~8 APPLICANT ITEM NO. S-K REQUEST Change Order No. 1 for Black Cat Road Water Main Extension Phase 2 Design Project with Civil Survey Consultants, Inc. for $3,000: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See attached f~~ Date: Phone: _ S#aff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shop become property of the CHy of Meridian. '~o o~-oar y CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, ID 83642 Change Order No 1 Project Number: 725 Date: 3/3/2008 Effective Date: 3/3/2008 CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER CONTRACTOR: Civil Survey Consultants PROJECT: Black Cat Road Water Main Extension Phas®2 The Contractor is hereby directed to make the following changes from the Contract D6cuments and Plans. Descipfian: 1) Additional Surveying, Design and Consultation Services in association with added water mai ~to project. 2) 3) - 4) 5) Reason for Change Order: There are additional water service`stubs added to this project. Attachments: ,•~ CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE: CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIMES: Original Contract Price: $15,155.00 Ordinal Contract Completion Date: Original Contract Completion Da Net changes from previous C.O.'s.: Net Days change form previous C.O :s: No. 0 to 0 No. 0 to 0 $0.00 Contract Price Prior to this C.O.: Contract Completion Date before this C.O.: $15,155.00 Contract Completion Days before this C.O 0 Net Increase (decrease) of this C.O.: Net Days Increase (decrease) pf this C.O.: $3,000.00 . Contract Price with all Approved C.O.'s: Contract Completion Date with all Approved C.O: s: $18.155.00 Contract Completion Days with all Approve ~ 0 RECOM NDED: (CONST UCTION MAN GER) ME R Accepted (Contractor) - A ~ Q ~ f Date: 3_ _ ZOOS` Date: 3 ~ ~' APPROVED: (CITY PURCHASING A tMT) COUNCIL APPROVAL By: Keith Wafts D ~~~ .~ wfCf~. ~~ 2~~.~` ~j ~ ~.~~ D t ate: ~ ~ t Q _Q a e: - ~ APPROVED: - ~ ATTEST: _ aa By: Mayor Ta lie eerd Date: ~ ~ By: City Clerk, ayoee Flofman. s ~- p~ ~ ~ ~~' Date: 9 S . .,,~ ., ,~. `t. ''''''~r~rr,r~,,.,,,N~`~`'`,. C~ ~ECEkFTE~ Memo To: Jaycee Holman; Tara Green From: Brent A. Blake, Engineering Techniaan 1 blakeb@meridiancity.org Meridian Public Works Departrnent 660 E. Watertower, Suite 200 Phone: 898-5500 Fax: 898-9551 CC: Thomas Barry, Public Works Director Len Grady, P.E., City Engineer Clint Dolsby, P.E., Staff Engineer Date: 3/3/2008 Re: Proposed Agenda Item for 3/18/2008 City Council Meeting ~it~ ~f TVleridi~ City Clerl~ ®ffice The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following item be placed on the 3/18/2008 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: Change Order No. 1 for Black Cat Road Water Main Extension Phase 2 (Design) Additional work is required for the completion of the Black Cat Road Water Main Extension Phase 2 Desi n This change order consists of the following work and amounts to 20% of the original design contract: • Additional Surveying, Design, and Consultation services due to additional water main added to the project. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves Change Order No. 1 for the Black Cat Water Main Extension Phase 2 (Design) project with Civil Survey Consultants, Inc. for $3,000 and authorize the Mayor to sign it Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this item. • Page 1 • CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, ID 83642 CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER Change Order No 1 Project Number. 725 Date: 3!3/2008 Effective Date: 3/3/2008 CONTRACTOR: Civil Survey Consultants PROJECT: Black Cat Road Water Main Ext®nsion Phase 2 The Contractor is hereby directed to make the following changes from the Contract Documents and Plans. Desciption: 1) Additional Surveying, Design and Consultatlon Services in assodatlan with added water mains to project. 2) 3} 4} 5} Reason for Change Order: There are additional water service stubs added to this project. Attachments: CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE: CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIMES: Original Contract Price: $15,155.00 Original Contract Completon Date: Original Contract Completon Days: Net changes from previous C.O: s.: Net Days change form previous C.O.'s: No. 0 to 0 No. 0 to 0 $0.00 Contract Price Prior to this C.O.: Contract Completion Date before this C.O.: $15,155.00 Contract Completion Days before this CA 0 Net Increase (decrease) of this C.O.: Net Days Increase (decrease} of this C.O.: $3,000.00 Contract Price with ali Approved C.O :s: Contract Completion Date with all Approved C.O.'s: $18,155.00 Contract Completion Days with a0 Approve 0 ER) NAG RECOMMENDED: (CONSTRUCTION MA Accepted (Contractor) ~ ~ ,p Date: 3_ _ zop~ Date: 3 ,~ ~„ APPROVED: (CITY PURCHASING AGENT} COUNCIL APPROVAL By: Keith Watts Date: Date: APPROVED: (CITY) - ATTEST: By: Mayor Tammy de Weerd ey: City Clerk, Jaycee Holman. Date: Date: Glenn K. Bennett, P.L.S. President Timothy A. Burgess, P.E. Vice President Civil Survey Consultants, Inc. 1400 E. Watertower Street Suite 100 Meridian, Idaho 83642 (208)888-4312 Fax 888-0323 February 19, 2008 Kyle Radek Staff Engineer City of Meridian 660 E. Watertower Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Black Cat Water Main Phase 2 -Additional Design Services Task Order No. 0725 Dear Kyle: During the design and construction of this project we were asked to revise our construction plans to add water main stubs that were requested by land developers. Additional surveying, design services, and meetings with city staff and developer's engineer were required to complete these revisions. With the project billing sent to you February 4, 2008 we have now billed a total of $15,024.36. Our current contract has a total design budget of $15,155.00. I am now requesting a supplemental agreement in the amount of $3,000 to cover the additional design services on this project. Sincerely, CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS, INC. -~-1 ;, Corey Peacock, P.E. • March 14, 2008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2008 APPLICANT ITEM NO. S-L REQUEST Water Main Easement Agreement for EI Dorado Building No. 6 by Kimball Properties: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: GIN ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings sha8 become properly of fhe City of Meridian. ~~,` City of Meridian Public Works Dept. Memo To: Mayor De Weerd & City Council From: Karie Glenn CC: File Date: 3/5/2008 Re: Proposed Agenda Items for 3/11/08 City Council Meeting RECEIVEi3 MAC 0 ~ 2008 ~7t~ ~f' IVferidian ~i clerk ®ii~ice The Public Works Departrnent respectfully requests that the following items be placed on the 3/11/08 City Council agenda, on the Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: 1) Water Main Easement for EI Dorado Bldg ~ by Kimball Properties . Typical Water Main Easement. Recommended Council Action: Approve the Water Main Easement for EI Dorado Bldg #6 by Kimball Properties and authorize the Mayor to sign and City Clerk to attest. Thank you for your consideration. • Page 1 so sE~iuaP o ~roa ~JQ ~yARRO A~OUNf .o i s ; ~ DEPUTY Vicki Allen II I i I RECORDED-REQUEST OF II I ~ I I~ II I~ I I II I II I I IIIII ~' IIIlI~ ~ III Meridian CiiT i ~$~~~~~? , ~ ~ WATER MAIN EASEMENT THIS .INDENTURE, made this ~ day of~~~~20~ between t~~ ~.da~( ~r~r(.tCS the parties of the first part, and hereinafter called the Grantors, and the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, the party of the second part, and hereinafter called the Grantee; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantors desire to provide a water main right of-way across the premises and , property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the water main is to be provided for through an underground pipeline to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessaryto maintain, service and subsequently connect to said pipeline from time to time by the Grantee; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the Grantors, and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantors do hereby give, grant and convey unto the Grantee theright- of-way for an easement for the constructioq operation, maintenance, repair, replacement ofa water main over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A and B) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of a water line and their ' allied facilities, togetherwith their maintenance, additional connection thereto, repair and replacement at the convenience of the Grantee, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and ail times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easement andright-of-way unto the said Grantee, it's successors and assigns forever. I'I' IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that after construction, making repairs, performing other maintenance or making subsequent connection to the water line, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent property to that existent prior to~• undertaking such construction, repairs and maintenance. However, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacingor restorvng anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there in violation of this easement. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for this easement, which would in~rfere with the use of .said easement, for the purposes stated herein. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree with the Grantee that should any part of the right of- . way and easement hereby granted shall become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public s street, then, to such extent, such right of-way and easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further Water Main Easement EASMT pa II ,,,, WTR CITY_OF M£RIDIAN.doc PBg~,_Or_~ effect and shall be completely relinquished. THE GRANTORS do hereby covenant with the Grantee that they are lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that they have a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that they will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties of the first part have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and year first herein above written. GRANTOR: ~'resideat--~ . vt a Secretary STATE OF IDAHO ) ss ~ County of Ada ) +( On this of . 20_, before me, the undersigned, a NotaryPublic in ; and for said State, Wally appeared and ~ . known entified to me to be the President and Secretary, respectively, of the j corporation that executed the in instrument, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto s hand and affixed my official seal the day and year fist above written. (SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC IDAHO Residing at Commission Expires: Water Main Easement WTR CITY OF_MERIDIAN.doc EASMT i o~-~-=-~ :~ • ~ r State of Idaho ) ss. County of Ada } On this ,~_ day of ~Q,~f ~. , 2008, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared Winston H. Moore, known or identified to me to be a partner of Kimball Properties Limited Partnership, a partnership, and he duly acknowledged to me that he executed the within instrument on behalf of said partnership and that said partnership exe uted he same. i ~~~~~ ~P~\''~~~'es~y~~~~i Note ubliC r daho •• i .~ ~OTA~y ~~ = Residing at Q Comm Expires. D I - 1?~ - 2.n ix. * • .-..~ ' '*s ~'tlBLIC TM~-~~- i i CITY OF MERIDIAN `\,`\``\~~~++~+,,,,,,,,,j~~~~/''',' l .~ ~-- ~ -. ~O ' Tammy de Weerd, M o _ ~~~ ~ ~ • .~ t1~t. ~`.` Jaycee Holman, ity Clerk % '9~ ~` ~. Approved by Council on : -\ ~ ~\_~~ ~ ~'~"~+!++~~~~~ •~ STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss. County of Ada,) M On• thin day of 1 ~ 1~~ 20~ before me, the undersigned, a ~j Notary Public in and for the State of Idaho, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and Jaycee Holman, known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Idaho and who subscribed their names to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN•WTTNESS WI~REOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year f::*~~~~+.n. • C~,- ~- SEAL ~ / ~Y ,' , ~! p ~ Notary Public or Idaho •• • ~'~ ~ ~~. Residing at: ~ • ; ~~ ~~' ; .~• My Commission Expires: • `-- ~ e '~ February 25, 2008 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT "A" WATER SERVICE EASMENT • ~~ ^^ 6~uadrant Consulting, Inc. An easement for the construction and maintenance of a water service connection on Lot 1, Block 3, Bonito Subdivision, Book 86 of Plats at pages 9783-9788, Instrument Number 103142839, Records of Ada County, situated in the Northeast'/a of Section 20, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particulazly described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 1, Block 3, Bonito Subdivision, thence along the south line of Lot 1, along a curve to the left 247.95 feet, said curve having a radius of 563.00 feet, a delta angle of 25°14'01", and a chord bearing North 75°30'21" East, 245.95 feet to a point; thence North 62°53'20" East 75.07 feet along said south line to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence leaving said south line North 27°06'40" West 20.00 feet; thence North b2°53'20" East 53.60 feet; thence South 27°06'40" East 20.81 feet to a point on said south line; thence continuing along said south line along a curve to the left 18.80 feet, said curve having a radius of 217.00 feet, a delta angle of 4°57'55", and a chord bearing South 65°22' 19" West, 18.80 feet; thence South 62°53'20" West 34.81 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said easement contains 1,077 square feet or 0.025 acres more or less. NOT TO SCALE' 1 i 9 ~ \ S~ G~ y o~ `'o Z O~ i~ v 0 z 0 m Z Z 2 N O Nm O S ~~ mn D ~~ z A pV W ' g S JJ YAOB,~s. S~ r O -~ ~. W oc nm N ~ _ 0 W w :i1 C1~Z Z N O C s v~ 5 N O Z 2 V W m m$ I~ i i _ ~_ AtlM 011N08 H1f10S ~_ _,_ N01'42'S7'E 1 296.78' I I ~I I I c v A ~ '< m N N N O C O N ~ WATER MAIN EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made this ,_ day of , 20`between _l4 t ~.~ia~t! ~11tS the parties of the first part, and hereinafter called the Grantors, and the City of Meridiaq Ada County, Idaho, the party of the second part, and hereinafter called the Grantee; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantors desire to provide a water main right-of-way across the premises and properly hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the water main is to be provided for through an underground pipeline to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessaryto maintain, service and subsequentlyconnect to said pipeline from time to time by the Grantee; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration ofthe benefits to be received by the Grantors, and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantors do hereby give, grant and convey unto the Grantee the right- of-way for an easement for the constructioi; operation, maintenance, repair, replacement ofa water main over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED EXHIBIT A and B) The easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of a water line and their alliedfacilities,togetherwith theirmaintenanc~ additional connection thereto, repair and replacement at the convenience of the Grantee, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said easementandright-of-way unto the said Grantee, it's successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that after construction, making repairs, performingother maintenance or making subsequent connection to the water line, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and adjacent properiyto that existent prior to undertaking such construction, repairs and maintenance. However, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacingor restoring anything placed within the area described in this easement that was placed there in violation of this easement. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, brush, or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree with the Grantee that should any part of the right of- way and easement hereby granted shall become part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street, then, to such extent, such right of-way and easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereofor which is a part thereof, shall cease and become null and void and of no further Water Main Easement EASMT WTR CITY OF_MERIDIAN.doc effect and shall be completely relinquished. THE GRANTORS do hereby covenant with the Grantee that they are lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that they have a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that they will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties ofthe first part have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and year first herein above written. GRANTOR: -Preside'~t--P ~..- ~-- Secretary STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada ~ ) On this of , 20_, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, p nally appeared and known ~ entified to me to be the President and Secretary, respectively, of the corporation that executed the in instrument, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto s hand and affixed my official seal the day and year fist above written. (SEAL} NOTARY PUBLIC Residing at Commission Expires: IDAHO Water Main Easement EASMT WTR_CITY OF_MERIDIAN.doc State of Idaho ) ss. County of Ada ) On this ~~= day of ~/~{,~~,~ C.V•. , 2008, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Pubiic in and for said State, personalty appeared Winston H. Moore, known or identified to me to be a partner of Kimball Properties Limited Partnership, a partnership, and he duly acknowledged to me that he executed the within instrument on behalf of said partnership and that said partnership exe uted a same. ••~~ S ~'~% Nota ublic or daho '•. '% ;' r1OTA~y ~: ~ Residing at __ ~?'(~(~ Q ~(~ - Comm Expires. p 1- i ~, - 21~ i Z - = 1'UBL1C GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Tammy de Weercly Mayor Attest by William G. Berg, City Clerk Approved By City Council On: STATE OF IDAHO, ) . ss. County of Ada On this day of , 2004, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appearedTAMMY de WEERD and WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acloowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. I1V WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. (SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residing at: Commission Expires: Water Main Easement EASMT WTR CITY OF MERIDIAN.doc f~ ~,. J February 25, 2008 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT "A" WATER SERVICE EASMENT ~~ ~~ ^^ Quadrant Consulting, Inc. An easement for the construction and maintenance of a water service connection on Lot 1, Block 3, Bonito Subdivision, Book 86 of Plats at pages 9783-9788, Instrument Number 103142839, Records of Ada County, situated in the Northeast %4 of Section 20, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 1, Block 3, Bonito Subdivision, thence along the south line of Lot 1, along a curve to the left 247.95 feet, said curve having a radius of 563.00 feet, a delta angle of 25°14'01", and a chord bearing North 75°30'21" East, 245.95 feet to a point; thence North 62°53'20" East 75.07 feet along said south line to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence leaving said south line North 27°06'40" West 20.00 feet; thence North 62°53'20" East 53.60 feet; thence South 27°06'40" East 20.81 feet to a point on said south line; thence continuing along said south line along a curve to the left 18.80 feet, said curve having a radius of 217.00 feet, a delta angle of 4°57'55", and a chord bearing South 65°22' 19" West, 18.80 feet; thence South 62°53'20" West 34.81 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said easement contains 1,077 square feet or 0.025 acres more or less. ~~ NOT TO SCALE - ` N07"42'3TE 296.76' I w I I ~ ~ O ~ \ z i O ~ W ~ m C ~m Q i c m NHS czi p s ~ in w ~ w - r ~ ~ P roN m~ P~ yn nOZ ~? !! ~Im ~' m i y ~ ~~ ma tmlf O C ml~ G~ °a ~r ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ r ~ Z y ° ~' °' ° ~ z v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, c~ m }' X0 5 O z r~* 2 ~ cn fTl v~ ~w n ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~`~ m p ~ n i <C ~i "U r ? ' ' ~ ? _ o ~~ ~ D n W ~'' m D '~ ~i ~ V N V z :~ ~~~ ~ ~ 3 Zll . ;~ rn y ? ~ N N ~--m D n V W qV g $N ~ ~ ~ N ~~ I 2 00 ° ~ m m~ m .p N V ~, v "' m Np~~ ~ D ~ ~ ;~w D ~ r m Z V1zfAZ = t~'n N rn O u mw ~ ~' pp ., N W V p v O N tO~ONON m a g ~ ~m~$ O `r: `{T *bes. ~ ~~ I~ :: ~ N~-+(7 N O V 2 S~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ p W 0 °(~j10Dp 0 ~ C .--. ~ AVM O11N08 H1f105 D 3 ~$ fG Q m C ~ a ~ 0 m '< ~t ~~{ N N CIS O NN N pD March 14, 2008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT March i 8, 2008 C ITEM NO. 5-M REQUEST Approve Standard Form of Agreement with Irminger Construction for Bower Street Water Main Improvements Construction Project for $37,774.00: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCWOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: COMMENTS See aBaahed OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings stwq become property of fhe Ctiy of Meridian. ~~3 0 Q, X37 77y®g STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND CONTRACTOR ON THE BASIS OF A STIPULATED PRICE THIS AGREEMENT is dated as of the Tth day of March in the year 2008 by and between City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho (hereinafter called OWNER) and rminae Construction Inc (hereinafter called CONTRACTOR). OW NER and CONTRACTOR, in consideration of the mutual cov®nants hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: Article 1. WORK. CONTRACTOR shall complete all Work as speaf'ied or indicated in the contrail Oocuments. The WORK is generally described as follows: Construction of approximately 335 LF of 10"!~ water main, miscellaneous valves, fittings, appurtenances, and surface restoration. The Project for which the Work under the Contract Documents is described as follows: Bower Street Water Main Improvements Article 2. ENGINEER The Project has been designed by Civil Survey Consultants, Inc. Who is hereinafter called ENGINEER and Who is to act as OWNER's representative, assume all duties and responsibilities and have the rights and authority assigned to ENGINEER in the Contract Documents in connection with completion of the Work in acxordance with the Contract Documents. Article 3. CONTRACT TIME. 3.1. The Work will be completed within ninety {90) days from the date of this agreement. 3.2. Liquialated Damages. OWNER and CONTRACTOR recx~gnize that time is of the essence of this Agreement. OWNER and CONTRACTOR agree that as liquidated damages for delay {but not as a penalty) CONTRACTOR shall pay OWNER Two Hundred Fifty dollars ($250.00) for each day that expires after the time specified in paragraph 3.1 for Substantial Cornpietion until the Work is substantially complete. After Substantial Completion if CONTRACTOR shall neglect, refuse or fail to complete the remaining Work within the Contract Time or any proper extension thereof granted by OWNER, the OWNER may withhold moneys from the con#ract and complete remaining work as requin3d. STANDARD FORMS SF-1 Article 4. CONTRACT PRICE. 4.1. OWNER shall pay CONTRACTOR for completion of the Work in accorclance with the Contract Documents in current funds as follows: $37,774.00 Article 5. PAYMENT PROCEDURES. CONTRACTOR shall submit Applications for Payment on a Monthly basis. Applications for Payment will be processed by OWNER. 5.7. Progress Payments. OWNER shall make progress payments on account of the Contract Price on the basis of CONTRACTOR's Applications for Payment as recommended by ENGINEER, on or about the 25 day of each month during construction as provided below. All progress payments will be on the basis of the progress of the work measured by the schedule of values established in paragraph 4.1 and in the case of Unit Price Work, based on the number of units completed. 5.1.1. Prior to Substantial Completion, progress payments will be made in an amount equal to the peres3ntage indicated below, but, in each case, Tess the aggregate of payments previously made and less such amounts as ENGINEER. shaA determine, or OWNER may withhold. • 100% of work completed, (less 5% retainage). • 100% of materials and equipment (less 5% retainage) not incorporated in the Work (but delivered, suitably stored and accompanied by documentation satisfactory to OWNER. 5.1.2. Upon Substantial Completion, in an arrrount sufficient to increase total payments to CONTRACTOR to 100°~ of the Contract Price, less such amounts as ENGINEER shall determine, or OWNER may withhdd. 5.2. Fina! Payment Upon final comp)®tion and acceptance of the Work, OWNER shall pay the remainder of the Contract Price as recommended by ENGINEER. Article 8. INTEREST. All moneys not paid when due shall bear interest at the maximum rate albwed by law at the place of Project. Article 7. CONTRACTOR'S REPRESENTATIONS. in order to induce OWNER to enter into the Agreement CONTRACTOR makes the following representations: 7.1. CONTRACTOR has familiarized itself with the nature and extent of the Contract Documents, Work, site, locality, and all kacal conditions and Laws and Regulations that in any manner may affect cost, progress, performance or furnishing of the Work. STANDARD FORMS SF-2 T.2. CONTRACTOR has studied carefully all drawings of physical conditions and akxepts them. 7.3. CONTRACTOR has obtained and carefully studied (or assumes responsibility for obtaining and carefully studying) all such examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports and studies (in addition to or to supplement those referred to in paragraph 7.2 above) which pertain to the subsurface or physical conditions at or contiguous to the site or otherwise may affect the oast, progress, performance or famishing of the Work at the Contract Price, within the Contract Time and in accordance with the other terms and conditions of the Contract Price, within the Contract Time and in acxordance with the other terms and cxmditions of the Contract Documents, and no additional examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports, studies, or similar information or data are or will be required by CONTRACTOR for such purposes. 7.4. CONTRACTOR has reviewed and checked all information and data shown or indicated on the Contract Documents with respect to existing Underground Facilities at or contiguous to the site and assumes responsibility for the accurate location of said Underground Facilities. No additional examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports, studies, or similar information or data in respect of said Underground Facilities are or will be required by CONTRACTOR in order to perform and famish the Work at the Contrast Price, within the Contract Time and in accordance with the other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents. 7.5. CONTRACTOR has correlated the results of ail such observations, examinations. investigations, explorations, tests, reports and studies with the terms and conditions of the Contrast Documents. 7.6. CONTRACTOR has given ENGINEER written notice of all conflicts, errors or discrepancies that he has discovered in the Contract Documents and the written resolution thereof by ENGINEER is acceptable to CONTRACTOR. Article 8. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The Contract Docwments which comprise the entire agreement between OWNER and CONTRACTOR concerning the Work consist of the following: 8.1 This Agr®ement. 82 Notice of Award. 8.3 Drawings. 8.4 Invitation To Bid. 8.5 CONTRACTOR'S Bid. 8.6 General Special Provisions and Specal Provisions STANDARD FORMS SF-3 8.7 Documentation submitted by CONTRACTOR prior to Notice of Award. 8.8 The following which may be delivered or issued after the Effective Date of the Agreement and are not attached her®to: All Written Amendments and other documents amending. modifying, or supplementing the Contract Documents. 8.9 The documents listed in paragraph 8.2. above are attached to this Agreement (except as expressly noted otherwise above). There are no Contract Documents other than those listed above in this Article 8. Article 9. MISCELLANEOUS. 9.1. Terms used in this Agreement which are defined in Article 1 of the General Conditions will have the meanings indicated in the General Conditions. 9.2. No assignment by a party hereto of any rights under or interest in the Contract Documents will be binding on another party hereto without the written consent of the party sought to be bound; and specifically but without limitation moneys that may become due and moneys that are due may not be assigned without such consent (except to the extent that the effect of this restriction maybe limited by law), and unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under the Contract Documents. 9.3. OWNER and CONTRACTOR each binds itself, its partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party hereto, its partners, sucxessors, assns and legal representatives in respect of all covenants and obligations contained in the Contract Documents. STANDARD FORMS SF-4 Article 10. OTHER PROVISIONS. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, OWNER and CONTRACTOR have signed this Agreement in triplicate. One count®rpart each has been delivered to OWNER, CONTRACTOR and ENGINEER. All portions of the Contract Documents have been signed or identified by OWNER and CONTRACTOR or by ENGINEER on their behalf. The Agreement will be effective on March 24 .2008. ((~~ Owner CITY OF MERIDIAN Contractor ~~~2.r~t ~tJ~~ LUGS ~ . ~! at C,. By:' ~~~ " ~ By: ` * Marne: Tammv de Ward. Manor Name: tit- L ~ =~~'~~ t tJ6tSc,. Approved by City Council: [CORPORATE ~' ~?~~ ~~~ Attest ~~~ _) •'_ Jaycefh Hoinran;~i~ l~cr ~s~ , ~`' Address for giving noticdts, ~ ~ 33 East Idaho Ave.,'~~~~~"''T~'"` [CORPORATE SEAL[ for giving notices Meridian. ID 83642 ~ ~3 ~ f Public Works License No. //$~~-19F~/~ -~ -~ * (if CONTRACTOR is a cxirporation, attach evidence of authority to sign if other than President signing) STANDARD FORMS SF-5 a 73~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN -BOWER STREET WATER IMPROVEMENTS SPECIAL PROVISIONS GENERAL SPECIAL PROVISIONS 1. BASIS OF PAYMENT Except as modified herein, the various work items called for on the "Bid Schedule" will be performed, measured and paid for as indicated on said Bid Schedule and as provided in the C~ of Meridian Standard Specifications and Drawin~;s 2002 the 2007 Edition of the IDAHO_ STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION IISPWC) and adopted 2007 ACRD supplements. The Contractor is required to be a current holder of the 2002 Meridan Standard Specifications and Drawings, 2007 ISPWC, and all ACHD supplements. Any work required to complete the project but not specifically included in a bid item shall be considered incidental to the project and no separate payment shall be made. 2. DAMAGE The Contractor will be responsible for retaining and protecting all fire hydrants, mail boxes, sprinkler systems shrubs, sod, landscaping, trees, etc., within the construction limits, unless otherwise shown on the plans. The Contractor will also be responsible for retaining and protecting all improvements outside the construction limits. Any items damaged shall be promptly repaired or replaced to a condition "equal to or better" than existed prior to construction by the Contractor. The cost to complete such repairs shall be considered as incidental to the cost of the project and no separate payment will be made. PROJECT MAINTENANCE The Contractor will be responsible for project maintenance throughout the Life of the contract. This responsibility includes, but is not limited to, dust control, maintenance of irrigation facilities, blading, maintenance of detours, maintenance of all intersecting street approaches, proper and adequate drainage, access for emergency equipment and appropriate access for property owners. The cost of all maintenance work shall be considered incidental to other project work and no separate payment will be made. 4. COORDINATION It shall be the Contractor's responsibility to contact and work with the property owners, irrigation districts, ditch riders, utility companies, and any other parties as necessary to coordinate and install improvements required by this project. This coordination effort shall include, but not be limited to, coordination with utility companies in their efforts to relocate their facilities as a result of this project, and working other than normal working hours to permit the relocation of the utilities and construction of the roadway within the tune flame of this contract. Meridian Utility Improvements SPECIAL PROVISIONS SP-1 Utility information is shown only for surface features. The infonmation shown is for reference purposes only and does not necessarily represent actual field conditions. The Engineer assumes no liability for the accuracy of the information shown, or conflicts due to inaccurate or incomplete utility information. The Contractor shall ca11 Dig Line a minimum of 48 hours prior to any excavation to request utility locations at 1-800-342-1585. The Contractor shall expose all existing utility crossings to verify locations and elevations prior to any other construction that may affect those utilities. The cost associated with exposing the existing utilities is considered incidental to the project and no separate payment will be made. 5. ACCESS TO PROJECT Local access, business, and emergency vehicle access shall be maintained at all times. 6. QUANTITY PAYMENT Payment will be made for the actual quantity of each bid item completely installed and accepted by the Owner. Payment will be based upon the units specified for each item at the unit prices shown in the bid schedule or approved change order. ?. COMPACTION Compaction requirements shall be in accordance with Section 306 -Trench Backfill, and applicable sections of Division 800 -Aggregates & Asphalts, of the ISPWC Specifications. The cost to complete this work including watering and drying shall be considered incidental to the cost of the project and no additional payment shall be made. All trench excavation and backfill shall conform to Division 300 of the ISPWC. All excavation and trenching shall meet OSHA requirements and the applicable portions of Division 300 "Trenching". All cost to complete trench excavation and backfill is considered incidental to the pipe installation bid item and no separate payment will be made. 8. LANDSCAPING The Contractor shall maintain the existing landscaping in the same condition as found. If the contractor is unable to work around the landscaping then the work shall be completed and the contractor shall repair or replace the landscaping to an "as good or better condition" than existed before work started. The Contractor shall retain and protect any sprinter systems encountered, unless specifically designated otherwise. The cost of this work shall be considered incidental to the project. 9. MISCELLANEOUS The Contractor shall repair or pay the owner to repair, any utility damaged during construction. The Contractor shall repair any sprinkler systems damaged during construction. The cost of these repairs, unless specifically identified as a bid item, shall be considered as incidental to the cost of the project, and no separate payment will be made. Meridian Utility Improvements SPECIAL PROVISIONS SP-2 Removing and resetting of any existing street signs, fences, mailboxes, or miscellaneous items as required shall be incidental to the project and no separate payment shall be made. Wheel cutting or saw cutting is allowed on this project at all locations where existing asphalt is to be removed, and at all match lines. Saw cutting shall be used for concrete. All wheel and saw cutting required on this project shall be considered incidental to the project and no separate payment will be made. The Contractor shall perform, coordinate and schedule various construction tasks such that adequate protection is provided to all existing and new underground utilities. 10. HIGH VOLTAGE, OVERHEAD, POWER LINES The Contractor's attention is directed to, and compliance is required with, the requirements of Title 55, chapter 24, Idaho Code, which regulates certain work by contractors neaz high voltage, overhead, power lines. 11. RE-STAKING Construction survey stakes destroyed by the Contractor's construction activities shall be restored at the Contractor's expense. These costs shall be deducted from progress estimates. 12. RE-TESTING Re-testing necessitated by the failure of quality assurance testing of materials placed by the Contractor shall be at the Contractor's expense. These costs shall be deducted from progress estimates. 13. MATERIAL ON HAND The Owner may, at his discretion, pay the Contractor for selected materials on-hand in advance of their installation or being incorporated into the work. Before payment will be authorized by the Engineer, the Contractor must submit a written request and a materials invoice on or before the 15th day of the pay period. In addition, the material must be stored and secured on the construction site or at a storage facility that is approved by the Engineer. The material will be quantified by the Engineer on or before the last day of the pay period for payment. 14. ON-SITE SUPERVISION The General Contractor shall provide competent on-site supervision during any and all construction activities by his forces or subcontractors. The superintendent shall be identified at the preconstruction conference, and at a minimum be on-site from notice to proceed date to the substantial completion date. If for any reason the superintendent needs to be replaced by the General Contractor, a written notice must be submitted to the Owner within (5) five working days before the event occurs. Meridian Utility Improvements SPECIAL PROVISIONS SP-3 15. PERMITS The Contractor, at his own expense, shall procure all permits, certificates and licenses required of him by law for execution of the work. He shall comply with all federal, state, or local laws, ordinances or rules and regulations relating to the performance of the work. He shalt file such reports of construction as required by law. The cost for this work is considered incidental to the project and no separate payment will be made. Before starting any work in public-right-of-way, the Contractor is required to obtain aright-of- way permit from the Ada County Highway District. Prior to issuance of the permit the Contractor is required to attend apre-construction conference with the Ada County Highway District. The Contractor is required to furnish the Engineer a copy of the permit prior to construction. Issuance of the right-of-way ~rmit is contingent to satisfying bonding and insurance requirements of the Ada County Highway District. The cost of the permit is considered incidental to the project unless a specific item is included in the Bid Schedule for the pen~nit. SPECIAL PROVISIONS 1. 307.4.1.G.1- TYPE P SURFACE RESTORATION This item includes furnishing all materials, equipment, and labor necessary to complete Type P Surface Restoration as shown on plans. Type P Surface Restoration shall conform to the 2007 ISPWC and 2007 ACHD supplements. Measurement for Type P Surface Restoration shall be on a square yazd basis for the surface restoration actually completed. Payment for Type P Surface Restoration shall be made on a per square yard basis, at the contract unit price stated in the Contractor's Proposal, for the surface restoration actually completed 2. 401.4.1.A.1-PVC WATER MAIN This item includes furnishing all materials, equipment, and labor necessary for installation of PVC water mains and appurtenances as shown on the plans. This item includes trench excavation, fiunishing and installing pipe bedding, dewatering, water main piping, finder wire, pipe fittings, thrust blocks, trench backfill, disinfection, pressure testing, bacteriological testing, and all appurtenances required for a complete and workable installation. All pipe shall conform to Section 3.1 of the City of Meridian Standazd Specifications. Pipe fittings shall be Class 250, flanged or mechanical joint; cement mortar lined ductile iron fittings conforming to Section 3.1 of the City of Meridian Standazd Specifications. Finder wire shall be No. 12, direct burial, single strand, copper wire (type THHN or THWN) conforming to Section 3.1 of the City of Meridian Standard Specifications. Meridian Utility Improvements SPECIAL PROVISIONS Sp~q All pipe bedding shall be imported material conforming to Section 2 of The City of Meridian Standard Specifications. Ail trench excavation and backfill shall conform to Section 2 of the City of Meridian Standard Specifications. Installation of all pipe, fittings, and tracer wire shall conform to Section 3.1 of the City of Meridian Standard Specifications. All disinfection and testing shall conform to Section 3.1 _ of the City of Meridian Standard Specifications. The Contractor shall be responsible for all work effort and associated costs with pressure testing and bacteriological testing of the completed water main. Bacteriological testing shall be performed by a certified testing laboratory. A copy of all test results shall be furnished to the Engineer and Meridian Water Superintendent prior to acceptance. The Contractor shall be responsible for all work effort and associated costs with any dewatering required to complete the water main installation. All dewatering shall conform to the 2007 ISPWC and Idaho Water Quality Standards. The Contractor shall obtain a Short Term Activity Exemption from the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ). Contact Craig Sheppard (208) 373-0557 at IDEQ for details. The Owner has not secured any permits to discharge water to Nine Mile Creek or any other irrigation or storm drain system. Contractor shall be responsible for securing any necessary approvals from governing irrigation district, Ada County Highway District, and private storm drain facility owner's prior to starting dewatering. The Contractor shall restore all disturbed areas to their preconshuction condition or better. All work shall be considered incidental to the pipe installation unless specifically included in another bid item. Measurement for PVC Water Main shall be on a lineal foot basis, measured horizontally along the centerline of the installed piping. Payment for PVC Water Main shall be made on a per lineal foot basis, at the contract unit price per the appropriate category under Bid Item 401.4.1.A.1. based upon the nominal pipe diameter, for the piping actually installed. Payment for water main shall include all labor, equipment and materials required for a complete and workable installation including trench excavation and backfill, dewatering, imported bedding, pipe, fittings, finder wire, thrust blocks, disinfection, pressure testing, and other appurtenances. 3. 402.4.1.A.1-GATE VALVES This item includes famishing all materials, equipment and labor necessary for installation of gate valves as shown on the plans. This item includes famishing and installing the gate valve, valve box, thrust blocks, and all appurtenances required for a complete and workable installation. Gate Valves shall conform to Section 3.2 of the City of Meridian Standard Specifications. Valve boxes shall conform to Section 3.2 of the City of Meridian Standard Specifications. Meridian Utility Improvements SPECIAL PROVISIONS SP-5 Gate valve installation shall conform to Section 3.2 of the City of Meridian Standard Specifications. Measurement for Gate Valves shall be on a per each basis for the valves actually installed. Payment for Gate Valves shall be on a per each basis, at the contract unit price per the appropriate category under Bid Item 402.4.1.A.1. based upon the nominal pipe diameter, for the valves actually installed. Payment for gate valves shall include furnishing all labor, equipment, and materials required for a complete and workable installation including valves, valve boxes, miscellaneous fittings, thrust blocks, and all other appurtenances. All trench excavation and backf~ll, imported bedding, tracer wire, disinfection, and testing shall be paid under the pipe bid item. 4. 706.4.1.G.1. -CONCRETE REPAIR This item includes furnishing all materials, equipment and labor necessary to repair concrete as shown on the plans. Concrete Repair shall conform to the 2007 ISPWC and 2007 ACRD supplements. Construction limits for this item shall be as shown on the plans. Any concrete repair required beyond the specified construction limits shall be made by the Contractor at his expense and no separate payment will be made. Payment shall be on a square yazd basis for concrete repair actually completed. 5. SP-1 -HOT TAP EXISTING WATER MAIN This item shall include all labor, equipment and materials required to hot tap existing water mains at the locations shown on the plans while they are live and in service without the need to drain and open cut the main line. The Contractor shall furnish and install the necessary tapping saddle under this bid item. The isolation gate valve shall be furnished and installed under Item 402.4.1.A.1. The Contractor shall furnish the tapping machine and tapping bits as required to complete the work. All work shall conform to applicable portions of the City of Meridian Standazd Specifications. Measurement for Hot Tap Existing Water Main shall be on a per each basis regardless of size. Payment for Hot Tap Water main shall be on a per each basis. Payment shall be full compensation for all labor, equipment and materials required to furnish and install the necessary tapping saddle, and tapping of the existing water main while it is live and in service. 6. SP-2 -PIPE DRAIN This section of the specifications includes furnishing all materials, equipment, and labor necessary for installation of a pipe drain at the location shown on the plans. This item includes ail excavation and backfill, furnishing and installing drain rock, valve box, filter fabric, service Meridian Utility Improvements SPECIAL PROVISIONS Spy saddle, gate valve, finder wire, and all appurtenances required for a complete and workable installation. AlI work and materials shall conform to applicable portions of the City of Meridian Standard Specifications. Measurement for Pipe Drain shall be on a per each basis for the drains actually installed. Payment for Pipe Drain shall be made on a per each basis, at the contract unit price. Payment shall include all labor, equipment and materials required for a complete and workable installation including all excavation and backfill, drain rock, valve box, filter fabric, service saddle, gate valve, finder wire, and all appurtenances. 7. SP-3 -FLUSH STATION This section of the specifications includes furnishing all materials, equipment, and labor necessary for installation of flushing station at the location shown on the plans. This item includes all trench excavation and backfill, fiunishing and installing pipe bedding, PVC and ductile iron piping, blind flange, pipe fittings, thrust blocks, finder wire, and all appurtenances required for a complete and workable installation. The isolation gate valve shall be furnished and installed under Item 402.4.1.A.1. Pipe fittings shall be Class 250, flanged or mechanical joint; cement mortar lined ductile iron fittings conforming to Section 3.1 of the City of Meridian Standazd Specifications. Finder wire shall be No. 12, direct burial, single strand, copper wire (type TIII~i or THVVN) conforming to Section 3.1 of the City of Meridian Standard Specifications. All pipe bedding shall be imported material conforming to Section 2 of The City of Meridian Standard Specifications. All trench excavation and backfill shall conform to Section 2 of the City of Meridian Standazd Specifications. Installation of all pipe, fittings and tracer wire shall conform to Section 3.01 of the City of Meridian Standard Specifications. Measurement for Flushing Station Dischazge shall be on a per each basis for the .discharges actually installed. Pay limits begin at the isolation valve and end at the blind flange. Payment for Flushing Station Discharge shall be made on a per each basis, at the contract unit price for the dischazges actually installed. Payment for flushing station discharge shall include all labor, equipment, and materials required for a complete and workable installation including trench excavation and backfill, imported bedding, PVC and ductile iron piping, blind flange, fittings, finder wire, thrust blocks, and other appurtenances. Meridian Utility Improvements SPECIAL PROVISIONS SP-7 8. SP-4 CONNECT EXISTING WATER SERVICE TO NEW WATER MAIN This section of the specifications includes furnishing all materials, equipment and labor necessary to connect an existing water service to a new water main. Transferring the connection of a service from an existing main to a new main shall only occur after the new main is completed, pressure tested, disinfected and approved for service. City of Meridian Specifications prohibit the splicing of water service lines. This item will be used for existing water services that require shortening of the existing service line. Services that require extending the existing service line will connected under Bid Item SP-5. Transferring the service shall consist of excavating the service at the new water main, furnishing and installing a tapping saddle, corporation stop, and corporation stop adaptor, shortening existing service line, making all connections, and backfilling the trench. The existing service pipe shall be removed to the extent possible, without performing significant amounts of additional unnecessary excavation, and disconnected by closing the corporation stop at the existing main if possible, or sealed by installing a cap or plug on the end of the pipe to allow the existing main to remain in service until all service connections are completely transferred. All materials required for the Water Service Connection shall be in accordance with Section 3.4 of the City of Meridian Standard Specifications. Installation of the new service pipe shall conform to Section 3.4 of the City of Meridian Standard Specifications. Measurement for Connect Existing Water Service To New Main shall be on a per each basis for the service connections actually installed. Payment for Connect Existing Service To new Main shall be on a per each basis, at the contract unit price stated in the Contxactor's Proposal. Payment shall ~ full compensation for all labor, equipment and materials necessary to reconnect the existing service including excavating, shortening the pipe, furnishing and installing a tapping saddle, corporation stop, and corporation adaptor, making all new connections, backfill and any appurtenances necessary for the proper completion of this work. 9. SP-5 INSTALL NEW WATER SERVICE LINE This section of the specifications includes furnishing all materials, equipment and labor necessary to connect an existing water service to a new water main. Transferring the connection of a service from an existing main to a new main shall only occur after the new main is completed, pressure tested, disinfected and approved for service. City of Meridian Specifications prohibit the splicing of water service lines. This item will be used for existing water services that would require extending of the existing service line. Services that require shortening the existing service line will be connected under Bid Item SP-4. Meridian Utility Improvements SPECIAL PROVISIONS Sp_g Transferring the service shall consist of excavating the service at the water meter, excavation of a trench from the existing meter to the new water main, furnishing and installing a tapping saddle and corporation stop, furnishing and installing a new 1-inch diameter minimum, or match the existing size, service line from the new main to the existing meter setter, making ail connections, and backfilling the trench. The existing service pipe shall be removed to the extent possible, without performing significant amounts of additional unnecessary excavation, and disconnected by closing the corporation stop at the existing main if possible, or sealed by installing a cap or plug on the end of the pipe to allow the existing main to remain in service until all service connections are completely transferred. All materials required for the Water Service Connection shall be in accordance with Section 3.4 of the City of Meridian Standard Specifications. Installation of the new service pipe shall conform to Section 3.4 of the City of Meridian Standard Specifications. Measurement for Install New Water Service Line shall be on a per each basis for the service connections actually installed. Payment for Install New Water Service Line shall be on a per each basis, at the contract unit price stated in the Contractor's Proposal. Payment shall be full compensation for all labor, equipment and materials necessary to reconnect the existing service including excavating, disconnecting the pipe, furnishing and installing the service pipe, furnishing and installing a tapping saddle and corporation stop, making all new connections, backfill and any appurtenances necessary for the proper completion of this work. 10. SP-6 ABANDON EXISTING WATER MAIN This section of the specifications includes furnishing all materials, equipment and labor necessary to abandon existing water main at the locations shown on the plans. All water mains shall be abandoned in place. Abandoning an existing main shall only occur following the completion of the new replacement main, and transferring all service connections to the new main. Abandonment shall consist of excavating the existing main at each location that the connection to the existing system will be terminated. The contractor shall then disconnect the main to be abandoned, and install a mechanical joint cap or plug, or blind flange as applicable with a thrust block, and remove a minimum of five feet of the existing main line. All existing valves on the abandoned water main shall be completely removed and a cap, plug, or blind flange installed as appropriate complete with thrust block. This item includes any concrete repair or surface repair required to abandon the existing water main, unless the repair is specifically identified on the plans. All Materials shad be in accordance with Section 3 of the City of Meridian Standard Specifications. Meridian Utility Improvements SPECIAL. PROVISIONS SP-9 Abandon existing water main shall be performed in accordance with Section 3 of the City of Meridian Standard Specifications. The Contractor shall notify the Water Department two (2) working days prior to closing any existing water valves. Measurement for Abandon Existing Water Main shall be on a per each basis, for connections actually abandoned. Payment for Abandon Existing Water Main shall be on a per each basis, at the contract unit price per the appropriate category under Bid Item SP-3. Payment shall be full compensation for all labor, equipment and materials necessary to disconnect the existing water main including excavating, disconnecting the pipe, removal of any valves as necessary, Punishing and installing a mechanical joint cap, plug or blind flange, furnishing and installing a thrust block, removing a minimum of five feet of water pipe, removing any appurtenances as necessary, backfill and any other work necessary for the proper completion of this work. 11. SP-7 TRAFFIC CONTROL This item includes furnishing all materials, equipment and labor necessary to provide traffic control, including all signs, barricades, flashers and flagging as necessary during construction. Contractor shall provide traffic control in accordance with right-of--way permit obtained from the Ada County Highway District. All roadways shall remain open to local traffic, school buses, postal carriers, and emergency vehicles at all times. Payment for Traffic Control shall be on a lump sum basis. Payment shall be full compensation for all labor, equipment and materials required to provide all traffic control including all signs, barricades, flashers and flagging required for this project. 12. SP-8 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT This item shall include all costs required to provide storm water management during construction in accordance with the City of Meridian's Construction Storm Water Management Program. This project is expected to disturb less than 1 acre and therefore storm water management shall comply with the following section (3.1.6) of the City of Meridian's Construction Storm Water Management Program. 3.1.6 Erosion and Sediment Control Plans For City projects that disturb less than 1 acre and therefore do not require coverage under the CGP, the City will require the Contractor to develop an Erosion and Sediment Meridian Utility Improvements SPECIAL PROVISIONS SP-10 Control Plan (ESCP) to proactively manage storm water from the construction project. The ESCP will be a simplified version of the SWPPP associated with larger projects and include the following components: ^ Project name, location map, and responsible Contractor; ^ Project description; ^ Identification of potential impacts on water quality; and, ^ Plan drawings depicting storm water management strategy, including the management of wastes and non-storm water dischazges. The ESCP will be submitted prior to the beginning of constriction activities for City approval. The City Engineer shall review and approve the ESOP prior to the beginning of construction. The ESCP shall be updated as required throughout construction phase using a similaz amendment process to that for SWPPPs. The ESCP will be active on each project until the City accepts the contract. The Contractor shall also submit the ESCP for the construction site to ACHI? for review and approval prior to construction. The ESOP shall be developed and implemented in accordance to ACHD's Erosion and Sediment Control Policy. The Contractor is fully responsible for the preparation and implementation of the ESCP. Implementation of the approved ESOP must commence prior to the initiation of any earthwork or plan as necessary to ensure compliance. An ACHD approved ESCP plan does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorizations required by law to comply with the Clean Water Act. Measurement for Storm Water Management shall be on a lump sum basis. Payment for Storm Water Management shall be on a lump sum basis. Payment shall be full compensation for all labor, equipment and materials required to prepaze, implement, and maintain all storm water management required for this project. Meridian Utility Improvements SPECIAL PROVISIONS SP-l l Glenn K. Bennett, P.L.S. President Timothy A. Burgess, P.E. Vice President Carl Irminger Irminger Construction, Inc. 3473 Brookside Lane Boise, ID 83703 Civil Survey Consultants, Inc. 1400 E. Watertower Street Suite 100 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Re: City of Meridian Water System Improvements Deaz Cazl: (208}888-4312 Fax 888-0323 February 19, 2008 On behalf of the City of Meridian, we are inviting Irminger Construction to submit an informal bid for installation of a water main on Bower Street. If you would like to submit a bid, please return the enclosed bid schedule by 3:00 P.M. on March 4th. Bids should be returned to: Kyle Radek City of Meridian Public Works Department 660 E. Watertower Ln. Ste. 200 Meridian, ID. 83642 We look forward to receiving your bid on this project. Sincerely, CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS, INC. A •- r Corey Peacock, P.E. Enc. BID SCHEDULE OF ITEMS AND PRICES The undersigned Contractor hereby agrees to construct the Water System Improvements on Bower Street in accordance with the plans and the latest edition of the City of Meridian Standard Specifications and Drawings, and Idaho Standards For Public Works Construction including Ada County Highway District Supplements. The bid prices shown shall include all labor, equipment, tools and materials required for a complete and workable installation. The bid prices shown shall include sales tax and all other applicable taxes and fees. Quantities shown are estimated and may vary during construction. The Contractor shall provide complete insurance as required by the City of Meridian and shall be responsible for obtaining and paying for all permits. Item No. Estimated Quant' Unit Item Description Unit Price Bid Item 307.4.1.G.1. 347 SY ith Unit Price Written in Words TYPE "P° SURFACE Bid Total RESTORATION ~ Dollars 401.4.1.A.1. 335 LF 10" PVC, AWWA C900, CLASS 150, DR 18, WATER MAIN ~z~-n~~ Fr~l~ ZSp~ 8375 ollars 402.4.1.A.1.a 1 EA 8" GATE VALVE eo 402.4.1.A.1.b 2 EA Dollars 10° GATE VALVE ~l 4~ 2~0 c, ~~~ a~ 706.4.1.G.1. 4 SY -~~~~'~ ""-~---Dollars CONCRETE REPAIR ~SFt~G"?~ Jam! !.~ C ' ~Scr~ ~C~ae SP-1 3 EA _ Dollars HOT TAP EXISTING WATER MAIN ~~ 16n~`~ ~~~,'~` ~`; ------Dollars RECEIVED MAR 1 ~ 200 City Of Ii~[eridian City Clerk Office Memo To: Jaycee Holman; Tara Green Fran: Brent A. Blake, Engineering Technician CC: Thomas Barry, Public Works Director Len Grady, P.E., City Engineer Kyle Radek, P.E., Assistant city Engineer Date: 3/07/2008 Re: Proposed Agenda Item for March 18, 2008 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following item be placed on the March 18, 2008 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: Bower Street Water Main Improvements (Construction) Attached is a Standard Form of Agreement with Irminger Construction Incorporated for the construction of approximately 335 LF of 10"-Diameter Water Main, miscellaneous valves, fiitings, appurtenances, and surface restoration. The contract is for $37,774.00. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves the Standard Form of Agreement with Irminger Construction Incorporated for the construction of the Bower Street Water Main Improvements Project. Thank you for your consideration. I will forward original documents for signatures upon review. Please contact me if you have any questions. Fran the desk of... Brent A Blake Engineering Technidan Meridian Public Wanks Department 660 E. Wateriower, Suite 200 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Phone: (208) 898-5500 Fax (208) 898-9551 blakeb@meridianGty.org • Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN BOWER STREET WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS NOTICE OF AWARD TO: Dan Williams DATED: March 7.2008 irminaer Construction incoroerated 3473 Brookside Lane Boise Idaho 83714 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: BOWER STREET WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS The OWNER has considered the Bid submitted by you for the above described Work in response to its Advertisement for Bids and information for Bidders. You are hereby notified that your Bid has been accepted for (description): Construction of approximately 335 LF of 10ag water main, miscellaneous valves, fittings, appurtenances, and surface restoration. In the amount of: Thirtv Seven Thousand Seven Hundred Seventy Four Dollars {$ 37.774.00), You are required to fully execute the Agreement aril furnish the n3quinrd Certificates of Insurance, and Standard Form of Agreement within ten (10) calendar days from the date of the notice to you, that is by March 17.2008. If you fail to execute said Agreement and to furnish said certificates of insurance within ten (10) calendar days from the date of this Notice, said OWNER will be entitled to consider all your rights arising out of the OWNER's acceptance of your Bid as abandoned and as a forteiture of your Bid Bond. The OWNER will be entitled to such other rights as may be granted by law. You are required to return the attached ACCEPTANCE OF NOTICE OF AWARD to the OWNER. OWNER: CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO By: 1~ Name: L7ttEM' ~ ~~1/~ ..,~ CITY OF MERIDIAN BOWER STREET WATER MAIN IMPROVEMENTS ACCEPTANCE OF NOTICE OF AWARD Receipt of the NOTICE OF AWARD is hereby acknowledged by _ this .~~~ day of 1'~'l ~uCN .2008 . i.~~~1 ~t~C-,fit?. ~ ~J~ ~ ~.:~NC CONTRACTOR 6Y: C y~T NAME: C~~ ~,,. ~ QI`~1 i f•Jf~~.+Z TITLE: ~~s ~ J ~sl ~ (SEAL if by a corporation) ~ ~ STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND CONTRACTOR ON THE BASIS OF A STIPULATED PRICE THIS AGREEMENT is dated as of the 7th day of March in the year 2008 by and between City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho {hereinafter called OWNER) and Irminger Construction. Inc. (hereinafter called CONTRACTOR). OWNER and CONTRACTOR, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: Article 1. WORK. CONTRACTOR shall complete ail Work as specified or indicated in the contract Documents. The WORK is generally described as follows: Construction of approximately 335 LF of 10x0 water main, miscellaneous valves, fittings, appurtenances. and surtace restoration. The Project for which the Worfc under the Contract Documents is described as follows: Bower Street Water Main Improvements Article 2. ENGINEER The Project has been designed by Civil Sunray Consultants, Inc. Who is hereinafter called ENGINEER and Who is to act as OWNER's representative, assume all duties and responsibilities and have the rights and authority assigned to ENGINEER in the Contract Documents in connection with completion of the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. Article 3. CONTRACT TIME. 3.1. The Work will be completed within ninety (90) days from the da#e of this agreement. 3.2. Liquidated Damages. OWNER and CONTRACTOR recognize that time is of the essence of this Agreement. OWNER and CONTRACTOR agree that as liquidated damages for delay (but not as a penalty) CONTRACTOR shall pay OWNER Two Hundred Fifty dollars ($250.00) for each day that expires after the time specified in paragraph 3.1 for Substantial Completion until the Work is substantially complete. After Substantial Completion if CONTRACTOR shall neglect, refuse or fail to oomple#e the remaining Work within the Contract Time or any proper extension thereof granted by OWNER, the OWNER may withhold moneys from the contract and complete remaining work as required. STANDARD FORMS SF-1 Article 4. CONTRACT PRICE. ~J 4.1. OWNER shall pay CONTRACTOR for completion of the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents in current funds as follows: $37,774.00 Article 5. PAYMENT PROCEDURES. CONTRACTOR shall submit Applications for Payment on a Monthly basis. Applications for Payment will be processed by OWNER. 5. ?. Progress Payments. OWNER shall make progress payments on account of the Contract Price on the basis of CONTRACTOR's Applications for Payment as recommended by ENGINEER, on or about the 25 day of each month during construction as provided below. All progress payments will be on the basis of the progress of the work measured by the schedule of values established in paragraph 4.1 and in the case of Unit Price Work, based on the number of units completed. 5.1.1. Prior to Substantial Completion, progress payments will be made in an amount equal to the percentage indicated below, but, in each case, less the aggregate of payments previously made and less such amounts as ENGINEER, shall determine, or OWNER may withhold. • 100% of work completed, (less 5% retainage). • 100% of materials and equipment (less 5% retainage) not incorporated in the Work (but delivered, suitably stored and accompanied by documentation satisfactory to OWNER. 5.1.2. Upon Substantial Completion, in an amount sufficient to increase total payments to CONTRACTOR to 100°k of the Contract Price, less such amounts as ENGINEER shalt determine, or OWNER may withhold. 5.2. Final Payment. Upon final completion and acceptance of the Work, OWNER shall pay the remainder of the Contract Price as recommended by ENGINEER. Article 6. INTEREST. All moneys not paid when due shall bear interest at the maximum rate allowed by law at the place of Project. Article 7. CONTRACTOR'S REPRESENTATIONS. In order to induce OWNER to enter into the Agreement CONTRACTOR makes the following representations: 7.1. CONTRACTOR has familiarized itself with the nature and extent of the Contract Documents, Work, site, locality, and all local conditions and Laws and Regulations that in any manner may affect cost, progress, performance or furnishing of the Work. STANDARD FORMS SF-2 ~ ~ 7.2. CONTRACTOR has studied carefully ail drawings of physical conditions and accepts them. 7.3. CONTRACTOR has obtained and carefully studied (or assumes responsibility for obtaining and carefully studying) all such examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports and studies (in addition to or to supplement those referred to in paragraph 7.2 above) which pertain to the subsurface or physical conditions at or contiguous to the site or otherwise may affect the cost, progress, pertormance or furnishing of the Work at the Contract Price, within the Contract Time and in accordance with the other terms and conditions of the Contract Price, within the Contract Time and in accordance with the other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents, and no additional examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports, studies, or similar information or data are or will be required by CONTRACTOR for such purposes. 7.4. CONTRACTOR has reviewed and checked all information and data shown or indicated on the Contract Documents with respect to existing Underground Facilities at or contiguous to the site and assumes responsibility for the accurate location of said Underground Facilities. No additional examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports, studies, or similar information or data in respect of said Underground Facilities are or will be required by CONTRACTOR in order to perform and furnish the Work at the Contract Price, within the Contract Time and in accordance with the other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents. 7.5. CONTRACTOR has correlated the results of all such observations, examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, reports and studies with the terms and conditions of the Contract Documents. 7.6. CONTRACTOR has given ENGINEER written notice of a!I conflicts, errors or discrepancies that he has discovered in the Contract Documents and the written resolution thereof by ENGINEER is acceptable to CONTRACTOR. Article 8. CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The Contract Documents which comprise the entire agreement between OWNER and CONTRACTOR concerning the Work consist of the following: $.1 This Agreement. 8.2 Notice of Award. 8.3 Drawings. 8.4 invitation To Bid. 8.5 CONTRACTOR's Bid. 8.6 General Special Provisions and Special Provisions STANDARD FORMS SF-3 • i 8.7 Documentation submitted by CONTRACTOR prior to Notice of Award. 8.8 The following whicth may be delivered or issued after the Effective Date of the Agreement and are not attached hereto: All Written Amendments and other documents amending, modifying, or supplementing the Contract Documents. 8.9 The documents listed in paragraph 8.2. above are attached to this Agreement (except as expressly noted otherwise above). There are no Contract Documents other than those listed above in this Article 8. Article 8. MISCELLANEOUS. 9.1. Temts used in this Agreement which are defined in Article 1 of the General Conditions will have the meanings indicated in the General Conditions. 9.2. No assignment by a party hereto of any rights under or interest in the Contract Documents will be binding on another party hereto without the written consent of the party sought to be bound; and specifically but without limitation moneys that may become due and moneys that are due may not be assigned without such consent (except to the extent that the effect of this restriction maybe limited by law), and unless spec~cally stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty ar responsibility under the Contract Documents. 9.3. OWNER and CONTRACTOR each binds itself, its partners, sucxessors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party hereto, its partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives in respect of all covenants and obligations contained in the Contract Documents. STANDARD FORMS SF-4 Article 10. OTHER PROVISIONS. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, OWNER and CONTRACTOR have signed this Agreement in triplicate. One counterpart each has been delivered to OWNER, CONTRACTOR and ENGINEER. All portions of the Contract Documents have been signed or ident~ed by OWNER and CONTRACTOR or by ENGINEER on their behalf. The Agreement will be effective on March 24 , 2008. Owner CITY OF MERIDIAN By: Name: Tammy de Weerd. Mayor Contractor,.-~ rat ~ ~C-~ ~ ~ CU tJ S - ...=ate. Name: ~z~ ~:... ~-Z~~-- NC-~F_[~ Approved by City Council: [CORPORATE SEAL] Attest Jaycee Holman, City Clerk Address for giving notices 33 East Idaho Ave. Meridian. ID 83642 [CORPORATE SEAL Attest Address for giving notices o iS.e , i.D ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ Public Works License No. ~ ~ _ / / K ~5/-f~J'~/~ -3 ~- ~{ " (if CONTRACTOR is a corporation, attach evidence of authority to sign if other than President signing) STANDARD FORMS SF-5 BID SCHEDULE QF ITEMS AND PRICES The undersigned Contractor hereby agrees to construct the Water System Improvements on Bower Street in accordance with the plans and the latest edition of the City of Meridian Standard Specifications and Drawings, and Idaho Standards For Public Works Construction including Ada County Highway District Supplements. The bid prices shown shall include al! labor, equipment, tools and materials required for a complete and workable installation. The bid prices shown shall include sales tax and all other applicable taxes and fees. Quantities shown are estimated and may vary during construction. The Contractor shat) provide complete insurance as required by the City of Meridian and shall be responsible for obtaining and paying for all permi#s. Item No. Estimated Unit Item Description Unit Price Bid Item Quanti rth Unit Price Written in Words Bid Total 307.4.1.G.1. 347 SY TYPE °P° SURFACE RESTORATION 40 ca 7 Dollars 401.4.1.A.1. 335 LF 10" PVC, AWWA C900, CLASS 150, DR 18, WATER MAIN o~ P~%~~ Y F~~~ ~5 8375 ollars 402.4.1.A.1.a 1 EA 8" GATE VALVE . no f~ ~ /80~ /6~~"E' ~v .~' Dollars 402.4.1.A.1.b 2 EA 10° GATE VALVE ~~ G ~~~a~ ~~J ~~ __~e1~10•~'~ ----Dollars 706.4.1.G.1. 4 SY CONCRETE REPAIR cc> ~S csa ~~ S~r1G~ylJ~-lam/ (~ ~' Dollars SP-1 3 EA HOT TAP EXISTING WATER MAIN ~~~ -- r~~ ~s 2ZC~G ~ ! 60C~ ~Lt-s~lll~~ Dollars • i Item No. Estimated Unit Item Description Unit Price Bid Item Quantity (With Unit Price Written in Words) Bid Total SP-2 1 EA PIPE pRAIN 7' -~'~~Q/ZZ~L - Dollars SP-3 1 EA FLUSH STATION 0~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~n' ~~ ~p .~.,t~C~lc 5~~ µCJ ~' Dollars SP-4 1 EA CONNECT EXISTING WATER SERVICE TO NEW WATER MAIN as Sao ~~ ~~c~ ~~ ~~~ _ Dollars SP-5 1 EA INSTALL NEW WATER SERVICE LINE 6n I2G~ /2C~4 C~-L VCS Dollars SP-6 1 EA ABANDON EXISTING WATER MAIN ~ /-x'60 ~,~ /.~G~ c,~t~ f~cl~~l.~'~ Dollars SP-7 1 LS TRAFFIC CONTROL _~~IG ~i~c1~s:~ilD ar..> /B06 ~~. /c~oC3 Dollars SP-8 1 LS STORM WATER MANAGEMENT ~~~~ ~y!-- /^~ ~~iJ~> ~'~~~~~J ~~~ ~~q d'4 ~~iC~S/ ollars 00 TOTAL OF BID $ ~ ~ ~'~ The Bidder understands that quantities listed are approximate and the Owner reserves the right to increase or decrease individual items as may be, in its sole judgment, to its best interest depending upon conditions encountered or observed during the execution of the work. • March 14, 2008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2008 u APPLICANT ITEM NO. S-IV REQUEST Change Order No. 1, of Contract with Treasure Valley Drilling for Construction of Well 27 for site Grading, Fencing, Artesian Flow Well Head Assembly and Drilling Material /Labor for Artesian Well for a Cost Not to Exceed $35,O~.IJQ: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: See attached CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, ID 83642 Change Order No ~ Project Number: 0670b Date: 3/1112008 EffecWe Date: CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER CONTRACTOR: Treasure Valley Drilling PROJECT: Well 27 Construction The Contractor is hereby directed to make the fogowtng changes from the Contract Documents and Plans. Desciption: 1) Site grading per request from properly owner. 2) Sectsity ter-ce /decorative security feature. 3) Artesian flow well head assembly. 4) Drilling material and labor r~uired for artesian well. 5j Reason for Change Order: Properly owner, who will be adjacent property owner requested grading and fence. Artesian head on well greater than expected. Attachments: CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE: CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIAAES: Original Contract Price: $251.300.00 Original Contract Completion Date: Original Contract Completion Days: Net changes form previous C.O.'s.: Net Days change form previous C.O.'s: No. Q to 0 No. 0 to 0 $OAO Contract Price Prtor to this C.O.: Contract Completion Date before this C.O.: $251,300.00 Contract Completion Days before tMs C.O 0 Net increase (decrease) of this C.O.: Net Days Increase (decrease) of this C.O.: $35,000.00 Contract Price with aq Approved C.O.'s: Contract Completion Date with all Approved C.O.'s: $286,300.00 Contract Completion Days with all Approve 0 RECOMMENDED: (CONSTRUCTION MANAGER) By. Date: ~/ ~ ' _~/~' : . COUNCIL APPROVAL~!~^ ~~,,,.,:,~,.,r~.i.: ~ `~ ' ; ~ ~/G ~ ~ _ . `~. ,f~ y ~~ Date: APPROVED: /~ / _> /~ ~ T. ATTEST: / ~_ _ By: Mayor Tammy d eerd ~ ~ By: City Clerk, ,layc~e Holman ~ ~' ~"a Dare: Dace:3/a~/~Y ~r .~;' 1 ~ !'~ i~~ ~ ` i RECEIVEIr' LIAR ~ ~ 200 Memo To: Will Berg; Tara Green From: Kyle Radek, P.E., Staff Engineer ~~2 CC: File, Len Grady, Keith Watts Date: 3/11/08 Re: Proposed Agenda Item for March 18, 2008 City Council Meeting City ®f Ii/tericlia.n City Clerk ®~ce The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following item be placed on the March City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: Change Order Number 1, of Contract with Treasure Valley Drilling for Construction of Well 27 for. site grading, fencing, artesian flow well head assembly, and drilling material /labor for artesian well. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves Change Order Number 1, of Contract with Treasure Valley Drilling for Construction of Well 27 for site grading, fencing, artesian flow well head assembly, and drilling material /labor for artesian well for a cost not to exceed $35,000.00 and authorizes the Mayor to sign it. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this item. • Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, ID 83642 CONTRACT CHANGE ORDER • Change Order No ~ Project Number. 0670b Date: 3/11/2008 Effective Date: CONTRACTOR: Treasure Valley DTrllling PROJECT: Well 27 Construction The Contractor is hereby directed to make the following changes from the Contract Documents and Plans. Desciption: 1) Site grading per request from properly owner. 2) Security fence /decorative security feature. 3) Artesian flow well head assembly. 4) Drilling material and labor required for artesian well. 5} Reason for Change Order: Property owner, who will be adjacent property owner requested grading and fence. Artesian head on well greater than expected. Attachments: CHANGE IN CONTRACT PRICE: CHANGE IN CONTRACT TIMES: Original Contract Prig: $251,300.00 Original Contract Completion Date: Original Contract Completion Days: Net changes form previous C.O.'s.: Net Days change form previous C.O.'s: No. 0 to 0 No. 0 to 0 $0.00 Contract Price Priar to this C.O.: Contract Completion Date before this C.O.: $251,300.00 Contract Completion Days before this C.O 0 Net Increase (decrease) of this C.O.: Net Days Increase (decrease) of this C.O.: $35,000.00 Contract Price with all Approved C.O.'s: Contract Completion Date with all Approved C.O.'s: $286,300.00 Contract Completion Days with all Approve 0 RECOMMENDED: (CONSTRUCTTO MANAGER) Date: 3 ~ j P ~ APPROVED: (CRY PURCHASING AGENT) COUNCIL APPROVAL By: Keith Watts Date: Date: APPROVED: (CI'T'Y) - ATTEST: By: Mayor Tammy de Weerd By: City Clerk, Will Berg Jr. Date: Date: March 14, 2008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2008 ti APPLICANT ITEM NO. S-O REQUEST Public Right of Way Easement between the City of Meridian as Grantor to ACRD for Sidewalks at the New Meridian City Hall: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY g~ attached CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: ~\ ~~ + CITY BUILDING DEPT: ~ CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: Date• Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at pubNc meetings shall become properly of the Ci}y of Meridian. b ut, coy Reserved for Ada County Recorder) RIGHT-OF WAY EASEMENT PUBLIC SIDEWALK) S~ Con h Se AC SE~ hol action const and fe such c SECTI~ is perpd 25 1e Sec Hall -~3~.FZ ~ C~h~ MCZG p7_p36 SECTIOI Thi, the 6enefil Ni „ 1s made anmf ~~Easement ), • City T SIDEWALK) (the and between WAY EASEMEN ( 2008, by Idaho, Meridian, ID ,RIGHT-OF- I-{IGHWAY is day °f whose current addreas ADA COUNT`S rred to as ,to th - al corporation „GRANTOR, an ~~ ~ a municip rred to as hereinafter refe ert refe orate of the State of Idaho, M~ hereinafter PICT a body politic and core ,HD„ ~ WITNESSETH: NSIDERp,TION IT IS AGREED: OOD ANp SUFFICIENT CO FOR G Idaho more ecitals da County, ®rated SECTION '-' ~ located in A ns the real prOpe ereto and by this refe1 P ng Ithe prope-ty 1 1 GRANTOR rocess set fort , ow attached h the p of dev I described on Exhibit "A" n and is inms and conditions hereinafter articular y „Ser~,ient Estate) n the ter the Servient Estate to p ° over and across the right, hereinafter state, and ent on ~ described, reservln9 herein ( the $eNient E easem nal facilities adjoining rant this urposes hereinafter li~,ble, traffic sig GRANTOR desires tog and p where ap equip hereinafter the ublic uses ment ( ACHp for the p concrete sidndut aW ring and to con n {ctl ~-ited to co however, but including „thereon. set forth ACHD desires to nc ude "Improvements) ereinafter nal faclon-eG~NTOR,s s and conditions h licable, traffic s1 and up On the term and, where app the SeN1ent ~ •2 sidewalks on the SeN- on overeand across rovements stem of public GRANTOR ents its sy rovem~e, ACHD desires tha hw YS (hereinafter that to be constructed by of the Imp of Hig and the of construction ted the sa s stem 5 for ACHD completion ACHD has accep apart of its y • 40.109( )~ tate, and when become daho Code, sectionways is hereinafter referred to and the $ery~ent Estate of H~9h 1s dee~a ACHD s system hway „) as that eerdmeSCrib "Hig s ereinaft publheupominant Estate" as erlt, page ~ eridian C'ttY Ha113-~S.docac Walk Easem ent-M Side _. ~..~pments~-deWalk Easem Lombard-Co- Architects Company;: Attn: Addresd_ Mena,a~, From: Brent Pitts ~~ ~~ ` .~J~ ~+ " v e_~~ ~~v~_ S ~-.e~• Re: Meridian City Hall TRANSMITTAL File Code: 4-a Transmitted are the following: Copies ~ Dated No. Original ACRD Sidewalk Ea: Sent By: ^ Mail ^ Fax Transmitted as Checked Below: ® For Your Use ^ As Requested ^ Other: Comments: cc: ® Hand Carry ^ To Be Picked Up Description ement for your use. ® For Review and Comment ^ Note Markings ^ Fed Ex ^ No Exceptions Noted ^ Returned for Corrections 06016.01 TR 022708 BPbp h 208.345.6677 Lombard-Conrad Architects 1221 Shoreline Ln. Boise, ID 83702 P fx: 208.345.6677 a • March 14, 2008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2008 ITEM NO. 5'P APPLICANT REQUEST Amended Agreement for gittercreek Meadows AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: COMMENTS c ~a~- rn tg ~~ ~-2~-d ~ Date: Phone: Contacted: Emailed• Staff Initials: . Materials presented at Public meetings shall become Properly of the City of Meridian. March 14, 2008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING • March 18, 2(~8 ITEM NO. 6 APPLICANT REQUEST Presentation of City of Meridian 2007 Environmental Excellence Award to Sunbelt: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEFT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: COMMENTS ~~ ~~ ~. Date: Phone: Contac#ed: Staff Initials: Emailed: Matedcis presented at public meetings shall become property of the CNy of Meridian. • March 14, 2008 Department Reports MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2008 APPLICANT Mayor's Office ITEM NO. 7•A-1 REQUEST Department Report -Proclamation for Fair Housing: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: COMMENTS S®e alficched ~°~P~ OTHER: Contacted: Date: Emailed: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at pubic meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. 0 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development EQUAL HOUSING OPPORTUNITY ~r We Do Business in Accordance With the Federal Fair Housing Law (The Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988) It is Ille al to Discriminate Against Any Person g Because of Race, Color, Religion, Sex, ndica Familial Status, or National Origin Ha p~ ^ In the sale or rental of housing or residential lots ^ In advertising the sale or rental of housing ^ In the financing of housing ^ In the provision of real estate brokerage services ^ In the appraisal of housing ^ Blockbusting is also illegal and Anyone who feels he or she has been discriminated against may file a complaint of housing discrimination: 1-800-669-9777 (Toll Free) 1-800-927-9275 (TDD) U.S. Department of Housing Urban Development Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Washington, D.C. 20410 form HUD-928.1 A(5-93) Previous editions are obsolete • • ~E IDR IAN=-- ~J Fie Office of tFie Mayor PROCl.~l~l-~I~ION 'Whereas, the year 2008 marks the 40th anniversary oeral Fair Ho s ng Ac alnld f the Civil Rights Act of 1968, commonly known as the Fed '1Nhereas, the Idaho Human Rights Commission Act has prohibited discrimination in housing since 1969; and '1Nhereas, equal opportunity for all -regardless of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin - is a fundamental goal of our nation, state and city; and '1Nhereas, equal access to housing is an important co anodnent of this goal - as fundamental as the right to equal education and employment, 1Nhereas, housing is a critical component of family and community health and stability; and tiVhereas, housing choice impacts our children's access to education, our ability to seek and retain employment options, the cultural benefits we enjoy, the extent of our exposure to crime and drugs, and the quality of health care we receive in emergencies; and 1Nhereas, the laws of this nation and our state seek to ensure such equality of choice for all transactions involving housing; and 1Nhereas, ongoing education, outreach and monitoring are key to raising awareness of fair housing principals, practices, rights and responsibilities; and '1Nhereas, only through continued cooperation, commitment and support of all Idahoans can barriers to fair housing be removed; wherefore, I, Tammy de Weerd, Mayor of the City of Meridian, do hereby proclaim the importance of ~.~R ~-cous~~rc in the City of Meridian to promote awarenes f equal housing opportunities. ~iGy~ryj Dated this 18th day of March, 2008. Tam a Weerd, Mayor Charlie ountree, City Council David Zaremba, City Council Keith Bird, City Council Joe Gorton, City Council • ~E IDR IAN- ~~ the Office of the ~-~layor PROCL.~I~I.~L~I4N 'Whereas, the year 2008 marks the 40th anniversary of theFair Housing A t alnd f the Civil Rights Act of 1968, commonly known as the Federa 'Whereas, the Idaho Human Rights Commission Act has prohibited discrimination in housing since 1969; and 'Whereas, equal opportunity for all -regardless of race, color, religion, sex, disability, familial status or national origin - is a fundamental goal of our nation, state and city; and 'Whereas, equal access to housing is an important compodnent of this goal - as fundamental as the right to equal education and employment; an 'Whereas, housing is a critical component of family and community health and stability; and 'yyhereas, housing choice impacts our children's access to education, our ability to seek and retain employment options, the cultural benefits we enjoy, the extent of our exposure to crime and drugs, and the quality of health care we receive in emergencies; and 'yVFiereas, the laws of this nation and our state seek to ensure such equality of choice for all transactions involving housing; and 'Whereas, ongoing education, outreach and monitoring are key to raising awareness of fair housing principals, practices, rights and responsibilities; and 1Nhereas, only through continued cooperation, commitment and support of all Idahoans can barriers to fair housing be removed; therefore, I, Tammy de Weerd, Mayor of the City of Meridian, do hereby proclaim the importance of ~.~R 3-~011S~~1fC~ in the City of Meridian to promote awareness of equal housing opportunities. Dated this 18th day of March, 2008. Tammy de Weerd, Mayor Charlie Rountree, City Council David Zaremba, City Council Keith Bird, City Council Joe Borton, City Council • March 14, 2008 Department Report MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2~8 ITEM NO. 7-A-Z APPLICANT MayOfS Office REQUEST Resolution Creating Affordable Housing Task Force AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY see aMached CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: i CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: i CITY SEWER DEPT: (~~ V CITY PARKS DEPT: /~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Date: Phone: Contacted: Emailed: Staff initials: Materials presented at publk meefln®s shall become property of the CHy of Meridian. • • o~~ ~~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN RESOLUTION NO. BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND T ABLE HOUSING T OK ORCE; AND MERIDIAN, ESTABLISHING AN AFFORD PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. ~. WHEREAS, on January 17, 2008, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development approved the allocation of funding to the City of Meridian as an Entitlement City art on the City s Develo meet Block Grant program, based ~ p under the Community P p gr. ear in order commitment to creating an Affordable Housing Task Force within the first ro am y to partner with existing affordable housing service providers to preserve, facilitate, and create affordable housing opportunities in the City of Meridian; and WHEREAS, the Affordable Housing Task Force created hereby will create a working plan to: (1) Facilitate the creation of new affordable housing by identifying available funding and Preserve existin affordable housing stock; and (3) Improve development opportunities; (2) g affordable homeownership opportunities for low-income families through inter jurisdictional fair housing awareness activities; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY, IDAHO: Section 1. That the City of Meridian Affordable Housing Task Force is hereby created. Section 2. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. OPTED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this ~ day of ~~ , 2008. APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this ~~day of + , 2008. APPROVED: ``,,~`~.S`~ '~J. T y e Weerd ~~ ': ATTEST: - ° ~~~ (SEAL) By: ~ ~' Jaycee loran, City Cler °°,'~~ ' ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ,~~~• RESOLUTION CREATING AFFORDABLE HO~` ~7'ni®'I'ASK FORCE -Page 1 of 1 ®~ Page 1 of 1 Tara Green From: Emily Kane Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 1:45 PM To: Tara Green; Jaycee Holman Cc: Robert Simison; Bill Nary; Sarah Wheeler Subject: Agenda item for Tuesday Attachments: Resolution creating Affordable Housing Task Force.doc Hello. I'm sorry for the delay; we were hoping to receive confirmation. Please add this to the agenda for Tuesday's Council meeting under the Mayor's department reports after the proclamation. The agenda item can be called Resolution Creating Affordable Housing Task Force. Thank you! Emily Emily Kane Deputy City Attorney City of Meridian, Idaho Phone: 208-898-5506 Fax: 208-884-8723 E-mail: kanee@meridiancity.org 3/14/2008 March 14, 2008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING RZ 07-017 March 18, 2~8 APPLICANT Primeland Development Group, LLC ITEM NO. 7-B-1-A REQUEST Findings of Fact 8~ Conclusions of Law for Approval -- Request for a Rezone of 5.29 acres from R-8 zone to C-G zone (1.62 acres) and L-O zone (3.b7 acres) for Verona Commercial -- NEC of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: COMMENTS See attached Minutes See attached findings /' Contacted: h(,1C1L ~f1.ri $~Cr1SUr1 -Dote: ~-~ Ph 3~2'~l Emailed: __ IuC Q(1111~_Y t~lr~ - ~.,- n(~r Staff Initials. Materials presented at public msethrgs shag become properly of the CNy of Meridian. U • RECEIVED MAC 0 ~ ~00~ City ®f Meridian City Clea~k ®ffice CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER ~E IDIAN~- In the Matter of Rezoning 5.29 acres from R-8 (Medium Density Residential) to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (1.62acres) and L-O (Limited Office) (3.67) acres); Preliminary Plat of 12 commercial building lots and 2 other lots on 18.82 acres in the C-G and L-O zoning districts for the Verona Commercial Subdivision, by Primeland Development, LLC. Case No(s). RZ-07-017 and PP-07-022 For the City Council Hearing Date of: February 26, 2008, (Findings on the March 18, 2008 City Council agenda) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-SA. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-07-017 and PP-07-022 -1- • 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, Preliminary Plat, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's Preliminary Plat as evidenced by having submitted the Preliminary Plat dated October 5, 2007 is hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Preliminary Plat Duration Please take notice that approval of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat within two (2) years of the approval of the preliminary plat or one (1) year of the combined preliminary and final plat or short plat. In the event that the development of the preliminary plat is made in successive phases in an orderly and reasonable manner, and conforms substantially to the approved preliminary plat, such segments, if submitted within successive intervals of eighteen (18) months, maybe considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-6B-7.A, the Director may authorize a single extension of time to record the final plat not to exceed eighteen (18) months. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the City Council maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or City Council may require CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-07-017 and PP-07-022 -2- • the preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. If the above timetable is not met and the applicant does not receive a time extension, the property shall be required to go through the platting procedure again. E. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008. B action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the ~ day of y1 , 2008. COUNCIL MEMBER DAVID ZAREMBA VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON VOTED~~C~N' COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD VOTED MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED (TIE BREAKER) /' ~~~~ ~,lar ~,~ die Weerd '~~ ~• Attest: _ `~ A~ ~~~'% =_ ~~~~ a Jaycee Ho an, City Clerk ~~ -~ '~ Tt~t. .,* t Copy served upon Applicant, The Planning~~~"arhnent, Public Works Department and City Attorney. y: Dated: ,~"~S 6~ ty Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-07-017 and PP-07-022 -3- CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: February 26, 2008 TO: Mayor and City Council E IDI~N '' FROM: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner 8 ~ 884-5533 SUBJECT: Verona Commercial • RZ-07-017 Rezone 5.29 acres from R-8 (Medium Density Residential) to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (1.62acres) and L-O (Limited Office) (3.67) acres). • PP-07-022 Preliminary Plat of 12 commercial building lots and 2 other lots on 18.82 acres in the C-G and L-O zoning districts. . NOTE: The development agreement for this site is being modified under a separate staff report. Please see the Verona and Bridgetower Crossing miscellaneous staff report (file #'s MI-07-013 & MI- 07-014) for details regarding the development agreement for this site. 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Primeland Development Group, LLC has applied for a Rezone (RZ) of 5.29 acres from R-8 (Medium Density Residential) to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (1.62 acres) and L-O (Limited Office) (3.67 acres) and preliminary plat approval of 12 commercial building lots and 2 other lots. The applicant submitted a conceptual site plan illustrating how this site may be developed with a mix of retail and office uses. The submitted site plan depicts a total of 10 building pads varying in uses from convenience store/gas station, drive through businesses, professional offices and neighborhood retail. On the submitted concept plan, the applicant is proposing eight full-access driveways, one right-in and right-out driveway and two full-access public streets for the proposed development. The public streets are already constructed and accepted by ACHD. The proposed driveways are expected to align with existing and future driveways or public streets adjacent to the proposed development. Please see the Analysis section below for more on the submitted conceptual site plan. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of W. McMillan Road and N. Ten Mile Road in Section 26, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, B.M. Currently, the site is vacant land and Verona Commercial -RZ-07-017 / PP-07-022 / "'~T~-o^'-^Pl~ PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARII~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 the applicant intends to construct a commercial development. The subject property is within the City's Area of Impact and Urban Service Planning Area. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION The subject applications (RZ-07-017, PP-07-022) were submitted to the Planning Department for concurrent review. Staff has provided a detailed analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the IZZ, PP applications. Staff is recommending that the RZ and PP ~~ applications be approved with the conditions listed in Ezhibit B of the staff report. The Meridian Planning & ZOning Commission heard these items on December 6.2007. At the public hearing the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subiect RZ and PP request. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Chuck Christensen, Applicant's Representative ii. In opposition: Gary Payne (Resident of Verona) iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons vi. Other staff commenting on application: Bill Nary b. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. The Commission discussed the impacts of the through traffic entering the surrounding residential neighborhoods; concerns raised by Mr. Payne. The maiority of the Commission felt the commercial proiect would not impact the residential neighborhoods. Furthermore, it would provide access for the residents of the Verona community rather than forcing them out on arterials to access the commercial development. ii. The access points along Ten Mile and McMillan. iii. The history of the commercial lots for the proposed development. iv. The planned intersection improvements at Linder and McMillan. c. Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. Modification to Condition 2.15: delete the reference to the Fair Housing Act. As there is no housing proposed with this development. d. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. Staff is recommending that a driveway access be stubbed to the eastern property boundary of the two office lots (east of Cortona Wav) for future connectivity with the adioining commercial property. Staff requests that an additional provision be added to the new Development Agreement being proposed with the Verona and Bridgetower Crossing miscellaneous staff report (file #'s MI -07-013 & MI-07-0141 and that the subiect preliminary plat conditions be consistent with that request. NOTE: Staff did not include this requirement in the report to the Commission, but believes it is important for inter-connectivity. Staff has contacted the applicant and they would prefer to not provide this cross-access. .a, Sum mary of Citv Counc'1 Pub is Rea 'n L In favor: Cornel Larson ji. In opposition: None lll. Commentinu,; None lY. Written testimony: None Verona Commercial -RZ-07-017 / PP-07-022 / ~,rT:.rr^v; oi~ PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARII~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 y2 taff presenting app ication: Anna .a pin Yi, Othe r staff commenting on app ication: None ~ ev Issues of Discus sion by ounc'l; L he Deve new DA provi ion propo ed for he Verona omm .reia lopment lL rov . idin~ cross acce from he ou hero office lot located ea of W ' a no Drive to th t i l l f h i ~, Kev ounc'I han~ e vacan commerc a parce ea o e te pc to Staff/C'nmmiccinn Re~nmmP,..~a~;.... i. han ~es to the DA provision 'll be ands ed 'n he ice IaneoL to epo rt (file #'s MI-07-013 and MI-07-0141. ii. od ifv condition 1.2.7 to provide crocc ace .cs from the cnnthern nffirp lot lo cated east of W.1VIi_lano Drive to the vacant co mercial parcel eac th e site. This provision ha been inclLded o the DA provi ion for th Vero na Commercial DA. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Numbers RZ- 07-017 and PP-07-022 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Numbers RZ-07- 017 and PP-07-022 as presented during the hearing on February 26, 2008, for the following reasons: (State specific reasons for denial of the preliminary plat request.) Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number RZ- 07-017 and PP-07-022 °^a *'rT n' ^~ ~ to the hearing date of (insert continued heazing date here) for the following reason(s): (State specific reason(s) for a continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: Northeast corner of W. McMillan Road and N. Ten Mile Section 26, T.4N., R.1 W. b. Applicant: Primeland Development Group, LLC 3120 W. Belltower Drive, Suite 100 Meridian, ID 83646 c. Owner: Same as applicant d. Representative: Chuck Christensen, Quadrant Consulting, Inc. e. Present Zoning: C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial District) and R-8 (Medium Density Residential) f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial and Office Verona Commercial -RZ-07-017 / PP-07-022 / "'~T~~ PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant has applied for a Rezone (RZ) of 5.29 acres from R-8 (Medium Density Residential) to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (1.62 acres) and L-O (Limited Office) (3.67 acres) and preliminary plat approval for 12 commercial building lots on 18.82 acres of land in a C-G and L-O zone. 1. Preliminary Plat, labeled Sheet C-1, prepared by Quadrant Consulting, dated 10/5/07 (attached in Exhibit A) 2. Landscape Plan, labeled Sheet L-1, prepared by Harvest Design, dated 10/5/07 (attached in Exhibit A) 3. Concept Plan (attached in Exhibit A) h. Applicant's Statement/Justification: The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval for 12 commercial building lots and two other lots on 18.86 acres of land in existing and proposed C-G and L-O zones. The rezone is being requested to have the office portion of the development be consistent with the City's future land use map for this property. A Development Agreement modification is also requested to amend the portions of the agreement that limit the number of office lots within the development. As part of the Verona No. 2 approval, office uses were permitted as use exceptions. To date, six office lots have been created and zoned appropriately at the northeast comer of Cortona Way and Ten Mile Road. This is also the maximum number of office lots allowed under the current DA. The developer would like to re-subdivide the office portion of the development which would increase the number of allowed office lots to nine. The commercial portion of the plat was original approved with the Bridgetower Crossing preliminary plat and is regulated by the Bridgetower Crossing DA. The applicant would now like to incorporate the C-G portion of the development into the Verona DA. The new development agreement for Verona would read: Construction and development for a Planned Development consisting of 146 detached single family homes, 20 townhomes, 9 office lots, 16 open space lots and 10 commercial lots including addition to Community Park. 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will, in fact, constitute a preliminary plat as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11, a public hearing is required before the Commission and City Council on this matter. b. The subject application will, in fact, constitute a rezone as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-2A-2D, a public hearing is required before the Commission and the City Council on this matter. d. Newspaper notifications published on: November 19, 2007 and December 3, 2007 (Planning and Zoning Commission); February 4, 2008 and February 18, 2008 (City Council) e. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: November 9, 2007 (Planning and Zoning Commission); February 1, 2008 (City Council) f. Applicant posted notice on site by: November 26, 2007 (Planning and Zoning Commission); February 16, 2008 (City Council) 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): The site is currently vacant. Verona Commercial -RZ-07-017 / PP-07-022 / "'~T~,~n PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: There are existing single-family homes to the south and east of this development with commercial development to the south as well. The area is rapidly transitioning from a residential development to commercial development. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Vacant office lots and Single family residential, Verona No.2 and 3; zoned L- O and R-8 2. East: Vacant commercial land; zoned R-4 3. South: Bridgetower Marketplace and Single family residential (Bridgetower Crossing No. 7); zoned C-G and R-4 4. West: Vacant, Volterra Subdivision; zoned C-G d. History of Previous Actions: • In 2001, this portion of the property was annexed and zoned C-G (AZ-O1-003). The five commercial lots were conceptual approved with the Bridegtower Crossing Planned Development (CUP-01-006). And is tied to the Bridgetower development Agreement recorded under instrument # 101117652. • A portion of this property was annexed in 2003 (AZ-03-005) under the name of the Verona Subdivision. As part of the approval, the City Council granted a use exception for the 6 office lots. A Development Agreement (Inst. No. 103097612) was recorded at the time of annexation that required the site develop as a Planned Development. • In 2003, the Final Plat for Verona No. 2 (FP-03-050) was approved by City Council and included the platting of the 6 office lots. • In 2005, three platted office lots on the north side of Milano Drive were rezoned from R-8 (Medium Density Residential) to L-O (Limited Office) (RZ-OS-006) and re- subdivided into 6 office lots (FP-05-046). e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities: 1. Public Works Location of sewer: This property is serviced from two existing stubs located in N Ten Mile road. Location of water. This property has existing stubs from N Ten Mile Rd, W McMillan Rd, N Cortona Way and W Milano Dr. Issues or concerns: None 2. Vegetation: None 3. Floodplain: NA 4. Canals/Ditches/Irrigation: The McMullen Well and McMullen Lateral are located on this site. The McMullen Lateral was tiled with earlier phases of the development. 5. Hazards: None known 6. Proposed Zoning: C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) and L-O (Limited Office) Verona Commercial -RZ-07-017 / PP-07-022 / *"Tr ^~'-^~~ PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARII~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 7. Size of Property: 18.82 acres f. Subdivision Plat Information: 1. Residential Lots: 0 2. Non-residential Lots: 12 3. Total Building Lots: 12 4. Common Lots: 0 5. Other Lots: 2 6. Total Lots: 14 7. Open Lots: 0 8. Residential Area: NA 9. Gross Density: NA g. Landscaping: 1. Width of street buffer(s): UDC 11-2B-3 requires a minimum 25-foot wide street buffer along N. Ten Mile Road and W. McMillan Road. Landscaping shall be provided in accordance with UDC 11-3B-7, Landscape Buffers Along Streets. 2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: A 25-foot wide buffer is required along the north boundary of the Lot 39, Block 10 adjacent to the existing residential subdivision. An existing 30' landscape buffer was installed with the platting of Verona No.2 (FP- 03-050 as depicted on the submitted landscape plan. 3. Parking lot landscaping: Perimeter and internal parking lot landscaping is required on all lots that are zoned C-G and L-O, in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Perimeter and internal landscaping on these lots will be reviewed for compliance with UDC standards with submittal of Certificate of Zoning Compliance applications for each building. 4. Other landscaping standards: N/A h. Dimensional standards for the C-G and L-O zone per UDC 11-2B-3: Minimum Dimensional Standards (in feet unless otherwise noted) Proposed Required Front setback* Rear setback* Interior side setback* 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maximum building height 65 65 Maximum building size (without design standard approval) 200,000 s.f. 200,000 s.f. * All setbacks shall be measured from the ultimate right-of--way for the street classification as shown on the adopted transportation plan. No changes to the dimensional standards in UDC Table Il-2B-3 were requested or approved with this application.) Minimum Dimensional Standards (in feet unless otherwise noted) Verona Commercial -RZ-07-017 / PP-07-022 / *'~r~-^~ PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Proposed Front setback* Rear setback* Interior side setback* Maximum building height Maximum building size (without design standard approval) Required 20 20 20 20 10 10 35 35 10,000 s.f. 10,000 s.f. * All setbacks shall be measured from the ultimateright-of--way for the street classification as shown on the adopted transportation plan. No changes to the dimensional standards in UDC Table 11-28-3 were requested or approved with this application.) i. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): Access to this development will be provided from .eight full-access driveways, one right-in/right-out driveway and two public streets which were approved and constructed with Verona No. 2. Six of the driveways will take access from W. Milano Drive and N. Cortona Way. The remainder will provide access to McMillan and Ten Mile, both minor arterials. Across-access agreement should be recorded for all of the commercial lots within the proposed subdivision to share the access points and drive aisles to McMillan Road and Ten Mile Road. Other than the access points approved with this application, direct lot access to W. McMillan and Ten Mile Road should be prohibited. The Planning Department and ACRD are supportive of the proposed access points to the subdivision, per the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On November 16, 2007, Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated "Commercial" and "Office" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, "Commercial" areas are anticipated to provide a full range of commercial and retail to serve area residents and visitors and "Office" areas are anticipated to provide opportunities for low-impact business areas. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics): • Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1 -Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands in the following mannei^.• - Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense. - The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resources and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. Verona Commercial -RZ-07-017 / PP-07-022 / "'~T~. ^~1~ PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 - The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Police Department (MPD). - The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACIID). This service will not change. - The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District No. 2. This service will not change. - The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change. Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. • "Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 4) The applicant is required to install and maintain landscaping within the street buffers located along Ten Mile Road and W. McMillan Road in accordance with UDC 11-3B-7. A 25 foot wide buffer is required along both roadways. • "Permit new ...commercial development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of fmal approval and development is contiguous to the City." (Chapter IV, Goal I, Obj. A, #6) Urban services including sanitary sewer and water are available to this parcel. • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B) Staff believes that the future retail and office uses on this site will contribute to the variety of uses in this area. • "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal III, Objective D, Action 5) The applicant is not required to install internal landscaping with the subject preliminary plat application; however, street buffer landscaping is required with this application. Internal landscaping will be required upon development of each lot within the subdivision with CUP and/or CZC approval. • "Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1) The Applicant is proposing a commercial zone adjacent to established residential areas. The existing residential areas will be buffered from the more intense commercial uses with office lots along the northern and eastern property boundaries. In addition to the transitional zoning, the applicant has already installed a 30 foot landscape buffering the office lots from the residential uses. Staffjinds the proposed commercial development will be compatible with the surrounding residential uses. Staff also fmds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this application: Verona Commercial -RZ-07-017 / PP-07-022 / "'~T~^'-^~'~ PAGE 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 • "The capacity of arterial ...roadways can be greatly diminished by excessive driveway connections to the roadways. The City should cooperate with ACRD to minimize access points on arterial...roadways as development applications are reviewed." (Chapter VI, page 72) The existing public street connections to Ten Mile and McMillan were approved and constructed with Verona Subdivision No. 2. The applicant is proposing three additional driveways; one right-in/ right-out only access onto Ten Mile and two full-access driveways to McMillan. Staff is supportive of theses access points as they align with existing and future driveways and public streets adjacent to the proposed development. • "Develop methods, such as cross-access agreements, frontage roads, to reduce the number of existing access points on to arterial streets." (Chapter VI, Goal II, Obj. A, #12, page 79). A cross-access agreement will be required as part of this subdivision approval. A majority of the proposed access points are located along W. Milano Drive and N. Cortona Way. • Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action item 2) Staff is supportive of the applicant's proposed driveways. Each driveway aligns to existing and future driveways or public streets and provides excellent connectivity to the surrounding residential neighborhoods and commercial developments in the area. Staff recommends that the Commission rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicants development request is appropriate for this property. 9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC Table 11-2B-21ists a variety of uses that are principal permitted, accessory, conditional, or prohibited within the C-G and L-O zoning districts. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four Districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation REZONE ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map designation of Commercial and Office, Staff believes that the requested C-G and L-O zoning designations are appropriate for the subject property. The office area was granted as a use exception for the Verona Subdivision but is currently zoned R-8. The applicant is proposing to zone the land to match the land use and match the existing office portion of the development with the City's Comprehensive Plan by rezoning 3.67 acres to L-O. As part of the rezone, the applicant has also requested that 1.62 acres of the approved office area be rezoned to C-G and integrate that acreage with the existing C-G zoned property to the west so all of the area south of Milano Drive and west of Cortona Way is zoned C-G. Staff is supportive of this request as there is significant bufIIng from the residential to the northeast with the existing Public Street and office use. There are also sufficient landscape buffers which Verona Commercial -RZ-07-017 / PP-07-022 / 7rf7 PAGE 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 should provide adequate buffering as well. Please see Exhibit D for a detailed analysis of the required facts and findings for a rezone. The rezone legal descriptions submitted with the application (stamped on October 3, 2007 by Peter W. Lounsbury, PLS) is accurate and meets the requirements of the City of Meridian and Idaho State Tax Commission. UDC 11-SB-3D2 provides the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council the authority to require a property owner to enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City of Meridian that may require some written commitment for all future uses. As part of annexation into the City for both the Bridgetower Crossing and Verona developments, the developer was required to enter into a development agreement. The development agreement for this site is being analyzed under a separate staff report. Please see the Verona Commercial and Bridgetower Crossing miscellaneous staff report for details regarding the development agreement for this site ~ e„L.a:,a~;,.., . EIS-a~~'6~L~~-~{'~~Sac 9=aoe~9~'S a@-apps. si3~-ef€so-~et~ wit~~rena ~le~-lec-at€~ aarr~ ef~~=epes~-dev~ep ~ ~~~ A#T~r-e-lotS~l9we~ t>~d~~~e»eat £~4 'I'~appi~san~Le 'awe-alse~e o..r T\ A ~,. ; „1,,.]e ~l.e ~o„ r-r~mme,a~+^t 1..~~ /...1,;.,1.. e a F ~w~on FHam~czal ~. @t9wf~'i ".z-s j-Fri-i`v'°rriir$ ~S~S@-tliPiviurA~R@ i6~S-~'Am~}Jfct9 T~ .+ + fie~t~l3e-C~-pef~d~~l9}~mE~=,vas~ppis~e~w~rswerTre~s~g~a® ~,~~~~ a nn a•~ ~• z~i~-~x~~r~u~ xh~~G ~.• r~~. a ~ , •~> > i, i.• - - r r t" ~~"~ ~~:,7b~-iv;RCr-cies~i$g~~~t~~i'~@~1~~~@erte t~~creai~ " ~'sa€~i~-a~s9-~3~`@~6~F rr }]yo ale,.,,„µ Tl~ i w «01-10..+ ~1.e « ~®.] «l..t 1 + Dle..~e ., a L' l.:l.:~ a 1 1 ~ F ~ ,7 T A .. ........ .~ ~ ......,.. ~ , zvrprvj~v~carvr: PRELIlVIII~TARY PLAT ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposal with the Unified Development Code, Staff believes that this is a good location for the proposed commercial subdivision. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of facts and findings for a preliminary plat. Dimensional Requirements of the C-G and L-O zones per UDC Table 11-2B-3: There are no minimum setbacks, lot size, or street frontage requirements for lots in the C- Gzone; however the L-O zoning District requires minimum setbacks of 20' front and rear and 10 foot side yard setbacks. The maximum building height allowed in the C-G zone is 65 feet and the maximum allowed in the L-O zone is 35 feet. The maximum building size allowed without design standard approval is 200,000 square feet for the C-G zone and 10,000 square feet for the L-O zone. Future buildings proposed on the subject lots shall meet the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2B-3 and #6h above. Concept Plan: The applicant has submitted a concept plan for the development. The site is expected to develop with a variety of commercial and office uses on the site. Even though there are 12 lots proposed with the preliminary plat, the submitted site plan only depicts a total of 10 building pads. The uses vary from convenience store/gas station, drive through businesses, professional offices, large box retail and neighborhood retail. The submitted concept plan does not indicate the amount of total square footage proposed for the site. Staff is limiting the development to not exceed 200,000 total square feet of non-residential uses on the site (this is 25% of the gross area of the land). Further, staff is recommending that no one building exceed 50,000 square feet. Staff is generally supportive of the concept plan, but believes a few of the proposed buildings on the site Verona Commercial -RZ-07-017 / PP-07-022 / ~,rTi.:a-o-~rvi~ PAGE 10 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D• TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 plan could be located closer to the roadways to provide the majority of the parking internally to the development. Staff is recommending at least two buildings not have any parking between the building on McMillan and/or Ten Mile. If this change is made staff is supportive of the concept plan. Landscaping: The entire perimeter landscaping along W. Milano Drive and N. Cortona Way has been installed with the approval of Verona Subdivision. The applicant has also installed the required landscape buffers where the commercial uses adjoin the residential uses. As part of this application approval, the applicant will be responsible for installing and maintaining the 25 foot landscape buffers along W. McMillan Road and N. Ten Mile Road. The submitted landscape plan complies with city code. Proposed Streets and/or Access: Access to this development will be provided from a total of eight full-access driveways, one right-in/right-out driveway and two full-access public streets to N. Ten Mile and W. McMillan. The applicant is proposing four full- access driveways from W. Milano Drive and N. Cortona Way to the commercial portion of the development. Two additional driveways for the office lots are proposed east of the commercial portion of the development. Two full-access driveways are also proposed for access onto McMillan and aright-in/right-out driveway is proposed for additional access to Ten Mile. As mentioned earlier, all of these driveways are expected to align with existing and future public roadways and driveways. Staff and ACHD are supportive of the proposed driveways because of the future connectivity with current and future develops. All commercial lots within the subdivision should have access to the access points approved in this application. The agreement should also allow for cross-access/parking between the C-G lots within this subdivision. This agreement shall be recorded and a copy of said agreement submitted to the City prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat (see Exhibit B of the staff report). Elevations: The applicant has provided staff with sample photos illustrating what the types of buildings are to be constructed on the site. Staff has selected six photos that portray the quality and design expected for the proposed development. These buildings are constructed with stucco finishes with varying roof heights, color changes and stone accented pillars and facades. The submitted photos show substantial building modulation and an abundance of glazing on the front facades. Staff believes that this is a good pallet for the developer to work from and has included these design features in Exhibit B of the Staff Report. Future buildings shall substantially comply with the construction materials and design elements shown in these elevations. Pressure Irrigation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. The applicant should be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. ff a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1-28. Fencing: The Applicant is not showing any fencing on any of the submitted plans. Permanent fencing is not required for commercial subdivisions. However, if permanent fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be Verona Commercial -RZ-07-017 / PP-07-022 / ""T~~~ PAGE 11 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit for this site. b. Staff Recommendation: Based on the above analysis, staff finds that applications RZ-07-017 and PP- 07-022 ~ "~ substantially conform to the Comprehensive Plan policies and UDC standards. Staff recommends that the RZ and PP applications be approved with the conditions stated in Ezhibit B of the staff report. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on December 6.2007. At the uublic hearing the Commission moved to recommend au>aroval of the subiect RZ and PP reauest. he Meridian Citv Co nc'1 heard hpc .:tpTnc nn Fphrnarv ~ ~nnS e public hea 'n~ the ounc'1 aunrove~l +hp c ~hiert R7. Anri PP rpnnp~+ 11. EDITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map 2. Preliminary Plat, prepared by The Land Group, labeled Sheet C-1, dated 10/5/07 3. Landscape Plan, prepared by Harvest Design, labeled Sheet L-1.0 dated 10/5/07 4. Concept Plan 5. Elevations B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Ada County Highway District 8. Central District Health Department 9. Settler's Irrigation District C. Legal Descriptions & Exhibit Maps D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Verona Commercial -RZ-07-017 / PP-07-022 / "~T~~ PAGE 12 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D• TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 1. Vicinity Map ~ W MALTA DR W ANA70Lf DR W REVENNA ST W RA VENNA ST 3 ~' `t W CEDER w W CEDER GROVE ST o GROVE ST ~ N ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ 3 W DITCH CREEK ST ~ v 0 W DrVrDE CREEK DR z i 3 W D1VlDE CREEK ST 2 ~ ~ W WAPOOT ST c~ ~ ~ w W MlLANO DR Z ~O 'A~ OZ 9 W TURIN CT PROJECT AREA McM1LLAN ROAD ~~ VICINITY MAP ^~Quadrant Consulting, Inc. AOA COUNTY SEC. 26, 7•-4N, R-7W IDAHO ~5oa w oveRtaHa Rogp SCAL£: 1°~JOD' PROJECT ND. DATE: PACE: Boise, wol~o BJXJ9 (208) J41-D092 PHOME (ZOB) JIZ-Q092 FAX J95-OJ 08/45/2007 SHEET 7 OF 7 Gam, E{+mamxnae_suovstmc-cOxsTaucemr n~ro~cEUero~ Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 2. Preliminary Plat ~u.~rr~~ vav ^~x r ~a °~ ~ i as xa~~3s ivxa .u-v~~natMa Is 'ON NCJlSlAlD9fiS 1~IV~~13A ! '~ ~s;9~~~1B~91g[~~ ~~~s~l~! ~~ ~E~~~~~IfHl~ll~g~~l~'~~I a~ Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D• TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 3. Landscape Plan ~ .,~ ~ ~~ ~ ti ~~ ~~ ~ o. t E1 i 3a i ^ E~ Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 4. Concept Plan Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARII~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 5. Elevations -~ Vr ^a1 1 ~ 0J" 1 4 `~ ® `1 ~ 3 s .~ \ S ~ y.~ ~° ~V ~ 2 ~'- _ ~ ~: 3 tea, s ~ a y'- r t" ~ ,~ ~ N J'~ v J s S ~~ _ 4 ~.~ ~!1 `.J ~ N 6 C~ °` r ~~ Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARII~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARII~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 REZONE COMMENTS/PROVISIONS 1.1.1 The rezone legal description submitted with the application (prepared on October 2, 2007, by Peter W. Lounsbury, PLS) is approved. 1.1.2 Any future subdivision, uses, and construction on this property shall comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of permit submittal. 1.1.3 Prior to the rezone ordinance approval, an addendum to the existing Development Agreement (DA) for Verona Subdivision (Instrument No. 103097612) shall be recorded between the City of Meridian and the property owner(s) (at the time of rezone ordinance adoption). See file # MI-07- 013 & MI-07-014 for new development agreement provisions. « » o„~ ~t,,.,.ta ..v.,a. r,....,+....,,~;,... a- ,..,a ae., ot~~,..e,,. ,. :~.:..,~ ,.~ t n~ ao. i, a t r b s e > > , ~ ~ e s s e v . , • +,.....,:..i..i.o ,, o..,-...,t ..;.o $ . _ __ ___, .. ___ w_ .,.,~,~~ ,.t.,., ~„t~,....;,+oa ~t, n ~ n~ nt ~ a nn n~ 1.2 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT 1.2.1 The preliminary plat labeled as P1.0, prepared by Quadrant Consulting, dated October 5, 2007, is approved with the conditions listed herein. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of this site associated with AZ-03-005, CUP-03-007, PP-03-003, and FP-03-050 as well as the Development Agreement (Instrument No.103097612) currently in effect for Verona Subdivision (as amended). 1.2.2 All future structures on the subject lots shall be required to obtain Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval prior to building construction. Future buildings on this site shall substantially comply with the construction materials and design elements shown in the elevations attached in Exhibit A of this staff report. 1.2.3 Access to N. Ten Mile and W. McMillan Road shall be consistent with the approvals of ACRD and the City of Meridian. A note shall be placed on the final plat restricting direct lot access to these roadways other than the access points approved with this application. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATS OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 1.2.4 Landscaping: The landscape plan submitted for this project, prepared by Harvest Design, labeled Sheet L-1, dated 10/5/07 is approved with the following notes: • Provide a minimum 25-foot wide landscape buffer along N. Ten Mile and W. McMillan Road. Said buffers shall be located outside of ACHD's right of way. • A written certificate of completion should be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted to the Planning Department upon completion of the landscaping prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the site. All standards of installation should apply as listed in UDC 11-3B- 14. Submit copies with the final plat application(s). 1.2.5 A minimum 25-foot wide street buffer is required along N. Ten Mile Road and W. McMillan Road, as shown on the plat. 1.2.6 No signage is approved with this application. All signs proposed for this site shall obtain separate sign permit approval. 1.2.7 Across-access/cross-parking easemendagreement shall be recorded for all commercial lots within the subdivision. All lots within the subdivision shall have access to the access points to McMillan Road, Ten Mile Road, W. Milano Drive and N. Cortona Way. This agreement shall be recorded and a copy of said agreement submitted to the City prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat OR a note shall be added to the face of the final plat granting said cross-access. cross- access easement shall be provided to the commercial properiv to the east 1.2.9 Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or assigns. Record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including but not limited to structures, parking, common areas, private streets, and other development features. 1.2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all required fencing, pressurized irrigation, landscaping, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature of the final plat. 1.3 GENERAL REQUIltEMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT 1.3.1 Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to City Code. 1.3.2 All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11- 3A-18 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3A- 18. Where the Applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan and where Staff has reviewed such plan, the landscaping shall be consistent with the preliminary plan with modifications as proposed by Staff. If the stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3A-18, then the Applicant shall relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. It is the responsibility of the developer to comply with ACHD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at the time of final construction. 1.3.3 Temporary construction fencing to contain debris shall be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit. All fencing should be installed in accordance with City Code. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATS OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 1.3.4 Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved Preliminary Plat does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.3.5 Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-6A. 1.3.6 The Applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.3.7 All development within the L-O district shall conform to the dimensional standards per UDC 11- 2B-3. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via two existing stubs located in N Ten Mile road. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Water service to this site is being proposed via existing stubs from N Ten Mile Rd, W McMillan Rd, N Cortona Way and W Milano Dr. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 2.3 Any potential reimbursement agreements must comply with all requirements of City Code 9-1-13 and 9-4-19, which includes the preliminary agreement (which includes footage, size, and depth of reimbursable pipe) being finalized prior to construction plan approval. The detailed agreement with the reimbursable amount shall be approved by Council prior to plat signature. 2.4 The applicant shall provide a 20-foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). 2.5 If the City Council waives the requirement for a pressurized irrigation system, the applicant shall be responsible for the payment of well development fees prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.6 The applicant has not indicated who will own and operate the pressure irrigation system in this proposed development. If it is to be maintained as a private system, plans and specifications will be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the construction plan review. A "draft copy" of the operations and maintenance manual will be required prior to plan approval with the "fmal draft" being required prior to final plat signature on the last phase of this project. If it is to be owned and maintained by an Irrigation District then a letter of plan approval shall be submitted prior to scheduling of apre-construction meeting. 2.7 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (iTDC 11-3A-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface water for the primary source. If a surface source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the fmal plat by the City Engineer. 2.8 Meridian Public Works specifications do not allow any large landscaping within a five foot radius of water meters. The applicant shall make the necessary adjustments to achieve this separation requirement and comply with all landscape requirements. 2.9 Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall be removed from Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATS OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non- domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 2.10 Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being developed shall be tiled. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department prior to plan approval. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 2.11 A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. Storm water treatment and disposal shall be designed in accordance with Department of Environmental Quality 1997 publication Catalog of Storm Water Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties and City of Meridian standards and policies. Off-site disposal into surface water is prohibited unless the jurisdiction which has authority over the receiving stream provides written authorization prior to development plan approval. The applicant is responsible for filing all necessary applications with the Idaho Department of Water Resources regarding Shallow Injection Wells. 2.12 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted required improvements prior to signature on the final plat. These include but are not limited to, fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, and water. 2.13 Sewer, water, pressurized irrigation, and any life safety development improvement shall receive fmal approval prior to occupancy. Other required development improvements, such as fencing, micropaths, and landscaping may be bonded for prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy 2.14 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat. 2.15 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act . 2.16 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.17 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that maybe required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.18 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. Where mailboxes are located on or near sidewalk the applicant shall comply with all American with Disabilities Act requirements for unobstructed sidewalk access. 2.19 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.20 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.21 One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights, on 25' pole shall be required on all public residential streets. Two-hundred and fifty watt high pressure sodium streetlights, on 30' pole shall be required on subdivision entrances and collector roadways. Design of the streetlights shall be approved by the Public Works Department. Decorative lights require a streetlight agreement on file with Public Works prior to activation. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants, and no further than Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 400' distance in between locations. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain approval from the Public Works Department, and permit from Building Department prior to commencing installations. 3. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 3.3 Any roadway greater than 150 feet in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. Phasing of the project may require a temporary approved turn around on streets greater than 150' in length with no outlet. Private Alleys and Fire Lanes shall have a 20' wide improved surface capable of supporting an imposed load of 75,000 lbs. All roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D Section D103.6 Signs. 3.4 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. 3.5 Commercial and office occupancies will require afire-flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 3.6 All common driveways shall be straight or have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside and shall have a clear driving surface which is 20' wide. 3.7 Maintain a separation of 5' from any buildings to dumpster enclosures. 3.8 Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy. 3.9 The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this installation is to be borne by the developer. All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code. 3.10 All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface as measured around the perimeter of the building. 3.11 The Fire Dept. has concerns about the addressing of the existing house and the address being visible from the street which the project is addressed off of. Please contact the Addressing Specialist at 898-5500 to address this concern prior to the public hearing. 3.12 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). a) For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). b) For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 3.13 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all Fire Department connections. 3.14 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the Intemational Fire Code. 3.15 Buildings over 30' in height are required to have access roads in accordance with The International Fire Code Appendix D Section D105. 3.16 Buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144mm) or three stories in height shall have at least three means of fire apparatus access for each structure. Two of the access roads shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the overall diagonal dimension of the property or area to be served, measured in a straight line. 3.17 Buildings or facilities having a gross building azea of more than 62,000 square feet (5760 m2) shall be provided with two separate and approved fire apparatus access roads separated by one half of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property or azea to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 square feet (11520 m2) that have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all buildings aze equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems. (Remoteness Required) 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The Police Department has no concerns related to the site design submitted with the application. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 5.1 The Parks Department has no concerns with the site design as submitted with the application. 6. SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY 6.1 Turning Radius: the applicant shall provide a minimum of 50 ft. turning radius. 6.2 Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal prior to the public hearing. There is a concern that the required modifications may significantly impact your site design and may require a revised site plan. If the site plan is revised, contact the planner assigned to the project immediately to discuss the changes and how to proceed with the revised site plan. 6.3 Provide a minimum 28' inside and 48' outside radius for all alleys and private streets, where they intersect a public street. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~*PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARI~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 7.1 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 7.1.1 Construct the driveways as proposed. Install 6 inch raised concrete median on Ten Mile to restrain the first driveway to right in/right out. Pave the driveways to their full width and at least 30 feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement. 7.1.2 Construct a 7 foot attached or a 5 foot detached concrete sidewalk at the site abutting Ten Mile Road. 7.1.3 Construct a 5-foot detached concrete sidewalk at the site abutting McMillan Road to match existing improvements. 7.1.4 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. 7.2 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 7.2.1 Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of--way. 7.2.2 Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACRD roadway or right-of--way. 7.2.3 All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 7.2.4 Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that maybe damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 7.2.5 Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy. 7.2.6 Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 7.2.7 All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 7.2.8 The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 7.2.9 Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7.2.10 Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction. The assessed impact fee will be based on the impact fee ordinance that is in effect at that time. 7.2.11 It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of--way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of--way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 7.2.12 No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DLPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARI~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 7.2.13 Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. 8. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT 8.1 Central District Health will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: food establishments, grocery store, beverage establishment and child care center. 9. SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT 9.1 All irrigation /drainage facilities along with their easements must be protected and continue to function. The facilities involved are the McMullen Well and the McMullen Lateral. The McMullen Lateral was tiled by earlier phases of the development. 9.2 A Land Use Change Application must be on file prior to any approvals. 9.3 A license agreement MUST be signed and recorded prior to construction of any SID facilities, or within its easements. 9.4 Any changes to the existing irrigation system such as relocation, tiling, and landscaping must be approved by Settlers Irrigation District's Board of Directors. 9.5 All storm drainage must be retained on-site. 9.6 A pressure irrigation system must be provided to service all lots within the above-mentioned subdivision from the current delivery point. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATS OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Exhibit C -Legal Descriptions & Exhibit Maps ^~1 ^~ 6~uadrant Consulting.lnc. Legal Description Far Verona Subdfivlslon No. 4 Rezone From R-8 to L-O Lots 35 and 36, Block 10 of Verona Subdivision Number 2, Book 81 of Plats at Pages 10743'10744; Ada County Records and a portion of the Right Of-Way of North Cortona Way and West McMillan Road, located in the Southwest'/ of Section 26, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest Cromer of said Section 26, thence South 88°58'19° East, 1039.55 feet along the South line of said section to the Point of i8eginning; Thence North 01°00'56° East, 240.22 feet along the centerline of said North Cortona Way to a point; Thence continuing along said centerline 194.07 feet along a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 300.00 feet, a delta angle of 37°06'39" and a chord bearing and distance of North 17°30'59" West, 190.70 feet; Thence cmntinuing along said centerline North 36°02'53 West, 67.24 feet to a mint; Thence leaving said centerline South 89°30'16° East, 33.60 feet to the Northwest comer of said Lot 35; Thence continuing South 89°30'16° East, 325.06 feet to the Northeast Cromer of said Lot 35; Thence South 00°29'44° West, 433.02 feet to the Southeast comer of said Lot 36; Thence North 88°58`19° West, 20.00 feet along the SoutheHy boundary of said Lot 36 to a point; Thence South 00°29'44" West, 45.00 feet to a point on the South line of said Section 26; Thence North 88°58'19° West, 241.85 feet along said South line to the Point of Beginning. Said parcel contai 3.003 acres more or less. av~i ~ QCT l 2 247 MERIDIAN PU961C W4R4(5 DEPT. J 1904 w. Overland • Boise, ID 83705 • Phone (208) 342-~91 • Fax (208) 342-0092 • Emoil: quadrants+quadram.cc Civil Engineering • Surveying • Constn~etion Management Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATS OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 4 ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - G~ z~-~---vz ? 61 = - ~N ~~ _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ._ d~ I N ~, ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ I ~ it ~' ~ i~ ~ li Pd -~, KO~dTEL1N0 b 8 m 0 0 P u ~ '~ o 00 0 ~g e a N ''° c o m m''-. mm ~~ ? V n O N go D w N ~! v m -yi O N p O N O j N C1 V A = O O O ()i W m m ~; n E c A 2 n v ll 1 f ti r pd b At CtiRTQf~A VAY ~ m.'S! r} ~~ < l ~~ ° i w 2 ego m GS ~ QS " r VERONA St18DNISlON ND. 4 REZONE EXHIBIT SECTJON 16, T. 4 N., R. f W.. ADA COUNTY onsulIIn g, Ina Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARII~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 ~~ ^^ G2uadrant Consulting, Inc. Legal Description For derona Subdivision No. 4 Rezone From R-8 to C-G Lat 1 and 2, Block 12 of Verona Subdivision Number 2, Book 91 of Plats at Pages 10743-10744; Ada County Records and a portion of the Right-Of-Way of North Cortona Way and West McMillan Road, located in the Southwest'/, of Section 26, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest comer of said Section 26, thence South 88°58'19" East, 855.00 feet along the South line of said section to the Point of Beginning; Thence North 00°21'49" East, 386.94 feet to the Northwest comer of said Lot 2; Thence North 89°36'30" East, 117.34 feet to the Northeast comer of said Lot 2; Thence continuing North 89°36'30" East, 31.24 feet to the centerline of said North Cortona Way; Thence continuing along said centerline 157.52 feet along a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 300.00 feet, a delta angle of 30°08'48" and a chord bearing and distance of South 14°01'37" East, 155.72 feet; Thence continuing along said centerline South 01°00'56" West, 240.22 feet to a point on the South line of said Section 26; Thence North 88°58'19" West, 184.55 feet along Said South line to the Point of Beginning. Said parcel crontains 1.623 acres more or less. ;~ -~vn+- tz~i~~t By ~C~ ' 2 `%C~tk~ Aq vR Op KS pE?~tG i 404 w. Overland • Boise. l0 83705 • Phone Imo) 342-0091 Fox (208) 342-[1092 Emaa: quadrantL~4uadrant.cc CivU Fsgineering Surveying CnmkucHnn Management Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 'ou ~ 'tf u I n a u o ~ .i1NR03 MOV Al ! '8 °N f Y 8Z NOIID3S ""~' ~uo~pottS%i 119riiX3 3N0238 g ~ 'ON NOtSI/Ita8t1S 1~NOb3A ~~~ QNI?31f~W ANA YNOlbDJ N Exhibit C ti(7b $ W Nei - . - CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 ~~ 6Zuadrant Consulting, inc. Legal Description For Verona Subdivision No. 4 Rezone From R-S to L-O Lot 12, Block 10 of Verona Subdivision Number 2, Book 91 of Plats at Pages 10743- 10744; Ada County Records and a portion of the Right-C7t Way of tVorth Cortona Way, located in the Southwest'/< of Section 26, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest comer of said Section 26, thence South 88°58'19" East, 1301.40 feet along the South line of said Section; thence North 00°29'44" East, 965,44 feet along the Easterly boundary of said Verona Subdivision Number 2, thence North 89°'30'16" West, 280.87 feet to the Northeast comer of said Lot 12, being the Point of Beginning; Thence South 11°04'28" West, 104.20 feet along the Easterly boundary of said Lot 12; Thence South 00°29'44" West, 110.00 feet to the Southeast comer of said Lot 12; Thence North 89°30'16" West, 94.54 feet to the Southwest comer of said Lot 12; Thence ~ntinuing North 89°30'16° West, 29.77 feet to the centerline of said North Cortona Way; Thence continuing along said centerline 72.98 feet along a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 200.00 feet, a delta angle of 20°90'67" and a chord bearing and distance of North 36°43'10" East, 72.57 feet; Thence North 42°49'44" East, 26.98 feet to the Westerly boundary of said Lot 9 2; Thence continuing North 42°49'44" East, 31.43 feet along the Westedy boundary of said Lot 12; Thence North OS°39'53" East, 112.60 feet to the Northwest comer of said Lot 12; Thence South 89°30'16" East, 132.00 fee# along the Northerly boundary of said Lot 12 to the Point of Beginning. Said parcel contains 0.669 acres more or less. ` wu. ev (~~T t 2 ~7 MERIOIdN PUBLIC V+lORKS DEPT. t 904 w• Ovengnd • Base. ID 83705 • Phone 1208- 342-~91 Fax -208- 342-~92 • Email: quodrantClquadront.cc Civil Engineering • Surveying • Consfruetion Management Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATS OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 NQNTEL1Nil_ I -- ~~R 9 ~. P t `~ ~ rt ,~ so• 29' 4aw , w. Y m 0 f''' a IC -----~ oneu T __ _ _ ~N ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ ._ _ - _ I gyp'. n ~ <~ ~ 41 ~ ~ I "~ ~~ " i i. I ~a ~ 14 Illi i ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~° ~1 11 ~~ ~ '' ~~ ~ t, N ~ ~ ~~ ,~ ~ a o ~ ~~ ~ y ' ~ ~ 6 b l I ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ , m g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ti I C1 ~ I ~ ~ I ,~ ~ v I z f: ! w { I u o ~~ ..- o I m ~ ~ a cberII,vn war s ~ re Exhibit C ~~~ VERONA St1BDlVISION NO. 4 iaEaonrs orH~err ,mow SECTlQN 28, T. 4 N., R. 1 W ADA COUNfY CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATS OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; The City Council fmds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The Commission supports the proposed plat layout, with recommended changes, as they comply with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The City Council fmds that public services can be made available to accommodate the proposed development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their own cost, the City Council finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACRD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B, Agency Comments and Conditions, for more detail.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and The City Council is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the development of this subdivision that should be brought to the Councils attention. ACRD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is unaware. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic featares. The City Council is unaware of any natural, scenic, or historic features on this site. Therefore, the City Council finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature(s) of major importance. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware. Exhibit D CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARII~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Z. Rezone Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings: a. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The applicant is proposing to zone the subject property to C-G and L-O. The City Council fords that the proposed zoning map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report. b. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The City Council finds retail and office uses are permitted within the requested zoning district of C-G and L-O. The Commission finds that any future use and / or development of this property should comply with the established regulations and purpose statement of the C- Gand L-O zoning districts. c. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The City Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. d. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts; and, The City Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. Exhibit D Meridian City Council • • February 26, 2008 Page 24 of 77 Rountree: Just a question, Madam Mayor. On any action we take does this require a resolution, ordinance, or both? Nary: Resolution. Rountree: Resolution. Okay. Madam Mayor, I move that we approve Item No. 9, the Comprehensive Plan amendment, and instruct staff to prepare a resolution that indicates approval of these changes. Is there a statutory effective date required on that? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree, we will make it effective on approval of the resolution. Rountree: Okay. Nary: Since this is a text amendment -- or map. Rountree: That's my intent, then. De Weerd: Okay. Second agree? Zaremba: Second agrees. De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Anna, I guess I would ask. This is the end of the Comprehensive Plan amendments, can we get updated maps in all the appropriate places? Canning: We have a list. Friedman: Yes, Madam Mayor, Council Members, we will be meeting with our GIS folks probably next week and we will sit down. We have a number of amendments that we need to add to our map, so -- De Weerd: It will be exciting to see a new one and that it exists for a little while. Friedman: Thank you. We have already had a volunteer to hand carry the new prints over here, so - Item 10: Public Hearing: RZ 07-017 Request for Rezone of 5.29 acres from R-8 zone to C-G zone (1.62 acres) and L-O zone (3.67 acres) for Verona Meridian City Council ~ • February 26, 2008 Page 25 of 77 Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Northeast Comer of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 07-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 commercial lots and 2 other lots on 18.82 acres in the proposed C-G and L-O zoning districts for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Northeast Comer of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: MI 07-013 Request for Miscellaneous application to modify the Recorded Development Agreement for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Northeast Comer of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: RZ 07-018 Request for a Rezone of 12.64 acres from R- 4 to an L-O zone for Bridaetower Crossing Office by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Southwest Comer of West McMillan Road and North Linder Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 07-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 commercial lots and 2 other lots on 10.2 acres in the proposed L-O zoning district for Bridaetower Crossing Office by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Southwest Comer of West McMillan Road and North Linder Road: Item 15: Public Hearing: MI 07-014 Request for a Miscellaneous application to modify the recorded Development Agreement for Bridaetower Crossing Office by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Southwest Comer of West McMillan Road and North Linder Road: Item 16: Public Hearing: RZ 07-022 Request for a Rezone of 7.37 acres from C- G and R-4 to C-N zones and a Rezone of 5.88 acres from R-4 to L-O zones for Bridaetower Crossing Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -east of North Ten Mile Road and south of West McMillan Road: Item 17: Public Hearing: PP 07-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 commercial lots and 1 other lot in the proposed C-N zone for Bridaetower Crossing Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -east of North Ten Mile Road and south of West McMillan Road: De Weerd: All right. Okay. Our next items are 10, 11 -- 10 through 17 and it's RZ 07- 017, PP 07-022, MI 07-013, RZ 07-018, PP 07-023, MI 07-014, RZ 07-022 and PP 07- 026. Iwill open these public hearings with staff comments. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 26 of 77 Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thank you for opening all those items. For the benefit of any public that may have snuck in that I didn't get a chance to talk to, we did ask Mayor and Council to consider all of these, because the development agreements are intertwined and we didn't want to have to repeat testimony with regard to the development agreements. I will go through each project one by one, so you will have three projects and three discussions on appropriate development agreements for those, so -- having said that, we are going to start with the Verona Commercial project. It's located at the northeast comer of Ten Mile and McMillan. It's 18.82 acres and the existing zoning is C-G and R-8, as you can see on a small portion of the property right there. The applications before you tonight are a rezone and preliminary plat. The proposed development includes 12 nonresidential building lots and two others on the 18.82 acres and there are ten buildings shown on the submitted concept plan. The Comprehensive Plan designation is both commercial and office. We are proposing a new development agreement specifically for this area, so that we don't have to reference the old Verona planned development agreements, so that we are asking for a brand new one that applies only to this area. Just to back up a little bit on those histories of the DA -- so, this area was proposed as commercial area and was originally subject to both the Bridgetower Crossing DA and those are the properties currently zoned C-G and the Corona DA. Those are the properties currently zoned R-8. And they are currently proposed for both L-O on the east side and, then, C-G on the west side of those R-8 areas. Staff is tying the developer to the elevations submitted with the application and those same elevations will be used for each development agreement that we have discussed tonight. By developing a new DA for this commercial and office area, staff believes it will allow for more efficient implementation of the DA and more consistent implementation of the DA over time. So, we are recommending a new development agreement for this area and it would contain the following provisions: The proposed commercial and ofFce building shall be constructed with high quality materials, including, but not limited to, stucco, wood and brick, with substantial stone accents, four-sided architecture, highlighted main entrances, stamped decorative concrete, composite or the roofing material, variations in color, roof planes, and parapet heights. And those are related to the elevations that we will show you that -- we have six photos. So, those are kind of sample elevations that led to that list, but they will be tied to these elevations as well. And, then, for this project a minimum of nine buildings with no one building exceeding 50,000 square feet, shall be constructed on -- within this area and the maximum allowable nonresidential square footage for the development shall be 225,000 square feet. And the development of the site shall generally conform to the site plan. Okay. That's the recommendation that's coming forward from the Planning and Zoning Commission, who did recommend approval at their December 6, 2007, Public Hearing. Chuck Christensen spoke for the applicant. Gary Payne, a resident of Verona Subdivision spoke in opposition. There was no one else commenting and no written testimony. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were they discussed the impacts of the through traffic entering the surrounding residential neighborhoods and those were concerns raised by Mr. Payne. The majority of the Commission felt the commercial project would not impact the residential neighborhoods. Furthermore, it would provide access for the residents of the Verona community, rather than forcing them out onto arterials to access the commercial development. They also discussed the Meridian City Council ~ • February 26, 2008 Page 27 of 77 access points along Ten Mile and McMillan, the history of the commercial lots for the proposed development, and the planned intersection improvements at Linder and McMillan. The key Commission changes to the staff recommendation -- they modified condition 2.15 and deleted the reference to the Fair Housing Act, since there is no housing in this project. The outstanding issues before City Council -- currently, the DA provisions read that the applicant should construct a minimum of nine buildings. The applicant would like that number decreased to five buildings. And staff is recommending that the Commission -- or the Council add an additional provision to this DA that drive access needs to be stubbed to the eastern property line for the two office lots for future connectivity. Let me get an overall -- these lots are all approved office lots with -- they still have R-8 zoning on them, but these are approved for office uses. They do -- there is about four or five lots there that were preliminary platted and, then, just for reference, because I know this was an issue, the Selway Apartments are on the property just to the north of that. So, we are recommending that the two.lots here on the east have drive aisle access that connects to those L-O lots, so that we get future connectivity. The applicant did call me today about this issue and it is an outstanding issue. We do try and get cross-access where ever possible. One consideration may be that maybe we just get one of those lots, the southern lot, to provide that cross-access and not wont' about the northern lot, which is closer to the residential development. So, if we could get cross-access at least on this south lot it would be beneficial to get through traffic among the commercial development. And with that I will answer any other questions Council may have. De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions on this item? Bird: I have none at this point. De Weerd: Okay. Do you want to go through all of these or you want to do them item by item? Okay. Is there public testimony on this application? I didn't show anyone as signing up, but is there any testimony desired? Canning: Madam Mayor, you might ask the applicant. De Weerd: Oh. Well, they didn't jump up and down either. That's right. I guess I do have to ask the applicant, uh. Would the applicant like to come forward at this time. I always thought it was so strange that no one was standing forward. Larsen: Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, my name is Cornell Larsen. Address is 210 Murray in Garden City. I'm here tonight representing the application on this project. A lot of our comments that were -- are pretty well directed to all of the projects. A lot of the staff conditions cant' through from each project and they go on for -- for the three hearings you have before you tonight, so I could certainly address those now or at the end, but in this particular case I can take this one and, then, come back again and repeat the testimony for each subsequent one after or I can do it once, whatever you would prefer to -- to do. Meridian City Council ~ • February 26, 2008 Page 28 of 77 Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: It would probably be helpful, Cornell, if you could do it -- the specifics on each one -- Larsen: On each one? De Weerd: -- as they are presented. Larsen: Okay. Zaremba: Thank you. Larsen: Be happy to do that. De Weerd: Okay. Larsen: We have read the staff report and I also have -- just so you know, I have Chuck Christensen here who is with me tonight with Quadrant and he may need to answer some questions, if you have questions on platting, because I'm not sure I'm up to speed on that, but I am on the rest of the project. So, he may need to come up and visit with you if you have a question there. We have looked at the staff report and we wanted to suggest some modifications to the conditions -- to the bullet points under the Verona development agreement. First, I'd like to talk about the building materials. We submitted many photos to staff and they had picked the ones that you have seen in the staff report, but we actually submitted probably 30 or 40 photos. So, the photos that are in the packet are not necessarily consistent with what our long range plan is. We would like to have a little more flexibility in the materials and type of design of the buildings. Those buildings were geared towards a smaller user and as we move through the Verona project we may have the bigger buildings that may have one or two entries, may have common areas, may have other things, so we would like to have some flexibility on the types of materials that we might use in the building and, again, we did submit quite a few photos and staff has selected some good looking buildings and we did some upgraded buildings on that site and -- in an effort to attract some users to a new retail area. What we would like to suggest is that we -- after the word four-sided architecture we add the term where needed. There may be instances where we have a building that may not need four-sided architecture, it may need -- may not need glass on all four sides. But it may need some decoration or some relief on all four sides. So, we'd like to add the words where needed. The stamp and decorative concrete, we'd certainly like to use that selectively, not everywhere. We would like some flexibility on the roofing. If it all has to be composite roofing and the roofing, that, in itself, won't work for us, because we will probably have some flat roofs and some -- maybe even some metal accents. So, we'd like you to consider changing that to also allow us to do some flat roofs and maybe some metal accent roofing. As far as the elevations conforming to the photos that we have submitted, again, we would just like to have a little more flexibility in those particular buildings. I believe we submitted pictures from various projects, including Meridian City Council • • February 26, 2008 Page 29 of 77 Silverstone, EI Dorado, Boise Research Center and a lot of the buildings in those projects are fairly nice and would be fine in this facility as we move forward with this development. I think staff recommended five -- a minimum of five buildings with no building exceeding 50,000 square feet and we are okay with that change. What we were trying not to do is get a whole bunch of small buildings on the site and we would like to make sure that the minimum number of buildings does give us flexibility for size. As you probably all know at Silverstone and EI Dorado and some of the other projects I have been involved in, we have made many lot splits and many lot line adjustments. Commercial development, unfortunately, is a little different than residential and we have to adjust to the user and as a result of that we have to adjust the lot lines according to some of the users we get. So, that reducing the minimum number of lots will help us to -- required minimum number of lots will help us to make sure that we can adjust accordingly. There was a comment on generally conforming to the concept plan. Sort of as I just explained, as you know, I don't know that our concept plan for Silverstone and EI Dorado has came out exactly or even close to what he had initially submitted, so we want to make sure that you understand that it is a concept plan and we do need the flexibility in order to move forward with a commercial development, so we'd like to have you add some wording in there that may state that we must meet the requirements of the current UDC, so that we can have a little bit of flexibility in the -- in the concept plan and not be locked into it as it's currently designed. Then, the last comment we had was on the connection to the adjacent properly. We have made over time commitments to the people that have bought in Bridgetower that we would try not to connect those properties together for traffic reasons and for circulation through the project. We understand connectivity, but we would -- we might suggest that we make a connection with a pathway system and it might be in this general area right here. We have an easement through there that we could certainly make a pathway connection that might allow users from the adjacent property to come over into this -- into the facility itself and use whatever buildings or services are in that project. Just a brief overview of the master plan. We had potentially looked at a gas station facility here. We were exploring a car wash here. We have some interest in a couple of drive-thru banks, smaller fast food retail has looked at it. Up in this particular area we do have a commitment for some medical. We thought we might be able to track down some health club type uses on the site, potentially. So, those are some of the things we are looking at on this site to maybe give you a feel for the overall concept that we are in search of there. I believe in a couple of the earlier staff reports staff had suggested that we move a couple of these buildings out to the street and we agree to do that, so we get a little bit more connectivity to the street and a little bit more variety of design. I would be happy to answer any questions if you have concerns or comments. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council • February 26, 2008 Page 30 of 77 Bird: Comell, with the material that we have listed in here, would that, in your opinion, disallow tilt up buildings? As I read it, it would disallow tilt ups, which you said EI Dorado and -- and you took a lot of your pictures out of EI Dorado and Silverstone and Tumbull's project over there at BRC and most of those are tilt ups. Larsen: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, we have done quite a few tilt up buildings, but we have usually tried to create a variety of materials on those buildings from the rock to stone to glass, heavy cornice, a lot of different elements to try to break those -- those buildings up, so they didn't look like a concrete building and, in general, a lot of times we put a textured coating on the building, so it looks more like a stucco project. So, we would hope staff wouldn't eliminate that flexibility, as those have been fairly economical buildings and pretty good energy buildings as well. Bird: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Additional questions? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Comell, you suggested some additional words in one of the recommended comments from staff on the DA and one of them was four-sided architecture as needed and that always puts us on the spot, because I would interpret that as needed to be determined by staff and you would interpret it as to be as needed as determined by you or your client. So, I know we attempt to wordsmith these things to make them sound and do what we all agree to do, but that doesn't do it for me. So, we need some better words there, so you and/or your client and/or our staff have an expectation of what's going to happen there. So, I don't have a problem with what you're saying that there is some flexibility there, but when we just make a statement like that it gets us all in a position of being really angry with one another. Larsen: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, I understand your concerns. I guess where we are coming from is that, you know, on occasions we have retail buildings that have backs to them and we really want to be careful about addressing the backs to make sure that they look decent. We have other buildings that may have service entries or locations where we need to get trucks up to them or for whatever reason and we want to be careful that we don't get into trying to design a bunch of costly facades that really is of no benefit to -- to the end user. In other words, we have double loaded retail buildings with glass on both sides, it's very tough for a retail user to have a back room, a store room, those kind of issues. So, we are concerned, we want the buildings in the City of Meridian to look very nice, be first class. We do not want to get into a situation where we are in disagreement with staff, but we wouldn't like to use all buildings -- we try to design all buildings with four-sided architecture, but sometimes the sites don't need to be as well done as maybe three of the sides on the building. And I'm not sure that I have answered your question, but (understand -- • Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 31 of 77 Rountree: I understand your intent and I would ask Anna if she has maybe a better way of stating that to where everybody knows what's going on. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree -- or President Rountree, perhaps it could be for retail uses or those that require loading areas, one facade may be screened in lieu of facade treatment or something like that. Larsen: Yeah. We are open for that -- any kind of language on that that gives us some flexibility where we have service equipment or vehicles or we may have an office building, for example, that may have some generators on the ground, some equipment, some things like that that we don't necessarily have to spend a lot of money on the building, because we have got a lot of equipment right next to the building. So, we would like a little flexibility on that and I think we could work with staff on some verbiage. Rountree: Thank you. Are you comfortable with that, Anna? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, I am. I think the reason the four- sided is in there is related to the concept plan. The concept plan does show very -- kind of open site plan with individual buildings that kind of would need fairly -- most of them would require four-sided architecture the way it's currently drawn. I did want to comment on the need for flexibility in the concept plan and I know that this is difficult for the development community to commit to a concept plan and we are very mindful of that. We do try to be very flexible in our interpretation of what's consistent with that concept plan. Our problem is if you just tie it to the UDC there is nothing to say that they couldn't come back with one building that's partitioned into five -- you know, one massive building that's perhaps partitioned into five and that would be consistent with their DA, but clearly not consistent with what was presented tonight. And I'm not trying to say that Mr. Vareille will propose that, it's just that those are the kind of issues that come up when we don't have something to fall back on that says, well, you kind of told us you were going to distribute this around the site and not just have a sea of parking and one large building. So, that's why we do ask that you tie it to the concept plan and not just the provisions of the UDC. We commit to developers on a regular basis that we will provide them every sort of flexibility that -- that we can afford to help them get toward the end. Larsen: Madam Mayor, may I address that for just a minute? We -- when we have a building in a situation like this regarding the four-side architecture, a lot of times those are tenant buildings and they may be loaded from two or three sides as a result of how the building's leasing and so in a case where we have a building out on its own like that surrounded by parking or if it's out e one side is up next to the street and it has parking on three sides, we assume that we are going to need four-sided architecture there in order to attract tenants and make sure that they are all on a level plane. A lot of tenants that lease space in buildings now they want to have their own separate identify and they don't want to look different than the tenant next to them. So, it's important that we do have the four-sided architecture on a lot of that product. The other item with regard to Meridian City Council • • February 26, 2008 Page 32 of 77 Anna's comments on the concept plan, staff has been very flexible with us in the past on allowing us to do things to the concept plan that generally conform to it and we have had pretty good -- pretty good luck in working with them through those issues. Several of things that Silverstone and EI Dorado have all had to be brought back in for staff to look at it and it's gone fairly well. Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Anything further, Council? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Zaremba: I was just going to add to the same discussion that the flexibility in the roofing materials, it would be the same discussion that we already had, but it's the same as the facades. De Weerd: Okay. Larsen: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Larsen: Now, if you have questions on platting, I would defer to Chuck. Did we have any issues on -- I guess there is no issues on platting or any of the subdivision stuff, so we are okay with those. De Weerd: Thank you. Larsen: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. At this point -- at this time we are taking testimony on Verona, the commercial aspect. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Seeing none, Anna, we will just go ahead and go to the next item. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think you can take action, if you'd like to, on the -- De Weerd: Ten and eleven? Canning: On ten and eleven and, then, we will come back to the development agreement. I think all the changes that were requested were in the development agreement, so you can make those modifications later if you want to take up that item later. Meridian City Council • February 26, 2008 Page 33 of 77 De Weerd: Okay. So, there is no public testimony on either Items 10 or 11? No further comment by the applicant? Okay. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Council, any further information? Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would like to discuss the subject of the drive aisle to the east. We had asked the developers of the property to the east to provide more connectivity than they intended to. They seem to have been resistant to that and, apparently, they have conveyed that to the current applicant as -well. But I feel the connectivity is important in spite of the fact that the neighbor is not in favor of it and I would support the staffs request for a drive aisle connection to the east. It's fine with me if it's on the lower property or the southern most property. I'm supportive of the staffs request on that. De Weerd: Council, any further comment on that? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, show us where you -- where the staff kind of has plans to have an access out. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the staff report says that each drive aisle should have some sort of stub currently. I guess as a -- as a proffer, I would say, you know, if we could at least get one, I think that that would be beneficial. And somewhere on this southern lot would seem to make more sense, because you do have residential up here. So, bringing that traffic any -- somewhere away from the residential makes sense. It could come in anywhere along this -- that boundary. Bird: Put up -- excuse me, Madam Mayor. Anna, put up a site for the whole area. Isn't there a road that goes right up there? Canning: No. It looks like that. It's an irrigation feature that's been tiled. Bird: Oh, that's the imgation deal? So, you want it to dump over in that -- Canning: This is the road. I'm sorry. That's a road. Bird: That's what I thought. Canning: That's that road. Bird: Yeah. Meridian City Council • • February 26, 2008 Page 34 of 77 Canning: But, then, you have two lots to the east of it. So what we are trying to do is get this office trafFc to have across-access all along here, so that they are not having to go onto the arterial roadway and it's very typical from commercial development to commercial development we try and get cross-access where ever we can. Zaremba: Madam Mayor. We did -- what we required of Selway is that they have a westem stub from the apartment section into what will be the commercial section and it would make sense that that would connect to something on the eastern end of this property. Bird: Do they come down to the top of that, though? Does Selway come down to the -- north of this project? Zaremba: It's not the entire thing, but it's about -- Bird: I think it goes right across there, don't it? Zaremba: Oh. I'm sorry. It ends at Apgar Creek. Bird: Yeah. So, it goes -- it actually don't butt up to this project at all, so what we required them to go to the west is up in that subdivision. Canning: No. We required anorth-south street along the westem edge of their property -- development. Bird: Okay. North-south. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Bird, you're correct, this would not connect directly to Selway Apartments. Zaremba: It would go through the other owner's commercial property. Canning: Correct. De Weerd: So, will that other property have access out onto McMillan? Canning: The preliminary plat for the office lots currently show I believe three access points to McMillan. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 35 of 77 Bird: My concern is that -- is that North Goddard Creek Way road is -- you're dumping everything out on that, why not just let it dump -- let this project dump out on that one road between McMillan and Ten Mile? I don't know why you wanted to go out back through there. And that other project's got all kinds of frontage along McMillan. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, as ACRD progresses in their efforts we are seeing access controls at the arterial roadways. Possibility of more medians to control that access where you have driveways versus public streets, we are really trying to get folks to the public streets, so that they don't have to take the -- necessarily take the arterial roadway. If, for some reason, you have a dentist here and you want to go pick up milk at the -- the Rite-Aid there or something, you don't want to have to get out onto the arterial roadway and that's always staffs goal in asking for the cross-access is to relieve the congestion on the arterial roadways. De Weerd: Would the applicant care to comment on this? Larsen: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Cornell Larsen again. De Weerd: Thank you. Larsen: I was just curious. Anna, did you say there was a road that would just come down along that boundary of the property? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mr. Larsen, it's not right along the boundary, it's a couple hundred feet, probably, a stub. It's about a -- maybe a quarter of the way over. Larsen: Madam Mayor, I guess our biggest concern is just the -- I guess our biggest concern was just that the residents that have purchased from Bridgetower in the past have been really concerned about that connection and the flow-through traffic and they have not desired that and we were here expressing their wishes tonight as well, so -- De Weerd: So, these are representations that were provided through your neighborhood meeting, then? Larsen: Through the owner, as he's developed these parcels, he's trying to not allow this through traffic or has indicated to the neighbors that he would prefer not to have that traffic through there and -- as it feels like it does end up being a detriment to his neighborhood. And the applicant has indicated to me that they have also discussed that at the neighborhood meetings. De Weerd: Okay. Any questions, Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 36 of 77 Larsen: Thank you. De Weerd: Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor. Anna, would you put up the site plan. Canning: That one or this one? Rountree: Okay. So, on the eastern boundary of the two commercial lots, I don't see any provision for a fence or landscaping or whatever. If we are talking about access or no access, it seems to me if there is no access there ought to be some kind of a bamer there. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we --they seem to be depicting a five foot landscape buffer for the parking lot. Rountree: Is that indicated on the plat? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, no, because we don't usually put just parking lot landscaping on the plat that the -- landscape easements that we general show on the plats are either street buffers or land use buffers. So, this wouldn't be one of those times that we ask for that. It would allow a little more flexibility in the design of the building. Rountree: So, I guess what I'm getting at -- I'm confused on the landscaping requirements. If this was an industrial site it would be required to be landscaped with a buffer. Canning: Yes. They would have to have a buffer to residential uses. We are not -- it's an unusual situation. It's zoned R-8, but it's approved for L-O, so we tend to treat it as if it's nonresidential use. Rountree: Okay. Canning: So, we did not require the land used buffer to those properties, because they are approved for office uses. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: But how about on the north side of that? Isn't that residential? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, it is. I suspect that the staff report already notes that there is a land use buffer required there. I can verify. But there is a land use buffer required there. Meridian City Council • • February 26, 2008 Page 37 of 77 De Weerd: Okay. Larsen: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Larsen: Cornell Larsen again. There is a planted buffer along there already currently existing. De Weerd: Oh. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anything further, Council? If there is nothing further, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearings on Items 10, 11 and 12. Bird: No. No. Not 12. Rountree: ten and eleven. De Weerd: Ten and eleven. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Rountree: I move that we close public hearings on Items 10 and 1. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 10 and 11. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, on the rezone, it had nothing to do with the development agreement, so all we are doing there is going from a minimum of nine to five; is that right? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the DA is associated with the rezone, but you could take action on the rezone without worrying about the DA agreement at this time. Bird: I thought the DA come down on the 12. Maybe I misunderstood. Canning: Correct. So, the rezone -- we can for the development, because there is a rezone application before you, but the two aren't -- Meridian City Council ~ • February 26, 2008 Page 38 of 77 Bird: Where would you prefer it? Canning: It needs to be in the DA discussion. Bird: In what? Canning: The DA discussion. Rountree: Item 12. Bird: In Item 12. Canning: Yes, sir. Bird: Right. Okay. So, RZ is just the rezone from five to -- or from nine to five. And from C-G -- or R-8 to C-G and L-O; right? Canning: Correct. The latter. Yes. Bird: Okay. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve RZ 07-017, the rezone of 5.29 acres from R-8 to C-G and L-O zone for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development Group and to include all staff, applicant, and public testimony. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 10. Is there any discussion or clarification needed? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Item 11. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve PP 07-022, preliminary plat approval for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 39 of 77 Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Verona, Item 11. Discussion? Zaremba: Madam Mayor, again, this is a question of where is it appropriate. Would it be the preliminary plat where we decide whether there will be access to the east or not? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if we knew -- Councilmember Zaremba, if we knew exactly where it needed to be on the plat we could, but I don't think -- staff didn't have that specificity at this time. We'd like to leave the developer that ability to move it, so it would be better as a DA provision. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Items 13 and 14. Rountree: Twelve. De Weerd: Did you want to do the DA's at the end of all of these? Canning: Yes, ma'am. Bird: We are going to move 12? De Weerd: Yes. We are going to consider it at the end of all of these discussions. Twelve and fifteen we will consider after Item 17. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, one of the things I forgot to mention when I get to the last presentation is part of the reason we are asking you to defer on those, the reason they are still intertwined is because although we proposing new DA's for these projects that are before you tonight, the existing DA remains for the properties that are not under not the applicant's control. So, that's why they are -- still go on. So, they are just -- the only complicated thing about this is the development agreements and so they -- De Weerd: The only complicated. Bird: Don't confuse me. • March 14, 2008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2008 PP 07-022 APPLICANT Primeland Development Group, LLC ITEM No. 7-B-1-B REQUEST Endings for Approval -Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 commercial lots and 2 other lots on 18.82 acres in the proposed C-G 8~ L-O zoning districts for Verona Commercial -- northeast comer of West McMillan & Ten Mile Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTWER: COMMENTS See attached Mlnufes See attached Findings Contacted: Ch uet~ Chris Safi Date: Ph 2'~ ~ Emailed: C1r1la.C_iC ~IiQalrQl''Lt. t`'G Staff Initial Materkds presented at public meetings shall become property of the CHy of Meridian. ~~~~ MAR 0 5 200 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER pity ®f Meridiem Cify Clem ®f~ce E IDIAN;--- 1® l-1 +~ In the Matter of Rezoning 5.29 acres from R-8 (Medium Density Residential) to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (1.62acres) and L-O (Limited Office) (3.67) acres); Preliminary Plat of 12 commercial building lots and 2 other lots on 18.82 acres in the C-G and L-O zoning districts for the Verona Commercial Subdivision, by Primeland Development, LLC. Case No(s). R~07-017 and PP-07-022 For the City Council Hearing Date of: February 26, 2008, (Findings on the March 18, 2008 City Council agenda) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-SA. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-07-017 and PP-07-022 -1- 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, Preliminary Plat, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's Preliminary Plat as evidenced by having submitted the Preliminary Plat dated October 5, 2007 is hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Preliminary Plat Duration Please take notice that approval of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat within two (2) years of the approval of the preliminary plat or one (1) year of the combined preliminary and final plat or short plat. In the event that the development of the preliminary plat is made in successive phases in an orderly and reasonable manner, and conforms substantially to the approved preliminary plat, such segments, if submitted within successive intervals of eighteen (18) months, maybe considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-6B-7.A, the Director may authorize a single extension of time to record the final plat not to exceed eighteen (18) months. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the City Council maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or City Council may require CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-07-017 and PP-07-022 -2- • the preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. If the above timetable is not met and the applicant does not receive a time extension, the property shall be required to go through the platting procedure again. E. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the ~ day of ~~ , 2008. COUNCIL MEMBER DAVID ZAREMBA VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON VOTED i'~Yr`^'~' COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD VOTED ,/ MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED (TIE BREAKER) MaYR~, T , de Weerd ~~ ~~ Attest: ~ ~. l~ '~ e ~~ Jaycee Ho an, City Clerk = ~ ~' c '~ Copy served upon Applicant, The Planniii~j~~,~'~;~ublic Works Department and City Attorn B Dated: 3 `a5-d0 ty Clerk's ffice CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-07-017 and PP-07-022 -3- CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: February 26, 2008 TO: Mayor and City Council E IDIAN~-- FROM: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner 9 ~ A H C~ 884-5533 SUBJECT: Verona Commercial • RZ-07-017 Rezone 5.29 acres from R-8 (Medium Density Residential) to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (1.62acres) and L-O (Limited Office) (3.67) acres). • PP-07-022 Preliminary Plat of 12 commercial building lots and 2 other lots on 18.82 acres in the C-G and L-O zoning districts. AA'~.,oll„ s ~ Aaslia~ti~n +,• ....^,1'~ +L. asa ,] 1 ~ rr ~ y b.wmvnc . NOTE: The development agreement for this site is beine modified under a separate staff report. Please see the Verona and Bridaetower Crossing miscellaneous staff report (file #'s MI-07-013 & MI- 07-014) for details regarding the development agreement for this site 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Primeland Development Group, LLC has applied for a Rezone (RZ) of 5.29 acres from R-8 (Medium Density Residential) to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (1.62 acres) and L-O (Limited Office) (3.67 acres) and preliminary plat approval of 12 commercial building lots and 2 other lots. '''' ° ~-~-~1:^ ~+ ; °1--- ~~~, a-~;-- +~ ,.a;.~. ~~~ ~-~:~~:--~ a,._.~,__W__.. rr K ~ s ~.,....e..,7...0.,~; + ,7 ,7 a ~L. 11 1.1 1. ~ ~C 1 ~ F ~ t7 S~vcv~=i°vcrsc-car~.nzvvvuv:c~amocrox vxacczvsszvr -T ~..l.,l;.a..;,.~ ~.,.... ~~ ~ e A~~m;?--a;~-;~~l~d~e~eper~e-fi~~s~i~t~ed-ele;~t~9~~xe ~j ~lia....~ .,1~ a 3„0~+•.,b ,.,...aa..r ~;z~T a ..,t'e e c t t+ 11 E-f Tcsn Miles-R~w~rl paid McR~•11 n a 1 t, t_• ,,, ~ ~t, n •a ~ n b "J"` Tle.,e1,~r~FO°cm@'1~~ o• +~•,•7 l.e 1.' ~ s +L. .7 ~7 T A rl~;aoccais-vc~avJacc-co-cacTCVZac~v civaavzr The applicant submitted a conceptual site plan illustrating how this site may be developed with a mix of retail and office uses. The submitted site plan depicts a total of 10 building pads varying in uses from convenience store/gas station, drive through businesses, professional offices and neighborhood retail. On the submitted concept plan, the applicant is proposing eight full-access driveways, one right-in and right-out driveway and two full-access public streets for the proposed development. The public streets are already constructed and accepted by ACRD. The proposed driveways are expected to align with existing and future driveways or public streets adjacent to the proposed development. Please see the Analysis section below for more on the submitted conceptual site plan. The subject property is located at the northeast corner of W. McMillan Road and N. Ten Mile Road in Section 26, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, B.M. Currently, the site is vacant land and Verona Commercial -RZ-07-017 / PP-07-022 / "'~T~. ^~' ^l~ PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARII~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 the applicant intends to construct a commercial development. The subject property is within the City's Area of Impact and Urban Service Planning Area. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION The subject applications (RZ-07-017, PP-07-022) were submitted to the Planning Department for concurrent review. Staff has provided a detailed analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the 1tZ, PP applications. Staff is recommending that the RZ and PP applications be approved with the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on December 6 2007 At the public hearing the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subiect RZ and PP request a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Chuck Christensen, Applicant's Representative ii. In opposition: Gary Payne (Resident of Verona) iii. Commenting• None iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons vi. Other staff commenting on application: Bill Narv b. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. The Commission discussed the impacts of the through traffic entering the surrounding residential neighborhoods: concerns raised by Mr Payne The maiority of the Commission felt the commercial proiect would not impact the residential neighborhoods. Furthermore, it would provide access for the residents of the Verona community rather than forcing them out on arterials to access the commercial development. ii. The access points along Ten Mile and McMillan. iii. The history of the commercial lots for the proposed development. iv. The planned intersection improvements at Linder and McMillan. c. Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. Modification to Condition 2.15: delete the reference to the Fair Housing Act As there is no housing proposed with this development. d. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. Staff is recommending that a driveway access be stubbed to the eastern property boundary of the two office lots (east of Cortona Wav) for futare connectivity with the adioining commercial property. Staff reauests that an additional provision be added to the new Development Agreement being proposed with the Verona and Bridgetower Crossing miscellaneous staff report (file #'s MI -07-013 & MI-07-014) and that the subiect preliminary plat conditions be consistent with that reauest. NOTE: Staff did not include this reauirement in the report to the Commission, but believes it is important for inter-connectivity Staff has contacted the applicant and they would prefer to not provide this cross-access ~. L 1n ravor: ~:ornei ~ .ar on ii. In opposition: None 111. Commenting: None lY, Written tes 'mono: None Verona Commercial -RZ-07-017 / PP-07-022 / ""'~~ PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING )~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 y~ , tall nresentin~ application: Anna Ca nine Yl. Othe r staff conLmentinu on application: None h, Key Issues of Discus sion by Council: L The Deve new DA provisions proposed for the Verona Commercial lopment ii. Prov . iding cross access from the southern office lot located east of W. Mila no Drive to the vacant comLmercial parcel east of the site ~. Key Council Change . s to Staff/Commission Recommendation i. Chan ges to the DA provisions will be undated in the Miscellaneous Staff Repo rt (file #'s MI-07-013 and MI-07-0141. ii. Mho i fy condition 1.2.7 to provide cross access from the southern office lot lo cated east of W. Milano Drive to the vacant commercial parcel east of th e site. This provision has been included to the DA provisions for the Vero na Commercial DA. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Numbers RZ- 07-017 and PP-07-022 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Numbers RZ-07- 017 and PP-07-022 as presented during the hearing on February 26, 2008, for the following reasons: (State specific reasons for denial of the preliminary plat request.) Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number RZ- 07-017 and PP-07-022 ^^'' ""~ ~'' ~' ~ to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (State specific reason(s) for a continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: Northeast comer of W. McMillan Road and N. Ten Mile Section 26, T.4N., R.1W. b. Applicant: Primeland Development Group, LLC 3120 W. Belltower Drive, Suite 100 Meridian, ID 83646 c. Owner: Same as applicant d. Representative: Chuck Christensen, Quadrant Consulting, Inc. e. Present Zoning: C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial District) and R-8 (Medium Density Residential) f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial and Office Verona Commercial -RZ-07-017 / PP-07-022 / "'"~T^~ PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant has applied for a Rezone (RZ) of 5.29 acres from R-8 (Medium Density Residential) to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) (1.62 acres) and L-O (Limited Office) (3.67 acres) and preliminary plat approval for 12 commercial building lots on 18.82 acres of land in a C-G and L-O zone. 1. Preliminary Plat, labeled Sheet C-1, prepared by Quadrant Consulting, dated 10/5/07 (attached in Exhibit A) 2. Landscape Plan, labeled Sheet L-1, prepared by Harvest Design, dated 10/5/07 (attached in Exhibit A) 3. Concept Plan (attached in Exhibit A) h. Applicant's Statement/Justif~cation: The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval for 12 commercial building lots and two other lots on 18.86 acres of land in existing and proposed C-G and L-O zones. The rezone is being requested to have the office portion of the development be consistent with the City's future land use map for this property. A Development Agreement modification is also requested to amend the portions of the agreement that limit the number of office lots within the development. As part of the Verona No. 2 approval, office uses were permitted as use exceptions. To date, six office lots have been created and zoned appropriately at the northeast corner of Cortona Way and Ten Mile Road. This is also the maximum number of office lots allowed under the current DA. The developer would like to re-subdivide the office portion of the development which would increase the number of allowed office lots to nine. The commercial portion of the plat was original approved with the Bridgetower Crossing preliminary plat and is regulated by the Bridgetower Crossing DA. The applicant would now like to incorporate the C-G portion of the development into the Verona DA. The new development agreement for Verona would read: Construction and development for a Planned Development consisting of 146 detached single family homes, 20 townhomes, 9 office lots, 16 open space lots and 10 commercial lots including addition to Community Park. 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will, in fact, constitute a preliminary plat as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11, a public hearing is required before the Commission and City Council on this matter. b. The subject application will, in fact, constitute a rezone as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-2A-2D, a public hearing is required before the Commission and the City Council on this matter. d. Newspaper notifications published on: November 19, 2007 and December 3, 2007 (Planning and Zoning Commission); February 4, 2008 and February 18, 2008 (City Council) e. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: November 9, 2007 (Planning and Zoning Commission); February 1, 2008 (City Council) f. Applicant posted notice on site by: November 26, 2007 (Planning and Zoning Commission); February 16, 2008 (City Council) 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): The site is currently vacant. Verona Commercial -RZ-07-017 / PP-07-022 / "" PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: There are existing single-family homes to the south and east of this development with commercial development to the south as well. The area is rapidly transitioning from a residential development to commercial development. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Vacant office lots and Single family residential, Verona No.2 and 3; zoned L- O and R-8 2. East: Vacant commercial land; zoned R-4 3. South: Bridgetower Marketplace and Single family residential (Bridgetower Crossing No. 7); zoned C-G and R-4 4. West: Vacant, Volterra Subdivision; zoned C-G d. History of Previous Actions: • In 2001, this portion of the property was annexed and zoned C-G (AZ-O1-003). The five commercial lots were conceptual approved with the Bridegtower Crossing Planned Development (CUP-O1-006). And is tied to the Bridgetower development Agreement recorded under instrument # 101117652. • A portion of this property was annexed in 2003 (AZ-03-005) under the name of the Verona Subdivision. As part of the approval, the City Council granted a use exception for the 6 office lots. A Development Agreement (Inst. No. 103097612) was recorded at the time of annexation that required the site develop as a Planned Development. • In 2003, the Final Plat for Verona No. 2 (FP-03-050) was approved by City Council and included the platting of the 6 office lots. • In 2005, three platted office lots on the north side of Milano Drive were rezoned from R-8 (Medium Density Residential) to L-O (Limited Office) (RZ-OS-006) and re- subdivided into 6 office lots (FP-OS-046). e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities: 1. Public Works Location of sewer: This property is serviced from two existing stubs located in N Ten Mile road. Location of water: This property has existing stubs from N Ten Mile Rd, W McMillan Rd, N Cortona Way and W Milano Dr. Issues or concerns: None 2. Vegetation: None 3. Floodplain: NA 4. Canals/Ditches/Irrigation: The McMullen Well and McMullen Lateral are located on this site. The McMullen Lateral was tiled with earlier phases of the development. 5. Hazazds: None known 6. Proposed Zoning: C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) and L-O (Limited Office) Verona Commercial -RZ-07-017 / PP-07-022 / "''T PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARI~DATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 7. Size of Property: 18.82 acres f. Subdivision Plat Information: 1. Residential Lots: 0 2. Non-residential Lots: 12 3. Total Building Lots: 12 4. Common Lots: 0 5. Other Lots: 2 6. Total Lots: 14 7. Open Lots: 0 8. Residential Area: NA 9. Gross Density: NA g. Landscaping: 1. Width of street buffer(s): UDC 11-2B-3 requires a minimum 25-foot wide street buffer along N. Ten Mile Road and W. McMillan Road. Landscaping shall be provided in accordance with UDC 11-3B-7, Landscape Buffers Along Streets. 2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: A 25-foot wide buffer is required along the north boundary of the Lot 39, Block 10 adjacent to the existing residential subdivision. An existing 30' landscape buffer was installed with the platting of Verona No.2 (FP- 03-OSO as depicted on the submitted landscape plan. 3. Parking lot landscaping: Perimeter and internal parking lot landscaping is required on all lots that are zoned C-G and L-O, in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Perimeter and internal landscaping on these lots will be reviewed for compliance with UDC standards with submittal of Certificate of Zoning Compliance applications for each building. 4. Other landscaping standards: N/A h. Dimensional standards for the C-G and L-O zone per UDC 11-2B-3: Minimum Dimensional Standards (in feet unless otherwise noted) Proposed Required Front setback* Rear setback* Interior side setback* 0 0 0 0 0 0 Maximum building height 65 65 Maximum building size (without design standard approval) 200,000 s.f. 200,000 s.f. * All setbacks shall be measured from the ultimate right-of--way for the street classification as shown on the adopted transportation plan. No changes to the dimensional standards in UDC Table 11-2B-3 were requested or approved with this application.) Minimum Dimensional Standards (in feet unless otherwise noted) Verona Commercial -RZ-07-017 / PP-07-022 / *~7~ PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Proposed Front setback* Reaz setback* Interior side setback's Maximum building height Maximum building size (without design standard approval) Required 20 20 20 20 10 10 35 35 10,000 s.f. 10,000 s.f. ~` All setbacks shall be measured from the ultimate right-of--way for the street classification as shown on the adopted transportation plan. No changes to the dimensional standards in UDC Table 11-2B-3 were requested or approved with this application.) i. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): Access to this development will be provided from eight full-access driveways, one right-in/right-out driveway and two public streets which were approved and constructed with Verona No. 2. Six of the driveways will take access from W. Milano Drive and N. Cortona Way. The remainder will provide access to McMillan and Ten Mile, both minor arterials. Across-access agreement should be recorded for all of the commercial lots within the proposed subdivision to shaze the access points and drive aisles to McMillan Road and Ten Mile Road. Other than the access points approved with this application, direct lot access to W. McMillan and Ten Mile Road should be prohibited. The Planning Department and ACRD are supportive of the proposed access points to the subdivision, per the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On November 16, 2007, Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated "Commercial" and "Office" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, "Commercial" azeas are anticipated to provide a full range of commercial and retail to serve area residents and visitors and "Office" areas aze anticipated to provide opportunities for low-impact business azeas. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics): • Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1 -Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands in the following manner: - Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer s expense. - The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resources and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. Verona Commercial -RZ-07-017 / PP-07-022 / ~,rT:.zro~i~ PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 - The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Police Department (MPD). - The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACfID). This service will not change. - The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District No. 2. This service will not change. - The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change. Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. • "Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 4) The applicant is required to install and maintain landscaping within the street buffers located along Ten Mile Road and W McMillan Road in accordance with UDC 11-38-7. A 25 foot wide buffer is required along both roadways. • "Permit new ...commercial development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City." (Chapter IV, Goal I, Obj. A, #6) Urban services including sanitary sewer and water are available to this parcel. • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B) Staff believes that the future retail and office uses on this site will contribute to the variety of uses in this area. • "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal III, Objective D, Action 5) The applicant is not required to install internal landscaping with the subject preliminary plat application; however, street buffer landscaping is required with this application. Internal landscaping will be required upon development of each lot within the subdivision with CUP and/or CZC approval. • "Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1) The Applicant is proposing a commercial zone adjacent to established residential areas. The existing residential areas will be buffered from the more intense commercial uses with office lots along the northern and eastern property boundaries. In addition to the transitional zoning, the applicant has already installed a 30 foot landscape buffering the office lots from the residential uses. Stafffinds the proposed commercial development will be compatible with the surrounding residential uses. Staff also fords the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this application: Verona Commercial -RZ-07-017 / PP-07-022 / "'~'~,~~ PAGE 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING I~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 • "The capacity of arterial ...roadways can be greatly diminished by excessive driveway connections to the roadways. The City should cooperate with ACRD to minimise access points on arterial...roadways as development applications aze reviewed." (Chapter VI, page 72) The existing public: street connections to Ten Mile and McMillan were approved and constructed with y erona Subdivision No. 2. The applicant is proposing three additional driveways; one ri~;ht-in1 right-out only access onto Ten Mile and two full-access driveways to McMillan. Staff is supportive of theses access points as they align with existing and future driveways and public streets adjacent to the proposed development. • "Develop method., such as cross-access agreements, frontage roads, to reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets." (Chapter VI, Goal II, Obj. A, #12, page 79). A cross-access agt•eement will be required as part of this subdivision approval. A majority of the proposed acce.es points are located along W. Milano Drive and N. Cortona Way. • Restrict curb cuts ~md access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action item 2) Staff'is supportive of the applicant's proposed driveways. Each driveway aligns to existing and future drivewcys or public streets and provides excellent connectivity to the surrounding residential neighborhoods and commercial developments in the area. Staff recommends that the Commission rely on arty verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the publc hearing when determining if the applicant's development request is appropriate for this property. 9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMEPTT CODE a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC Table 11-2B-21ists a variety of uses that aze principal permitted, accessory, conditional, or prohibited within the C-G and L-O zoning districts. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four Districts aze designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation REZONE ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map designation of Commercial and Office, ;itaff believes that the requested C-G and L-O zoning designations are appropriate for the subject property. The office area was granted as a use exception for the Verona Subdivision but is currentl;i zoned R-8. The applicant is proposing to zone the land to match the land use and match the existing office portion of the development with the City's Comprehensive Plan by rezoning 3.67 acres to L-O. As part of the rezone, the applicant has also requested that 1.62. acres of the approved office azea b e rezoned to C-G and integrate that acreage with the existing C-G zoned property to the west so all ~~f the azea south of Milano Drive and west of Cortona Way is zoned C-G. Staff is supportive of this request as there is significant buffing from the residential to the northeast with the existing Public ~Itreet and office use. There are also sufficient landscape buffers which Verona Commercial -RZ-07-017 / PP••07-022 / r,rT:.:x-o~vl~ PAGE 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING I)EY'ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 should provide adequate buffering as well. Please see Exhibit D for a detailed analysis of the required facts and findings for a rezone. The rezone legal descripti~~ns submitted with the application (stamped on October 3, 2007 by Peter W. Lounsbury, PLS) is ac~;urate and meets the requirements of the City of Meridian and Idaho State Tax Commission. UDC 11-SB-3D2 provide:. the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council the authority to require a property owner to enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City of Meridian that may require some written commitment for all future uses. As part of annexation into the City for both the Bridgetower Crossing and Verona developments, the developer was required to enter into a development agreement. ;Che deyelopment agreement for this site is being analyzed under a separate staff report. Please see the Verona Commercial and Bridgetower Crossing miscellaneous staff repw•t for details regarding the development agreement for this site. ~ af~~d~elep~appreved~~~~rigete~Fer Eres$e YY+^ 7 Y~ a~nv s ~° ve..,...,, n n +,...e~e,.. I?leaser-see-~3.i.;~.;~ n~ ~ i ~~pe~ PRELIIVIINARY PLAT ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposal with the Unified Development Code, Staff believes that this is a good location for the proposed commercial subdivision. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of f acts and findings for a preliminary plat. Dimensional :lequirements of the C-G and L-O zones per UDC Table 11-2B-3: There are no ~runimum setbacks, lot size, or street frontage requirements for lots in the C- Gzone; howe~rer the L-O zoning District requires minimum setbacks of 20' front and rear and 10 foot side yard setbacks. The maximum building height allowed in the C-G zone is 65 feet and the maximum allowed in the L-O zone is 35 feet. The maximum building size allowed without design standard approval is 200,000 square feet for the C-G zone and 10,0(10 square feet for the L-O zone. Future buildings proposed on the subject lots shall meet the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2B-3 and #6h above. Concept Plan; The applicant has submitted a concept plan for the development. The site is expected to develop with a variety of commercial and office uses on the site. Even though there aa•e 12 lots proposed with the preliminary plat, the submitted site plan only depicts a total of 10 building pads. The uses vary from convenience store/gas station, drive through businesses, professional offices, large box retail and neighborhood retail. The submitted concept plan does not indicate the amount of total square footage proposed for the site. Stiff is limiting the development to not exceed 200,000 total square feet of non-residential uses on the site (this is 25% of the gross area of the land). Further, staff is recommending that no one building exceed 50,000 square feet. Staff is generally supportive of the concept plan, but believes a few of the proposed buildings on the site Verona Commercial -RZ-07-017 / PP•~07-022 / ""'~^', ^~" PAGE 10 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING )/~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 plan could be located closer to the roadways to provide the majority of the parking internally to tY.e development. Staff is recommending at least two buildings not have any parking between the building on McMillan and/or Ten Mile. If this change is made staff is ~~upportive of the concept plan. Landscaping: The entire perimeter landscaping along W. Milano Drive and N. Cortona Way has been installed with the approval of Verona Subdivision. The applicant has also installed the required landscape buffers where the commercial uses adjoin the residential uses. As part of this application approval, the applicant will be responsible for installing and maintaining the 25 foot landscape buffers along W. McMillan Road and N. Ten Mile Road. The submitted landscape plan complies with city code. Proposed Streets and/or Access: Access to this development will be provided from a total of eight ~:ull-access driveways, one right-in/right-out driveway and two full-access public streets to N. Ten Mile and W. McMillan. The applicant is proposing four full- access drivew~rys from W. Milano Drive and N. Cortona Way to the commercial portion of the development. Two additional driveways for the office lots are proposed east of the commercial portion of the development. Two full-access driveways are also proposed for access onto McMillan and aright-in/right-out driveway is proposed for additional access to Ten Mile. As mentioned earlier, all of these driveways are expected to align with existing and fixture public roadways and driveways. Staff and ACHD are supportive of the proposed driveways because of the future connectivity with current and future develops. All commercial lots within the subdivision should have access to the access points approved in this application. The agreement should also allow for cross-access/parking between the C:-G lots within this subdivision. This agreement shall be recorded and a copy of said a~~reement submitted to the City prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat (see :Exhibit B of the staff report). Elevations: The applicant has provided staff with sample photos illustrating what the types of buildings are to be constructed on the site. Staff has selected six photos that portray the quality and design expected for the proposed development. These buildings are constructe 3 with stucco finishes with varying roof heights, color changes and stone accented pillal•s and facades. The submitted photos show substantial building modulation and an abundance of glazing on the front facades. Staff believes that this is a good pallet for the develo~~er to work from and has included these design features in Exhibit B of the Staff Report. ]?uture buildings shall substantially comply with the construction materials and design elements shown in these elevations. Pressure Irritation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied b;~ a year-round source of water. The applicant should be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape are~~s per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1.28. Fencing: The Applicant is not showing any fencing on any of the submitted plans. Permanent fencing is not required for commercial subdivisions. However, if permanent fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be Verona Commercial -RZ-07-017 / PI'-07-022 / ""'~~ PAGE 11 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING !~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit for this site. b. Staff Recommendation: Based on the above analysis, staff finds that applications RZ-07-017 and PP- 07-022 p- "~. T~~ substantially conform to the Comprehensive Plan policies and UDC standards. Staff recommends that the RZ andl PP nad~ applications be approved with the conditions stated in Exhibit B of the staff report. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on December 6.2007. At the nul~lic hearing the Commission moved to recommend auaroval of the subiect RZ and PP request. 7' a Meri ran itv o ~nc'1 heard hec . items nn Fehrnarv 2~_ ~nnA_ s_t the nub is hea 'n he o Inc' annroved the subiect R7. and PP reaue t 11. EXI~BITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map 2. Preliminar}~ Plat, prepared by The Land Group, labeled Sheet C-1, dated 10/5/07 3. Landscape :Plan, prepared by Harvest Design, labeled Sheet L-1.0 dated 10/5/07 4. Concept Pl;tn 5. Elevations B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning D~rpartment 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Ada Count3~ Highway District 8. Central District Health Department 9. Settler's Irr..gation District C. Legal Descriptions & Exhibit Maps D. Required Findings :From Unified Development Code Verona Commercial -RZ-07-017 / PP•~07-022 / r~rTS.rrvi-vim PAGE 12 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING i~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 1. Vicinity Map N W h~A1 TA DR W ANA TOLE DR W REVENNA ST W RAVENNA ST a 3 ~' W CEDER ~ W CEDER GROVE ST GROVE ST v ~ ~ $ z W DITCH CREEK 5T z U O W DIVIDE CREEK DR Z a 3 W DIVIDE CREEK ST ° ~ W WAr~oor sr 0 U ~ ~ W M~LANO DR ti co ~A~ ~Z 9 'i'ce W TfJRiN CT PROJECT AREA McMILLAN ROAD M0. VICl1VITY MAP ~~ ^~Quadrant Consulting, Inc. igOe W OVERLAND ROAD Boise, mono BJ7O9 (aoa~ aaa-tea rxotrF (aoe) Sea-oosa Fax sEa ze. r-aro, R-1 w rQ,~.,o i°=J00' { J95-OJ { CB/15/2007 { SHEET 1 OF 1 Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING I~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 2. Preliminarv Plat ~~ ~~ awrrc~ t~tr '•M t ~ 'w * 1 `ea xo-~3s '"'°' 1VTd .iHYN1iYt73f1d t+' 'ON AfQlS1AlLTHIiS t~IV0~3A ~.m. !a .I ~ I ~' ~~~ ~ I~ g~, ~ ~ 6 s~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ee e Q I ~ ~~ ~g9t~II~~B~,~gl~9 YlpIO~@~ e Illllil.~lliillil~g~~~iii~l ~~ 6 ~ ~ Exhibit A ~! CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 3. Landscape Plan ~° i ~: i` Exhibit A • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 4. Concept Plan Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 5. Elevations ~ Sl v "h` ys~ S ^O_ G \ d ` ~ 3 s -y. a y ~ ~ ~ y.~ ~' ~V ~ 2 H ~` ~_~' a 3 "ae y ~+ h `~y ° `Q 4 ~ ~ ~~1- c~ v ~ b 5 s ~ 0 Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING IIEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING-DATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Exhibit A I~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 REZONE CONIMENTS/PROVISIONS 1.1.1 The rezone legal descn.ption submitted with the application (prepared on October 2, 2007, by Peter W. Lounsbury, PLS) is approved. 1.1.2 Any future subdivision, uses, and construction on this property shall comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in. effect at the time of permit submittal. 1.1.3 Prior to the rezone ordinance approval, an addendum to the existing Development Agreement (DA) for Verona Subdivision (Instrument No. 103097612) shall be recorded between the City of Meridian and the property owner(s) (at the time of rezone ordinance adoption). See file # MI-07- 013 & MI-07-014 for new development a~eement provisions. ~ ~ ~ + ~1~T ' ~ ~ ..~ 4ti.u ..~ ae u~i. u«4 ~~ '+°w. /~ dC G 17. 1~G3 2 C ~~~~~~ ~~,,7y~ Cttr'~118 ~000~H~E21YJ~~ • f ~ ~ ' ~ • f f 7 H}f FitC1y. A.7.7 ;sa... A Z. y s e ~~~ ~~ , , o ^~r~e€~g= , , ,~ A .7.] ;te... it A . , f ~f!-E@~~3E~2~ , „il.. ~~ f 1.2 SITE SPECIFIC REQiTIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT 1.2.1 The preliminary plat labeled as P1.0, prepared by Quadrant Consulting, dated October 5, 2007, is approved with the conditions listed herein. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of this site associated with AZ-03-005, CUP-03-007, PP-03-003, and FP-03-050 as well as the Development Agreement (Instrument No.103097612) currently in effect for Verona Subdivision (as amend~~d). 1.2.2 All future structures on the subject lots shall be required to obtain Certificate of Zoning Compliance approval prior to building construction. Future buildings on this site shall substantially comply with the construction materials and design elements shown in the elevations attached in Exhibit A o f this staff report. 1.2.3 Access to N. Ten Mile and W. McMillan Road shall be consistent with the approvals of ACRD and the City of Meridian. A note shall be placed on the final plat restricting direct lot access to these roadways other tl-an the access points approved with this application. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 1.2.4 Landscaping: The landscape plan submitted for this project, prepared by Harvest Design, labeled Sheet L-1, dated 10/5/07 is approved with the following notes: • Provide a minimum 25-foot wide landscape buffer along N. Ten Mile and W. McMillan Road. Said buffers shall be located outside of ACHD's right of way. • A written certificate of completion should be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted to the Planning Department upon completion of the landscaping prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the site. All standards of installation should apply as listed in UDC 11-3B- 14. Submit copies with the final plat application(s). 1.2.5 A minimum 25-foot wide street buffer is required along N. Ten Mile Road and W. McMillan Road, as shown on the plat. 1.2.6 No signage is approved with this application. All signs proposed for this site shall obtain separate sign permit approval. 1.2.7 Across-access/cross-parking easement/agreement shall be recorded for all commercial lots within the subdivision. All lots within the subdivision shall have access to the access points to McMillan Road, Ten Mile Road, W. Milano Drive and N. Cortona Way. This agreement shall be recorded and a copy of said agreement submitted to the City prior to the City Engineer's signature on the fmal plat OR a note shall be added to the face of the final plat granting said cross-access. cross- access easement shall be provided to the commercial nronerty to the east 1.2.9 Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or assigns. Record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including but not limited to structures, parking, common areas, private streets, and other development features. 1.2.10 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all required fencing, pressurized irrigation, landscaping, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature of the final plat. 1.3 GENERAL REQUIltEMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT 1.3.1 Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to City Code. 1.3.2 All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11- 3A-18 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3A- 18. Where the Applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan and where Staff has reviewed such plan, the landscaping shall be consistent with the preliminary plan with modifications as proposed by Staff. If the stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3A-18, then the Applicant shall relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. It is the responsibility of the developer to comply with ACHD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at the time of fmal construction. 1.3.3 Temporary construction fencing to contain debris shall be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit. All fencing should be installed in accordance with City Code. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 1.3.4 Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved Preliminary Plat does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.3.5 Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-6A. 1.3.6 The Applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.3.7 All development within the L-O district shall conform to the dimensional standards per UDC 11- 2B-3. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via two existing stubs located in N Ten Mile road. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Water service to this site is being proposed via existing stubs from N Ten Mile Rd, W McMillan Rd, N Cortona Way and W Milano Dr. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 2.3 Any potential reimbursement agreements must comply with all requirements of City Code 9-1-13 and 9-4-19, which includes the preliminary agreement (which includes footage, size, and depth of reimbursable pipe) being finalized prior to construction plan approval. The detailed agreement with the reimbursable amount shall be approved by Council prior to plat signature. 2.4 The applicant shall provide a 20-foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). 2.5 If the City Council waives the requirement for a pressurized irrigation system, the applicant shall be responsible for the payment of well development fees prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.6 The applicant has not indicated who will own and operate the pressure irrigation system in this proposed development. If it is to be maintained as a private system, plans and specifications will be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the construction plan review. A "draft copy" of the operations and maintenance manual will be required prior to plan approval with the "final draft" being required prior to final plat signature on the last phase of this project. If it is to be owned and maintained by an Irrigation District then a letter of plan approval shall be submitted prior to scheduling of apre-construction meeting. 2.7 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (UDC 11-3A-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface water for the primary source. If a surface source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.8 Meridian Public Works specifications do not allow any large landscaping within a five foot radius of water meters. The applicant shall make the necessary adjustments to achieve this separation requirement and comply with all landscape requirements. 2.9 Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall be removed from Exhibit B • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non- domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 2.10 Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being developed shall be tiled. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department prior to plan approval. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 2.11 A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. Storm water treatment and disposal shall be designed in accordance with Department of Environmental Quality 1997 publication Catalog of Storm Water Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties and City of Meridian standards and policies. Off-site disposal into surface water is prohibited unless the jurisdiction which has authority over the receiving stream provides written authorization prior to development plan approval. The applicant is responsible for filing all necessary applications with the Idaho Department of Water Resources regarding Shallow Injection Wells. 2.12 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted required improvements prior to signature on the final plat. These include but are not limited to, fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, and water. 2.13 Sewer, water, pressurized irrigation, and any life safety development improvement shall receive final approval prior to occupancy. Other required development improvements, such as fencing, micropaths, and landscaping maybe bonded for prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy 2.14 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat. 2.15 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act 2.16 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that maybe required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.17 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that maybe required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.18 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. Where mailboxes are located on or near sidewalk the applicant shall comply with all American with Disabilities Act requirements for unobstructed sidewalk access. 2.19 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.20 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.21 One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights, on 25' pole shall be required on all public residential streets. Two-hundred and fifty watt high pressure sodium streetlights, on 30' pole shall be required on subdivision entrances and collector roadways. Design of the streetlights shall be approved by the Public Works Department. Decorative lights require a streetlight agreement on file with Public Works prior to activation. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants, and no further than Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 400' distance in between locations. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain approval from the Public Works Department, and permit from Building Department prior to commencing installations. 3. MERIDIAN FIItE DEPARTMENT 3.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %z" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. 'The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on comers when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 3.3 Any roadway greater than 150 feet in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. Phasing of the project may require a temporary approved turn around on streets greater than 150' in length with no outlet. Private Alleys and Fire Lanes shall have a 20' wide improved surface capable of supporting an imposed load of 75,000 lbs. All roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D Section D103.6 Signs. 3.4 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. 3.5 Commercial and office occupancies will require afire-flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 3.6 All common driveways shall be straight or have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside and shall have a clear driving surface which is 20' wide. 3.7 Maintain a separation of 5' from any buildings to dumpster enclosures. 3.8 Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy. 3.9 The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this installation is to be borne by the developer. All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code. 3.10 All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface as measured around the perimeter of the building. 3.11 The Fire Dept. has concerns about the addressing of the existing house and the address being visible from the street which the project is addressed off of. Please contact the Addressing Specialist at 898-5500 to address this concern prior to the public hearing. 3.12 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). a) For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). b) For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 3.13 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all Fire Department connections. 3.14 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code. 3.15 Buildings over 30' in height aze required to have access roads in accordance with The International Fire Code Appendix D Section D105. 3.16 Buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet (9144mm) or three stories in height shall have at least three means of fire apparatus access for each structure. Two of the access roads shall be placed a distance apart equal to not less than one half of the length of the overall diagonal dimension of the property or azea to be served, measured in a straight line. 3.17 Buildings or facilities having a gross building area of more than 62,000 squaze feet (5760 m2) shall be provided with two sepazate and approved fire apparatus access roads separated by one half of the maximum overall diagonal dimension of the property or azea to be served, measured in a straight line between accesses. Exception: Projects having a gross building area of up to 124,000 squaze feet (11520 m2) that have a single approved fire apparatus access road when all buildings aze equipped throughout with approved automatic sprinkler systems. (Remoteness Required) 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The Police Department has no concerns related to the site design submitted with the application. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 5.1 The Pazks Department has no concerns with the site design as submitted with the application. 6. SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY 6.1 Turning Radius: the applicant shall provide a minimum of 50 ft. turning radius. 6.2 Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal prior to the public hearing. There is a concern that the required modifications may significantly impact your site design and may require a revised site plan. If the site plan is revised, contact the planner assigned to the project immediately to discuss the changes and how to proceed with the revised site plan. 6.3 Provide a minimum 28' inside and 48' outside radius for all alleys and private streets, where they intersect a public street. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 7.1 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 7.1.1 Construct the driveways as proposed. Install 6 inch raised concrete median on Ten Mile to restrain the first driveway to right in/right out. Pave the driveways to their full width and at least 30 feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement. 7.1.2 Construct a 7 foot attached or a 5 foot detached concrete sidewalk at the site abutting Ten Mile Road. 7.1.3 Construct a 5-foot detached concrete sidewalk at the site abutting McMillan Road to match existing improvements. 7.1.4 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. 7.2 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 7.2.1 Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of--way. 7.2.2 Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACRD roadway or right-of--way. 7.2.3 All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 7.2.4 Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that maybe damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 7.2.5 Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy. 7.2.6 Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 7.2.7 All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 7.2.8 The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 7.2.9 Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7.2.10 Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction. The assessed impact fee will be based on the impact fee ordinance that is in effect at that time. 7.2.11 It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of--way. The applicant at no cost to ACRD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACRD right-of--way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 7.2.12 No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 7.2.13 Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. 8. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT 8.1 Central District Health will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: food establishments, grocery store, beverage establishment and child Gaze center. 9. SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT 9.1 All irrigation /drainage facilities along with their easements must be protected and continue to function. The facilities involved aze the McMullen Well and the McMullen Lateral. The McMullen Lateral was tiled by eazlier phases of the development. 9.2 A Land Use Change Application must be on file prior to any approvals. 9.3 A license agreement MUST be signed and recorded prior to construction of any SID facilities, or within its easements. 9.4 Any changes to the existing irrigation system such as relocation, tiling, and landscaping must be approved by Settlers Irrigation District's Board of Directors. 9.5 All storm drainage must be retained on-site. 9.6 A pressure irrigation system must be provided to service all lots within the above-mentioned subdivision from the current delivery point. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Exhibit C -Legal Descriptions & Exhibit Maps ^^ ^~ 8uadreint Consultin®. Inc. Legal Description For Verona Subdivision No. 4 Rezone From R-8 to L-O Lots 35 and 36, Block 10 of Verona Subdivision Number 2, Book 91 of Plats at Pages 10743-10744; Ada County Records and a portion of the Right-0f-Way of North Cortona Way and West McMillan Road, located in the Southwest'/ of Section 26, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Bogie Meridian, Ada County, Idaho described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest comer of said Section 26, thence South 88°58'19" East, 1039.55 feet abng the South line of said section to the Point of Beginning; Thence North 01°00'56" East, 240.22 feet along the centerline of said North Cortona Way to a point; Thence continuing along said centeriine 194.07 feet along a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 300.00 feet, a delta angle of 37"06'39" and a chord bearing and distance of North 17°30'59"West, 190.70 feet; Thence continuing along said centerline North 36°02'53 West, 67.24 feet to a point; Thence leaving said centerline South 89°30'96" East, 33.60 feet to the Northwest comer of said Lot 35; Thence continuing South 89°30'16" East, 325.06 feat to the Northeast Cromer of said Lot 35; Thence South Ofl°29'44" West, 433.02 feet to the Southeast cmmer of said Lot 36; Thence North 88°58'19" West, 20.00 feet along the Southerly boundary of said Lot 36 to a point; Thence South 00°29'44" West, 45.00 feet to a point on the South line of said Section 26; Thence North 88°58'19° West, 241:85 feet along said South line to the Point of Beginning. Said parcel contai 3.003 acres more or less. BY~i P CCT 12 20A7 PAERIDIAN Pue6lC WORKS DEPT. I t 904 W. Overland • Boise, ID 83705 • Phvne (208) 342-W91 • Fax (208) 342-0092 • Email: quadrant~~quadrant.cc Civtl Engineering • Surveying • Construction Monagament Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D• TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING~DATE OF FEBRUARY 26 2008 - = =~N~~~.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~~r n n n (~I tt N' ~ II o ~ ~''t <J ,l °o o° ~ y ~ ~ ~ Il m r ' !i m m > ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ tJ~F ~. N COATIlNA VAY MANTELINO Exhibit C ~° ~- ~~~ VERONA SUBDtVlS10N N0. 4 ^ ? ~ REZONE EXHIBIT ^~~,ladrant ,~ SECTION 26, T. 4 N., R. 1 W., ADA COUNTY Consulting, Ina axc wean .a ,..~ a...... , 9p: ~°.~° CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 ~~ ~^ 6Zucidrant Consulting, Inc. Legal Description For Verona Subdhvision No. 4 Rezone From R-8 to C-G Lat 1 and 2, Block 12 of Verona Subdivision Number 2, Book 91 of Plats at Pages 10743-10744; Ada County Records and a portion of the Right-Of-Way of North Cortona Way and West McMillan Road, located in the Southwest'/< of Section 26, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest comer of said Section 26, thence South 88°58' 19" East, 855.00 feet along the South line of said section to the Point of Beginning; Thence North 00°21'49° East, 386.94 feet to the Northwest comer of said Lot 2; Thanes North 89°36'30" East, 117.34 feet to the Northeast comer of said Lot 2; Thence continuing North 89°36'30" East, 31.24 fast to the centerline of said North Cortona Way, Thence continuing along said centerline 157.52 feet along a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 300.00 feet, a delta angle of 30°08'48" and a chord bearing and distance of South 94°01'3T' East, 155.72 feet; Thence continuing along said centerline South 01°00'56" West, 240.22 feet to a point on the South line of said Section 26; Thence North 88°58'19° West, 184.55 feet along Said South line to the Point of Beginning. Said parcel cxyntains 1.623 acres more or less. "~ vw- ~~~~~~ gY ``~ ~ 9KS DEPjtG i 404 w. Overland • Boise. l0 83705 • Phone 1208) 342-0041 • Fox (208) 342.0092 • Email: quadront~quadrantcc Civil Engineering Surveying Construction Management Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 n a uo ~ AlNA09 YQY iM t '8 ' N f 1 '8t Rpll,'1, 9$ ~ ~ ~rar~ ~rvz3a ~ 'ON A1O1St/11O8l15 ~N0~13/l QNIl31t~H7W AHM b'A'plb'DJ N Exhibit C `s° ='.~-=="-- -.c ..---~~~_ _ _ -~._-~-.=~~a-.~~ gam.- ^~-` CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 ^~ 6Zuadrant Consulting, Inc. Legal Description For Verona Sgbdivlsion No. 4 Rezone From R-8 to L-O Lot 92, Block 10 of Verona Subdivision Number 2, Book 91 of Plats at Pages 10743- 10744; Ada County Records and a portion of the Right-Of-Way of North Cortona Way, located in the Southwest'/e of Section 26, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest comer of said Section 26, thence South 88°58'19" East, 1301.40 feet along the South line of said Section; thence North 00°29'44" East, 965.44 feet along the Easterly boundary of said Verona Subdivision Number 2, thence North 89°°30'16" West, 280.87 feet to the Northeast comer of said Lot 12, being. the Point of Beginning; Thence South 11°04'28° West, 104.20 feet along the Easterly boundary of said Lot 12; Thence South 00°29'44" West, 110.00 feet to the Southeast comer of said Lot 12; Thence North 89°30'16" West, 94.54 feet to the Southwest comer of said Lot 12; Thence continuing North 89°30'96" West, 29.77 feet to the centerline of said North Cortona Way; Thence continuing along said centerline 72.98 feet along a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 200.00 feet, a delta angle of 20°90'67" and a chord bearing and distance of North 36°43'10" East, 72.57 feet; Thence North 42°49'44° East, 26.98 feet to the Wes#erly boundary of said Lot 12; Thence continuing North 42°49'44" East, 31.43 feet along the Westerly boundary of said Lot 12; Thence North 08°39'53° East, 112.60 feet to the Northwest comer of said Lot 12; Thence South 89°30'16° East, 132.00 feet along the Northerly boundary of said Lot 12 to the Point of Beginning. Said parcel contains 0.669 acres more or less. ~ va>I. t~~T 1 ~ ~T MERIDIAN PUBLIC wflRKS DEPT i 90a w. Overiond Boise. ID 83705 Phone (208( 342-0091 Fats (2~) 342-~92 Emoit: quadrant~auadront.cc Civ~ Engineering • Surveying • Construction Management Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 _-~- - - ~~~ ~~ ~ I ~j r A ~ ~ ~, M ~ ~ ~, ~! I ~~ '~ ~J N f. w~ 11 } o ~ NZ - ~ X1,1 ~ II O t' r o ~ ~~ i4 ~ ~ ~ ~ Ir 't m $ b ~ !1 V ' ~. . I ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~~ i i ~ r1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ti 1 I ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~~ ti I ~~ ~ 1~ v n n~ = j U ~'~~ V ~ ~' f z ~~ ~~~ m ]{~~ ~j( u trf ~!`~ 4 rf" - - m ~ 111 N CQRTIINA VAY ' ;, ~~ f NDNTEl.INLi~ ~~ l~" ~ r~~ ~ `-.~. ~- -~f- N CQRTQNA VA -m ~a -~ '~ tma ~ m• xs~ uw ~ m~, ~ ~ m 4 r 0 °~ ~c a "°'~~~- ^~^~ VERONA SUBDIVISION NO. 4 g REZONE arNie/r ,~,, SECTION 28, T. 4 N., R. f W ADA COUNTY tel ~-a®~aot mn w-am ~ Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; The City Council finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The Commission supports the proposed plat layout, with recommended changes, as they comply with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The City Council fords that public services can be made available to accommodate the proposed development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their own cost, the City Council fords that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACRD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B, Agency Comments and Conditions, for more detail.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and The City Council is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the development of this subdivision that should be brought to the Councils attention. ACRD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is unaware. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The City Council is unaware of any natural, scenic, or historic features on this site. Therefore, the City Council finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature(s) of major importance. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware. Exhibit D CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 2. Rezone Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings: a. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The applicant is proposing to zone the subject property to C-G and L-O. The City Council finds that the proposed zoning map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report. b. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The City Council fmds retail and office uses are permitted within the requested zoning district of C-G and L-O. The Commission fmds that any future use and / or development of this property should comply with the established regulations and purpose statement of the C- Gand L-O zoning districts. c. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The City Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this findmg. d. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts; and, The City Council fmds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. Exhibit D March 14, 2008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2008 RZ 07-018 APPLICANT Primeland Development Group, LLC ITEM NO. 7-B-1-C REQUEST Findings of Approval -Request for a Rezone of 12.64 acres from R-4 to L-O zone for Bridgetower Crossing Office -southwest comer of West McMillan Road ~-~ and North Linder Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: COMMENTS See attached Minutes See attached FindMgs ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: (-,h u eK. Chri s~-anser~ Date: 3-~^ Phone: ,3~ 2 - Q0~ Emailed: h(,1Ck Q.UQd~ nos. Staff Initia . Materials presented aF pubUc meetings shall becom® property of CHy of Meridian. • • RECEYVEF? [~A~ 0 ~ 200 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER City Df Me~diar~ City Clerk ®ffice E IDIAN ~~~t~ In the Matter of Rezoning 12.64 acres from R-4 (Medium-low Density Residential) to L-O (Limited Office); Preliminary Plat of 11 commercial building lots and 1 other lot in a proposed L-O zoning district for Bridgetower Crossing Office Subdivision, by Primeland Development, LLC. Case No(s). RZ-07-018 and PP-07-023 For the City Council Bearing Date of: February 26, 2008 (Findings on the March 18, 2008 City Council agenda) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-SA. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-07-018 and PP-07-023 -1- 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, Preliminary Plat, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's Preliminary Plat as evidenced by having submitted the Preliminary Plat dated October 9, 2007 is hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Preliminary Plat Duration Please take notice that approval of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat within two (2) years of the approval of the preliminary plat or one (1) year of the combined preliminary and final plat or short plat. In the event that the development of the preliminary plat is made in successive phases in an orderly and reasonable manner, and conforms substantially to the approved preliminary plat, such segments, if submitted within successive intervals of eighteen (18) months, maybe considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-6B-7.A, the Director may authorize a single extension of time to record the final plat not to exceed eighteen (18) months. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the City Council maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or City Council may require the preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-07-018 and PP-07-023 -2- the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. If the above timetable is not met and the applicant does not receive a time extension, the property shall be required to go through the platting procedure again. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 B ction of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the ~ ~~ day of kVGlr~ , 200E. COUNCIL MEMBER DAVID ZAREMBA COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD (TIE BREAKER) Attest: aycee Dolman, City Clerk Copy served upon Applicant, Attorney. VOTED VOTED P~~ VOTED VOTED VOTED S ~~~ ,; ,~ `\` ,°~ ~~de eerd ~~ ~``` ~~~ '/os~ ~~ ; _ ~~~L = '~~~i ~ ~ \`ava The Pl ~,,anri`i~~~D~ °~.rtnient, Public Works Department and City By: Dated: 3 ° Z~ ' Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-07-018 and PP-07-023 -3- CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26 2008 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: February 26, 2008 TO: Mayor and City Council E IDIAN ~' FROM: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner s 1~ ~, H 884-5533 SUBJECT: Bridgetower Crossing Office • RZ-07-018 Rezone 12.64 acres from R-4 (Medium-low Density Residential) to L-O (Limited Office), by Primeland Development Group, LLC • PP-07-023 Preliminary Plat of 11 commercial building lots and 1 other lot in a proposed L-O zoning district. 1. SiJNIlVIARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Primeland Development Group, LLC has applied for a Rezone (RZ) of 12.64 acres from R-4 (Medium-low Density Residential) to L-O (Limited Office) and preliminary plat approval of 11 commercial building lots and 1 other lot. The subject preliminary plat is a re- subdivision of Lots 15 through 17 and Lots 43 through 45, Block 36 and Block 32 of Bridgetower Crossing No. 11 and No. 12. As part of the Bridgetower Crossing Planned Development (CUP- O 1-006), the office portion was granted as a use exception. The applicant is proposing to rezone the portion of the R-4 zoned parcels to conform to the City's Comprehensive Plan Office designation for the subject site. The subject property is located at the southwest corner of W. McMillan Road and N. Linder Road in Section 35, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, B.M. Currently, the site is vacant land and the applicant intends to construct a commercial development. The subject property is within the City's Urban Service Planning Area and within the existing corporate boundaries of the City. 2. SUIVIlVIARY RECOMMENDATION The subject applications (RZ-07-018 and PP-07-023) were submitted to the Planning Department for concurrent review. Staff has provided a detailed analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the RZ and PP applications. Staff is recommending that the RZ and PP applications be approved with the conditions listed in Ezhibit B of the staff report. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on January 3 2008 At the public hearing the Commission moved to recommend anuroval of the subiect RZ and PP request. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Chuck Christensen (AuAlicant's Rearesentativel ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting auplication: Bill Parsons vi. Other staff commentine on application: None b. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. Tiling the Settler's Canal along the northern property boundary Bridgetower Crossing Office RZ and PP PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING~TE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 ii. Limiting the number of access points on Linder Road. c. Kev Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. The portion of the Settler's Canal along McMillan Road and west of Villa>=io Wav is not eznected to be tiled. d. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. None The Merid ian Citv Council heard hpc itpmc ~~ Fph.~,arv 26. ~nnQ At tAo nnhlir tenor:.... }hp ouncil ap proved the ubi e 7. and PP reauec .a, Summary of i tv o ~ncil Puhli Aparina; ~. ~. In favor : Cornel Larson ~, In oppo sition: None aai. Co m n 'n :None aY. Written testimony: None y. tall pr esen 'nom app ication: Anna a pin ~, Other s taff commenting on application• None 11s ev Ic ue of D i cuccion by ouncil: ~, he new Develop DA provi ion propoc d for the Brid etower roccin nfficp ment ~. Council . wanted cla 'fication re ardin the ad itional acce c proposed on Linder Road ~. • Kev Counc'1 .h anuec to Staff/C'.nmmiccinn Rponmmp ~, han~e s to the DA provi ion 'll be roda ed in the a ocia ed Micce laneou tall Re port (file #' MI-07-01 and MI-07-0141. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Numbers RZ- 07-018 and PP-07-023 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Numbers RZ-07- 018 and PP-07-023 as presented during the hearing on February 26, 2008, for the following reasons: (State specific reasons for denial of the preliminary plat request.) Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number RZ- 07-018 and PP-07-023 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (State specific reason(s) for a continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: Southwest corner of W. McMillan Road and N. Linder Road Section 35, T.4N., R.1 W. b. Applicant: Primeland Development Group, LLC Bridgetower Crossing Office RZ and PP PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ RTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26 2008 3120 W. Belltower Drive, Suite 100 Meridian, ID 83646 c. Owner: Same as applicant d. Representative: Chuck Christensen, Quadrant Consulting, Inc. e. Present Zoning: R-4 (Medium-low Density Residential) f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Office g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant has applied for a Rezone (RZ) of 12.64 acres from R-4 (Medium-low Density Residential) to L-O (Limited Office) and preliminary plat approval for 11 commercial building lots and 1 other lot in a proposed L-O zone. 1. Preliminary Plat, labeled Sheet C-1, prepared by Quadrant Consulting, dated 10/9/07 (attached in Exhibit A) 2. Landscape Plan, labeled Sheet L-1, prepared by Harvest Design, dated 9/18/07 (attached in Exhibit A) 3. Concept Plan (attached in Exhibit A) h. Applicant's Statement/Justification: The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval for 11 commercial building lots and one other lot in a proposed L-O zone. The rezone is being requested to have the office portion of the development be consistent with the City's Future Land Use Map for this property. As part of the Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision approval, the office uses were permitted as use exceptions. Since that time, the Comprehensive Plan was amended by the City to reflect these approvals. The applicant is not requesting additional office area, but instead proposes to increase the number of allowed lots. The proposed development is expected to develop with the same high quality architecture and design as the existing residential and commercial developments in the area. See applicant's narrative submitted with the application for more information. 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will, in fact, constitute a preliminary plat as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11, a public hearing is required before the Commission and City Council on this matter. b. The subject application will, in fact, constitute a rezone as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-2A-2D, a public hearing is required before the Commission and the City Council on this matter. c. Newspaper notifications published on: December 17, 2007 and December 31, 2007 (Planning and Zoning Commission); February 4, 2008 and February 18 2008 (Gifu Council) d. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: December 14, 2007 (Planning and Zoning Commission); February 1, 2008 (Gifu Councill e. Applicant posted notice on site by: December 24, 2007 (Planning and Zoning Commission); February 16, 2008 (Gifu Council) 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): The site is currently vacant. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: There are existing single-family homes Bridgetower Crossing Oliice RZ and PP PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 surrounding this proposed development. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Vacant; zoned C-G 2. East: Single Family Residences (Ada County) and Cobblefield Crossing; zoned RUT and R-4 3. South: Single Family Residence/Agricultural Land; zoned RUT Ada County 4. West: Bridgetower Crossing No. 11 and 12; zoned R-4 d. History of Previous Actions: In 2001, this portion of the property was annexed and zoned (AZ-O1-003) and preliminarily platted (PP-02-014) with a mix of residential and office lots. A Development Agreement (Inst. No. 101117652) was recorded at the time of annexation that required the site develop as a Planned Development. The office portion was granted as a use exception with the Bridegtower Crossing Planned Development (CUP-O1-006). The office lots were final platted with the recordation of Bridgetower Crossing No. 11 and No. 12 (FP-OS-016 and FP-OS-034 respectively). e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities: 1. Public Works Location of sewer: This property is serviced from N Coppercloud Way. Location of water: Connections from W McMillan Rd, N Linder Rd, N Coppercloud Way and a stub to the south will be required. Issues or concerns: None 2. Vegetation: None 3. Floodplain: NA 4. Canals/Ditches/Irrigation: Settler's Canal is located on this site. It was tiled with earlier phases of the development. 5. Hazards: None known 6. Proposed Zoning: L-O (Limited Office) 7. Size of Property: 12.64 acres f. Subdivision Plat Information: 1. Residential Lots: 0 2. Non-residential Lots: 11 3. Total Building Lots: 11 4. Common Lots: 0 5. Other Lots: 1 6. Total Lots: 12 7. Open Lots: 0 g. Landscaping: 1. Width of street buffer(s): UDC 11-2B-3 requires a minimum 25-foot wide street buffer along W. McMillan Road an N. Linder Road. With the exception of Bridgetower Crossing Office RZ and PP PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DE~ TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 approximately 230 feet of landscaping along McMillan Road, the required landscape buffer has been installed with the final platting of Bridgetower Crossing No. 11 and 12. An additional 10-foot landscape buffer will need to be constructed along the eastern side of Villagio Way and the north and south side of Loretta Street. Landscaping shall be provided in accordance with UDC 11-3B-7, Landscape Buffers Along Streets. 2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: A 20-foot wide buffer is required between L-O zoned property and residential zoned property. The required landscaping has been installed with the final platting of Bridgetower Crossing No. 11 and 12. 3. Parking lot landscaping: Perimeter and internal parking lot landscaping is required on all lots that are zoned L-O, in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Perimeter and internal landscaping on these lots will be reviewed for compliance with UDC standards with submittal of Certificate of Zoning Compliance applications for each building. 4. Other landscaping standards: N/A h. Dimensional standards for the L-O zone per UDC 11-2B-3: Minimum Dimensional Standards (in feet unless otherwise noted) Proposed Required Front setback* 20 20 Rear setback* 20 20 Interior side setback* 10 10 Maximum building height 35 35 Maximum building size (without design standard approval) 10,000 s.f. 10,000 s.f. * All setbacks shall be measured from the ultimateright-of--way for the street classification as shown on the adopted transportation plan. No changes to the dimensional standards in UDC Table 11-2B-3 were requested or approved with this application.) i. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): Access to this development will be provided from seven full-access driveways, two right-in/right-out driveways and three public streets; one existing public street (Coppercloud Way), one private street proposed for ACRD acceptance as a public street (Villagio Way) and one proposed public street (Loretta Street). The applicant is also proposing Villagio Way provide right-in/right-out access only to W. McMillan and Loretta Street provide full access to N. Linder Road. All nine of the proposed driveways will take access internally to/from the project. Five of the driveways will take access to/from Villagio Way, another two will take access to/from Loretta Street and the two right-in/right-out driveways will access to /from Coppercloud Way. Across-access agreement should be recorded for all of the commercial lots within the proposed subdivision to share the access points and drive aisles to Coppercloud Way, Loretta Street and Villagio Way. Other than the access points approved with this application, direct lot access to N. Ten Mile Road should be prohibited. The Planning Department and ACRD are supportive of the proposed access points to the subdivision, per the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On December 14, 2007, Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and Bridgetower Crossing Office RZ and PP PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING'I7ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated "Office" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, "Office" areas are anticipated to provide a full range of commercial and retail to serve area residents and visitors and "Office" areas are anticipated to provide opportunities for low-impact business areas. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics): • Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1 -Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands in the following manner: - Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer s expense. - The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resources and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. - The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Police Department (MPD). - The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACIID). This service will not change. - The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District No. 2. This service will not change. - The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change. Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. • "Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 4) The applicant is required to install and maintain landscaping within the street buffers located along N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road in accordance with UDC 11-3B-7. A 25 foot wide buffer is required along both roadways. • "Permit new ...commercial development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City." (Chapter IV, Goal I, Obj. A, #6) Urban services including sanitary sewer and water are available to this parcel. • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B) Bridgetower Crossing Office RZ and PP PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Staff believes that the future off ce uses on this site will contribute to the variety of uses in this area. • "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal III, Objective D, Action 5) The applicant is not required to install internal landscaping with the subject preliminary plat application; however, street buffer landscaping is required with this application. Internal landscaping will be required upon development of each lot within the subdivision with CUP and/or CZC approval. • "Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1) The Applicant is proposing a commercial zone adjacent to established residential areas to the west and south. The required landscape buffers are constructed and run the entire length of western and southern property boundary. In addition to the existing landscape buffer, the residential development will be separated by a public street and an additional 10 feet of landscaping along the eastern side of Alba Avenue. Staff finds the proposed commercial development will be compatible with the surrounding residential uses. Staff also finds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this application: • "The capacity of arterial ...roadways can be greatly diminished by excessive driveway connections to the roadways. The City should cooperate with ACRD to minimise access points on arterial...roadways as development applications are reviewed." (Chapter VI, page 72) The existingpublic street connection to Linder was approved and constructed with the Bridgetower Crossing East Subdivision. The applicant is proposing two additional public street connections to McMillan and LindeY Staff and ACFID are supportive of theses access points as they align with existing and future public streets adjacent to the proposed development. • "Develop methods, such as cross-access agreements, frontage roads, to reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets." (Chapter VI, Goal II, Obj. A, #12, page 79). A cross-access agreement will be required as part of this subdivision approval. All of the proposed driveways will take access to/from internal public roads. • Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal N, Objective D, Action item 2) Staff is supportive of the applicant's proposed public street connections to Linder and McMillan Roads. Each of the proposed public streets align with existing commercial and residential developments to the north and west of the site. Staff believes these alignments provide excellent connectivity with existing and future developments. Staff recommends that the Commission rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicant's development request is appropriate for this property. 9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE Bridgetower Crossing Office RZ and PP PAGE 7 i CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC Table 11-2B-21ists a variety of uses that are principal permitted, accessory, conditional, or prohibited within the L-O zoning district. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four Districts aze designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation REZONE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MODIFICATION ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map designation of Office, Staff believes that the requested L-O zoning designation is appropriate for the subject property. The office azea was granted as a use exception for the Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision but is currently zoned R-4 respectively. The applicant is proposing to zone the land to match the land use and match the existing office portion of the development with the City's Comprehensive Plan by rezoning 12.64 acres to L-O. Staff is supportive of this request as it brings the site in conformance with the City's Future Land Use Map. Please see Exhibit D for a detailed analysis of the required facts and findings for a rezone. The rezone legal description submitted with the application (stamped on October 15, 2007 by Peter W. Lounsbury, PLS) is accurate and meets the requirements of the City of Meridian and Idaho State Tax Commission. UDC 11-SB-3D2 provides the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council the authority to require a property owner to enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City of Meridian that may require some written commitment for all future uses. As part of annexation into the City for the Bridgetower Crossing development, the developer was required to enter into a development agreement recorded under instrument # 101117652. The office portion of the Bridgetower Crossing Development was approved as a use exception in an R-4 zoning district. The existing DA allowed for the development of 8 office lots. Currently the Bridgetower Crossing Development has been approved with 18 office lots. With this application, the applicant has come forwazd with a concept plan to develop the office lots and is requesting to increase the amount of office lots within the Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision. Furthermore, the applicant is not requesting additional office azea, but instead proposes to increase the number of allowed lots. In order to increase the amount of office lots, the applicant is required to modify the existing DA. Provisions of the new DA will be outlined in a sepazate application for City Council approval. Staff has attached a copy of the draft staff report for the Commission's review. Staff believes that the proposed modifications will clean up the Bridgetower Crossing DA to reflect the proposed plat layout. Concept Plan: The applicant has submitted a concept plan for this development. The site is expected to develop with a variety of office uses on the site. Even though there aze 11 lots proposed with the preliminary plat, the submitted concept plan depicts a total of 12 buildings. The uses on the site will pertain to the L-O zoning districts schedule of use controls outlined in the UDC. The submitted concept plan does not indicate the amount of total squaze footage proposed for this site. Staff is limiting the development to not exceed 137,650 total squaze feet of non-residential uses on the site (this is 25% of the gross azea of the land). Further, staff is recommending that the site develop with a minimum of eight buildings with no one building exceed 15,000 squaze feet. Staff is Bridgetower Crossing Office RZ and PP PAGE 8 i CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING~TE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 generally supportive of the concept plan and any future development of this site should substantially comply with the submitted concept plan. Elevations: The applicant has provided staff with sample photos illustrating what the types of buildings are to be constructed on the site. Staff has selected several photos that portray the quality and design expected for the proposed development. These buildings are constructed with stucco finishes with varying roof heights, color changes and stone accented pillars and facades. The submitted photos show substantial building modulation and an abundance of glazing on the front facades. Staff believes that this is a good pallet for the developer to work from and has included these design features in Exhibit B of the Staff Report. Future buildings shall substantially comply with the construction materials and design elements shown in these elevations. PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposal with the Unified Development Code, Staff believes that this is a good location for the proposed commercial subdivision. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of facts and findings for a preliminary plat. Dimensional Requirements of the L-O zone per UDC Table 11-2B-3: There is no minimum lot size or street frontage requirements for lots in the L-O zone; however the L-O zoning District requires minimum setbacks of 20 feet front and rear and 10-foot side yard setbacks. The maximum building height allowed the maximum allowed in the L-O zone is 35 feet. The maximum building size allowed without design standard approval is 10,000 square feet for the L-O zone. Future buildings proposed on the subject lots shall meet the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2B-3 and #6h above. Landscaping: Except for the 25-foot landscape buffer along W. McMillan Road, the entire perimeter landscaping along N. Linder Road has been installed with the approval of Bridgetower Crossing No. 11 and No. 12. The applicant is also proposing to construct a 5-foot detached sidewalk with additional 5-feet of sod along N Linder Road. Where the commercial uses adjoin the residential neighborhood to the west and south of the site, the required landscape buffer has been constructed. The submitted landscape plan is proposing trees to be planted within the 50-foot Settler's Canal easement along the north side of the site. In addition to the 50-foot easement, there is a 60-foot Idaho Power utility easement that runs parallel to the irrigation easement. City Code (UDC 11-3B-7) requires an additional 5-foot buffer width where the buffer is encumbered by easements or other restrictions. As part of previous approvals (PP-02- 014), the applicant was responsible for maintaining access for the Irrigation District to maintain the ditch and the Idaho Power Company allowed a 5-foot detached sidewalk with sod and Class I trees to be planted within their easement. Therefore, Staff is recommending the applicant install sod and shrubs within the tiled area of the ditch with the Irrigation Districts approval and provide an additional 5 feet of landscaping with Class I trees outside of irrigation easement as with previous approvals. The applicant should contact the Irrigation District and the Idaho Power Company to see if the applicability of the previous requirements is still necessary and permitted with this project. If these changes are made, Staff believes the landscape plan to be in compliance with City code. Staff recommends that the Applicant, at the public hearing, testify if the above mentioned agencies still require the access road and would allow trees and sod within their easements. Proposed Streets and/or Access: Access to this development will be provided from a total of seven full-access driveways, two right-in/right-out driveways, two full-access public streets to N. Linder Road and one right-in/right-out access only backage road to Bridgetower Crossing Office RZ and PP PAGE 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING~TE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 W. McMillan Road which will provide access to/from the two other public streets and stubs to the south for future connectivity. Five driveways will take access to/from Villagio Way, two will provide access to/from Loretta Street and the two remaining right- in/right-out driveways connect to Coppercloud Way. As mentioned earlier, all of these driveways are expected to align with future public roadways and driveways. Staff and ACHD are supportive of the proposed driveways and public streets because of the future connectivity with current and future developments. All commercial lots within the subdivision should have access to the access points approved in this application. The agreement should also allow for cross-access/parking between the L-O lots within this subdivision. This agreement shall be recorded and a copy of said agreement submitted to the City prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat (see Exhibit B of the staff report). Pressure Irrigation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. The applicant should be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1-28. Drainage: A seepage bed for stormwater drainage is shown on Lot 2, Block 46 and in the northewest corner of the development. No trees shall be planted over the seepage beds. All storm drainage facilities shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11, Stormwater Integration. Fencing: The Applicant is not showing any fencing on any of the submitted plans. Permanent fencing is not required for commercial subdivisions. However, if permanent fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit for this site. b. Staff Recommendation: Based on the above analysis, staff finds that applications RZ-07-018 and PP- 07-023 substantially conform to the Comprehensive Plan policies and UDC standards. Staff recommends that the RZ and PP applications be approved with the conditions stated in Exhibit B of the staff report. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on January 3 2008 At the public hearing the Commission moved to recommend aAnroval of the subiect RZ and PP request he Meridian Citv o nc'1 hearA thpc itPmc nn Fal,r.~o.~v ")~ 711114 S+ +{~n .,„{~~• 1. e Council anuroved he ubiect 7, and PP r aue t 11. EXIITBITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map 2. Preliminary Plat, prepared by Quadrant Consulting, labeled Sheet C-1, dated 10/5/07 3. Landscape Plan, prepared by Harvest Design, labeled Sheet L-1 dated 9/18/07 4. Concept Plan 5. Elevations Bridgetower Crossing Office RZ and PP PAGE 10 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D•RTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEB RUARY 26, 2008 B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Ada County Highway District 8. Central District Health Department 9. Settler's Irrigation District C. Legal Description & Exhibit Map D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Bridgetower Crossing Office RZ and PP PAGE 11 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING~TE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 ST RUT ST C-G L-O z RUT RUT R-4 DR RUT Exhibit A PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 2. Preliminary Plat ~~.~ m~~~~~~ ~u~'Buµ~neuo~ ""~ .~.iNAOO VaY `aa~ •a ^N3~ •i `Sf N011~35 ~ ""~ }UDJ P~~' ^^ i~ lYld At17N7tFf73Nd ~ ~ L_i Si 'ON NOJSJJ4J08tTS ONJSS02J~ t13M013901t18 ~ ® ~p~ ~ ~~~ ~~~ e a~ ~ ~~ e~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~ ® ~~~ 4 ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ y ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~i!i -; ~~ ~~ , ~ viii j iii illy i ~ lil!~ ~® ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~~ ~~~ 8 4 9 Exhibit A PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING~TE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 3. Landscape Plan s- - ~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~~_ ~~~ ~ ~ ,o ~~~-~ .* .4 f ~ ~ ' - p ~ E ~` ~ I '~ Q 9 }~ ~ ~ l ~.. ' ~ ~ .: ' (f ~ ~- , 1 I~ I eae~ae E ieiasio ~ ~ r'.. ~a^ ~-------t A f ~ a ~ 8 i ~ ~ _ i i '~:~ ~:. __~ f ' ~ ~ .f. ` rt 1. ~ ~ ~ , ~ ! ,~ ~ ' D ~ ('`' ' 1 ~ 'e (:. 1 ! `1 ~ f ,~-9I ~ , ~ I~ , >, E ; ~ I f !!~ 6 - ~ - - - - $ ~~~ ° o ~ ~~ ~~ ~ F ~ i 8 ~~~~' i s ~ , '~ ~~ ti ,, ~ ..°y ~~ frRtpGETO"11fR CROSSfN~ S+JBQ1V75t©A.e hfL~. PS ~ tl PREtfkNNA7iY RLAI ~ Qupd/pAt ~EC71t3N 35, 7. 4N., R. aK+,. ADA CQJN~i .. ons~~uslrpw~nc atm satyr eus oa,~. ~®'..'~~+a~~ms Exhibit A PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 4. Concept Plan ~~I~' DEC ~ 4 2UD] cx~r o~ m~>~rniv PLANNING & ZONTNQ Exhibit A PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 5. Elevations v ~ 6 `~i a. ` ~ ~ u, ~ \ 3 s ~ ~ ,~ a. ~ U ~v ~ ~~` r~ a o "a~ v5 ~ 3 Vy ~° `~ U avli ~ psi 'fir ~ ~ "~ !n U ~ ,~ -~ s 6 ~'' ~~ t9 .r1 r :v'°g ~' Exhibit A PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING~TE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 REZONE CONIMENTS/PROVISIONS 1.1.1 The rezone legal description submitted with the application (prepazed on October 15, 2007, by Peter W. Lounsbury, PLS) is approved. 1.1.2 Any future subdivision, uses, and construction on this property shall comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of permit submittal. 1.1.3 The applicant shall complete the DA modification MI-07-014 prior to the City adopting the rezone ordinance. 1.2 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT 1.2.1 The preliminary plat labeled as C-1, prepazed by Quadrant Consulting, dated October 9, 2007, is approved with the conditions listed herein. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of this site associated with AZ-01-003, CUP-01-006, and the Development Agreement (Instrument No.101117652) currently in effect for Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision (as amended). 1.2.2 Access to N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road shall be consistent with the approvals of ACHD and the City of Meridian. A note shall be placed on the final plat restricting direct lot access to these roadways other than the access points approved with this application. 1.2.3 Landscaping: The landscape plan submitted for this project, prepazed by Harvest Design, labeled Sheet L-1, dated 9/18/07 is approved with the following notes: • Provide a minimum 25-foot wide landscape buffer along W. McMillan Road and 10 foot landscape buffers adjacent to the east side of Villagio Way and along the north and south sides of Loretta Street, as proposed. In addition the applicant shall provide a minimum 5- foot landscape buffer outside of the irrigation easement to allow for the planting of the 11 Class one trees. • A written certificate of completion should be prepazed by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted to the Planning Department upon completion of the landscaping prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the site. All standazds of installation should apply as listed in UDC 11-3B- 14. Submit copies with the final plat application(s). 1.2.4 A minimum 25-foot wide street buffer is required along N. Linder Road, as shown on the plat. 1.2.5 No signage is approved with this application. All signs proposed for this site shall obtain separate sign permit approval. 1.2.6 Across-access/cross-pazking easement/agreement shall be recorded for all commercial lots within the subdivision. All lots within the subdivision shall have access to the access points to McMillan Road, Linder Road, Coppercloud Way, Villagio Way and Loretta Street. This agreement shall be recorded and a copy of said agreement submitted to the City prior to the City Engineer's signature on the fmal plat OR a note shall be added to the face of the final plat granting said cross-access. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 1.2.7 Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or assigns. Record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including but not limited to structures, parking, common areas, private streets, and other development features. 1.2.8 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all required fencing, pressurized irrigation, landscaping, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature of the final plat. 1.3 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT 1.3.1 Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to City Code. 1.3.2 All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11- 3A-18 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3A- 18. Where the Applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan and where Staff has reviewed such plan, the landscaping shall be consistent with the preliminary plan with modifications as proposed by Staff. If the stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3A-18, then the Applicant shall relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. It is the responsibility of the developer to comply with ACRD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at the time of final construction. 1.3.3 Temporary construction fencing to contain debris shall be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit. All fencing should be installed in accordance with City Code. 1.3.5 Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved Preliminary Plat does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.3.6 Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-6A. 1.3.7 The Applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.3.8 All development within the L-O district shall conform to the dimensional standards per UDC 11- 2B-3. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension of mains in N Coppercloud Way. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in W McMillan Rd, N Linder Rd, N Coppercloud Way and a stub to the south located at the end of Villagio Way. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 2.3 The applicant shall provide a 20-foot common lot for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way. The common lot shall be covered with a blanket easement to the City of Meridian. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 2.4 The applicant shall provide a 20-foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat. The description shall be consistent with the graphically depicted easements on the plat but be recorded as a separate document using the City of Meridian's standard forms. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. 2.5 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.6 All existing structures shall be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.7 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. Plans shall be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, alternate plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 2.8 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.9 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. Z.10 Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.11 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.1 Z All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro-paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.13 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat per Resolution 02-374. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that maybe required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING~TE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of any building is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or the ACRD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights shall be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department prior to commencing installations. 3. MERIDIAN FIItE DEPARTMENT 3.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4'/a" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on comers when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 3.3 All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 3.4 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. 3.5 Commercial and office occupancies will require afire-flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING~TE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 3.6 The applicant shall work with Planning Department staff to provide an address identification plan and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance at the required intersection(s). 3.7 All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface as measured around the perimeter of the building. 3.8 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 3.9 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all fire department connections. 3.10 Buildings over 30' in height are required to have access roads in accordance with The International Fire Code Appendix D Section D105. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The proposed development shall limit landscaping shrubs and bushes to species that do not exceed two feet in height. Trees shall have a canopy of no less than six feet. 4.2 Any interior fencing shall allow visibility from the street or shall not exceed four feet in height if solid fencing is used. All micropaths and open areas shall have adequate lighting. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 5.1 The Parks Department has no concerns with the site design as submitted with the application. 6. SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY 6.1 Prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance, that applicant shall submit an approved site plan from SSC. 6.2 Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal prior to the public hearing. There is a concern that the required modifications may significantly impact your site design and may require a revised site plan. If the site plan is revised, contact the planner assigned to the project immediately to discuss the changes and how to proceed with the revised site plan. 6.3 Provide a minimum 28' inside and 48' outside radius for all alleys and private streets, where they intersect a public street. Exhibit B i CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 7.1 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 7.1.1 Construct a five foot concrete sidewalk at the northeast corner of the site to connect the existing sidewalk improvements along Linder and McMillan Roads with the intersection therof. 7.1.2 Construct Loretta Street as a 29 foot street section (measured back of curb to back of curb) with vertical curb, gutter and five foot attached sidewalk inside 42 feet ofright-of--way, to align with the existing portion of Loretta Street east of McMillan Road. Construct a 5-foot detached concrete sidewalk at the site abutting McMillan Road to match existing improvements. 7.1.3 Complete Villagio Way as a minimum 25 foot street section (measured back of curb to back of curb) with vertical curb and gutter on both sides and a five foot attched concrete sidewalk on the west side. In accordance with ACHD "Interim Procedure for Acceptance of Private Roads into the Public Sysytem" dated March 16, 2005, provide documentation that the existing improvements meet current District standards in order to be accepted as public right-of--way. Villagio Way shall intersect with McMillan Road no closer than 300 feet west of Linder Road (measured centerline to centerline) and will be restricted to a right-in/right-out with the Linder/McMillan intersection project in 2008. Terminate Villagio Way at the south property line and install a sign at the terminus stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE Fi.]TLJRE." 7.1.4 Install signs along both Loretta. Way and Villagio Way prohibiting on-street parking. 7.1.5 Provide a public turnaround easement in the driveway nearest Villagio Way's south terminus. 7.1.6 Construct 2right-insight-out driveways onto Coppercloud Way as proposed, no wider than 36 feet, with a minimum 15 foot curb return radii. 7.1.7 Construct 2 driveways onto Loretta Street as proposed, aligning with each other, no wider than 36 feet, with a minimum 15 foot curb return radii. 7.1.8 Construct 5 driveways onto Villagio Way as proposed, no wider than 36 feet, with a minimum 15 foot curb return radii. 7.1.9 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. 7.2 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 7.2.1 Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of--way. 7.2.2 Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACRD roadway or right-of--way. 7.2.3 All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 7.2.4 Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that maybe damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 7.2.5 Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy. 7.2.6 Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 7.2.7 All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all Exhibit B • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepaze and certify all improvement plans. 7.2.8 The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 7.2.9 Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7.2.10 Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction. The assessed impact fee will be based on the impact fee ordinance that is in effect at that time. 7.2.11 It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of--way. The applicant at no cost to ACRD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two fiill business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of--way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) aze compromised during any phase of construction. 7.2.12 No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they aze in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 7.2.13 Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. 8. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT 8.1 After written approval from appropriate entities is submitted, we can approve this proposal for central sewage and central water. 8.2 The following plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: central sewage and central water. 8.3 Run-off is not to create amosquito-breeding problem. 8.4 Central District Health will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: food establishments, grocery store, beverage establishment and child Gaze center. 9. SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT 9.1 All irrigation /drainage facilities along with their easements must be protected and continue to function. The facility involved is the Settlers Cana1(50' easement). 9.2 A Land Use Change Application must be on file prior to any approvals. 9.3 A license agreement MUST be signed and recorded prior to construction of any SID facilities, or within its easements. 9.4 Any changes to the existing irrigation system such as relocation, tiling, and landscaping must be approved by Settlers Irrigation District's Board of Directors. Exhibit B • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING~TE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 9.5 All storm drainage must be retained on-site. 9.6 A pressure irrigation system must be provided to service all lots within the above-mentioned subdivision from the current delivery point. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING~TE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Exhibit C -Legal Descriptions & Exhibit Maps ~~ 6~ucldrelnt Consulting, Inc. Legal Descrlptian For Bridgetower Crossing Sul~lvislon No. 15 (Rezone) Rezoning from R-4 to L-O Lot 95,16 and17, Block 36 and Lot 1, Block 39 of Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 11, Book 95 of Plats at Pages 11804-11805; Ada County Records, Lot 43,44 and 45, Block 32 of Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 12, Book 96 of Plats at Pages 11834- 11836; Ada County Records and a portion of the Right-Of-Way of North Linder Road, West McMillan Road, and North Coppercloud Way located in the Northeast quarter of Section 35, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada Couniy, Idaho described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast comer of said Seciion 35, being the Point of Beginning; Thence South 00°15'17' West, 1317.40 feet along the East line of said Section; Thence North 89°18'30° West, 418.01 feet to the Southwest comer of said Lot 17; Tl~nce North 00°15'1T' East, 1316.35 feet to the North line of said Section; Thence South 89°28'07° East, 418.00 feet along the North line of said Section; Said parcel contains 12.637 acres more or less. va. eY QG~ ~ 5 ~~~ ~~ pueuc t~~~ ~T. Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 ~~~~~~~~ ~u%u neuo .tIM/!0~ -$V "Md 'U ''MY 7 'Sf A(~9S , "°O' d~~Pd+'~"/ 1IBlbHf3 YNaY3d1 ~;~, t!~J St 'ON 1YO1SiNQ8OS aAllSS02~ t13h40L390ft18 ~~; ~ AA.O£ bl.BBN ~~ r •l~~ saaa~ Opena we~ara3w~ ;~ ~~ ! t ~ g IA319 d i I 6 { I F! ~ ~ ~ !~ I ~ J ~ f I ~+ i 1111 r d ~ ii ~ { w ;'; ~ W r D A I Q 1? ___._ p w ' ~ ~=~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~9 vwi ~ o ^ ~ ' ~ ~'' t a r w ~ w ra { a rn w ~ ~ M ~ i ~~ ~~ d ~ , I} t~ ~ o° Y{ t M J, ~ { '~ j W.. !~ ~ .-. f e ~ jr ; _ ~ r' u I ~ v C f e /~ f ~i. ~ ~ v - _... _ 7.in_ss cer . . Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DE• TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings; 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; The City Council fords that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The City Council supports the proposed plat layout, with recommended changes, as they comply with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The City Council fords that public services can be made available to accommodate the proposed development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their own cost, the City Council finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACRD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B, Agency Comments and Conditions, for more detail.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and The City Council is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the development of this subdivision that should be brought to the Council's attention. ACRD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is unaware. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The City Council is unaware of any natural, scenic, or historic features on this site. Therefore, the City Council fords that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature(s) of major importance. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware. Exhibit D CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 2. Rezone Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings: a. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The applicant is proposing to zone the subject property to L-O. The City Council finds that the proposed zoning map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report. b. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The City Council finds office uses are permitted within the requested zoning district of L-O. The City Council finds that any future use and / or development of this property should comply with the established regulations and purpose statement of the L-O zoning district. c. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The City Council fmds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. d. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts; and, The City Council fmds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. Exhibit D March 14, 2008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING PP 07-023 March 18, 200$ APPLICANT Primeland Development Group, LLC tTEM NO. 7-B-1-D REQUF_ST Findings for Approval -- Request for Preliminary Plat appoval of 11 commercial lots and 2 other lots on 10.2 acres in proposed L-O zoning dis#rict for Bridgetower Crossing Office -southwest comer of West McMillan 8~ North Under Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGWWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFHCE: OTHER: COMMENTS See aocched Minutes See coached Findings ~ru~rc Contacted: C~'~,(dC~ ~lh$~nStn Date: 'lj- ~ Phon ~ 2' ~~ Emailed: ~Y ~~. C ~ Staff Initials: Materials pr seated at public meetings shall become property of the Cfly of Meridian. ~ RECEIVED MAR 0 ~ ~00~ City ®f IVYeridiasa City Clerk ®ffice CITY OF MERIDIAN E IDIAI`~T FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ~ ®~ ~ DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of Rezoning 12.64 acres from R-4 (Medium-low Density Residential) to L-O (Limited Office); Preliminary Plat of 11 commercial building lots and 1 other lot in a proposed L-O zoning district for Bridgetower Crossing Office Subdivision, by Primeland Development, LLC. Case No(s). RZ-07-018 and PP-07-023 For the City Council Hearing Date of: February 26, 2008 (Findings on the March 18, 2008 City Council agenda) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-3 82 and Maps. 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-SA. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-07-018 and PP-07-023 -1- i ~ 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, Preliminary Plat, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's Preliminary Plat as evidenced by having submitted the Preliminary Plat dated October 9, 2007 is hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Preliminary Plat Duration Please take notice that approval of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat within two (2) years of the approval of the preliminary plat or one (1) year of the combined preliminary and final plat or short plat. In the event that the development of the preliminary plat is made in successive phases in an orderly and reasonable manner, and conforms substantially to the approved preliminary plat, such segments, if submitted within successive intervals of eighteen (18) months, maybe considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-6B-7.A, the Director may authorize a single extension of time to record the final plat not to exceed eighteen (18) months. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the City Council maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or City Council may require the preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-07-018 and PP-07-023 -2- the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. If the above timetable is not met and the applicant does not receive a time extension, the property shall be required to go through the platting procedure again. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the ~g~ da of (Y1Q.rCh , 2008. y COUNCIL MEMBER DAVID ZAREMBA VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON VOTED p1~6C~n b COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIlZD VOTED MAYOR TANIMY de WEERD VOTED -- (TIE BREAKER) Attest: Jaycee Hod~nan, City Clerk Copy served upon Applicant, Attorney. i i''r'~''/~ MaYgx,Tiamtz} Weerd ~~\\o\`\\\`\ ` e®~~sr~o°°s ~~~ ~~. ; ~~~ _ ~ ~ The Planruf4g, ~ e ~`~ Public Works Department and City By: ty C erk's Office Dated: 3' aso~ CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-07-018 and PP-07-023 -3- CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING TE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: February 26, 2008 TO: Mayor and City Council E IDIAN~- FROM: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner ~ ~ A ~ ~~ 884-5533 SUBJECT: Bridgetower Crossing Office • RZ-07-018 D~ RTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~A Rezone 12.64 acres from R-4 (Medium-low Density Residential) to L-O (Limited Office), by Primeland Development Group, LLC • PP-07-023 Preliminary Plat of 11 commercial building lots and 1 other lot in a proposed L-O zoning district. 1. SUIVIlVIARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Primeland Development Group, LLC has applied for a Rezone (RZ) of 12.64 acres from R-4 (Medium-low Density Residential) to L-O (Limited Office) and preliminary plat approval of 11 commercial building lots and 1 other lot. The subject preliminary plat is a re- subdivision of Lots 15 through 17 and Lots 43 through 45, Block 36 and Block 32 of Bridgetower Crossing No. 11 and No. 12. As part of the Bridgetower Crossing Planned Development (CUP- 01-006), the office portion was granted as a use exception. The applicant is proposing to rezone the portion of the R-4 zoned pazcels to conform to the City's Comprehensive Plan Office designation for the subject site. The subject property is located at the southwest corner of W. McMillan Road and N. Linder Road in Section 35, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, B.M. Currently, the site is vacant land and the applicant intends to construct a commercial development. The subject property is within the City's Urban Service Planning Area and within the existing corporate boundaries of the City. 2. SUIVIlVIARY RECOMMENDATION The subject applications (RZ-07-O1 S and PP-07-023) were submitted to the Planning Department for concurrent review. Staff has provided a detailed analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the RZ and PP applications. Staff is recommending that the RZ and PP applications be approved with the conditions listed in Ezhibit B of the staff report. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on January 3, 2008 At the public hearing the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subiect RZ and PP request, a. Summary of Commission Public Hearin: i. In favor: Chuck Christensen (Applicant's Representative) ii. In opposition: None iii. Commentin• None iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons vi. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. Tiling the Settler's Canal along the northern property boundary Bridgetower Crossing Office RZ and PP PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 u. Limiting the number of access points on Linder Road. c. Key Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. The portion of the Settler's Canal along McMillan Road and west of Villagio Wav is not ezpected to be tiled. d. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. None The Meridi an City Council heard thec items nn Fehrnarv 2~_ 2flflft At tZ,p nnhli~ hearino the ounc'1 ap proved the subi ect 7. and PP reaue t ~, ummarv of it v o roc'1 ~bli .Rearing: ~ In favor : Cornel Larson ii. In oppo sition: None ~, Co me n 'n :None ~_ Written tes 'mono: None y. Staff pr esenting application• nna .a ninQ y~. Other st aff cowmen 'nom on application: None 1z. ev Issues of D iscussion by ounc'l: ~. he new Develop DA DTOViSlOIIC DYODOSed fnr the Rrirlvetnwer tocsin nfficp ment ja, ouncil . wanted cla 'fication re ar ing the ad itional acce propo ed on .'nder Road ~, . ev Council Ch appec to Staff/C'ommicsinn Rernmr.,P.._ anon ~. han~e s to the DA provi ion 'll be ~pda ed 'n he a ociated Mi ce laneou tall Re port (file #'s MI-07-01 and MI-07-0141. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Numbers RZ- 07-018 and PP-07-023 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Numbers RZ-07- 018 and PP-07-023 as presented during the hearing on February 26, 2008, for the following reasons: (State specific reasons for denial of the preliminary plat request.) Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number RZ- 07-018 and PP-07-023 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (State specific reason(s) for a continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: Southwest corner of W. McMillan Road and N. Linder Road Section 35, T.4N., R.1 W. b. Applicant: Primeland Development Group, LLC Bridgetower Crossing Office RZ and PP PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 3120 W. Belltower Drive, Suite 100 Meridian, ID 83646 c. Owner: Same as applicant d. Representative: Chuck Christensen, Quadrant Consulting, Inc. e. Present Zoning: R-4 (Medium-low Density Residential) f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Office g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant has applied for a Rezone (RZ) of 12.64 acres from R-4 (Medium-low Density Residential) to L-O (Limited Office) and preliminary plat approval for 11 commercial building lots and 1 other lot in a proposed L-O zone. 1. Preliminary Plat, labeled Sheet C-1, prepared by Quadrant Consulting, dated 10/9/07 (attached in Exhibit A) 2. Landscape Plan, labeled Sheet L-1, prepared by Harvest Design, dated 9/18/07 (attached in Exhibit A) 3. Concept Plan (attached in Exhibit A) h. Applicant's Statement/Justification: The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval for 11 commercial building lots and one other lot in a proposed L-O zone. The rezone is being requested to have the office portion of the development be consistent with the City's Future Land Use Map for this property. As part of the Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision approval, the office uses were permitted as use exceptions. Since that time, the Comprehensive Plan was amended by the City to reflect these approvals. The applicant is not requesting additional office area, but instead proposes to increase the number of allowed lots. The proposed development is expected to develop with the same high quality architecture and design as the existing residential and commercial developments in the area. See applicant's narrative submitted with the application for more information. 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will, in fact, constitute a preliminary plat as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11, a public hearing is required before the Commission and City Council on this matter. b. The subject application will, in fact, constitute a rezone as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-2A-2D, a public hearing is required before the Commission and the City Council on this matter. c. Newspaper notifications published on: December 17, 2007 and December 31, 2007 (Planning and Zoning Commission); February 4, 2008 and February 18, 2008 (Gifu Council) d. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: December 14, 2007 (Planning and Zoning Commission); February 1.2008 (Gifu Council) e. Applicant posted notice on site by: December 24, 2007 (Planning and Zoning Commission); February 16.2008 (Gifu Council) 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): The site is currently vacant. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: There are existing single-family homes Bridgetower Crossing Office RZ and PP PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 surrounding this proposed development. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Vacant; zoned C-G 2. East: Single Family Residences (Ada County) and Cobblefield Crossing; zoned RUT and R-4 3. South: Single Family Residence/Agricultural Land; zoned RUT Ada County 4. West: Bridgetower Crossing No. 11 and 12; zoned R-4 d. History of Previous Actions: In 2001, this portion of the property was annexed and zoned (AZ-O1-003) and preliminarily platted (PP-02-014) with a mix of residential and office lots. A Development Agreement (Inst. No. 101117652) was recorded at the time of annexation that required the site develop as a Planned Development. The office portion was granted as a use exception with the Bridegtower Crossing Planned Development (CUP-O1-006). The office lots were final platted with the recordation of Bridgetower Crossing No. 11 and No. 12 (FP-OS-016 and FP-OS-034 respectively). e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities: 1. Public Works Location of sewer: This property is serviced from N Coppercloud Way. Location of water: Connections from W McMillan Rd, N Linder Rd, N Coppercloud Way and a stub to the south will be required. Issues or concerns: None 2. Vegetation: None 3. Floodplain: NA 4. Canals/Ditches/Irrigation: Settler's Canal is located on this site. It was tiled with earlier phases of the development. 5. Hazards: None known 6. Proposed Zoning: L-O (Limited Office) 7. Size of Property: 12.64 acres f. Subdivision Plat Information: 1. Residential Lots: 0 2. Non-residential Lots: 11 3. Total Building Lots: 11 4. Common Lots: 0 5. Other Lots: 1 6. Total Lots: 12 7. Open Lots: 0 g. Landscaping: 1. Width of street buffer(s): UDC 11-2B-3 requires a minimum 25-foot wide street buffer along W. McMillan Road an N. Linder Road. With the exception of Bridgetower Crossing Office RZ and PP PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ RTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 approximately 230 feet of landscaping along McMillan Road, the required landscape buffer has been installed with the fmal platting of Bridgetower Crossing No. 11 and 12. An additional 10-foot landscape buffer will need to be constructed along the eastern side of Villagio Way and the north and south side of Loretta Street. Landscaping shall be provided in accordance with UDC 11-3B-7, Landscape Buffers Along Streets. 2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: A 20-foot wide buffer is required between L-O zoned property and residential zoned property. The required landscaping has been installed with the final platting of Bridgetower Crossing No. 11 and 12. 3. Parking lot landscaping: Perimeter and internal parking lot landscaping is required on all lots that are zoned L-O, in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Perimeter and internal landscaping on these lots will be reviewed for compliance with UDC standards with submittal of Certificate of Zoning Compliance applications for each building. 4. Other landscaping standards: N/A h. Dimensional standards for the L-O zone per UDC 11-2B-3: Minimum Dimensional Standards (in feet unless otherwise noted) Proposed Front setback* Rear setback* Interior side setback* Maximum building height Maximum building size (without design standard approval) Required 20 20 20 20 10 10 35 35 10,000 s.f. 10,000 s.f. * All setbacks shall be measured from the ultimate right-of--way for the street classification as shown on the adopted transportation plan. No changes to the dimensional standards in UDC Table 11-2B-3 were requested or approved with this application.) i. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): Access to this development will be provided from seven full-access driveways, two right-in/right-out driveways and three public streets; one existing public street (Coppercloud Way), one private street proposed for ACRD acceptance as a public street (Villagio Way) and one proposed public street (Loretta Street). The applicant is also proposing Villagio Way provide right-in/right-out access only to W. McMillan and Loretta Street provide fiiil access to N. Linder Road. All nine of the proposed driveways will take access internally to/from the project. Five of the driveways will take access to/from Villagio Way, another two will take access to/from Loretta Street and the two right-in/right-out driveways will access to /from Coppercloud Way. Across-access agreement should be recorded for all of the commercial lots within the proposed subdivision to share the access points and drive aisles to Coppercloud Way, Loretta Street and Villagio Way. Other than the access points approved with this application, direct lot access to N. Ten Mile Road should be prohibited. The Planning Department and ACRD are supportive of the proposed access points to the subdivision, per the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report. 7. CONIlVIENTS MEETING On December 14, 2007, Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and Bridgetower Crossing Office RZ and PP PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ RTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit B. S. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated "Office" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, "Office" areas are anticipated to provide a full range of commercial and retail to serve area residents and visitors and "Office" areas are anticipated to provide opportunities for low-impact business areas. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics): • Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1 -Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands in the following manner: - Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense. - The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resources and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. - The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Police Department (MPD). - The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACfID). This service will not change. - The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District No. 2. This service will not change. - The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change. Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. • "Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 4) The applicant is required to install and maintain landscaping within the street buffers located along N. Linder Road and W McMillan Road in accordance with UDC 11-3B-7. A 25 foot wide buffer is required along both roadways. • "Permit new ...commercial development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City." (Chapter IV, Goal I, Obj. A, #6) Urban services including sanitary sewer and water are available to this parcel. • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B) Bridgetower Crossing Office RZ and PP PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Staff believes that the future off ce uses on this site will contribute to the variety of uses in this area. • "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal III, Objective D, Action 5) The applicant is not required to install internal landscaping with the subject preliminary plat application; however, street buffer landscaping is required with this application. Internal landscaping will be required upon development of each lot within the subdivision with CUP and/or CZC approval. • "Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1) The Applicant is proposing a commercial zone adjacent to established residential areas to the west and south. The required landscape buffers are constructed and run the entire length of western and southern property boundary. In addition to the existing landscape buffer, the residential development will be separated by a public street and an additional 10 feet of landscaping along the eastern side of Alba Avenue. Staff finds the proposed commercial development will be compatible with the surrounding residential uses. Staff also fmds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this application: • "The capacity of arterial ...roadways can be greatly diminished by excessive driveway connections to the roadways. The City should cooperate with ACRD to minimize access points on arterial...roadways as development applications are reviewed." (Chapter VI, page 72) The existing public street connection to Linder was approved and constructed with the Bridgetower Crossing East Subdivision. The applicant is proposing two additional public street connections to McMillan and Linder. Staff and ACfID are supportive of theses access points as they align with existing and future public streets adjacent to the proposed development. • "Develop methods, such as cross-access agreements, frontage roads, to reduce the number of existing access points on to arterial streets." (Chapter VI, Goal II, Obj. A, #12, page 79). A cross-access agreement will be required as part of this subdivision approval. All of the proposed driveways will take access to/from internal public roads. • Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action item 2) Staff is supportive of the applicant s proposed public street connections to Linder and McMillan Roads. Each of the proposed public streets align with existing commercial and residential developments to the north and west of the site. Staff believes these alignments provide excellent connectivity with existing and future developments. Staff recommends that the Commission rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicant's development request is appropriate for this properly. 9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE Bridgetower Crossing Office RZ and PP PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ RTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26 2008 a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC Table 11-2B-2 lists a variety of uses that aze principal permitted, accessory, conditional, or prohibited within the L-O zoning district. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four Districts aze designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation REZONE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT MODIFICATION ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map designation of Office, Staff believes that the requested L-O zoning designation is appropriate for the subject property. The office azea was granted as a use exception for the Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision but is currently zoned R-4 respectively. The applicant is proposing to zone the land to match the land use and match the existing office portion of the development with the City's Comprehensive Plan by rezoning 12.64 acres to L-O. Staff is supportive of this request as it brings the site in conformance with the City's Future Land Use Map. Please see Exhibit D for a detailed analysis of the required facts and fmdings for a rezone. The rezone legal description submitted with the application (stamped on October 15, 2007 by Peter W. Lounsbury, PLS) is accurate and meets the requirements of the City of Meridian and Idaho State Tax Commission. UDC 11-SB-3D2 provides the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council the authority to require a property owner to enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City of Meridian that may require some written commitment for all future uses. As part of annexation into the City for the Bridgetower Crossing development, the developer was required to enter into a development agreement recorded under instrument # 101117652. The office portion of the Bridgetower Crossing Development was approved as a use exception in an R-4 zoning district. The existing DA allowed for the development of 8 office lots. Currently the Bridgetower Crossing Development has been approved with 18 office lots. With this application, the applicant has come forwazd with a concept plan to develop the office lots and is requesting to increase the amount of office lots within the Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision. Furthermore, the applicant is not requesting additional office azea, but instead proposes to increase the number of allowed lots. In order to increase the amount of office lots, the applicant is required to modify the existing DA. Provisions of the new DA will be outlined in a sepazate application for City Council approval. Staff has attached a copy of the draft staff report for the Commission's review. Staff believes that the proposed modifications will clean up the Bridgetower Crossing DA to reflect the proposed plat layout. Concept Plan: The applicant has submitted a concept plan for this development. The site is expected to develop with a variety of office uses on the site. Even though there are 11 lots proposed with the preliminary plat, the submitted concept plan depicts a total of 12 buildings. The uses on the site will pertain to the L-O zoning districts schedule of use controls outlined in the UDC. The submitted concept plan does not indicate the amount of total squaze footage proposed for this site. Staff is limiting the development to not exceed 137,650 total squaze feet of non-residential uses on the site (this is 25% of the gross azea of the land). Further, staff is recommending that the site develop with a minimum of eight buildings with no one building exceed 15,000 square feet. Staff is Bridgetower Crossing Office RZ and PP PAGE 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D• TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 generally supportive of the concept plan and any future development of this site should substantially comply with the submitted concept plan. Elevations: The applicant has provided staff with sample photos illustrating what the types of buildings are to be constructed on the site. Staff has selected several photos that portray the quality and design expected for the proposed development. These buildings are constructed with stucco fmishes with varying roof heights, color changes and stone accented pillars and facades. The submitted photos show substantial building modulation and an abundance of glazing on the front facades. Staff believes that this is a good pallet for the developer to work from and has included these design features in Exhibit B of the Staff Report. Future buildings shall substantially comply with the construction materials and design elements shown in these elevations. PRELl1VIINARY PLAT ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposal with the Unified Development Code, Staff believes that this is a good location for the proposed commercial subdivision. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of facts and findings for a preliminary plat. Dimensional Requirements of the L-O zone per UDC Table 11-2B-3: There is no minimum lot size or street frontage requirements for lots in the L-O zone; however the L-O zoning District requires minimum setbacks of 20 feet front and rear and 10-foot side yard setbacks. The maximum building height allowed the maximum allowed in the L-O zone is 35 feet. The maximum building size allowed without design standard approval is 10,000 square feet for the L-O zone. Future buildings proposed on the subject lots shall meet the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2B-3 and #6h above. Landscaping: Except for the 25-foot landscape buffer along W. McMillan Road, the entire perimeter landscaping along N. Linder Road has been installed with the approval of Bridgetower Crossing No. 11 and No. 12. The applicant is also proposing to construct a 5-foot detached sidewalk with additional 5-feet of sod along N Linder Road. Where the commercial uses adjoin the residential neighborhood to the west and south of the site, the required landscape buffer has been constructed. The submitted landscape plan is proposing trees to be planted within the 50-foot Settler's Canal easement along the north side of the site. In addition to the 50-foot easement, there is a 60-foot Idaho Power utility easement that runs parallel to the irrigation easement. City Code ((IDC 11-3B-7) requires an additional 5-foot buffer width where the buffer is encumbered by easements or other restrictions. As part of previous approvals (PP-02- 014), the applicant was responsible for maintaining access for the Irrigation District to maintain the ditch and the Idaho Power Company allowed a 5-foot detached sidewalk with sod and Class I trees to be planted within their easement. Therefore, Staff is recommending the applicant install sod and shrubs within the tiled area of the ditch with the Irrigation Districts approval and provide an additional 5 feet of landscaping with Class I trees outside of irrigation easement as with previous approvals. The applicant should contact the Irrigation District and the Idaho Power Company to see if the applicability of the previous requirements is still necessary and permitted with this project. If these changes are made, Staff believes the landscape plan to be in compliance with City code. Staff recommends that the Applicant, at the public hearing, testify if the above mentioned agencies still require the access road and would allow trees and sod within their easements. Proposed Streets and/or Access: Access to this development will be provided from a total of seven full-access driveways, two right-in/right-out driveways, two full-access public streets to N. Linder Road and one right-in/right-out access only backage road to Bridgetower Crossing Office RZ and PP PAGE 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 W. McMillan Road which will provide access to/from the two other public streets and stubs to the south for future connectivity. Five driveways will take access to/from Villagio Way, two will provide access to/from Loretta Street and the two remaining right- in/right-out driveways connect to Coppercloud Way. As mentioned earlier, all of these driveways are expected to align with future public roadways and driveways. Staff and ACRD are supportive of the proposed driveways and public streets because of the future connectivity with current and future developments. All commercial lots within the subdivision should have access to the access points approved in this application. The agreement should also allow for cross-access/parking between the L-O lots within this subdivision. This agreement shall be recorded and a copy of said agreement submitted to the City prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat (see Exhibit B of the staff report). Pressure Irrigation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. The applicant should be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1-28. Drainage: A seepage bed for stormwater drainage is shown on Lot 2, Block 46 and in the northewest corner of the development. No trees shall be planted over the seepage beds. All storm drainage facilities shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11, Stormwater Integration. Fencing: The Applicant is not showing any fencing on any of the submitted plans. Permanent fencing is not required for commercial subdivisions. However, if permanent fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit for this site. b. Staff Recommendation: Based on the above analysis, staff finds that applications RZ-07-018 and PP- 07-023 substantially conform to the Comprehensive Plan policies and UDC standards. Staff recommends that the RZ and PP applications be approved with the conditions stated in Exhibit B of the staff report. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on January 3, 2008 At the public hearing the Commission moved to recommend anuroval of the subiect RZ and PP request. he Meridian Citv Co nc'1 heard hec . itemc nn Fehrnarv ~ 2nnst st t~,o m,hlir l.a~rino e Co nc'1 anuroved he ubiect 7, and PP reaue t 11. E~i~ITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map 2. Preliminary Plat, prepared by Quadrant Consulting, labeled Sheet C-1, dated 10/5/07 3. Landscape Plan, prepared by Harvest Design, labeled Sheet L-1 dated 9/18/07 4. Concept Plan 5. Elevations Bridgetower Crossing Office RZ and PP PAGE 10 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D•RTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Ada County Highway District 8. Central District Health Department 9. Settler's Irrigation District C. Legal Description & Exhibit Map D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Bridgetower Crossing Office RZ and PP PAGE 11 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D•RTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 1. Vicinity Ma Exhibit A PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D• TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 2. Preliminary Plat w..®..a~~:,. ~ ou~'Buµ~neuo~ W1~ dlNI10~ YOY °Mt 'N "IMY '1 `S£ N011~3S ""® }uo~pon~~~i ~ tV7d ABbNtfYf737Jd 5! 'ON NOtStAt08t7SJNlSSOeYO 213M01390t~18 ~ ~y~ ~~ ~~~ ~ a~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~e ~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~4 ~ ® ~ i~l!~ I~~I ~ o I~I~ I j lljl! ®$qp.. ®.®® i ~ ~ lil;~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ ~~~§~~~~~~~~~~~~~s~~~~ §~ ~q ~~ Exhibit A PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT cTAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 3. Landscape Plan __ ~~ _ ~ d o ~ ~° _ ~ r,~ _ r a ~ i ( I: ~ ~e f ~ I '/ ~ ' ~i ~I r 4i ~ ~ ~ crce~ce 1 ----- ~ t ~ -i ~ , +~' , -7 .. ~ e ~ B i # I ' ~~ ~ __~ ~\~~ ' _~. 1;. F ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ I ~ I : --j- g---i-------I s '. I ~° I m I ~ ~ `~ 1 S r' I y ~ _ ~ s ' ~I~~ ~~ - ~ ~ s ' ~r . ----- U ~~ Vie,- n ~ I a ~ ~~ 'r ~f ~. ~~ D~ , ~, ~I ~~ f #~ i._r>• «~ ~~ &~,rrc~row~R c~ossrnrc susarv,srorr rrn. rs ~~ vFea,a~{rdafir au~ >l ~9uadranl SEC. %,OM 3S, t. 4N., R. oaf.. &~ cauearV fir.. o~ao~i=anc m~ c+o .ono o~uo row ®.m r r: 'u.m.v~ Exhibit A PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 4. Concept Plan RE~~D uEC a a z~~ ~ o~ ~I~IAN ~~~~~~ ~, Exhibit A PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 5. Elevations -~ d.o y V v i3' Cy d G.. i i ~ \ 3 s -~. ~ c ,~ ~. ~ v ~ v ~ ~. ~ __ ~,~% ~~ a a •~ ~' '` ti'' ~ 6: 4 '" ~ v ~ a ~ ~ v l ..3 ~ .; h a s ~a-7 ~; +r C '~------ Exhibit A PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATS OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 REZONE COMMENTS/PROVISIONS 1.1.1 The rezone legal description submitted with the application (prepared on October 15, 2007, by Peter W. Lounsbury, PLS) is approved. 1.1.2 Any future subdivision, uses, and construction on this property shall comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of permit submittal. 1.1.3 The applicant shall complete the DA modification MI-07-014 prior to the City adopting the rezone ordinance. 1.2 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT 1.2.1 The preliminary plat labeled as C-1, prepared by Quadrant Consulting, dated October 9, 2007, is approved with the conditions listed herein. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of this site associated with AZ-O1-003, CUP-O1-006, and the Development Agreement (Instrument No.101117652) currently in effect for Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision (as amended). 1.2.2 Access to N. Linder Road and W. McMillan Road shall be consistent with the approvals of ACRD and the City of Meridian. A note shall be placed on the final plat restricting direct lot access to these roadways other than the access points approved with this application. 1.2.3 Landscaping: The landscape plan submitted for this project, prepared by Harvest Design, labeled Sheet L-1, dated 9/18/07 is approved with the following notes: • Provide a minimum 25-foot wide landscape buffer along W. McMillan Road and 10 foot landscape buffers adjacent to the east side of Villagio Way and along the north and south sides of Loretta Street, as proposed. In addition the applicant shall provide a minimum 5- foot landscape buffer outside of the irrigation easement to allow for the planting of the 11 Class one trees. A written certificate of completion should be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted to the Planning Department upon completion of the landscaping prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the site. All standards of installation should apply as listed in UDC 11-3B- 14. Submit copies with the final plat application(s). 1.2.4 A minimum 25-foot wide street buffer is required along N. Linder Road, as shown on the plat. 1.2.5 No signage is approved with this application. All signs proposed for this site shall obtain separate sign permit approval. 1.2.6 Across-access/cross-parking easementlagreement shall be recorded for all commercial lots within the subdivision. All lots within the subdivision shall have access to the access points to McMillan Road, Linder Road, Coppercloud Way, Villagio Way and Loretta. Street. This agreement shall be recorded and a copy of said agreement submitted to the City prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat OR a note shall be added to the face of the final plat granting said cross-access. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 1.2.7 Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or assigns. Record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including but not limited to structures, parking, common areas, private streets, and other development features. 1.2.8 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all required fencing, pressurized irrigation, landscaping, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature of the fmal plat. 1.3 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT 1.3.1 Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to City Code. 1.3.2 All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11- 3A-18 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3A- 18. Where the Applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan and where Staff has reviewed such plan, the landscaping shall be consistent with the preliminary plan with modifications as proposed by Staff. If the stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3A-18, then the Applicant shall relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. It is the responsibility of the developer to comply with ACRD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at the time of fmal construction. 1.3.3 Temporary construction fencing to contain debris shall be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit. All fencing should be installed in accordance with City Code. 1.3.5 Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved Preliminary Plat does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.3.6 Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-6A. 1.3.7 The Applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.3.8 All development within the L-O district shall conform to the dimensional standards per UDC 11- 2B-3. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension of mains in N Coppercloud Way. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in W McMillan Rd, N Linder Rd, N Coppercloud Way and a stub to the south located at the end of Villagio Way. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 2.3 The applicant shall provide a 20-foot common lot for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way. The common lot shall be covered with a blanket easement to the City of Meridian. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 2.4 The applicant shall provide a 20-foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat. The description shall be consistent with the graphically depicted easements on the plat but be recorded as a separate document using the City of Meridian's standard forms. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. 2.5 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.6 All existing structures shall be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.7 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. Plans shall be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, alternate plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 2.8 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.9 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.10 Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.11 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.12 All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro-paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.13 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat per Resolution 02-374. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. 2.18 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of any building is at least 1-foot above. 2.19 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or the ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.20 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.21 One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights shall be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department prior to commencing installations. 3. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4'/z" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 3.3 All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 3.4 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. 3.5 Commercial and office occupancies will require afire-flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 3.6 The applicant shall work with Planning Department staff to provide an address identification plan and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance at the required intersection(s). 3.7 All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface as measured around the perimeter of the building. 3.8 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 3.9 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all fire department connections. 3.10 Buildings over 30' in height are required to have access roads in accordance with The International Fire Code Appendix D Section D105. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The proposed development shall limit landscaping shrubs and bushes to species that do not exceed two feet in height. Trees shall have a canopy of no less than six feet. 4.2 Any interior fencing shall allow visibility from the street or shall not exceed four feet in height if solid fencing is used. All micropaths and open areas shall have adequate lighting. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 5.1 The Parks Department has no concerns with the site design as submitted with the application. 6. SANTI'ARY SERVICE COMPANY 6.1 Prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance, that applicant shall submit an approved site plan from SSC. 6.2 Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal prior to the public hearing. There is a concern that the required modifications may significantly impact your site design and may require a revised site plan. If the site plan is revised, contact the planner assigned to the project immediately to discuss the changes and how to proceed with the revised site plan. 6.3 Provide a minimum 28' inside and 48' outside radius for all alleys and private streets, where they intersect a public street. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTWCT 7.1 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 7.1.1 Construct a five foot concrete sidewalk at the northeast corner of the site to connect the existing sidewalk improvements along Linder and McMillan Roads with the intersection therof. 7.1.2 Construct Loretta Street as a 29 foot street section (measured back of curb to back of curb) with vertical curb, gutter and five foot attached sidewalk inside 42 feet ofright-of--way, to align with the existing portion of Loretta Street east of McMillan Road. Construct a 5-foot detached concrete sidewalk at the site abutting McMillan Road to match existing improvements. 7.1.3 Complete Villagio Way as a minimum 25 foot street section (measured back of curb to back of curb) with vertical curb and gutter on both sides and a five foot attched concrete sidewalk on the west side. In accordance with ACRD "Interim Procedure for Acceptance of Private Roads into the Public Sysytem" dated March 16, 2005, provide documentation that the existing improvements meet current District standards in order to be accepted as public right-of--way. Villagio Way shall intersect with McMillan Road no closer than 300 feet west of Linder Road (measured centerline to centerline) and will be restricted to a right-in/right-out with the Linder/McMillan intersection project in 2008. Terminate Villagio Way at the south property line and install a sign at the terminus stating that, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTiJRE." 7.1.4 Install signs along both Loretta Way and Villagio Way prohibiting on-street parking. 7.1.5 Provide a public turnaround easement in the driveway nearest Villagio Way's south terminus. 7.1.6 Construct 2right-insight-out driveways onto Coppercloud Way as proposed, no wider than 36 feet, with a minimum 15 foot curb return radii. 7.1.7 Construct 2 driveways onto Loretta Street as proposed, aligning with each other, no wider than 36 feet, with a minimum 15 foot curb return radii. 7.1.8 Construct 5 driveways onto Villagio Way as proposed, no wider than 36 feet, with a minimum 15 foot curb return radii. 7.1.9 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. 7.2 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 7.2.1 Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of--way. 7.2.2 Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACHI) roadway or right-of--way. 7.2.3 All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 7.2.4 Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that maybe damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 7.2.5 Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy. 7.2.6 Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 7.2.7 All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 7.2.8 The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 7.2.9 Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7.2.10 Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction. The assessed impact fee will be based on the impact fee ordinance that is in effect at that time. 7.2.11 It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of--way. The applicant at no cost to ACRD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of--way. The applicant shall contact ACRD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spaze or filled) aze compromised during any phase of construction. 7.2.12 No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they aze in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 7.2.13 Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. 8. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT 8.1 After written approval from appropriate entities is submitted, we can approve this proposal for central sewage and central water. 8.2 The following plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & welfaze, Division of Environmental Quality: central sewage and central water. 8.3 Run-off is not to create amosquito-breeding problem. 8.4 Central District Health will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: food establishments, grocery store, beverage establishment and child care center. 9. SETTLERS IRRIGATION DISTRICT 9.1 All irrigation /drainage facilities along with their easements must be protected and continue to function. The facility involved is the Settlers Canal (50' easement). 9.2 A Land Use Change Application must be on file prior to any approvals. 9.3 A license agreement MUST be signed and recorded prior to construction of any SID facilities, or within its easements. 9.4 Any changes to the existing irrigation system such as relocation, tiling, and landscaping must be approved by Settlers Irrigation District's Boazd of Directors. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 9.5 All storm drainage must be retained on-site. 9.6 A pressure irrigation system must be provided to service all lots within the above-mentioned subdivision from the current delivery point. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Ezhibit C -Legal Descriptions & Ezhibit Maps ^^ C~uCidrant Consulting.lnc. Legal Description For Brldgetower Crossing S~ubdlvision No. 15 (Rezone) Rezoning from R-4 to L-O Lot 15,16 and17, Block 36 and Lot 1, Block 39 of Bridgetower Grossing Subdivision No. 11, Book 95 of Plats at Pages 11804-11805; Ada Couniy Records, Lot 43,44 and 45, Block 32 of Brtdgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 12, Book 96 of Plats at Pages 11834- 11836; Ada Gourriy Records and a portion of the Right-Of-Way of North Linder Road, West McMillan Road, and North C~percloud Way located in the Northeast quarter of Section 35, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho desc~bed as follows: Commencing at the Northeast comer of said Section 35, being the Roint of Beginning; Thence South 00°15'17" West, 1317.40 feet along the East line of said Section; Thence North 89°19'30° West, 418.Oi feet to the Southwest comer of said Lot 17; Thence North 00°1S'17A East, 1316.35 feet to the North line of said Section; Thence South 89 28'07° East, 418.00 feet along the North line of said Section; Said parcel contains 12.637 acres more or less. va. a BY M~o~sQ~Tc Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 ,uarroa rar '~~ v ^t» 1 ass xou~3s '~ usrenca ~nrorab St 'ON 1V015lAIQSRS 9AIIS5C~.? Lf3A4~139fIft/8 'Ld3f9 SN~lOM ai~8fld N'dtQt~3W ~~~~ ~ ~ A3~ 'id ~ I I i I I I I I I w I w ~~. w ~ Z Z o w ° w > ~ ~ a a ~ a 0 0 0 a r w o v ~ ~ w a a to w 0 0 n ~~ & 11 t c ~ •- O U V Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; The City Council fords that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. The City Council supports the proposed plat layout, with recommended changes, as they comply with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The City Council fords that public services can be made available to accommodate the proposed development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their own cost, the City Council finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACRD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B, Agency Comments and Conditions, for more detail.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and The City Council is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the development of this subdivision that should be brought to the Council's attention. ACRD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is unaware. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The City Council is unaware of any natural, scenic, or historic features on this site. Therefore, the City Council fords that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature(s) of major importance. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware. Exhibit D CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 2. Rezone Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings: a. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The applicant is proposing to zone the subject property to L-O. The City Council fmds that the proposed zoning map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report. b. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The City Council fmds office uses are permitted within the requested zoning district of L-O. The City Council finds that any future use and / or development of this property should comply with the established regulations and purpose statement of the L-O zoning district. c. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The City Council fmds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any oral or written testimony that maybe provided when determining this finding. d. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts; and, The City Council fmds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. Exhibit D Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 25 of 77 Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Northeast Corner of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 07-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 commercial lots and 2 other lots on 18.82 acres in the proposed C-G and L-O zoning districts for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Northeast Comer of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: MI 07-013 Request for Miscellaneous application to modify the Recorded Development Agreement for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Northeast Comer of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: RZ 07-018 Request for a Rezone of 12.64 acres from R- 4 to an L-O zone for Bridgetower Crossing Office by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Southwest Comer of West McMillan Road and North Linder Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 07-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 commercial lots and 2 other lots on 10.2 acres in the proposed L-O zoning district for Bridgetower Crossing Office by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Southwest Comer of West McMillan Road and North Linder Road: Item 15: Public Hearing: MI 07-014 Request for a Miscellaneous application to modify the recorded Development Agreement for Bridgetower Crossing Office by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Southwest Comer of West McMillan Road and North Linder Road: Item 16: Public Hearing: RZ 07-022 Request for a Rezone of 7.37 acres from C- G and R-4 to C-N zones and a Rezone of 5.88 acres from R-4 to L-O zones for Bridgetower Crossing Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -east of North Ten Mile Road and south of West McMillan Road: Item 17: Public Hearing: PP 07-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 commercial lots and 1 other lot in the proposed C-N zone for Bridgetower Crossing Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -east of North Ten Mile Road and south of West McMillan Road: De Weerd: All right. Okay. Our next items are 10, 11 -- 10 through 17 and it's RZ 07- 017, PP 07-022, MI 07-013, RZ 07-018, PP 07-023, MI 07-014, RZ 07-022 and PP 07- 026. Iwill open these public hearings with staff comments. Meridian City Council ~ • February 26, 2008 Page 26 of 77 Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thank you for opening all those items. For the benefit of any public that may have snuck in that I didn't get a chance to talk to, we did ask Mayor and Council to consider all of these, because the development agreements are intertwined and we didn't want to have to repeat testimony with regard to the development agreements. I will go through each project one by one, so you will have three projects and three discussions on appropriate development agreements for those, so -- having said that, we are going to start with the Verona Commercial project. It's located at the northeast comer of Ten Mile and McMillan. It's 18.82 acres and the existing zoning is C-G and R-8, as you can see on a small portion of the property right there. The applications before you tonight are a rezone and preliminary plat. The proposed development includes 12 nonresidential building lots and two others on the 18.82 acres and there are ten buildings shown on the submitted concept plan. The Comprehensive Plan designation is both commercial and office. We are proposing a new development agreement specifically for this area, so that we don't have to reference the old Verona planned development agreements, so that we are asking for a brand new one that applies only to this area. Just to back up a little bit on those histories of the DA -- so, this area was proposed as commercial area and was originally subject to both the Bridgetower Crossing DA and those are the properties currently zoned C-G and the Corona DA. Those are the properties currently zoned R-8. And they are currently proposed for both L-O on the east side and, then, C-G on the west side of those R-8 areas. Staff is tying the developer to the elevations submitted with the application and those same elevations will be used for each development agreement that we have discussed tonight. By developing a new DA for this commercial and office area, staff believes it will allow for more efficient implementation of the DA and more consistent implementation of the DA over time. So, we are recommending a new development agreement for this area and it would contain the following provisions: The proposed commercial and office building shall be constructed with high quality materials, including, but not limited to, stucco, wood and brick, with substantial stone accents, four-sided architecture, highlighted main entrances, stamped decorative concrete, composite or the roofing material, variations in color, roof planes, and parapet heights. And those are related to the elevations that we will show you that -- we have six photos. So, those are kind of sample elevations that led to that list, but they will be tied to these elevations as well. And, then, for this project a minimum of nine buildings with no one building exceeding 50,000 square feet, shall be constructed on -- within this area and the maximum allowable nonresidential square footage for the development shall be 225,000 square feet. And the development of the site shall generally conform to the site plan. Okay. That's the recommendation that's coming forward from the Planning and Zoning Commission, who did recommend approval at their December 6, 2007, Public Hearing. Chuck Christensen spoke for the applicant. Gary Payne, a resident of Verona Subdivision spoke in opposition. There was no one else commenting and no written testimony. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were they discussed the impacts of the through traffic entering the surrounding residential neighborhoods and those were concerns raised by Mr. Payne. The majority of the Commission felt the commercial project would not impact the residential neighborhoods. Furthermore, it would provide access for the residents of the Verona community, rather than forcing them out onto arterials to access the commercial development. They also discussed the Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 27 of 77 access points along Ten Mile and McMillan, the history of the commercial lots for the proposed development, and the planned intersection improvements at Linder and McMillan. The key Commission changes to the staff recommendation -- they modified condition 2.15 and deleted the reference to the Fair Housing Act, since there is no housing in this project. The outstanding issues before City Council -- currently, the DA provisions read that the applicant should construct a minimum of nine buildings. The applicant would like that number decreased to five buildings. And staff is recommending that the Commission - or the Council add an additional provision to this DA that drive access needs to be stubbed to the eastern property line for the two office lots for future connectivity. Let me get an overall -- these lots are all approved office lots with -- they still have R-8 zoning on them, but these are approved for office uses. They do -- there is about four or five lots there that were preliminary platted and, then, just for reference, because I know this was an issue, the Selway Apartments are on the property just to the north of that. So, we are recommending that the two lots here on the east have drive aisle access that connects to those L-O lots, so that we get future connectivity. The applicant did call me today about this issue and it is an outstanding issue. We do try and get cross-access where ever possible. One consideration may be that maybe we just get one of those lots, the southern lot, to provide that cross-access and not worry about the northern lot, which is closer to the residential development. So, if we could get cross-access at least on this south lot it would be beneficial to get through traffic among the commercial development. And with that I will answer any other questions Council may have. De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions on this item? Bird: I have none at this point. De Weerd: Okay. Do you want to go through all of these or you want to do them item by item? Okay. Is there public testimony on this application? I didn't show anyone as signing up, but is there any testimony desired? Canning: Madam Mayor, you might ask the applicant. De Weerd: Oh. Well, they didn't jump up and down either. That's right. I guess I do have to ask the applicant, uh. Would the applicant like to come forward at this time. I always thought it was so strange that no one was standing forward. Larsen: Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, my name is Cornell Larsen. Address is 210 Murray in Garden City. I'm here tonight representing the application on this project. A lot of our comments that were -- are pretty well directed to all of the projects. A lot of the staff conditions carry through from each project and they go on for -- for the three hearings you have before you tonight, so I could certainly address those now or at the end, but in this particular case I can take this one and, then, come back again and repeat the testimony for each subsequent one after or I can do it once, whatever you would prefer to -- to do. Meridian City Council ~ • February 26, 2008 Page 28 of 77 Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: It would probably be helpful, Cornell, if you could do it -- the specifics on each one -- Larsen: On each one? De Weerd: -- as they are presented. Larsen: Okay. Zaremba: Thank you. Larsen: Be happy to do that. De Weerd: Okay. Larsen: We have read the staff report and I also have -- just so you know, I have Chuck Christensen here who is with me tonight with Quadrant and he may need to answer some questions, if you have questions on platting, because I'm not sure I'm up to speed on that, but I am on the rest of the project. So, he may need to come up and visit with you if you have a question there. We have looked at the staff report and we wanted to suggest some modifications to the conditions -- to the bullet points under the Verona development agreement. First, I'd like to talk about the building materials. We submitted many photos to staff and they had picked the ones that you have seen in the staff report, but we actually submitted probably 30 or 40 photos. So, the photos that are in the packet are not necessarily consistent with what our long range plan is. We would like to have a little more flexibility in the materials and type of design of the buildings. Those buildings were geared towards a smaller user and as we move through the Verona project we may have the bigger buildings that may have one or two entries, may have common areas, may have other things, so we would like to have some flexibility on the types of materials that we might use in the building and, again, we did submit quite a few photos and staff has selected some good looking buildings and we did some upgraded buildings on that site and -- in an effort to attract some users to a new retail area. What we would like to suggest is that we -- after the word four-sided architecture we add the term where needed. There may be instances where we have a building that may not need four-sided architecture, it may need -- may not need glass on all four sides. But it may need some decoration or some relief on all four sides. So, we'd like to add the words where needed. The stamp and decorative concrete, we'd certainly like to use that selectively, not everywhere. We would like some flexibility on the roofing. If it all has to be composite roofing and the roofing, that, in itself, won't work for us, because we will probably have some flat roofs and some -- maybe even some metal accents. So, we'd like you to consider changing that to also allow us to do some flat roofs and maybe some metal accent roofing. As far as the elevations conforming to the photos that we have submitted, again, we would just like to have a little more flexibility in those particular buildings. I believe we submitted pictures from various projects, including Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 29 of 77 Silverstone, EI Dorado, Boise Research Center and a lot of the buildings in those projects are fairly nice and would be fine in this facility as we move forward with this development. I think staff recommended five -- a minimum of five buildings with no building exceeding 50,000 square feet and we are okay with that change. What we were trying not to do is get a whole bunch of small buildings on the site and we would like to make sure that the minimum number of buildings does give us flexibility for size. As you probably all know at Silverstone and EI Dorado and some of the other projects I have been involved in, we have made many lot splits and many lot line adjustments. Commercial development, unfortunately, is a little different than residential and we have to adjust to the user and as a result of that we have to adjust the lot lines according to some of the users we get. So, that reducing the minimum number of lots will help us to -- required minimum number of lots will help us to make sure that we can adjust accordingly. There was a comment on generally conforming to the concept plan. Sort of as I just explained, as you know, I don't know that our concept plan for Silverstone and EI Dorado has came out exactly or even close to what he had initially submitted, so we want to make sure that you understand that it is a concept plan and we do need the flexibility in order to move forward with a commercial development, so we'd like to have you add some wording in there that may state that we must meet the requirements of the current UDC, so that we can have a little bit of flexibility in the -- in the concept plan and not be locked into it as it's currently designed. Then, the last comment we had was on the connection to the adjacent property. We have made over time commitments to the people that have bought in Bridgetower that we would try not to connect those properties together for traffic reasons and for circulation through the project. We understand connectivity, but we would -- we might suggest that we make a connection with a pathway system and it might be in this general area right here. We have an easement through there that we could certainly make a pathway connection that might allow users from the adjacent property to come over into this -- into the facility itself and use whatever buildings or services are in that project. Just a brief overview of the master plan. We had potentially looked at a gas station facility here. We were exploring a car wash here. We have some interest in a couple of drive-thru banks, smaller fast food retail has looked at it. Up in this particular area we do have a commitment for some medical. We thought we might be able to track down some health club type uses on the site, potentially. So, those are some of the things we are looking at on this site to maybe give you a feel for the overall concept that we are in search of there. I believe in a couple of the earlier staff reports staff had suggested that we move a couple of these buildings out to the street and we agree to do that, so we get a little bit more connectivity to the street and a little bit more variety of design. I would be happy to answer any questions if you have concerns or comments. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Meridian Ciry Council February 26, 2008 Page 30 of 77 Bird: Comell, with the material that we have listed in here, would that, in your opinion, disallow tilt up buildings? As I read it, it would disallow tilt ups, which you said EI Dorado and -- and you took a lot of your pictures out of EI Dorado and Silverstone and Tumbull's project over there at BRC and most of those are tilt ups. Larsen: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, we have done quite a few tilt up buildings, but we have usually tried to create a variety of materials on those buildings from the rock to stone to glass, heavy cornice, a lot of different elements to try to break those -- those buildings up, so they didn't look like a concrete building and, in general, a lot of times we put a textured coating on the building, so it looks more like a stucco project. So, we would hope staff wouldn't eliminate that flexibility, as those have been fairly economical buildings and pretty good energy buildings as well. Bird: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Additional questions? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Comell, you suggested some additional words in one of the recommended comments from staff on the DA and one of them was four-sided architecture as needed and that always puts us on the spot, because I would interpret that as needed to be determined by staff and you would interpret it as to be as needed as determined by you or your client. So, I know we attempt to wordsmith these things to make them sound and do what we all agree to do, but that doesn't do it for me. So, we need some better words there, so you and/or your client and/or our staff have an expectation of what's going to happen there. So, I don't have a problem with what you're saying that there is some flexibility there, but when we just make a statement like that it gets us all in a position of being really angry with one another. Larsen: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, I understand your concerns. I guess where we are coming from is that, you know, on occasions we have retail buildings that have backs to them and we really want to be careful about addressing the backs to make sure that they look decent. We have other buildings that may have service entries or locations where we need to get trucks up to them or for whatever reason and we want to be careful that we don't get into trying to design a bunch of costly facades that really is of no benefit to -- to the end user. In other words, we have double loaded retail buildings with glass on both sides, it's very tough for a retail user to have a back room, a store room, those kind of issues. So, we are concerned, we want the buildings in the City of Meridian to look very nice, be first class. We do not want to get into a situation where we are in disagreement with staff, but we wouldn't like to use all buildings -- we try to design all buildings with four-sided architecture, but sometimes the sites don't need to be as well done as maybe three of the sides on the building. And I'm not sure that I have answered your question, but lunderstand -- Meridian City Council • • February 26, 2008 Page 31 of 77 Rountree: I understand your intent and I would ask Anna if she has maybe a better way of stating that to where everybody knows what's going on. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree -- or President Rountree, perhaps it could be for retail uses or those that require loading areas, one facade may be screened in lieu of facade treatment or something like that. Larsen: Yeah. We are open for that -- any kind of language on that that gives us some flexibility where we have service equipment or vehicles or we may have an office building, for example, that may have some generators on the ground, some equipment, some things like that that we don't necessarily have to spend a lot of money on the building, because we have got a lot of equipment right next to the building. So, we would like a little flexibility on that and I think we could work with staff on some verbiage. Rountree: Thank you. Are you comfortable with that, Anna? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, I am. I think the reason the four- sided is in there is related to the concept plan. The concept plan does show very -- kind of open site plan with individual buildings that kind of would need fairly -- most of them would require four-sided architecture the way it's currently drawn. I did want to comment on the need for flexibility in the concept plan and I know that this is difficult for the development community to commit to a concept plan and we are very mindful of that. We do try to be very flexible in our interpretation of what's consistent with that concept plan. Our problem is if you just tie it to the UDC there is nothing to say that they couldn't come back with one building that's partitioned into five -- you know, one massive building that's perhaps partitioned into five and that would be consistent with their DA, but clearly not consistent with what was presented tonight. And I'm not trying to say that Mr. Vareille will propose that, it's just that those are the kind of issues that come up when we don't have something to fall back on that says, well, you kind of told us you were going to distribute this around the site and not just have a sea of parking and one large building. So, that's why we do ask that you tie it to the concept plan and not just the provisions of the UDC. We commit to developers on a regular basis that we will provide them every sort of flexibility that -- that we can afford to help them get toward the end. Larsen: Madam Mayor, may I address that for just a minute? We -- when we have a building in a situation like this regarding the four-side architecture, a lot of times those are tenant buildings and they may be loaded from two or three sides as a result of how the building's leasing and so in a case where we have a building out on its own like that surrounded by parking or if it's out -- one side is up next to the street and it has parking on three sides, we assume that we are going to need four-sided architecture there in order to attract tenants and make sure that they are all on a level plane. A lot of tenants that lease space in buildings now they want to have their own separate identify and they don't want to look different than the tenant next to them. So, it's important that we do have the four-sided architecture on a lot of that product. The other item with regard to Meridian City Council ~ • February 26, 2008 Page 32 of 77 Anna's comments on the concept plan, staff has been very flexible with us in the past on allowing us to do things to the concept plan that generally conform to it and we have had pretty good -- pretty good luck in working with them through those issues. Several of things that Silverstone and EI Dorado have all had to be brought back in for staff to look at it and it's gone fairly well. Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Anything further, Council? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Zaremba: I was just going to add to the same discussion that the flexibility in the roofing materials, it would be the same discussion that we already had, but it's the same as the facades. De Weerd: Okay. Larsen: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Larsen: Now, if you have questions on platting, I would defer to Chuck. Did we have any issues on -- I guess there is no issues on platting or any of the subdivision stuff, so we are okay with those. De Weerd: Thank you. Larsen: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. At this point -- at this time we are taking testimony on Verona, the commercial aspect. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Seeing none, Anna, we will just go ahead and go to the next item. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think you can take action, if you'd like to, on the -- De Weerd: Ten and eleven? Canning: On ten and eleven and, then, we will come back to the development agreement. I think all the changes that were requested were in the development agreement, so you can make those modifications later if you want to take up that item later. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 33 of 77 De Weerd: Okay. So, there is no public testimony on either Items 10 or 11? No further comment by the applicant? Okay. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Council, any further information? Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would like to discuss the subject of the drive aisle to the east. We had asked the developers of the property to the east to provide more connectivity than they intended to. They seem to have been resistant to that and, apparently, they have conveyed that to the current applicant as well. But I feel the connectivity is important in spite of the fact that the neighbor is not in favor of it and I would support the staffs request for a drive aisle connection to the east. It's fine with me if it's. on the lower property or the southem most property. I'm supportive of the staffs request on that. De Weerd: Council, any further comment on that? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, show us where you -- where the staff kind of has plans to have an access out. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the staff report says that each drive aisle should have some sort of stub currently. I guess as a -- as a proffer, I would say, you know, if we could at least get one, I think that that would be beneficial. And somewhere on this southem lot would seem to make more sense, because you do have residential up here. So, bringing that traffic any -- somewhere away from the residential makes sense. It could come in anywhere along this -- that boundary. Bird: Put up -- excuse me, Madam Mayor. Anna, put up a site for the whole area. Isn't there a road that goes right up there? Canning: No. It looks like that. It's an irrigation feature that's been tiled. Bird: Oh, that's the irrigation deal? So, you want it to dump over in that -- Canning: This is the road. I'm sorry. That's a road. Bird: That's what I thought. Canning: That's that road. Bird: Yeah. Meridian City Council • February 26, 2008 Page 34 of 77 • Canning: But, then, you have two lots to the east of it. So what we are trying to do is get this office traffic to have across-access all along here, so that they are not having to go onto the arterial roadway and it's very typical from commercial development to commercial development we try and get cross-access where ever we can. Zaremba: Madam Mayor. We did -- what we required of Selway is that they have a western stub from the apartment section into what will be the commercial section and it would make sense that that would connect to something on the eastern end of this property. Bird: Do they come down to the top of that, though? Does Selway come down to the -- north of this project? Zaremba: It's not the entire thing, but it's about -- Bird: Ithink it goes right across there, don't it? Zaremba: Oh. I'm sorry. It ends at Apgar Creek. Bird: Yeah. So, it goes -- it actually don't butt up to this project at all, so what we required them to go to the west is up in that subdivision. Canning: No. We required anorth-south street along the western edge of their property --development. Bird: Okay. North-south. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Bird, you're correct, this would not connect directly to Selway Apartments. Zaremba: It would go through the other owner's commercial property. Canning: Correct. De Weerd: So, will that other property have access out onto McMillan? Canning: The preliminary plat for the office lots currently show I believe three access points to McMillan. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Meridian City Council • • February 26, 2008 Page 35 of 77 Bird: My concern is that -- is that North Goddard Creek Way road is -- you're dumping everything out on that, why not just let it dump -- let this project dump out on that one road between McMillan and Ten Mile? I don't know why you wanted to go out back through there. And that other project's got all kinds of frontage along McMillan. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, as ACRD progresses in their efforts we are seeing access controls at the arterial roadways. Possibility of more medians to control that access where you have driveways versus public streets, we are really trying to get folks to the public streets, so that they don't have to take the -- necessarily take the arterial roadway. If, for some reason, you have a dentist here and you want to go pick up milk at the -- the Rite-Aid there or something, you don't want to have to get out onto the arterial roadway and that's always stafFs goal in asking for the cross-access is to relieve the congestion on the arterial roadways. De Weerd: Would the applicant care to comment on this? Larsen: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Cornell Larsen again. De Weerd: Thank you. Larsen: I was just curious. Anna, did you say there was a road that would just come down along that boundary of the property? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mr. Larsen, it's not right along the boundary, it's a couple hundred feet, probably, a stub. It's about a -- maybe a quarter of the way over. Larsen: Madam Mayor, I guess our biggest concern is just the -- I guess our biggest concern was just that the residents that have purchased from Bridgetower in the past have been really concerned about that connection and the flow-through traffic and they have not desired that and we were here expressing their wishes tonight as well, so -- De Weerd: So, these are representations that were provided through your neighborhood meeting, then? Larsen: Through the owner, as he's developed these parcels, he's trying to not allow this through traffic or has indicated to the neighbors that he would prefer not to have that traffic through there and -- as it feels like it does end up being a detriment to his neighborhood. And the applicant has indicated to me that they have also discussed that at the neighborhood meetings. De Weerd: Okay. Any questions, Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 36 of 77 Larsen: Thank you. De Weerd: Council? r: Rountree: Madam Mayor. Anna, would you put up the site plan. Canning: That one or this one? Rountree: Okay. So, on the eastern boundary of the two commercial lots, I don't see any provision for a fence or landscaping or whatever. If we are talking about access or no access, it seems to me if there is no access there ought to be some kind of a bamer there. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we -- they seem to be depicting a five foot landscape buffer for the parking lot. Rountree: Is that indicated on the plat? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, no, because we don't usually put just parking lot landscaping on the plat that the -- landscape easements that we general show on the plats are either street buffers or land use buffers. So, this wouldn't be one of those times that we ask for that. It would allow a little more flexibility in the design of the building. Rountree: So, I guess what I'm getting at -- I'm confused on the landscaping requirements. If this was an industrial site it would be required to be landscaped with a buffer. Canning: Yes. They would have to have a buffer to residential uses. We are not -- it's an unusual situation. It's zoned R-8, but it's approved for L-O, so we tend to treat it as if it's nonresidential use. Rountree: Okay. Canning: So, we did not require the land used buffer to those properties, because they are approved for office uses. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: But how about on the north side of that? Isn't that residential? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, it is. I suspect that the staff report already notes that there is a land use buffer required there. I can verify. But there is a land use buffer required there. Meridian City Council • February 26, 2008 Page 37 of 77 De Weerd: Okay. Larsen: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Larsen: Cornell Larsen again. There is a planted buffer along there already currently existing. De Weerd: Oh. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anything further, Council? If there is nothing further, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearings on Items 10, 11 and 12. Bird: No. No. Not 12. Rountree: ten and eleven. De Weerd: Ten and eleven. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Rountree: I move that we close public hearings on Items 10 and 1. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 10 and 11. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carves. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, on the rezone, it had nothing to do with the development agreement, so all we are doing there is going from a minimum of nine to five; is that right? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the DA is associated with the rezone, but you could take action on the rezone without worrying about the DA agreement at this time. Bird: I thought the DA come down on the 12. Maybe I misunderstood. Canning: Correct. So, the rezone e we can for the development, because there is a rezone application before you, but the two aren't -- Meridian City Council • February 26, 2008 Page 38 of 77 Bird: Where would you prefer it? Canning: It needs to be in the DA discussion. Bird: In what? Canning: The DA discussion. Rountree: Item 12. Bird: In Item 12. Canning: Yes, sir. i Bird: Right. Okay. So, RZ is just the rezone from five to -- or from nine to five. And from C-G -- or R-8 to C-G and L-O; right? Canning: Correct. The latter. Yes. Bird: Okay. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve RZ 07-017, the rezone of 5.29 acres from R-8 to C-G and L-O zone for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development Group and to include all staff, applicant, and public testimony. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 10. Is there any discussion or clarification needed? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Item 11. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve PP 07-022, preliminary plat approval for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC. Meridian City Council • February 26, 2008 Page 39 of 77 Rountree: Second. • De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Verona, Item 11. Discussion? Zaremba: Madam Mayor, again, this is a question of where is it appropriate. Would it be the preliminary plat where we decide whether there will be access to the east or not? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if we knew -- Councilmember Zaremba, if we knew exactly where it needed to be on the plat we could, but I don't think -- staff didn't have that specificity at this time. We'd like to leave the developer that ability to move it, so it would be better as a DA provision. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Items 13 and 14. Rountree: Twelve. De Weerd: Did you want to do the DA's at the end of all of these? Canning: Yes, ma'am. Bird: We are going to move 12? De Weerd: Yes. We are going to consider it at the end of all of these discussions. Twelve and fifteen we will consider after Item 17. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, one of the things I forgot to mention when I get to the last presentation is part of the reason we are asking you to defer on those, the reason they are still intertwined is because although we proposing new DA's for these projects that are before you tonight, the existing DA remains for the properties that are not under not the applicant's control. So, that's why they are -- still go on. So, they are just -- the only complicated thing about this is the development agreements and so they -- De Weerd: The only complicated. Bird: Don't confuse me. Meridian City Council • February 26, 2008 Page 40 of 77 Canning: I'm song. Okay. We are going to move onto -- we are going to move onto Bridgetower Crossing Office. This is -- we switched roads on this one. We have moved over about a mile to the east. It's the southwest comer of Linder and McMillan. This project is 12.64 acres and the existing zoning is R-4. The applications before you tonight are a rezone and preliminary plat. They are asking for 11 nonresidential lots, which would be -- and, actually, 12 buildings as shown on the submitted concept plan. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is office, reflecting its planned development approval in years past. We shift aspects here, so north is going to the -- the left side of the page -- or the screen. The Planning Commission has recommended a new development agreement specifically for this area and the discussion with regard to the materials is the same as the previous one and the elevations are the same as previously proposed. The development -- the other site specific comment would be that the development of the property shall generally comply, as determined by the planning director, with the concept site plan submitted as you see before you. Minimum of -- there is the concept plan. Minimum of eight buildings with no one building exceeding 15,000 square feet shall be constructed on the lots associated with the Bridgetower Crossing Office Subdivision. The maximum allowable nonresidential square footage for this development shall be 137,640 square feet. The Commission recommended approval at their January 3rd, 2008, Public Hearing. Chuck Christensen spoke in favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition or commented or provided written testimony. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were tiling the Settler's Canal along the northern property boundary, which, again, is toward the left of your page -- of your screen. Limiting the number of access points on Linder Road. In the key Commission changes to staff recommendation were the portion of the Settler's Canal along McMillan Road and west of Bellagio Way is not expected to be tiled. So, that would be this portion. Outstanding issues for the Council -- in the Bridgetower Crossing DA modification section it reads that to remove the properties shown in Exhibit C and it says pages nine to 14. It just should say pages seven to 14. That's just clerical edit that we would ask Council to put on the record. With that, I will answer any questions Council may have with regard to this application. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Zaremba: In the section where the waterway would not be tiled is there still -- it looks like this is depicting sidewalk. Am I correct that there is sideway there? Canning: I believe so. It's already platted as residential, as you can see from the -- from the photo. So, I -- I'm sure the applicant will address that in his testimony. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council ~ • February 26, 2008 Page 41 of 77 De Weerd: Okay. We will ask that of the applicant. Okay. Anything else for staff at this point? Okay. Would the applicant like to comment. Larsen: Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, my name is Cornell Larsen, address is 210 Mun-ay Street, Garden City. This under the development agreement had the same bullet points as we had on the previous application. However, we wanted to suggest a couple of modifications on that as well and, then, in addition to the -- I'll give you a little insight on the Settlers Canal. We tiled a portion of this to widen the road and to have access at this point. The Settlers Canal requested that we not the the rest of it. There is a walkway, a fence way, and, then, an open ditch, I believe, along the -- along the boundary of McMillan. And so that's what currently exists there at this point in time. Under the bullet points in the development agreement we had already mentioned are concerns about the materials. Second bullet point was the elevations. Under the third bullet point it required a minimum of eight building lots and we were going to request that we'd like to see that made five building lots and when we met with staff on the Verona project we had talked to them about 25 percent coverage being kind of a normal coverage that we shoot for on the -- on the projects and so that's how they got to the 137,650 number that's in your report. We'd like to see if you would consider that going to 155,00 square feet, instead of the 137,650. And part of the reason for doing that is some of the buildings that we do actually have a little better coverage than 25 percent. We get a little better land use and some buildings that we do, don't, and it sort of depends on the use. For example, a medical facility we may put quite a bit more parking on it, because of their use and the number of patients they have coming and going, whereas an office building that may have a lot of offices and have very little parking, we could actually get a little more coverage on it. So, we'd like to see that number potentially up in the 155 range. And, then, on the last bullet point it would be our same concerns, we would like you to make sure that you know that this is a concept plan and there will be changes to it as a result of the type of project that it is. And I would be happy to answer any questions if you have those. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Ijust -- so, you want a minimum of five? Larsen: Minimum of five lots. De Weerd: And no one -- Larsen: Five buildings. Excuse me. De Weerd: Buildings. Larsen: Five buildings. Meridian City Council ~ • February 26, 2008 Page 42 of 77 De Weerd: And no one building exceeding -- Larsen: Fifteen thousand square feet is okay. That's what staff had asked for. De Weerd: Okay. And, then, you have 155,000 square feet. Larsen: For the total square footage. De Weerd: Okay. Larsen: That gives us a little bit of flexibility, we can only get on there what we~can, but if we are locked into 25, we can't -- percent coverage we may not be able to exceed that on a given site and we want to be sure we have got a little flexibility. De Weerd: Okay. Larsen: And I believe staff does have some flexibility in the ordinance, too. I think they can have a little flexibility as well. De Weerd: Okay. So, Council, anything further? Thank you. Larsen: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. I would accept public testimony on Items 13 and 14. Okay. Seeing none. Council, any further information needed? Rountree: Madam Mayor. Anna, if you would put the aerial back up, I just need to -- and, then, if you would -- one of the items for discussion was minimize access on Linder. Are we talking about the need for this particular street? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, because that one lines up directly across the street I don't think it was, but - Rountree: I think they both apparently line up, so -- Canning: Yeah. I'd have to -- I would have to peruse the minutes. I'm not sure. This cushion may have actually been that they are consolidating the access on those public streets and it may have been more of a positive comment than the way it appears in the bulleted items. Rountree: Okay. Canning: And, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't have any concerns with the changes proposed by the applicant. Meridian City Council ~ • February 26, 2008 Page 43 of 77 Bird: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. If there isn't anything further -- Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Having heard staff and applicant testimony and given the opportunity to the public to testify, I move we close the public hearings on Items 13 and 14. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 13 and 14. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Canning: Okay. Any discussion? Zaremba: And, again, I would clarify that the changes that Mr. Larsen mentioned would be appropriate to the DA motion later; right? In that case, Madam Mayor, I move that we approve RZ 07-018, request for a rezone, and at the same time approve PP 07-023, request for preliminary plat approval, both relating to Bridgetower Crossing Office. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Items 13 and 14. Any discussion? Hearing none -- Zaremba: And part of the motion was to include all staff comments and -- Rountree: I agree. De Weerd: Okay. Madam Clerk. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. And, finally, Items 16 and 17. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we are back over toward the Verona side of life and we have Bridgetower Crossing Commercial and it is located on the east side of Ten Mile Road and approximately 400 feet south of McMillan Road. It's 7.37 acres, the preliminary plat is, and the existing zoning is C-G and, again, a residential • • March 14, 2008 RZ 07-022 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2008 APPLICANT Primeiand Development Group, LLc ITEM NO. 7-8-~ -E REQUEST Findings for Approval -Request for a Rezone of 7.37 acres from C -G 8~ R-4 to C-N zones and a Rezone of 5.88 acres from R-4 to L-O zones for Bridgetower Crossing Commercial -east of North Ten Mile Road and south of W. McMillan AGENCY COMMENTS ~..~.... CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: See adtached Minufes See arttached Findings OTHER: Contacted: (! h (,(CX ~~jS Date: 3• hone: 3 2-0(39 ~ Emailed: C~ru~krq,~gdrQnt.. ~~, Staff Initials: Materials presented at pubik meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~ ~ ~~~~ ~1AR 0 ~ 2W6 City +Df Me~°ida~. City Clea°k ®ffi~ CITY OF MERIDIAN E IDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND 1®~ ~' DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of Rezone 13.25 acres from C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) and R-4 .(Medium-low Density Residential) to C-N (Neighborhood Business District) (7.37 acres) and L-O (Limited Office) (5.88 acres) zoning districts; Preliminary Plat of 8 commercial building lots and 1 other lot in a proposed C-N zoning district for the Bridgetower Crossing Commercial Subdivision, by Primeland Development Group, LLC. Case No(s). RZ-07-022 and PP-07-026 For the City Council Hearing Date of: February 26, 2008 (Findings on the March 18, 2008 City Council agenda) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-07-022 and PP-07-026 -1- • 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-SA. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, Preliminary Plat, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's Preliminary Plat as evidenced by having submitted the Preliminary Plat dated October 5, 2007 is hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Preliminary Plat Duration Please take notice that approval of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat within two (2) years of the approval of the preliminary plat or one (1) year of the combined preliminary and final plat or short plat. In the event that the development of the preliminary plat is made in successive phases in an orderly and reasonable manner, and conforms substantially to the approved preliminary plat, such segments, if submitted within successive intervals of eighteen (18) months, maybe considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-6B-7.A, the Director may authorize a single extension of time to record the final plat not to exceed eighteen (18) months. Additional CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-07-022 and PP-07-026 -2- • time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the City Council maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or City Council may require the preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. If the above timetable is not met and the applicant does not receive a time extension, the property shall be required to go through the platting procedure again. E. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the ~g~ day of ~r(`~ , 2008. COUNCIL MEMBER DAVID ZAREMBA VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON VOTED ~loSerl'f' COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIIZD VOTED MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED °- (TIE BREAKER) ~~~ ~~~~ Mayo~,~amy~}y Weerd Attest: ~~~` '~~ °°,, ~ p °, ~~ Jaycee Ho an, City Clerk ~ ~~' .~ ~: T1~~. ~ ~~ Copy served upon Applicant, The Pl °anni'rYgj ~~~ ~~ ~1`;~Public Works Department and City Attorney. B Dated: 3 '~ s 0~ ity Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-07-022 and PP-07-026 -3- CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: February 26, 2008 TO: Mayor and City Council E IDIAN FROM: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner e ~ ~ hl 884-5533 SUBJECT: Bridgetower Crossing Commercial • RZ-07-022 D~ Rezone 13.25 acres from C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) and R-4 (Medium-low Density Residential) to C-N (Neighborhood Business District)(7.37 acres) and L-O (Limited Office) (5.88 acres) zoning districts, by Primeland Development Group, LLC • PP-07-026 Preliminary Plat of 8 commercial building lots and 1 other lot in a proposed C-N zoning district 1.5UMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Primeland Development Group, LLC has applied for a Rezone (RZ) of 13.25 acres from C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) and R-4 (Medium-low Density Residential) to C-N (Community Business District) (7.37 acres) and L-O (Limited Office) (5.88 acres) and preliminary plat approval of 8 commercial building lots and 1 other lot. The subject preliminary plat is a re-subdivision of Lots 66 through 70, Block 10 of Bridgetower Crossing No. 7. As part of the Bridgetower Crossing Planned Development (CUP-O1-006), the commercial portion of the development was conceptually approved, and the office portion was granted as a use exception. The applicant is proposing to rezone the portion of the C-G and R-4 zoned parcels to conform to the City's Comprehensive Plan of commercial and office designations. The subject property is located east of N. Ten Mile Road and approximately 400 feet south of W. McMillan Road in Section 35, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, B.M. Currently, the site is vacant land and the applicant intends to construct a commercial development. The subject property is within the City's Area of Impact and within the existing corporate boundaries of the City. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION The subject applications (RZ-07-022 & PP-07-026) were submitted to the Planning Department for concurrent review. Staff has provided a detailed analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the RZ and PP applications. Staff is recommending that the RZ and PP applications be approved with the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on January 3 2008. At the public hearing the Commission moved to recommend approyal of the subiect RZ and PP request. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearing: i. In favor: Chuck Christensen (Applicant's Representative) ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting• None iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff presenting application: Bill Parsons Bridgetower Crossing Commercial RZ and PP PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 vi. Other staff__c_ommenting on application: Anna Canning, Scott Steckline. Ted Baird b. Kev Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. Forwarding the proiect to City Council without the ACRD Staff Report. ii. The tiling of the White Drain along the southern boundary of the proiect. iii. The combination of concept plan 1 and 3 to allow the larger building pads north of Capri Street and transition to smaller buildings south of Capri Street. c. Kev Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. Strike the middle sentence of Condition 2.2, requiring two mains to Locust Grove Road. ii. The concept plan recommended for approval is a combination of concept plan one and the south half of concept plan three as stated in the staff report. d. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. The applicant is requesting additional flexibility in the number and size of the buildings that will be allowed/reguired on this site. Please see Section 10 below for the current requirements regarding an appropriate concept plan for the site to tie to the new Bridgetower Crossing Commercial Development Agreement. Staff has inserted all of the applicant's concept plans in Exhibit B, including their preferred concept plan (concept plan 1) and also the concept plan recommended by the P&Z Commission (P&Z Commission concept plan) in Exhibit B.of the concurrent miscellaneous application (File #'s MI-07-013 and MI-07-014). he Meridian Citv Counc'1 heard the a item on February 26.2008. At the nnhli hp_a_ring t_he ouncil approved the subiect RZ and PP reaues .a., Summary of City Co nc'1 Pub is Hearin ~ In favor: Cornel Larson zi. In opposition: None ~u Commenting• None I<v_ Written testimony: None v Staff presenting application: Anna Canning vi. Other staff commenting on application: None 1~ ev Issues of Discussion by Council: L he new DA provisions proposed for the Brid~etower ro 'n omm rcia Development. 11. rovidin~ additional photoc for Cale and ma 'n of he lar er b ail ingc proposed in the development. 111. iscussed the possibLty of the larger b .il inu. propo ed 'n oncept Plan 1 ha should front along Ten Mile. lY. Exclusion of Concept Plan 2. ~_ ev Council Changes to Staff/Commission Recommendation L han~es to the DA provisions vvL be updated in the Misce laneou tall Repo [file #'s MI-07-013 and MI-07-0141. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Numbers RZ- 07-022 and PP-07-026 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (Add any proposed Bridgetower Crossing Commercial RZ and PP PAGE 2 • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Numbers RZ-07- 022 and PP-07-026 as presented during the hearing on February 26, 2008, for the following reasons: (State specific reasons for denial of the preliminary plat request.) Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number RZ- 07-022 and PP-07-026 to the heazing date of (insert continued heazing date here) for the following reason(s): (State specific reason(s) for a continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: East side of Ten Mile Road and Approximately 400 feet South of McMillan Road Section 35, T.4N., R.1 W. b. Applicant: Primeland Development Group, LLC 3120 W. Belltower Drive, Suite 100 Meridian, ID 83646 c. Owner: Same as applicant d. Representative: Chuck Christensen, Quadrant Consulting, Inc. e. Present Zoning: C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial District) and R-4 (medium-low Density Residential) f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial and Office g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant has applied for a Rezone (RZ) of 13.25 acres from C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) and R-4 (Medium Density Residential) to C-N (Neighborhood Business District) (7.37 acres) and L-O (Limited Office) (5.88 acres) and preliminary plat approval for 8 commercial building lots and one other lot within a proposed C-N zone. 1. Preliminary Plat, labeled Sheet C-1, prepared by Quadrant Consulting, dated 10/5/07 (attached in Exhibit A) 2. Landscape Plan, labeled Sheet L-1, prepared by Harvest Design, dated 10/5/07 (attached in Exhibit A) 3. Concept Plans (attached in Exhibit A) h. Applicant's StatementlJustification: The applicant is requesting rezone and re-subdivision of a portion of Bridgetower No. 7 from C-G and R-4 to C-N; rezone a portion of the Gallery Subdivision and one other parcel (Lot 3, Block 6 of Bridgetower Crossing No.2) from R-4 to L-O; and preliminary plat approval for 8 commercial building lots and one other lot in a proposed C-N zone. The rezone is being requested to have the commercial and office portion of the development be consistent with the City's future land use map for this property. As part of the Bridgetower Crossing Planned Development approval, the commercial portion of the development was conceptually approved and the office uses were permitted as use exceptions. Bridgetower Crossing Commercial RZ and PP PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN ~ TE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Since that time, the Comprehensive Plan was amended by the City to reflect these approvals. The proposed development is expected to develop with the same high quality architecture and design as the existing residential and commercial developments in the area. 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will, in fact, constitute a preliminary plat as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11, a public hearing is required before the Commission and City Council on this matter. b. The subject application will, in fact, constitute a rezone as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-2A-2D, a public hearing is required before the Commission and the City Council on this matter. c. Newspaper notifications published on: December 17, 2007 and December 31, 2007 (Planning and Zoning Commission); February 4, 2008 and February 18, 2008 (Gifu Council) d. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: December 14, 2007 (Planning and Zoning Commission); February 1, 2008 (Gifu Council) e. Applicant posted notice on site by: December 24, 2007 (Planning and Zoning Commission); February 16, 2008 (City Council) 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): The site is currently vacant developable land. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: There are existing single-family homes to the east of the proposed development and existing/future commerciaUoffice developments to the north, south and west. This area is rapidly transitioning to a mix of residential and commerciaUoffice developments. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Bridgetower Market Place; zoned C-G Z. East: Bridgetower Crossing No. 5 and 7; zoned R-4 3. South: Bridgetower Crossing No. 2; zoned R-4 4. West: Vacant, Volterra Subdivision; zoned C-G and L-O d. History of Previous Actions: In 2001, this portion of the property was annexed and zoned C-G and R-4 (AZ-O1-003) and preliminarily platted (PP-O1-005) with a mix of residential, commercial and office lots. A Development Agreement (Inst. No. 101117652) was recorded at the time of annexation that required the site develop as a Planned Development. The commercial portion of the development was conceptually approved and the office portion was granted as a use exception with the Bridegtower Crossing Planned Development (CUP-O1- 006). The office and commercial lots were final platted with the recordation of Bridgetower Crossing No. 2 and No. 7 (FP-02-008 and FP-04-031). A combined preliminary/fmal plat was approved in 2004, which allowed one of the approved office lots re-subdivide into three office lots; however at that time the property was not rezoned to L-O. e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities: 1. Public Works: Location of sewer: There is an 8-inch line in W Quintale Dr and the purposed Capri Street that flow to N Ten Mile Rd. Services were stubbed with the previous phase of Bridetower. Bridgetower Crossing Commercial RZ and PP PAGE 4 ~ ! CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Location of water: N Ten Mile Rd and W Quintale Dr. Services were stubbed with the previous phase of Bridetower. Issues or concerns: None 2. Vegetation: None 3. Floodplain: NA 4. Canals/Ditches/Irrigation: 5. Hazards: None known 6. Proposed Zoning: C-N (Neighborhood Business District) and L-O (Limited Office) 7. Size of Property: Total acreage: 13.25 acres (7.37 acres C-N and 5.88 acres L-O) f. Subdivision Plat Information: 1. Residential Lots: 0 2. Non-residential Lots: 8 3. Total Building Lots: 8 4. Common Lots: 0 5. Other Lots: 1 6. Total Lots: 9 7. Open Lots: 0 8. Residential Area: NA 9. Gross Density: NA g. Landscaping: 1: Width of street buffer(s): UDC 11-2B-3 requires a minimum 25-foot wide street buffer along N. Ten Mile Road and a 10-foot landscape buffer along W. Quintale Drive, Capri Street and Alba Avenue. The required landscaping along Ten Mile and Quintale has been installed with the final platting of Bridgetower Crossing No. 7. However the applicant will be required to install and maintain the ten-foot landscape buffers along Capri Street and Alba Avenue. Landscaping shall be provided in accordance with UDC Il -3B-7, Landscape Buffers Along Streets. 2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: A 20-foot wide buffer is required between C-N zoned property and residential zoned property. The required landscaping has been installed with the final platting of Bridgetower Crossing No. 7. 3. Parking lot landscaping: Perimeter and internal parking lot landscaping is required on all lots that are zoned C-N and L-O, in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Perimeter and internal landscaping on these lots will be reviewed for compliance with UDC standards with submittal of Cert~cate of Zoning Compliance applications for each building. 4. Other landscaping standards: N/A h. Dimensional standards for the C-N and L-O zone per UDC 11-2B-3: C-N Minimum Dimensional Standards (in feet unless otherwise noted) Required Bridgetower Crossing Commercial RZ and PP PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Front setback* 20 Rear setback* 25 Interior side setback* 0 Maximum building height 35 Maximum building size (without design standard approval) 7,500 s.f. * All setbacks shall be measured from the ultimate right-of--way for the street classification as shown on the adopted transportation plan. No changes to the dimensional standards in UDC Table 11-2B-3 were requested or approved with this application.) L-O Minimum Dimensional Standards (in feet unless otherwise noted) Required Front setback* 20 Rear setback* 20 Interior side setback* 10 Maximum building height 35 Maximum building size (without design standard approval) 10,000 s.f. * All setbacks shall be measured from the ultimate right-of--way for the street classification as shown on the adopted transportation plan. No changes to the dimensional standards in UDC Table 11-2B-3 were requested or approved with this application.) i. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): Access to this development will be provided by five full-access driveways and three public streets; one existing (W. Quintale Drive) and the other two (Capri Street and Alba Avenue) are part of this application review. The applicant is also proposing Capri Street provide access to/from N. Ten Mile Road. All five of the proposed driveways will take access internally to/from the project. Two of the driveways will take access to/from Alba Avenue, another two will take access to/from Capri Street and the last one will access to /from W. Quintale Drive. Across-access agreement should be recorded for all of the commercial lots within the proposed subdivision to share the access points and drive aisles to W. Quintale Drive, Alba Avenue and Capri Street. Other than the access points approved with this application, direct lot access to N. Ten Mile Road should be prohibited. The Planning Department is supportive of the proposed access points to the subdivision, per the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On December 14, 2007, Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated "Commercial" and "Office" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, "Commercial" areas are anticipated to provide a full range of commercial and retail to serve area residents and visitors and "Office" Bridgetower Crossing Commercial RZ and PP PAGE 6 • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 areas are anticipated to provide opportunities for low-impact business areas. Staff fmds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics): • Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1 -Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands in the following manner: - Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense. - The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resources and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. - The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Police Department (MPD). - The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACfID). This service will not change. - The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District No. 2. This service will not change. - The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change. Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. • "Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 4) The applicant is required to install and maintain landscaping within the street buffers located along N. Ten Mile Road in accordance with UDC 11-3B-7. An existing 25 foot landscape buffer is located along N. Ten Mile Road. • "Permit new ...commercial development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City." (Chapter IV, Goal I, Obj. A, #6) Urban services including sanitary sewer and water are available to this site. • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B) Staff believes that the future commercial and office uses on this site will contribute to the variety of uses in this area. • "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal III, Objective D, Action 5) The applicant is not required to install internal landscaping with the subject preliminary plat application; however, the applicant will be required to install and maintain a ten foot landscape buffer along W Quintale Drive, Capri Street, and Alba Avenue. Internal Bridgetower Crossing Commercial RZ and PP PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 landscaping will be requited upon development of each lot within the subdivision with CUP and/or CZC approval. • "Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels." (Chapter VII, Goal lV, Objective C, Action 1) The Applicant is proposing a commercial zone adjacent to established residential areas to the east. An existing drainage swale with the associated landscape runs along the east side of Alba Avenue and provides the adequate buffering for the residential development. In addition to the existing landscape/drainage buffer the residential development will be separated by a public street and an additional 10 feet of landscape along the western side of Alba Avenue. Staff finds the proposed commercial development will be compatible with the surrounding residential uses. Staff also fords the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this application: • "The capacity of arterial ...roadways can be greatly diminished by excessive driveway connections to the roadways. The City should cooperate with ACRD to minimise access points on arterial...roadways as development applications are reviewed." (Chapter VI, page 72) The applicant is proposing a new public street connection to N. Ten Mile Road approximately 280 feet south of W. Quintale Drive; an existing public street. Except for the proposed new street connection; no other access points are proposed or approved with this application. Staff is supportive of this access point as it aligns with a future public street adjacent to the proposed development. • "Develop methods, such as cross-access agreements, frontage roads, to reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets." (Chapter VI, Goal II, Obj. A, #12, page 79). A cross-access agreement will be requited as part of this subdivision approval. All of the proposed driveways will take access to/from internal public roads. Staff recommends that the Commission rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicant's development request is appropriate for this properly. 9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC Table 11-2B-2 lists a variety of uses that are principal permitted, accessory, conditional, or prohibited within the C-N and L-O zoning districts. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four Districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation REZONE ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map designation of Commercial and Office, Staff believes that the requested C- Nand L-O zoning designations are appropriate for the subject property. The commercial portion was Bridgetower Crossing Commercial RZ and PP PAGE 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ TE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 conceptually approved and the office lots were granted as use exceptions for the Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision but are currently zoned C-G and R-4 respectively. The applicant is proposing to zone the land to match the land use and match the existing commercial and office portion of the development with the City's Comprehensive Plan by rezoning 13.25 acres to C-N and L-O. As part of the rezone, the applicant has also requested the existing C-G portion of the development along with additional office parcels be rezoned to C-N to allow for a more diverse mix of retail and commercial uses in the area. Staff believes this to be a good compromise between the two zoning districts and is supportive of the applicant's request. In addition the C-N zoning district requires more stringent setbacks and requires the same amount of buffering from the residential districts as the L-O zone. Please see Exhibit D for a detailed analysis of the required facts and findings for a rezone. The rezone legal descriptions submitted with the application (stamped on October 22, 2007, November 29, 2007 and November 21, 2007 by Peter W. Lounsbury, PLS) is accurate and meets the requirements of the City of Meridian and Idaho State Tax Commission. UDC 11-SB-3D2 provides the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council the authority to require a property owner to enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City of Meridian that may require some written commitment for all future uses. As part of annexation into the City for the Bridgetower Crossing development, the developer was required to enter into a development agreement recorded under instrument # 101117652. The commercial portion of the Bridgetower Crossing Development was conceptually approved and required a CUP to develop the commercial lots. With this application, the applicant has come forward with a concept plan to develop the commercial portion of the development and is requesting to modify the existing DA. Provisions of the amended DA will be outlined in a separate application for City Council approval. Staff has included a copy of that staff report for the Commission's review. Staff believes that the proposed modifications will clean up the Bridgetower Crossing DA to reflect the proposed plat layout. Concept Plan: The applicant has submitted three concept plans for how the site may develop. Each concept plan shows three different scenarios depicting a variety of commercial and office uses such as office supply store, a nursery, multi tenant retail and personal /professional services on the site. It is important to note that version two and three are similar in pad layout; however the proposed parking for the front three pads are located adjacent to Ten Mile Road and in version three the proposed buildings are fronting along Ten Mile with the parking in the rear of the buildings. Because of the proposed zoning and square footages of the proposed buildings, these buildings should require design review which requires no more than 70 percent of the required parking be located between the front fagade and the abutting street. The submitted plat shows 8 buildable lots. The submitted concept plans shows a range from two building pads to seven building pads and square footages ranging from 2,500 square feet to 33,725 square feet. Because the applicant does not have a cleat vision for how this site is to develop, Staff is limiting the development to not exceed 80,260 total square feet of non-residential uses on the site (this is 25% of the gross area of the land). This is well below the allowed non-residential square footage located in a mixed use neighborhood land use designation. Further, staff is recommending that no one building exceed 33,725 square feet and a minimum of 4 buildings be constructed on the site. Staff is generally supportive of the concept plans, but believes version three is a better concept plan based on the configuration of the proposed buildings on the site and the its location to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Staff is recommending the applicant combine Concept Plan one and three allowing a larger retail box north of Capri Street and transition to smaller neighborhood retail south of Capri Street. If these changes are made, Staff is supportive of the Bridgetower Crossing Commercial RZ and PP PAGE 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D• TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN ~ TE OF FEBRUARY 26 2008 Concept for this development. The applicant should revise the concept plan prior to the City Council hearing. Elevations: The applicant has provided staff with sample photos illustrating what the types of buildings are to be constructed on the site. Staff has selected six photos that portray the quality and design expected for the proposed development. These buildings are constructed with stucco finishes with varying roof heights, color changes and stone accented pillars and facades. The submitted photos show substantial building modulation and an abundance of glazing on the front facades. Staff believes that this is a good pallet for the developer to work from and has included these design features in Exhibit B of the Staff Report. Future buildings shall substantially comply with the construction materials and design elements shown in these elevations. Design Review: The submitted concept plans indicate buildings that range in size from 2,500 to 33,725 square feet. As mentioned earlier any building in a C-N and L-O zone that exceeds the maximum square footages (7,500 sq. ft. for C-N and 10,000 sq. ft. for L-O) without design standard approval shall be subject to UDC11-3A-19C which lists the design standards. All commercial buildings on this site should be subject to full compliance with future Design Review (iJDC 11- 3A-19). It is important to note that the proposed elevations and architectural features that are incorporated with the future DA far exceed the design review standards of the code. PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposal with the Unified Development Code, Staff believes that this is a good location for the proposed commercial subdivision. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of facts and findings for a preliminary plat. Dimensional Requirements of the C-N and L-O zones per UDC Table 11-2B-3: There are no minimum lot size or street frontage requirements for lots in the C-N and L- Ozones; however the C-N and L-O zoning district require a minimum setback of 20' front setbacks, a 25' and 20 `rear setback and 10' side setback for the L-O and no side setback for the C-N zone. The maximum building heights allowed in the C-N and L-O zones aze 35 feet. The maximum building size allowed without design standard approval is 7,500 square feet for the C-N zone and 10,000 square feet for the L-O zone. Future buildings proposed on the subject lots shall meet the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2B-3 and #6h above. Landscaping: The entire perimeter landscaping along N. Ten Mile Road has been installed with the approval of Bridgetower Crossing No. 2 and No. 7. The applicant has also installed the required landscape buffers where the commercial uses adjoin the residential uses. As part of this application approval, the applicant will be responsible for installing and maintaining the 10-foot landscape buffers along W. Quintale Drive, Capri Street and Alba Avenue. The submitted landscape plan complies with city code. Proposed Streets and/or Access: Access to this development will be provided from a total of five full-access driveways, two full-access public streets to N. Ten Mile Road and one backage road providing access to/from the two other public streets and two proposed driveway connections. Additional driveways will take access to/from Capri Street and one to/from W. Quintale Drive. As mentioned earlier, all of these driveways are expected to align with future public roadways and driveways. Staff is supportive of the proposed driveways because of the future connectivity with current and future develops. All commercial lots within the subdivision should have access to the access points approved in this application. The agreement should also allow for cross-access/parking between the C-N lots within this subdivision. This agreement shall be recorded and a copy of said agreement submitted to the City prior to the City Engineer's signature on the Bridgetower Crossing Commercial RZ and PP PAGE 10 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 26 2008 final plat (see Exhibit B of the staff report). Pressure Irrigation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. The applicant should be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1-28. Drainage: A seepage bed for stormwater drainage is shown on Lot 1, Block 50 and Lot 1, Block 49. No trees shall be planted over the seepage beds. All storm drainage facilities shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11, Stormwater Integration. Fencing: The Applicant is not showing any fencing on any of the submitted plans. Permanent fencing is not required for commercial subdivisions. However, if permanent fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit for this site. b. Staff Recommendation: Based on the above analysis, staff finds that applications RZ-07-022 and PP- 07-026 substantially conform to the Comprehensive Plan policies and UDC standards. Staff recommends that the RZ and PP applications be approved with the conditions stated in Exhibit B of the staff report. The Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission heard these items on January 3, 2008 At the public hearin¢ the Commission moved to recommend auproval of the subiect RZ and PP request he Meridian itv OunC~I h .Arrl theca itpme nn Fnhr~~a >'f~ 'fl1I14 At the ...,hl;.. t.,.....:_.- ouncil annroved he ~biect 7, and PP reaues 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map 2. Preliminary Plat, prepared by Quadrant Consulting, labeled Sheet C-1, dated 10/11/07 3. Landscape Plan, prepared by Harvest Design, labeled Sheet L-1 dated 10/4/07 4. Concept Plans (3 scenarios) Concert 2 is not aunrovedl 5. Elevations B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Ada County Highway District 8. Central District Health Department C. Legal Descriptions & Exhibit Maps D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Bridgetower Crossing Commercial RZ and PP PAGE 11 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 2 2 6, 008 1. Vicinity Ma E~b~t a CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 2. Preliminary Plat ~.~ au ~u~{~jneuo~ °P0 ALNIl0.7 VQ9' '"M d '!! "I! Y '1 'S£ A'071~35 p°'~ }uo~pon~q^^ .lY7d .tMYNitMR3.Yd ^^ si •ou worsr~~asns ~nrrssoa~ ~3n~o13~v~ae ~ ® ~~® ~ ~Q ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w~ ~~ ~ .~ ~r ~ ~ ~~ g~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ .I ' ~ iii i. i ~~ij !~~' iii z~jj ®~4p..0.®®~ ~I ~ ~ iil 3 ~ ~~ @y~~ ~ [g{ t ~ g~j ~~.~ 9 ~~ig ~~~ a~~ ~~~~ k/ b M ~gg~~ s ffi A c 9 e 1 0 i g~ls~ wo ;~, o N ~, W ~ 5.00 o ~ ~ O - O ~ N 0 z ! o j ~ W N O ~ N L O Z e N Exhibit A r ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 3. Landscape Plan N~wo0T4u mt. ~~ -_ _ { ~~ { ~` ~4 ~ ~ :,~~ Q ~ ~ i I I'~~' ~~ ~ I i =~ - tits t i ~~ ~ .' I t I c_F .~ ~ i +~ P ~ I ' c@eY6000 ;t cw+o ,a,asea I t aiiiFaeii ~, _ - _ ~ ` I, ."' - 1 1'~.'i I ~`~' ~` I +o j °~~~i j A I ~~rr ~~ ,~ I t? z~ I T ~ I }r~~ . I s4> .~ I I d~ 1 ~ a ~ ~ I:r r a eee ! a~g ~ ~~$ "i -G 9 ~~~ ~~t I ~ I ~ ~I w ' ~ ~ =1 {' ~ Q I .~ ~ ~, u~f'- ~~ ERlr7GEt~lWEr? C~SSiNG SSJBL~+b'tSBbN M©, a6 mass. /Quadrant ~ ~ Prt£UZ+7rd€tY PdJ+7 LANAa&APE Pg,1f/ t Sfr7a,1U a5, s. 4 N.. R. S lti,. ±DA CGUr:.1t uo ~° eneu Hn~nC ~ nuc.+n wuw+wNe, aoa..T.a a"~.:~ Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ RTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26 2008 4. Concept Plans (3 Scenarios) DEC43~~7 ~~~ LL ti W ~ ~ N hw !~ Q~ Li ~ t/= W G 00 ~ co w ~ N N r ' BRIDGETOWER 7 6 PROPOSED C-N ZONING AREA CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN -VERSION 1 Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 ~ ~ N°`~ G ' ' BRIDGETOWER 16 PROPQSED C-N ZOfViNG AREA COfdCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN - 'VERSIQN NOT APPROVED 2 Exhibit A ! ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 p 3 ~~ ' ' BRIDGETOWER 16 PROPOSED C-N ZONING AREA CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN -VERSION 3 Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 5. Elevations ~^_ u T ~y, d O d '~ ~ 3 C ^~. M ~ ` -~\° >\lc4i ~ v ~ ~ . u ~ cy ~'F ~'a,t en ~~ ~ eb ~F V ~ d ~V S , $ ~~ ~=~ .~ N S5 CY r o•P°. -<--- ~2 E Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING•DATE OF FEBRUARY 26 2008 Exhibit A • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 REZONE COMMENTS/PROVISIONS 1.1.1 The rezone legal description submitted with the application (stamped on October 22, 2007, November 29, 2007 and November 21, 2007 by Peter W. Lounsbury, PLS) is approved. 1.1.2 Any future subdivision, uses, and construction on this property shall comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of permit submittal. 1.1.3 The applicant shall complete the DA modification MI-07-014 prior to the City adopting the rezone ordinance. 1.2 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT 1.2.1 The preliminary plat labeled as P1.0, prepared by Quadrant Consulting, dated October 11, 2007, is approved with the conditions listed herein. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of this site associated with CUP-O1-006, and the Development Agreement (Instrument No.101117652) currently in effect for Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision (as amended). 1.2.2 Access to N. Ten Mile Road shall be consistent with the approvals of ACHD and the City of Meridian. A note shall be placed on the final plat restricting direct lot access to these roadways other than the access points approved with this application. 1.2.3 Landscaping: The landscape plan submitted for this project, prepared by Harvest Design, labeled Sheet L-1, dated 10/5/07 is approved with the following notes: • Provide a minimum 10-foot wide landscape buffer along W Quintale Drive, Capri Street and Alba Avenue, as proposed A written certificate of completion should be prepared by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted to the Planning Department upon completion of the landscaping prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the site. All standards of installation should apply as listed in UDC 11-3B- 14. Submit copies with the fmal plat application(s). 1.2.4 A minimum 25-foot wide street buffer is required along N. Ten Mile Road, as shown on the plat. 1.2.5 No signage is approved with this application. All signs proposed for this site shall obtain separate sign permit approval. 1.2.6 Across-access/cross-parking easement/agreement shall be recorded for all commercial lots within the subdivision. All lots within the subdivision shall have access to the access points to N. Ten Mile Road, W. Quintale Road, Capri Road and Alba Avenue. This agreement shall be recorded and a copy of said agreement submitted to the City prior to the City Engineer's signature on the fmal plat OR a note shall be added to the face of the final plat granting said cross-access. 1.2.7 Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the developer or assigns. Record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including but not limited to structures, parking, common areas, private streets, and other development features. 1.2.8 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all required fencing, Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26 2008 pressurized irrigation, landscaping, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature of the final plat. 1.3 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT 1.3.1 Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to City Code. 1.3.2 All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space aze subject to UDC 11- 3A-18 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3A- 18. Where the Applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan and where Staff has reviewed such plan, the landscaping shall be consistent with the preliminary plan with modifications as proposed by Staff. >f the stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open space and still meet the standazds of UDC 11-3A-18, then the Applicant shall relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable azea. It is the responsibility of the developer to comply with ACRD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at the time of final construction. 1.3.3 Temporary construction fencing to contain debris shall be installed azound the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit. All fencing should be installed in accordance with City Code. 1.3.5 Staffis failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved Preliminary Plat does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.3.6 Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-6A. 1.3.7 The Applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standazds shown in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.3.8 All development within the C-N and L-O districts shall conform to the dimensional standazds per UDC 11-2B-3. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via services form mains located in N Ten Mile Rd and W Quintale Dr. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standazd Specifications. 2.2 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in N Ten Mile Road and W Quiritale Dr. =1~p-arpli~~„t ~ha~~~•~~rt + n ~ + ~;ia~s ~ 7~T T + ' .The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 2.3 The applicant shall provide a 20-foot common lot for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way. The common lot shall be covered with a blanket easement to the City of Meridian. 2.4 The applicant shall provide a 20-foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat. The description shall be consistent with the graphically depicted easements on the plat but be recorded as a separate document using the City of Meridian's standazd forms. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description, which must Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. 2.5 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.6 All existing structures shall be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.7 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. Plans shall be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, alternate plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 2.8 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells maybe used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.9 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.10 Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.11 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.12 All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro-paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.13 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat per Resolution 02-374. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 2.18 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or the ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.19 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.20 One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights shall be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department prior to commencing installations. 3. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 3.3 All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 3.4 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. 3.5 Commercial and office occupancies will require afire-flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 3.6 The applicant shall work with Planning Department staff to provide an address identification plan and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance at the required intersection(s). 3.7 All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface as measured around the perimeter of the building. Exhibit B • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 26 2008 3.8 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 3.9 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all fire department connections. 3.10 Buildings over 30' in height are required to have access roads in accordance with The International Fire Code Appendix D Section D105. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The proposed development shall limit landscaping shrubs and bushes to species that do not exceed two feet in height. Trees shall have a canopy of no less than six feet. 4.2 Any interior fencing shall allow visibility from the street or shall not exceed four feet in height if solid fencing is used. All micropaths and open areas shall have adequate lighting. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 5.1 The Parks Department has no concerns with the site design as submitted with the application. 6. SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY 6.1 Prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance, that applicant shall submit an approved site plan from SSC. 6.2 Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal prior to the public hearing. There is a concern that the required modifications may significantly impact your site design and may require a revised site plan. If the site plan is revised, contact the planner assigned to the project immediately to discuss the changes and how to proceed with the revised site plan. 6.3 Provide a minimum 28' inside and 48' outside radius for all alleys and private streets, where they intersect a public street. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 7.1 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 7.1.1 Provide a public sidewalk easement covering the existing sidewalk along Alba Avenue This easement will be on common lots of the Brid~etower Crossing Subdivisions 2 5 and 7 7.1.2 Construct Capri Street as a artially divided commercial street with 21 foot drive aisles (measured back of curb to back of curb) where divided and a 36 foot section (measured back of Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 curb to back of curb) where not divided. Construct vertical curb, gutter and five foot attached sidewalk alon itg s length. Align Capri Street with Parma Drive on the west side of Ten Mile Road. 7.1.3 Complete Alba Avenue as a minimum 25 foot street section (measured back of curb to back of curb) with vertical curb and gutter on both sides and a five foot attached concrete sidewalk on the east side. In accordance with ACRD "Interim Procedure for Acceptance of Private Roads into the Public Sysytem" dated March 16, 2005, provide documentation that the existing improvements meet current District standards in order to be acc tep ed as public ri t-of-wad 7.1.4 Install signs along Alba Avenue prohibiting on-street parkingl 7.1.5 Direct lot access to Ten Mile is prohibited and shall be noted on the final plat. 7.1.6 Construct one driveway onto W. Quintale Drive as proposed, no wider than 36 feet, with a minimum 15 foot curb return radii. 7.1.7 Construct 2 driveways onto Capri Street as proposed, aligning with each other, no wider than 36 feet, with a minimum 15 foot curb return radii. 7.1.8 Construct 2 driveways onto Alba Avenue as nronosed. no wider than 36 feet. with a minimum 15 foot curb return radu. The north driveway shall align with the existing driveway on the east side of Alba Avenue, and the south driveway shall be sited as proposed. 7.1.9 Dedicate a minimum of 54-feet of ri t-of--way along Capri Street, and as necessary to include all street and sidewalk improvements, by means of recordation of a final subdivision lat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a buildin ermit or other required permits whichever comes first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the ri t-of--way dedication after receipt of all requested material. 7.1.10 Dedicate 27-feet of ri t-of--way along Alba Avenue by means of recordation of a final lp at or execution of a warranty of deed prior to issuance of a building_permit (or other required permits), whichever comes first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the ri t-of--way dedication after receipt of all requested material. 7.1.11 Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. 7.2 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 7.2.1 Anv existing irrieation facilities shall be relocated outside of the risht-of-way. 7.2.2 Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACRD roadwa~or right-of-wad 7.2.3 All utility relocation costs associated with imnrovine street frontases abuttine the site shall be borne by the developer. 7.2.4 Replace any existing_damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that maybe damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 7.2.5 Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Polio 7.2.6 Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 7.2.7 All design and constriction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Hi hway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 ~plicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An en ' eer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certi afy 11 improvement plans. 7.2.8 The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building_permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 7.2.9 Construction, use and >rO e~rty development shall be in conformance with all ap licable requirements of the Ada County Hig away District prior to District approval for occupancy, 7.2.10 Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction. The assessed impact fee will be based on the impact fee ordinance that is in effect at that time. 7.2.11 It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the ri t-of--way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing_utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking_ground within ACHD ri t-of--way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACRD conduits (spare or filled are compromised during anYphase of construction. 7.2.12 No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 7.2.13 Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comkly with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other re ug latory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Hi way District of its intent to chan eg the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. 8. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT 8.1 After written approval from appropriate entities is submitted, we can approve this proposal for central sewage and central water. 8.2 The following plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health & welfare, Division of Environmental Quality: central sewage and central water. 8.3 Run-off is not to create amosquito-breeding problem. 8.4 Central District Health will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: food establishments, grocery store, beverage establishment and child care center. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN• TE OF FEBRUARY 26 2008 Exhibit C -Legal Descriptions & Exhibit Maps ~~ 6Zuodrant Conauitin®. Inc. Legal D~criptian For Bridgetower Crossing Subdivlsion IVo.16 (C-N Rezone) Rezone from R-4 artd C-G to C~1 Lo# 66 thru 70. Block 10 of Bridgetower Grossing Subdivision Pio. 7, Book 92 of Plats at Pages 10918-1081 J; Ada County Records and a ~rtion ofi the i~ghf-Of-Way of North Ten Mee Road and West Quinfale Drive located in the Northwest quarter of Section 35, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County. Idaho more par~culariy descnbed as follows: Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Section 35, thence South 00'52'46° West, 443.00 fit along the West line of saki section to the Potrrt of Beginning; Thence South 89°07'14' East, 222.77 feet along the centerline of mid West 4uintale Drive; Thence continuing along said centerline 89.32 feet along a curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 300.00 feet, a delta angle of 1 T03'32° era! a chord bearing and distance of South 80°35`27° East. 88.89 feet; Thence continuing 88. along a curve to the left, said curve having a radius of 300.00 feet, a delta angle of 16°54'34° and a chord bearing and distance of South 80°30'58° East, 88.22 feed Thencejleaving sakd ceriteriine,South 00°52'46° West, 788.13 feel to the Southeast comer of said Lot 70; Thence North 89 X7'14° West, 398.00 feet th the West line of said Section 35; Thence Plorth (?0 52'46° East, 81252 feet along said West tine to the Point of Beginning. Said pair~l c:ontalns 7.37 acres nrore or less ~'i CEI~i D QEC 0 3 2007 Dd1"it (~i~ tiAN . it & ZOI\~TG sv "'C%'~`"'~.` nay a ., Q , ~(~;~~ raERtDiRN P1i6LIG WOrt#SS DEPT. i 904 W. Ovefittnd • Boise. i0 83705 • Phone (24B) 34Z-OD91 • Frni (21342-~9'2 • Emoii: QuadroMQG.uadtont.cc ' - GIvR E+191n8afing • Surveying ~ Conshucflan McnaDemeM Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEIsARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 R, ,;.. g y a a k``` a iu . a `~ Y 27 26 ~~ - g m 34 35 3 io 0 v o 2 N O ~ ~ `CENTERLINE OF W. QUtN TALE DRIVE w w m y 589' 07' 14°E 222.77 ~ n ~ 4 C1 C2 m i o °- 4' v w ~ U ~% ~ ~ Z ~ t~. c~ rn N ~ w ~_._...____.. ~ U p U ~p 00 _ W 0 0 ~ J ~ Z ~i ~ `` ~- w ~ ~ ~!J e e ~ F- 9- yZ ~ r a Z p cV -'___ ~ _ ~ g~ rJ'' ~_~ - 3 ~ Q N M d M z - m~, 6 ~ ~ ~ ,J ~a °_~ o z ~ a ~ 0 ih O ~ i.A ~ .E U W ~ g O, ~ ~ t'^• O N a ill ~ (~ ~~ ~ O O \s ~ ~ W ~~ Q O ~ o SSS p _~~ a ~ M M ~ w ~ N r7 ~t- u~ as ~ ~ l ~~ C 0 > ~ _ V N U I U 00'86f M„ti ~ ,LO .68N z H ®g 2 W i w z ~ O U Z~ F O W " a tV I1 t V C Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Mitt P AI. _ .. g --- BY hAERIDIAN PIreLIC ~~ QUCidrQrlt woRKS~EPT Consulting, Inc. Legal Descripdan For Brtdgetower Grassing Subdivision No. 16 (L-0 Rezarte) Rezone from R-4 to L-0 Lot 2, Block 90 of Btldgetower Crossing Subdivision No. 2, Book 86 of Plats at Pages 9641-8643: Lot 1 fhro 3, Block 1 of Gallery Subdivision, Book 93 of Plats at Pages 11140-11149; Ada County Records and a porhon of the Right-Of--Way of North Ten Mile Road and West Belit~uer Drive. looted in the Northr~vest quarter of Section 35, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho more partlculady described as fopoias: Commenc~mg at the Northwest corner of saki Section 35. thence South 00°52'46° West, 1255.52 feet akmg the West line of said section to the Past of Beginning: Thence South 89°OT14° East, 398.00 feat to the Northeast comer of saki Lot 2; Them South ~°52'46° West, 494.52 feet to the oerrtelline of saki West Belltainrer Drive; Thence North 89°OT14° West, 388.00 feet along said centerline to the West line of said Sec~on 35; Thence North 00°52'46° East. 494.52 feet along saki West tine to the Pairtt of Beginning. EXCLUDING THEREFROM: Lot 1, Block 10 of Bridgetower Cr~sing Subdivision No. 2, Book 86 of Plats at Pages 9641-9643: rr~re particularty described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Sectlort 35, thence South 00°62`48' West, 1255,52 feet along the West line of said section, thence South 89°OT14° East, 233.00 feat, them South 002'46° West, 60.02 feet to th® Northwest c?Orrler of saki L~ 1, being the Paint of Beginning; Thence South 89°07'14° East, 140.00 feet to the Northeast comer of said Lot; Thence South 00°52'46° West, 145.11 feet to the Southeast Amer of sold Lot; Thence North 89°OT94° West, 140.00 feet to the Southwest comer of said Lot; Thence North 00°52'46° East, 145.11 feet to the Pointi of Beginning Said parcel contains 4.05 acres more or less. 19p4 w. Oaerland • sole. tD &3705 • Phone (~1342-0091 • Fax i~l 3x2-0092 • Emon C1vII ~9 • SuroeYin9 - Corrotruction Monagerr~nl Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 D w 0 ~ <C u U 4J 27 26 ~ =W ~ w Q 6N '~ 34 35 ~- ° o w ~ ~ ' ~ -~ t.5 ~' V7 ~~ ~ N N ~ ~ W ~ °~ ~ S89' 07' i 4"E 398.00 O a o (' ~ 233.00 4o z SO. 52' 46°1M Z ~ ~ ~ ~- in ~ ~ z 60.02 ~ Q ~ o m® a W S89' 0T 14"E CL ~ m ~t~ z m W 14 .00 ~ O w ~ n r 3 -~ ui ~ v ~ ~ O ~ z°O ~ ~ ^ ~ iNn ~ N w 'Cf ~ N d- ~ ~' ~ 00'04 t eY Z ~~~, ~ M,bt ,LO.68N O ~ m ~ -- - w w L` G~ m ~- -- m-~-- ~ z J ~ w r d- Z ~ !! O ~ N F- N N a ~ Up ~ ~ /'~ ~ O (~ 00'86 M„f~4 ,LO .68N~ 3A12~0 2~3MO11138 'M .~0 3NI1~I31N33 V ~ Q ms W _3 w ~ w o: O J ~ 6`r ti O 0 N H c Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~RTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING~UATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 o~ Quctdrdnt Consulting, Inc. ~~_j . Legal De$cription For Bridwer Crossing Sulxilvlslon No. t6 (L-O Rezone) Rezone from R-0 to L-0 Lot 3, Blootc 6 of Bddgetawer Crossing Subdivision No. 2, Book 86 of Plate at Pages 9E~1~9643; Ada County Records and a portion of die Right-Of-Way of NoctPt Ten Mee Road, tooated in tF~ Northwest quarter of 3sotlon 35, Township 4 North, Range.l West, • Boise MerkUan, Ads County, idatro more partlculady described as foQows: Commenting at ~ Northwest comer of ~d Section 35, thence South 0052'46' West, 2014.59 fe$t alor~ the Wert one of said section to the PoMt of t3eginntng; Thence South 89 OT14' East, 398.E feet to the Northeast comer of said Lot 3; Thence Sovth Q0 62'4f~' West, 200.00 fast to the Southeast comer of ~Id Lot; Thence Nortlt 89717''14° Wiest, 398.00 feet to the West this of said Sectlan; . O Thera North ~52'4t3° East, 200.00 feet along said West Iine to tha Point of . Begitlnti'~g. Said panel c~ntalrts 1.8,9 acres more or less. p~VAI BYE !~ ~ 4 r„ ~..,~ p4FRl41AN REPS G yyORKS- {/'~} i V' 19Q4 W. OV@rtarld • Bo15e.ID 837Q5 • PFtone 01342-UO9T • FQX (206J 34Z-009'1 • Ein~ gUCCfIOnfQ~UCdfCnI,CC City ~~ • SunrBytng • CatttfnKNan MCR~B17lBnt Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN•TE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 0 ovQa ~iw ~ •w z ~' a m q4 _$ O z 0 F U 0 W ~ ~u ~ s U G Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D-EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; The City Council fords that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Staff supports the proposed plat layout, with recommended changes, as they comply with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The City Council fords that public services can be made available to accommodate the proposed development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their own cost, the City Council fords that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACRD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B, Agency Comments and Conditions, for more detail.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and The City Council is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the development of this subdivision that should be brought to the Council or Commission's attention. ACRD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is unaware. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The City Council is unaware of any natural, scenic, or historic features on this site. Therefore, the City Council finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature(s) of major importance. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware. Exhibit D CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 2. Rezone Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings: a. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The applicant is proposing to zone the subject property to C-N and L-O. The City Council finds that the proposed zoning map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report. b. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; T'he City Council finds retail and office uses are permitted within the requested zoning districts of C-N and L-O. The City Council fmds that any future use and / or development of this property should comply with the established regulations and purpose statement of the C- Nand L-O zoning districts. c. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The City Council fmds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any oral or written testimony that maybe provided when determining this finding. d. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts; and, The City Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. Exhibit D March 14, 2008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2008 PP 07-026 APPLICANT Primeland Development Group, Llc ITEM No. 7-B-1-F REQUEST Findings for Approval -- Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 commercial lots and 1 other lot in the proposed C-N zone for Brtdgetower Crossing Commeratal -east of North Ten Mile Road and south of W. McMillan AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: COMMENTS See attached Minutes See attached Finding ~~'r~o ~~ ~°°. Contacted: Chl~LC1~ ~f1hS~Sa1 Date: 3-~~' Emailed: ChuC1C. ~l~l rant . ~ Staff In'rtials:~ Materials presented at public meetings ahaS become properly of the Phone: ~'2~~1 ~ of Meridian. ~ ~ ~~~ ~A~ 0 ~ 200 City ®f Ii~eridiaxa ~~at~r Clerk ®ffi~ CITY OF MERIDIAN E IDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ~ DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of Rezone 13.25 acres from C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) and R-4 (Medium-low Density Residential) to C-N (Neighborhood Business District) (7.37 acres) and L-O (Limited Office) (5.88 acres) zoning districts; Preliminary Plat of 8 commercial building lots and 1 other lot in a proposed C-N zoning district for the Bridgetower Crossing Commercial Subdivision, by Primeland Development Group, LLC. Case No(s). RZ-07-022 and PP-07-026 For the City Council Hearing Date of: February 26, 2008 (Findings on the March 18, 2008 City Council agenda) A. Findings of Fact 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference) B. Conclusions of Law 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975," codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. §67-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Unified Development Code codified at Title 11 Meridian City Code, and all current zoning maps thereof. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382 and Maps. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-07-022 and PP-07-026 -1- ~ i 3. The conditions shall be reviewable by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code § 11-SA. 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, Preliminary Plat, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference. The conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application. C. Decision and Order Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code § 11-SA and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted, it is hereby ordered that: 1. The applicant's Preliminary Plat as evidenced by having submitted the Preliminary Plat dated October 5, 2007 is hereby conditionally approved; and, 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits Notice of Preliminary Plat Duration Please take notice that approval of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to obtain the city engineer's signature on the final plat within two (2) years of the approval of the preliminary plat or one (1) year of the combined preliminary and final plat or short plat. In the event that the development of the preliminary plat is made in successive phases in an orderly and reasonable manner, and conforms substantially to the approved preliminary plat, such segments, if submitted within successive intervals of eighteen (18) months, maybe considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-6B-7.A, the Director may authorize a single extension of time to record the final plat not to exceed eighteen (18) months. Additional CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-07-022 and PP-07-026 -2- time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the City Council maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or City Council may require the preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat or short plat to comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. If the above timetable is not met and the applicant does not receive a time extension, the property shall be required to go through the platting procedure again. E. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008 ~~ By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the ~ day of 2008. COUNCIL MEMBER DAVID ZAREMBA VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON VOTED f~~n~- COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE VOTED COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIlZD VOTED MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED (TIE BREAKER) Attest: Jaycee Hd~man, City Clerk Copy served upon Applicant, Attorney. ~1 Ma~p~'1" y Weerd ~ ~~ i ~~ ~" o - ~~AI, .; ~ \ ~~.' T 1L3~ • ~ ~`. The Plannuig''D¢patld~, Public Works Department and City By: City Clerk's O ce Dated: 3 •a5 b ~ CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-07-022 and PP-07-026 -3- CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: February 26, 2008 TO: Mayor and City Council E IDIAN FROM: Bill Parsons, Associate City Planner ~ H 884-5533 SUBJECT: Bridgetower Crossing Commercial • RZ-07-022 Rezone 13.25 acres from C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) and R-4 (Medium-low Density Residential) to C N (Neighborhood Business District)(7.37 acres) and L-O (Limited Office) (5.88 acres) zoning districts, by Primeland Development Group, LLC • PP-07-026 Preliminary Plat of 8 commercial building lots and 1 other lot in a proposed C-N zoning district 1. SUIVIMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Primeland Development Group, LLC has applied for a Rezone (RZ) of 13.25 acres from C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) and R-4 (Medium-low Density Residential) to C-N (Community Business District) (7.37 acres) and L-O (Limited Office) (5.88 acres) and preliminary plat approval of 8 commercial building lots and 1 other lot. The subject preliminary plat is a re-subdivision of Lots 66 through 70, Block 10 of Bridgetower Crossing No. 7. As part of the Bridgetower Crossing Planned Development (CUP-01-006), the commercial portion of the development was conceptually approved, and the office portion was granted as a use exception. The applicant is proposing to rezone the portion of the C-G and R-4 zoned parcels to conform to the City's Comprehensive Plan of commercial and office designations. The subject property is located east of N. Ten Mile Road and approximately 400 feet south of W. McMillan Road in Section 35, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, B.M. Currently, the site is vacant land and the applicant intends to construct a commercial development. The subject property is within the City's Area of Impact and within the existing corporate boundaries of the City. 2. SUlVIlVIARY RECOMMENDATION The subject applications (RZ-07-022 & PP-07-026) were submitted to the Planning Department for concurrent review. Staff has provided a detailed analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the RZ and PP applications. Staff is recommending that the RZ and PP applications be approved with the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report. The Meridian PlanninE & Zoning Commission heard these items on January 3 2008 At the public hearing the Commission moved to recommend annroval of the subiect RZ and PP re uest. a. Summary of Commission Public Hearine: i. In favor: Chuck Christensen (Auplicant's Representative ii. In opuosition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Written testimony: None v. Staff uresentin~ annlication: Bill Parsons Bridgetower Crossing Commercial RZ and PP PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 vi. Other staff commenting on application: Anna Canning, Scott Steckline, Ted Baird b. Kev Issue(s) of Discussion by Commission: i. Forwarding the proiect to City Council without the ACRD Staff Report ii. The tilin>? of the White Drain along the southern boundary of the proiect iii. The combination of concept plan 1 and 3 to allow the larger building pads north of Capri Street and transition to smaller buildin>?s south of Capri Street c. Kev Commission Change(s) to Staff Recommendation: i. Strike the middle sentence of Condition 2.2, requiring two mains to Locust Grove Road. u. The concept plan recommended for approval is a combination of concept plan one and the south half of concept plan three as stated in the staff report d. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. The applicant is requesting additional flexibility in the number and size of the buildings that will be allowed/reauired on this site. Please see Section 10 below for the current reauirements regarding an appropriate concept plan for the site to tie to the new Brids:etower Crossing Commercial Development Agreement Staff has inserted all of the applicant's concept plans in Exhibit B includins: their preferred concept plan (concept plan 1) and also the concept plan recommended by the P&Z Commission (P&Z Commission concept plan) in Exhibit B.of the concurrent miscellaneous application (File #'s NII-07-013 and MI-07-014). 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Numbers 1tZ- 07-022 and PP-07-026 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 26, 2008, with the following modifications to the conditions of approval: (Add any proposed Bridgetower Crossing Commercial RZ and PP PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Numbers RZ-07- 022 and PP-07-026 as presented during the hearing on February 26, 2008, for the following reasons: (State specific reasons for denial of the preliminary plat request.) Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Number RZ- 07-022 and PP-07-026 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (State specific reason(s) for a continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: East side of Ten Mile Road and Approximately 400 feet South of McMillan Road Section 35, T.4N., R.1 W. b. Applicant: Primeland Development Group, LLC 3120 W. Belltower Drive, Suite 100 Meridian, ID 83646 c. Owner: Same as applicant d. Representative: Chuck Christensen, Quadrant Consulting, Inc. e. Present Zoning: C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial District) and R-4 (medium-low Density Residential) f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Commercial and Office g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant has applied for a Rezone (RZ) of 13.25 acres from C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) and R-4 (Medium Density Residential) to C-N (Neighborhood Business District) (7.37 acres) and L-O (Limited Office) (5.88 acres) and preliminary plat approval for 8 commercial building lots and one other lot within a proposed C-N zone. 1. Preliminary Plat, labeled Sheet C-1, prepared by Quadrant Consulting, dated 10/5/07 (attached in Exhibit A) 2. Landscape Plan, labeled Sheet L-1, prepared by Harvest Design, dated 10/5/07 (attached in Exhibit A) 3. Concept Plans (attached in Exhibit A) h. Applicant's Statement/Justification: The applicant is requesting rezone and re-subdivision of a portion of Bridgetower No. 7 from C-G and R-4 to C-N; rezone a portion of the Gallery Subdivision and one other parcel (Lot 3, Block 6 of Bridgetower Crossing No.2) from R-4 to L-O; and preliminary plat approval for 8 commercial building lots and one other lot in a proposed C-N zone. The rezone is being requested to have the commercial and office portion of the development be consistent with the City's future land use map for this property. As part of the Bridgetower Crossing Planned Development approval, the commercial portion of the development was conceptually approved and the office uses were permitted as use exceptions. Bridgetower Crossing Commercial RZ and PP PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Since that time, the Comprehensive Plan was amended by the City to reflect these approvals. The proposed development is expected to develop with the same high quality architecture and design as the existing residential and commercial developments in the area. 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will, in fact, constitute a preliminary plat as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11, a public hearing is required before the Commission and City Council on this matter. b. The subject application will, in fact, constitute a rezone as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-2A-2D, a public hearing is required before the Commission and the City Council on this matter. c. Newspaper notifications published on: December 17, 2007 and December 31, 2007 (Planning and Zoning Commission); February 4, 2008 and February 18 2008 (Gifu Council) d. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: December 14, 2007 (Planning and Zoning Commission); February 1.2008 (Gifu Council) e. Applicant posted notice on site by: December 24, 2007 (Planning and Zoning Commission); February 16.2008 (Gifu Council) 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): The site is currently vacant developable land. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: There are existing single-family homes to the east of the proposed development and existing/future commerciaVoffice developments to the north, south and west. This area is rapidly transitioning to a mix of residential and commerciaUoffice developments. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Bridgetower Market Place; zoned C-G 2. East: Bridgetower Crossing No. 5 and 7; zoned R-4 3. South: Bridgetower Crossing No. 2; zoned R-4 4. West: Vacant, Volterra Subdivision; zoned C-G and L-O d. History of Previous Actions: In 2001, this portion of the property was annexed and zoned C-G and R-4 (AZ-01-003) and preliminarily platted (PP-O1-005) with a mix of residential, commercial and office lots. A Development Agreement (Inst. No. 101117652) was recorded at the time of annexation that required the site develop as a Planned Development. The commercial portion of the development was conceptually approved and the office portion was granted as a use exception with the Bridegtower Crossing Planned Development (CUP-0l - 006). The office and commercial lots were final platted with the recordation of Bridgetower Crossing No. 2 and No. 7 (FP-OZ-008 and FP-04-031). A combined preliminary/fmal plat was approved in 2004, which allowed one of the approved office lots re-subdivide into three office lots; however at that time the property was not rezoned to L-O. e. Existing Constraints and Opporhuiities: 1. Public Works: Location of sewer: There is an 8-inch line in W Quintale Dr and the purposed Capri Street that flow to N Ten Mile Rd. Services were stubbed with the previous phase of Bridetower. Bridgetower Crossing Commercial RZ and PP PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Location of water: N Ten Mile Rd and W Quintale Dr. Services were stubbed with the previous phase of Bridetower. Issues or concerns: None 2. Vegetation: None 3. Floodplain: NA 4. Canals/Ditches/Irrigation: 5. Hazards: None known 6. Proposed Zoning: C-N (Neighborhood Business District) and L-O (Limited Office) 7. Size of Property: Total acreage: 13.25 acres (7.37 acres C-N and 5.88 acres L-O) f. Subdivision Plat Information: 1. Residential Lots: 0 2. Non-residential Lots: 8 3. Total Building Lots: 8 4. Common Lots: 0 5. Other Lots: 1 6. Total Lots: 9 7. Open Lots: 0 8. Residential Area: NA 9. Gross Density: NA g. Landscaping: 1. Width of street buffer(s): UDC 11-2B-3 requires a minimum 25-foot wide street buffer along N. Ten Mile Road and a 10-foot landscape buffer along W. Quintale Drive, Capri Street and Alba Avenue. The required landscaping along Ten Mile and Quintale has been installed with the final platting of Bridgetower Crossing No. 7. However the applicant will be required to install and maintain the ten-foot landscape buffers along Capri Street and Alba Avenue. Landscaping shall be provided in accordance with UDC 11-3B-7, Landscape Buffers Along Streets. 2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: A 20-foot wide buffer is required between C-N zoned property and residential zoned property. The required landscaping has been installed with the final platting of Bridgetower Crossing No. 7. 3. Parking lot landscaping: Perimeter and internal parking lot landscaping is required on all lots that are zoned C-N and L-O, in accordance with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-8C. Perimeter and internal landscaping on these lots will be reviewed for compliance with UDC standards with submittal of Certificate of Zoning Compliance applications for each building. 4. Other landscaping standards: N/A h. Dimensional standards for the C-N and L-O zone per UDC 11-2B-3: C-N Minimum Dimensional Standards (in feet unless otherwise noted) Required Bridgetower Crossing Commercial RZ and PP PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Front setback* 20 Rear setback* 25 Interior side setback* p Maximum building height 35 Maximum building size (without design standard approval) 7,500 s.f. * All setbacks shall be measured from the ultimateright-of--way for the street classification as shown on the adopted transportation plan. No changes to the dimensional standards in ZTDC Table 11-2B-3 were requested or approved with this application.) L-O Minimum Dimensional Standards (in feet unless otherwise noted) Required Front setback* ~ 20 Rear setback* 20 Interior side setback* 10 Maximum building height 35 Maximum building size (without design standard approval) 10,000 s.f. * All setbacks shall be measured from the ultimate right-of--way for the street classification as shown on the adopted transportation plan.. No changes to the dimensional standards in UDC Table 11-2B-3 were requested or approved with this application.) i. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): Access to this development will be provided by five full-access driveways and three public streets; one existing (W. Quintale Drive) and the other two (Capri Street and Alba Avenue) are part of this application review. The applicant is also proposing Capri Street provide access to/from N. Ten Mile Road. All five of the proposed driveways will take access internally to/from the project. Two of the driveways will take access to/from Alba Avenue, another two will take access to/from Capri Street and the last one will access to /from W. Quintale Drive. Across-access agreement should be recorded for all of the commercial lots within the proposed subdivision to share the access points and drive aisles to W. Quintale Drive, Alba Avenue and Capri Street. Other than the access points approved with this application, direct lot access to N. Ten Mile Road should be prohibited. The Planning Department is supportive of the proposed access points to the subdivision, per the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the staff report. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On December 14, 2007, Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This properly is designated "Commercial" and "Office" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, "Commercial" areas are anticipated to provide a full range of commercial and retail to serve area residents and visitors and "Office" Bridgetower Crossing Commercial RZ and PP PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 areas are anticipated to provide opportunities for low-impact business areas. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics): • Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1 -Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands in the following manner: - Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense. - The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resources and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. - The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Police Department (MPD). - The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACFID). This service will not change. - The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District No. 2. This service will not change. - The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change. Municipal, fee-supported, services will be provided by the Meridian Building Department, the Meridian Public Works Department, the Meridian Water Department, the Meridian Wastewater Department, the Meridian Planning Department, Meridian Utility Billing Services, and Sanitary Services Company. • "Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridors (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.)." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 4) The applicant is required to install and maintain landscaping within the street buffers located along N. Ten Mile Road in accordance with UDC 11-3B-7. An existing 2S foot landscape buffer is located along N. Ten Mile Road. • "Permit new ...commercial development only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of fmal approval and development is contiguous to the City." (Chapter IV, Goal I, Obj. A, #6) Urban services including sanitary sewer and water are available to this site. • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B) Staff believes that the future commercial and oj~ce uses on this site will contribute to the variety of uses in this area. • "Require all commercial businesses to install and maintain landscaping." (Chapter V, Goal III, Objective D, Action 5) The applicant is not required to install internal landscaping with the subject preliminary plat application; however, the applicant will be required to install and maintain a ten foot landscape buffer along W. Quintale Drzve, Capri Street, and Alba Avenue. Internal Bridgetower Crossing Commercial RZ and PP PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 landscaping will be required upon development of each lot within the subdivision with CUP and/or CZC approval. • "Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1) The Applicant is proposing a commercial zone adjacent to established residential areas to the east. An existing drainage Swale with the associated landscape runs along the east side of Alba Avenue and provides the adequate buffering for the residential development. In addition to the existing landscape/drainage buffer the residential development will be separated by a public street and an additional 10 feet of landscape along the western side of Alba Avenue. Staff finds the proposed commercial development will be compatible with the surrounding residential uses. Staff also fords the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this application: • "The capacity of arterial ...roadways can be greatly diminished by excessive driveway connections to the roadways. The City should cooperate with ACRD to minimize access points on arterial...roadways as development applications are reviewed." (Chapter VI, page 72) The applicant is proposing a new public street connection to N. Ten Mile Road approximately 280 feet south of W. Quintale Drive; an existing public street. Except for the proposed new street connection; no other access points are proposed or approved with this application. Staff is supportive of this access point as it aligns with a future public street adjacent to the proposed development. • "Develop methods, such as cross-access agreements, frontage roads, to reduce the number of existing access points onto arterial streets." (Chapter VI, Goal II, Obj. A, #12, page 79). A cross-access agreement will be required as part of this subdivision approval. All of the proposed driveways will take access to/from internal public roads. Sta, ff recommends that the Commission rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicant's development request is appropriate for this property. 9. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC Table 11-2B-21ists a variety of uses that are principal permitted, accessory, conditional, or prohibited within the C-N and L-O zoning districts. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four Districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation REZONE ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the Future Land Use Map designation of Commercial and Office, Staff believes that the requested C- Nand L-O zoning designations are appropriate for the subject property. The commercial portion was Bridgetower Crossing Commercial RZ and PP PAGE 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 conceptually approved and the office lots were granted as use exceptions for the Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision but are currently zoned C-G and R-4 respectively. The applicant is proposing to zone the land to match the land use and match the existing commercial and office portion of the development with the City's Comprehensive Plan by rezoning 13.25 acres to C-N and L-O. As part of the rezone, the applicant has also requested the existing C-G portion of the development along with additional office parcels be rezoned to C-N to allow for a more diverse mix of retail and commercial uses in the area. Staff believes this to be a good compromise between the two zoning districts and is supportive of the applicant's request. In addition the C-N zoning district requires more stringent setbacks and requires the same amount of buffering from the residential districts as the L-O zone. Please see Exhibit D for a detailed analysis of the required facts and findings for a rezone. The rezone legal descriptions submitted with the application (stamped on October 22, 2007, November 29, 2007 and November 21, 2007 by Peter W. Lounsbury, PLS) is accurate and meets the requirements of the City of Meridian and Idaho State Tax Commission. UDC 11-SB-3D2 provides the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council the authority to require a property owner to enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City of Meridian that may require some written commitment for all future uses. As part of annexation into the City for the Bridgetower Crossing development, the developer was required to enter into a development agreement recorded under instrument # 101117652. The commercial portion of the Bridgetower Crossing Development was conceptually approved and required a CUP to develop the commercial lots. With this application, the applicant has come forward with a concept plan to develop the commercial portion of the development and is requesting to modify the existing DA. Provisions of the amended DA will be outlined in a separate application for City Council approval. Staff has included a copy of that staff report for the Commission's review. Staff believes that the proposed modifications will clean up the Bridgetower Crossing DA to reflect the proposed plat layout. Concept Plan: The applicant has submitted three concept plans for how the site may develop. Each concept plan shows three different scenarios depicting a variety of commercial and office uses such as office supply store, a nursery, multi tenant retail and personal /professional services on the site. It is important to note that version two and three are similar in pad layout; however the proposed parking for the front three pads are located adjacent to Ten Mile Road and in version three the proposed buildings are fronting along Ten Mile with the parking in the rear of the buildings. Because of the proposed zoning and square footages of the proposed buildings, these buildings should require design review which requires no more than 70 percent of the required parking be located between the front facade and the abutting street. The submitted plat shows 8 buildable lots. The submitted concept plans shows a range from two building pads to seven building pads and square footages ranging from 2,500 square feet to 33,725 square feet. Because the applicant does not have a clear vision for how this site is to develop, Staff is limiting the development to not exceed 80,260 total square feet of non-residential uses on the site (this is 25% of the gross area of the land). This is well below the allowed non-residential square footage. located in a mixed use neighborhood land use designation. Further, staff is recommending that no one building exceed 33,725 square feet and a minimum of 4 buildings be constructed on the site. Staff is generally supportive of the concept plans, but believes version three is a better concept plan based on the configuration of the proposed buildings on the site and the its location to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. Staff is recommending the applicant combine Concept Plan one and three allowing a larger retail box north of Capri Street and transition to smaller neighborhood retail south of Capri Street. If these changes are made, Staff is supportive of the Bridgetower Crossing Commercial RZ and PP PAGE 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Concept for this development. The applicant should revise the concept plan prior to the City Council hearing. Elevations: The applicant has provided staff with sample photos illustrating what the types of buildings are to be constructed on the site. Staff has selected six photos that portray the quality and design expected for the proposed development. These buildings are constructed with stucco finishes with varying roof heights, color changes and stone accented pillars and facades. The submitted photos show substantial building modulation and an abundance of glazing on the front facades. Staff believes that this is a good pallet for the developer to work from and has included these design features in Exhibit B of the Staff Report. Future buildings shall substantially comply with the construction materials and design elements shown in these elevations. Design Review: The submitted concept plans indicate buildings that range in size from 2,500 to 33,725 square feet. As mentioned earlier any building in a C-N and L-O zone that exceeds the maximum square footages (7,500 sq. ft. for C-N and 10,000 sq. ft. for L-O) without design standard approval shall be subject to UDC11-3A-19C which lists the design standards. All commercial buildings on this site should be subject to full compliance with future Design Review (UDC 11- 3A-19). It is important to note that the proposed elevations and architectural features that are incorporated with the future DA far ezceed the design review standards of the code. PRELllVIINARY PLAT ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposal with the Unified Development Code, Staff believes that this is a good location for the proposed commercial subdivision. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of facts and findings for a preliminary plat. Dimensional Requirements of the C-N and L-O zones per UDC Table 11-2B-3: There are no minimum lot size or street frontage requirements for lots in the C-N and L- Ozones; however the C-N and L-O zoning district require a minimum setback of 20' front setbacks, a 25' and 20 `rear setback and 10' side setback for the L-O and no side setback for the C-N zone. The maximum building heights allowed in the C-N and L-O zones are 35 feet. The maximum building size allowed without design standard approval is 7,500 square feet for the C-N zone and 10,000 square feet for the L-O zone. Future buildings proposed on the subject lots shall meet the minimum dimensional standards listed in UDC 11-2B-3 and #6h above. Landscaping: The entire perimeter landscaping along N. Ten Mile Road has been installed with the approval of Bridgetower Crossing No. 2 and No. 7. The applicant has also installed the required landscape buffers where the commercial uses adjoin the residential uses. As part of this application approval, the applicant will be responsible for installing and maintaining the 10-foot landscape buffers along W. Quintale Drive, Capri Street and Alba Avenue. The submitted landscape plan complies with city code. Proposed Streets and/or Access: Access to this development will be provided from a total of five full-access driveways, two full-access public streets to N. Ten Mile Road and one backage road providing access to/from the two other public streets and two proposed driveway connections. Additional driveways will take access to/from Capri Street and one to/from W. Quintale Drive. As mentioned earlier, all of these driveways are expected to align with future public roadways and driveways. Staff is supportive of the proposed driveways because of the future connectivity with current and future develops. All commercial lots within the subdivision should have access to the access points approved in this application. The agreement should also allow for cross-access/parking between the C-N lots within this subdivision. This agreement shall be recorded and a copy of said agreement submitted to the City prior to the City Engineer's signature on the Bridgetower Crossing Commercial RZ and PP PAGE 10 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 final plat (see Exhibit B of the staff report). Pressure Irrigation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. The applicant should be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1-28. Drainage: A seepage bed for stormwater drainage is shown on Lot 1, Block 50 and Lot 1, Block 49. No trees shall be planted over the seepage beds. All storm drainage facilities shall comply with the standards listed in UDC 11-3B-11, Stormwater Integration. Fencing: The Applicant is not showing any fencing on any of the submitted plans. Permanent fencing is not required for commercial subdivisions. However, if permanent fencing is not provided, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit for this site. b. Staff Recommendation: Based on the above analysis, staff finds that applications RZ-07-022 and PP- 07-026 substantially conform to the Comprehensive Plan policies and UDC standards. Staff recommends that the RZ and PP applications be approved with the conditions stated in Exhibit B of the staff report. The Meridian Plannnnt? & Zoning Commission heard these items on January 3 2008 At the public hearin>? the Commission moved to recommend approval of the subiect RZ and PP request The Meridian City ounc'1 heard hec -items nn Febrnarv ~~_ 2011f!_ At tAr, nnhli~ i~P„riTR }},e ouncil aunroved the ubiec 7, and PP r .aue 11. EI~~TTS A. Drawings 1. Vicinity Map 2. Preliminary Plat, prepared by Quadrant Consulting, labeled Sheet C-1, dated 10/11/07 3. Landscape Plan, prepared by Harvest Design, labeled Sheet L-1 dated 10/4/07 4. Concept Plans (3 scenarios)(Concent 2 is not annrovedl 5. Elevations B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department 4. Police Department S. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Ada County Highway District 8. Central District Health Department C. Legal Descriptions & Exhibit Maps D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Bridgetower Crossing Commercial RZ and PP PAGE 11 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 1. Vicinity Ma Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 2. Preliminary Plat ~~ ~~ ~.~ au ~uw~jneuo~ A°O .(!NllO~ YQ9' "M d 'b "N Y '1 `5£ NOlt~35 °~~' ~uo~pnn~^^ t77d ,t?1YN11Y773Ltd a ~ ci ^^ 9I 'OtJ N0ISIAIQBflS ~NfSS021~ N3MOt3~URIS ~ ~ ~~® i!; I~i11 ~~~i ~ii I; ~ ~ jji ~ ®t4~..®.®®~ it ~ ~) iil ~~~~~~ i~=$ ~~~~ gg e c 8 & ~~~~ ~ ~ b g b y ~~€ ~eSA ~o~e a gOt~~ wo ;~ o .-- N In W J a 5.00 o ~ ~o _ o ~ N O P- Z t` O t f ~ W CV O ~ (V O Z 8 e N Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 3. Landscape Plan ~. ~~ i - _~ 6 I ~t~ _ t, JF I r: I O s IMF ~~ I-.~ ~~ ~:~~ ~ , ti .. 3k uffi ~.:~.;: ,~ I x L I ~ _ I a t Is i ~ • ~ I ~ bi"`• ! I l~ I .N I I ~r ,` I ~ 1 a~,.~ I ' t ~'6~ ' i I ~~' • ~ ~ i~ e i t r O ~~~~ ~ gg N a !~ ~~t I Q$Q$Q$~ I a ~~. is 5. =~ ,} ~ ~ ~~ ~ l r_ ' ~. i '~a~-- ~i0~ 9R7~7GETt?iNfi75' G~551.N~ aS!~II16'1SI4fJ MtJ. d6 ~°'tl1~• ~~adranf ~ Prt£a7rarr~aar rut u+~QSCnrF Pura ~ S£C': hZZ1l ,e5, J. 4 N.. F. r Y?_ 61!A £DUt,°7s ow~u_n na °II '~Pi° ~+~ ano w`w°'~wfeie Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 4. Concept Plans (3 Scenarios) pEC ~ 3 2007 au~uF ~~~~c~ N p a v,: ~~ u~ W ~ ~ N ~. ~ ~ N • r ~~ I.L. ~ ~ .ww C9 N BRIDGETOWER 16 PROPOSED C-N ZONING AREA CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN -VERSION 1 Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 ~d~ ° ' 8RIDGETOWER 16 PROPOSED C-Id ZONING AREA CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN -VERSION NOT APPROVED a Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 p 3 ' ' BRIDGETOWER 16 PROPOSED C-N ZONING AREA CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN -VERSION 3 Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 5. Elevations qM y ? V v 1Y' T p, a q 11 t ~. ~ 3 ~ ` ~ sp~~ ~ ~ V 3 ,~ ~1n ~` ~ a ~~~ h ~ ~ 3 may, s ~y m ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ 3 N d Y ~F +7 .`' `r l t Ti ^$", ~~ Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARINGI'lATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 REZONE COMMENTS/PROVISIONS 1.1.1 The rezone legal description submitted with the application (stamped on October 22, 2007, November 29, 2007 and November 21, 2007 by Peter W. Lounsbury, PLS) is approved. 1.1.2 Any future subdivision, uses, and construction on this property shall comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of permit submittal. 1.1.3 The applicant shall complete the DA modification MI-07-014 prior to the City adopting the rezone ordinance. 1.2 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT 1.2.1 The preliminary plat labeled as P1.0, prepazed by Quadrant Consulting, dated October 11, 2007, is approved with the conditions listed herein. The Applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of this site associated with CUP-O1-006, and the Development Agreement (Instrument No.101117652) currently in effect for Bridgetower Crossing Subdivision (as amended). 1.2.2 Access to N. Ten Mile Road shall be consistent with the approvals of ACRD and the City of Meridian. A note shall be placed on the final plat restricting direct lot access to these roadways other than the access points approved with this application. 1.2.3 Landscaping: The landscape plan submitted for this project, prepared by Harvest Design, labeled Sheet L-1, dated 10/5/07 is approved with the following notes: • Provide a minimum 10-foot wide landscape buffer along W Quintale Drive, Capri Street and Alba Avenue, as proposed A written certificate of completion should be prepazed by the landscape architect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted to the Planning Department upon completion of the landscaping prior to Certificate of Occupancy for the site. All standazds of installation should apply as listed in UDC 11-3B- 14. Submit copies with the final plat application(s). 1.2.4 A minimum 25-foot wide street buffer is required along N. Ten Mile Road, as shown on the plat. 1.2.5 No signage is approved with this application. All signs proposed for this site shall obtain separate sign permit approval. 1.2.6 Across-access/cross-pazking easement/agreement shall be recorded for all commercial lots within the subdivision. All lots within the subdivision shall have access to the access points to N. Ten Mile Road, W. Quintale Road, Capri Road and Alba Avenue. This agreement shall be recorded and a copy of said agreement submitted to the City prior to the City Engineer's signature on the final plat OR a note shall be added to the face of the final plat granting said cross-access. 1.2.7 Maintenance of all common azeas shall be the responsibility of the developer or assigns. Record legally binding documents that state the maintenance and ownership responsibilities for the management of the development, including but not limited to structures, pazking, common azeas, private streets, and other development features. 1.2.8 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all required fencing, Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D• TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 pressurized irrigation, landscaping, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature of the final plat. 1.3 GENERAL REQUIlZEMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT 1.3.1 Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to City Code. 1.3.2 All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11- 3A-18 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3A- 18. Where the Applicant has submitted a preliminary landscape plan and where Staff has reviewed such plan, the landscaping shall be consistent with the preliminary plan with modifications as proposed by Staff. If the stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3A-18, then the Applicant shall relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. It is the responsibility of the developer to comply with ACRD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at the time of final construction. 1.3.3 Temporary construction fencing to contain debris shall be installed around the perimeter prior to issuance of a building permit. All fencing should be installed in accordance with City Code. 1.3.5 Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved Preliminary Plat does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.3.6 Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-6A. 1.3.7 The Applicant shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards shown in UDC 11-3A-11. 1.3.8 All development within the C-N and L-O districts shall conform to the dimensional standards per UDC 11-2B-3. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via services form mains located in N Ten Mile Rd and W Quintale Dr. The applicant shall install mains to and through this subdivision; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Water service to this site is being propos,~e~d~~vLi1a extension of mains in N Ten Mile Road and W Quuitale Dr. T{le '1~}h~irar"~a?~-~v°cic~3t-tLYtlyi['L~9 ;•• + 11 +. • ~' ~. RT T + . The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 2.3 The applicant shall provide a 20-foot common lot for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way. The common lot shall be covered with a blanket easement to the City of Meridian. 2.4 The applicant shall provide a 20-foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat. The description shall be consistent with the graphically depicted easements on the plat but be recorded as a separate document using the City of Meridian's standard forms. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description, which must Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11"map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. 2.5 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.6 All existing structures shall be removed prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 2.7 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. Plans shall be approved by the appropriate irtigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, alternate plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 2.8 Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 2.9 Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 2.10 Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.11 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.12 All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro-paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.13 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat per Resolution 02-374. 2.14 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.15 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.16 All grading of the site shall be performed in conformance with MCC 11-12-3H. 2.17 Compaction test results shall be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 2.18 The applicants design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or the ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 2.19 At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. 2.20 One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights shall be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department prior to commencing installations. 3. MERIDIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT 3.1 Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 3.2 Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %z" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 3.3 All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 3.4 Operational fire hydrants, temporary or permanent street signs and access roads with an all weather surface are required before combustible construction is brought on site. 3.5 Commercial and office occupancies will require afire-flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 3.6 The applicant shall work with Planning Department staff to provide an address identification plan and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance at the required intersection(s). 3.7 All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface as measured around the perimeter of the building. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 3.8 Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 3.9 There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all fire department connections. 3.10 Buildings over 30' in height are required to have access roads in accordance with The International Fire Code Appendix D Section D105. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 4.1 The proposed development shall limit landscaping shrubs and bushes to species that do not exceed two feet in height. Trees shall have a canopy of no less than six feet. 4.2 Any interior fencing shall allow visibility from the street or shall not exceed four feet in height if solid fencing is used. All micropaths and open areas shall have adequate lighting. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 5.1 The Parks Department has no concerns with the site design as submitted with the application. 6. SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY 6.1 Prior to issuance of a certificate of zoning compliance, that applicant shall submit an approved site plan from SSC. 6.2 Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal prior to the public hearing. There is a concern that the required modifications may significantly impact your site design and may require a revised site plan. If the site plan is revised, contact the planner assigned to the project immediately to discuss the changes and how to proceed with the revised site plan. 6.3 Provide a minimum 28' inside and 48' outside radius for all alleys and private streets, where they intersect a public street. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT 7.1 SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 7.1.1 Provide a public sidewalk easement covering the existing sidewalk along Alba Avenue This easement will be on common lots of the Bridgetower Crossing Subdivisions 2 5 and 7 7.1.2 Construct Capri Street as a partially divided commercial street with 21-foot drive aisles (measured back of curb to back of curb) where divided and a 36-foot section (measured back of Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 curb to back of curb) where not divided. Construct vertical curb gutter and five foot attached sidewalk along its length. Align Capri Street with Parma Drive on the west side of Ten Mile Road. 7.1.3 Complete Alba Avenue as a minimum 25 foot street section (measured back of curb to back of curb) with vertical curb and gutter on both sides and a five foot attached concrete sidewalk on the east side. In accordance with ACRD "Interim Procedure for Acceptance of Private Roads into the Public Sysytem" dated March 16.2005, provide documentation that the existing improvements meet current District standards in order to be accepted as ublic ri t-of-way 7.1.4 Install signs along Alba Avenue prohibiting on-street Uarkin~ 7.1.5 Direct lot access to Ten Mile is prohibited and shall be noted on the final plat 7.1.6 Construct one driveway onto W. Ouintale Drive as proposed no wider than 36 feet with a minimum 15 foot curb return radii. 7.1.7 Construct 2 driveways onto Capri Street as proposed aligning with each other, no wider than 36 feet, with a minimum 15 foot curb return radii. 7.1.8 Construct 2 driveways onto Alba Avenue as proposed no wider than 36 feet with a minimum 15 foot curb return radii. The north driveway shall align with the existing driveway on the east side of Alba Avenue, and the south driveway shall be sited as proposed. 7.1.9 Dedicate a minimum of 54-feet of ri t-of--way along Capri Street and as necessary to include all street and sidewalk improvements, by means of recordation of a final subdivision lp at or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a buildine permit (or other required permits, whichever comes first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the ri t-of--way dedication after receipt of all requested material. 7.1.10 Dedicate 27-feet of ri t-of--way along Alba Avenue by means of recordation of a final plat or execution of a warranty of deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other r aired permits whichever comes first Allow up to 30 business days to process the ri t-of--way dedication after receipt of all requested material. 7.1.11 Comply with all Standard Conditions of A royal. 7.2 STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 7.2.1 Anv existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of-wad 7.2.2 Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACRD roadway or ri t-of-way 7.2.3 All utility relocation costs associated with im rp Oving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 7.2.4 Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that maybe damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 7.2.5 Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy 7.2.6 Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers,2for details. 7.2.7 All desian and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual. ISPWC Standards and approved supplements Construction Services procedures and all Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certi . all improvement .plans. 7.2.8 The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building Sor other required ermits), which incorporates any required design changes. 7.2.9 Construction, use and ~ e~rty development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Hi way District prior to District approval for occupancy 7.2.10 Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction. The assessed i~act fee will be based on the impact fee ordinance that is in effect at that time. 7.2.11 It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the ri t-of--way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585 at least two full business dam prior to breaking_gxound within ACHD ri t-of--way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACRD conduits (spare or filled are compromised during anaphase of construction. 7.2.12 No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Hi way District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Hi hway District. 7.2.13 Any change b t~pplicant in the planned use of the ~ro~erty which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject pro~ert~unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. 8. CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT 8.1 After written approval from appropriate entities is submitted, we can approve this proposal for central sewage and central water. 8.2 The following plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Depaztment of Health & welfaze, Division of Environmental Quality: central sewage and central water. 8.3 Run-off is not to create amosquito-breeding problem. 8.4 Central District Health will require plans be submitted for a plan review for any: food establishments, grocery store, beverage establishment and child care center. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 Ezhibit C -Legal Descriptions & Ezhibit Maps ^^ rE^ 6~ucldrant Consuitin®, Inc. Legal DescNptdon For Bridgetower Crossing Su6dtvialon Nc.16 (C-N t2ezorre) Remne from R-4 and t,.-G to C-N Lot 68 thru 70. Block 10 of Brldgetower Crossing Sutxavision No. 7, Book 92 of Plats at Pages 10918-10818; Ada County Records and a portion of file Right-Of--Way of North Ten ~® Road and West Quintals Drive loc~tel in the Nortltv+rest carter of Sec~Pon 35, Toumshlp 4 North, Range 1 West. Boise Mer~fan, Ada. C~otrnty, Idaho more particularly descr<'becl as foUaws: -Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Set;tion 35, thence South 00'52'46° West, 443.Q0 feet along the West Me of said s~tion to the Point. of Begfnnftrg; Thence South 89°OT14° East, 22277 feet along t#ts centerline of said West Quintals Drive; Thence c~ntinuirrg along said cerderlirre 89.32 feet along a curve to the right, said curve having a {adios of 300.00 feet, a delta angle of 17°03'32° and a chord bearing and distance of South ti0°35'27° East, 88.89 feat; Thanes oor~tlnuing 88.54 feet along a curve to the left, said. c~rrve having a radius of 300.00 feet, a delta angle of 16°54'34° and a dtord bearing and distanos of South 80'30'5$' East, 88.22 f~ Thenceleatrirtg said centerMe,South 00°5248° West, 786.13 feet to the Southeast tamer of saki Lot 70; Thenr~ North 88°OT74° West, 398.00 feet ~ the West Me of sad Section 35; Thence Plorth 00 52'46" East, 81252 feat along said West tine to the Point of Beginning. Said parcel contains 7.37 arses more or less. sv ~'"~- ~~cES~D ~-~ o . ~~~~ DEC 0 3 Mes~aa Puauc OfT`Y ~ IflN woR~cs ct~ ~ 9Q4 w. overland • Bode. ~~ 83705 • Phone i2usl 34Z-II~1 • rcnc lei 342-02 • Emoil: quadront@quadrantu ` . Civil fngTneartn9 • SsnveYing • ConshucNon Management Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 ~ as ~~§~ ~ 4 . ~ ~± Q ~ $ ~ ~ b t g ~~ 8 27 26 ~~ 34 35 z j ~ a o ~ Na ®g z ~ ~CENTERlINE OP W. QUIN TAlE DRIVE w w X m ~ S89' 07' 14"E 222.77 ~ ~ ~ W v. Ct C2 m w ~ Z ~ z '~ s o o ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 4. i i ~ ~ j U 000 a00 i ~ F Z ~ cf '' ~ ~ Z • ( e° ~ NV U j ~ O i N zz U O o a0 ~ - -'-~- ~ U p p 00 m Op F z ~ ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ -- z o ~ N ? c~i &~ - ~ Q M M W ? - , ' ~ ~ ~' ~ U w`1 ~ a a ~ J w M O d' ir') i F , f ~ ~ u x ~L ~ ~ r a °~ ~l '~ ~- ~~ ~~ ~ "' N ~ o a 0 o ~ W ~ Q O O o p ...~ 2 D: M M ~ d' N M d' tf') } Q ~ u~0 t~ 1 ~ ~ I U U U f 00'86f: M„t, L ,LO .68N 0 P w II z u •~ Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 ~ P _ ._ ~----- ^~ 6~uadrant ~~~n~-N PuBt.~c C o n s u l t l n g, Inc. w4RKS DL~P7: Legal Description For Bridgetower Crossing Su6ritviston Na.16 (!-O Rezone) Rezone from R-4 to L-® Lot 2. Black 10 of Bridgetower Crossinngg Subdivision No. 2, Book 86 of Plats at Pages 9841-9643; Lai 9 thru 3, t3lock 1 of Gailarry Subdivision, Book 93 of Plats at Pages 11140-11141; Ada Courriy Records and a portion of the Right-Of-Way of North Ten Mite Road and West Belltower Drive, located in the Northwest quarter of Section 35, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada Courriy, Idaho more particularly described as follows: Commenc~mg at the Northwest comer of said Section 35, tltertce South DO°52'46° West, 1255.52 feet along the West line of said section to the Point of Beginning; Thence South 89°OT14° Easf, 398.Q0 feet to the Northeast comer of said Lot 2; Thence South QO°52'46° West, 494.52 feet to the «s~n~rtine of said West Belltower Drive, Thence North 89°OT14° West, 398.00 feet along said csrrtedine to the West line of said SeoBon 35; Thence North 00°52'46° East. 494.52 feet along seat West Line to the Point of t9eginntng. EXCLUDING THEREFROM: Lot 1, Block 10 of Bridgetower ac~~ Subdivision No. 2. Book 86 of Plats at Pages 9641-9643; rrsua particularly d as follows: Commencing at the Northwest comer of said Section 35, ttrence South 00°52`48' West, 1255.52 feet along the West line of said section, thence South 89°OT14° Fist. 233.00 feat, thence South 00°52'46° West, 60.02 feet to the Northwest comer of said Lot 1, bairn the FotrK of Beginning; Th+~ra South 89°07'14° East, 140.00 fit to the Northeast comer of said Lof; Thence South 00°52'46° West, 145.11 feat to the Southeast comer of said Lot: Thence North 89'OT14° West, 140.00 fast to f3ta Southwest comer of said Lot; Thence North ~°52'46° East, 145.11 feet to the Point of teginning Said parcel contains 4.05 acres mares or less. 1904 w. Overland • Bode. ~ 83745 • Phone {2~I 342-fl091 • Fc©c (~) 342-0092 • Emai C~v-~8 ' ~eV~9 • CambucHcn Marmgert~n- Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D• TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 ~ c o ° s ~~~ J '~C ~ •#~ W 27 26 ~ ~ do z N Q ~ ~ 34 35 ° ~ ,~~, ~ ~ ~ J . ~ `n ~~ m ~ z `~ = S ~ ~ ~ w 3 w z~ °~ can S89° 07' 14"E 398.©0 ~ v ~ ~ p o o {,~. 233.00 o z SO' S2' 46°IAl 0~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ z ~ 60.02 I~ M ~ ~ o p m 5 W S89' 07' 94°E d ~ O m ,~z am w 14 .00 a W ~ uNir ~-~ J g N ~ O ~ z°O~ O ~~ N ~ ~ N F ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ M°4k ,LO .69N g O ~ ~ x --- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w w m,,r--~r--- ~o ~ ~ Z / ~i N p a u7 Iw- N N Z ~ ~ ~ O W U o Q ~ z ~ ,~ B 'o, i ...~ __~e 0 oa~ss~ nn~,~ ~ .~o .seN w ° J 3nI~Ja 2i3M01~~38 ~Rfl .~0 3N1~~131R133 ~ ~~ U ,C N °` Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 6~uadrant Consulting, Inc. i~ .f Leal eescriptfon For B~idgetower Crossing Suixtivlsion Na. i6 (L-0 Rezone) Rezone from R-0 to L-0 Lot 3, Block 6 of Bridgetawer Crossing Subd'roiston No. 2, Book 136 of Plats at Pages 98419643; Ada t~urity Ret~rda and a portion of the RfgEtt-Of-Way of North Ten Mile Road, located In the Northwest quarter of Section 35, Township 4 North, Range.l West, Boise Merlc~an, Ada Courriy, Idaho more particularly described as foQows: Comrnendng at the Nor~west earner of said Section 35, thence Souk ~ 52'48° West, 2014.59 along rite Wes# ~irte of said sedfon to the Point of Beginning; Thence South 89'OTi4' East, 398.E feat to the Northeast corner of said Lot 3; Them South E!0'ti2'48A West,. 200.Q0 fast to tfle Southeast oorrter of saki Lott Thenrre North 89b7'1~ West, 388.00 feet to the West qne of said Section; O ~ Thence North X52'48" East, 200.1)0 feet along saM West fine to the Point of 8egirtttiitg, Said parcel corftaUts 1.~i acres more ar less. pVAL eve ~°.©':_ p~1CRICIAN OEPjw WORKS• ~" , ~ . l4U4 w. dveriand • Boils.ta8370S • Phone{~! 3a211t1~1 • Fau (208j 342-0Qii2 • Enwii: qucdranf(aCUadrantcc Civ8 Eneinsert~ • Swveytn8 • Consinutian Management Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D• TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 ~. o~aa ~tw ~. •~a H a _m S _~ d ~ aF o~ F O W ~ ~u ~~ Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D• TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Preliminary Plat Findings: In consideration of a preliminary plat, combined preliminary and final plat, or short plat, the decision-making body shall make the following findings: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; The City Council finds that the proposed plat is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Staff supports the proposed plat layout, with recommended changes, as they comply with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; The City Council fmds that public services can be made available to accommodate the proposed development. (See Exhibit B of the Staff Report for more details from public service providers.) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their own cost, the City Council finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; Staff recommends the Commission and Council rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., Police, Fire, ACRD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See Exhibit B, Agency Comments and Conditions, for more detail.) 5. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and The City Council is not aware of any health, safety, or environmental problems associated with the development of this subdivision that should be brought to the Council or Commission's attention. ACRD considers road safety issues in their analysis. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed subdivision may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is unaware. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. The City Council is unaware of any natural, scenic, or historic features on this site. Therefore, the City Council finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature(s) of major importance. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposed development may destroy or damage a natural or scenic feature(s) of major importance of which staff is unaware. Exhibit D CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIN~ATE OF FEBRUARY 26, 2008 2. Rezone Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings: a. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The applicant is proposing to zone the subject property to C-N and L-O. The City Council fords that the proposed zoning map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report. b. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; The City Council fords retail and office uses are permitted within the requested zoning districts of C-N and L-O. The City Council finds that any future use and / or development of this property should comply with the established regulations and purpose statement of the C- Nand L-O zoning districts. c. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The City Council fords that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. d. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts; and, The City Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. Exhibit D Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 25 of 77 Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Northeast Comer of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: Item 11: Public Hearing: PP 07-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12 commercial lots and 2 other lots on 18.82 acres in the proposed C-G and L-O zoning districts for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Northeast Comer of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: Item 12: Public Hearing: MI 07-013 Request for Miscellaneous application to modify the Recorded Development Agreement for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Northeast Comer of West McMillan Road and North Ten Mile Road: Item 13: Public Hearing: RZ 07-018 Request for a Rezone of 12.64 acres from R- 4 to an L-O zone for Bridgetower Crossing Offiice by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Southwest Comer of West McMillan Road and North Linder Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 07-023 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 commercial lots and 2 other lots on 10.2 acres in the proposed L-O zoning district for Bridaetower Crossing Office by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Southwest Comer of West McMillan Road and North Linder Road: Item 15: Public Hearing: MI 07-014 Request for a Miscellaneous application to modify the recorded Development Agreement for Bridaetower_Crossing Office by Primeland Development Group, LLC -Southwest Comer of West McMillan Road and North Linder Road: Item 16: Public Hearing: RZ 07-022 Request for a Rezone of 7.37 acres from C- G and R-4 to C-N zones and a Rezone of 5.88 acres from R-4 to L-O zones for Bridgetower Crossing Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -east of North Ten Mile Road and south of West McMillan Road: Item 17: Public Hearing: PP 07-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 8 commercial lots and 1 other lot in the proposed C-N zone for Bridaetower Crossing Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC -east of North Ten Mile Road and south of West McMillan Road: De Weerd: All right. Okay. Our next items are 10, 11 -- 10 through 17 and it's RZ 07- 017, PP 07-022, MI 07-013, RZ 07-018, PP 07-023, MI 07-014, RZ 07-022 and PP 07- 026. (will open these public hearings with staff comments. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 26 of 77 Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thank you for opening all those items. For the benefit of any public that may have snuck in that I didn't get a chance to talk to, we did ask Mayor and Council to consider all of these, because the development agreements are intertwined and we didn't want to have to repeat testimony with regard to the development agreements. I will go through each project one by one, so you will have three projects and three discussions on appropriate development agreements for those, so -- having said that, we are going to start with the Verona Commercial project. It's located at the northeast comer of Ten Mile and McMillan. It's 18.82 acres and the existing zoning is C-G and R-8, as you can see on a small portion of the property right there. The applications before you tonight are a rezone and preliminary plat. The proposed development includes 12 nonresidential building lots and two others on the 18.82 acres and there are ten buildings shown on the submitted concept plan. The Comprehensive Plan designation is both commercial and office. We are proposing a new development agreement specifically for this area, so that we don't have to reference the old Verona planned development agreements, so that we are asking for a brand new one that applies only to this area. Just to back up a little bit on those histories of the DA -- so, this area was proposed as commercial area and was originally subject to both the Bridgetower Crossing DA and those are the properties currently zoned C-G and the Corona DA. Those are the properties currently zoned R-8. And they are currently proposed for both L-O on the east side and, then, C-G on the west side of those R-8 areas. Staff is tying the developer to the elevations submitted with the application and those same elevations will be used for each development agreement that we have discussed tonight. By developing a new DA for this commercial and office area, staff believes it will allow for more efficient implementation of the DA and more consistent implementation of the DA over time. So, we are recommending a new development agreement for this area and it would contain the following provisions: The proposed commercial and office building shall be constructed with high quality materials, including, but not limited to, stucco, wood and brick, with substantial stone accents, four-sided architecture, highlighted main entrances, stamped decorative concrete, composite or the roofing material, variations in color, roof planes, and parapet heights. And those are related to the elevations that we will show you that -- we have six photos. So, those are kind of sample elevations that led to that list, but they will be tied to these elevations as well. And, then, for this project a minimum of nine buildings with no one building exceeding 50,000 square feet, shall be constructed on -- within this area and the maximum allowable nonresidential square footage for the development shall be 225,000 square feet. And the development of the site shall generally conform to the site plan. Okay. That's the recommendation that's coming forward from the Planning and Zoning Commission, who did recommend approval at their December 6, 2007, Public Hearing. Chuck Christensen spoke for the applicant. Gary Payne, a resident of Verona Subdivision spoke in opposition. There was no one else commenting and no written testimony. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were they discussed the impacts of the through traffic entering the surrounding residential neighborhoods and those were concerns raised by Mr. Payne. The majority of the Commission felt the commercial project would not impact the residential neighborhoods. Furthermore, it would provide access for the residents of the Verona community, rather than forcing them out onto arterials to access the commercial development. They also discussed the Meridian City Council ~ • February 26, 2008 Page 27 of 77 access points along Ten Mile and McMillan, the history of the commercial lots for the proposed development, and the planned intersection improvements at Linder and McMillan. The key Commission changes to the staff recommendation -- they modified condition 2.15 and deleted the reference to the Fair Housing Act, since there is no housing in this project. The outstanding issues before City Council -- currently, the DA provisions read that the applicant should construct a minimum of nine buildings. The applicant would like that number decreased to five buildings. And staff is recommending that the Commission - or the Council add an additional provision to this DA that drive access needs to be stubbed to the eastern property line for the two office lots for future connectivity. Let me get an overall -- these lots are all approved office lots with -- they still have R-8 zoning on them, but these are approved for office uses. They do -- there is about four or five lots there that were preliminary platted and, then, just for reference, because I know this was an issue, the Selway Apartments are on the property just to the north of that. So, we are recommending that the two lots here on the east have drive aisle access that connects to those L-O lots, so that we get future connectivity. The applicant did call me today about this issue and it is an outstanding issue. We do try and get cross-access where ever possible. One consideration may be that maybe we just get one of those lots, the southern lot, to provide that cross-access and not worry about the northern lot, which is closer to the residential development. So, if we could get cross-access at least on this south lot it would be beneficial to get through traffic among the commercial development. And with that I will answer any other questions Council may have. De Weerd: Okay. Council, questions on this item? Bird: I have none at this point. De Weerd: Okay. Do you want to go through all of these or you want to do them item by item? Okay. Is there public testimony on this application? I didn't show anyone as signing up, but is there any testimony desired? Canning: Madam Mayor, you might ask the applicant. De Weerd: Oh. Well, they didn't jump up and down either. That's right. I guess I do have to ask the applicant, uh. Would the applicant like to come forward at this time. I always thought it was so strange that no one was standing forward. Larsen: Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, my name is Cornell Larsen. Address is 210 Murray in Garden City. I'm here tonight representing the application on this project. A lot of our comments that were -are pretty well directed to all of the projects. A lot of the staff conditions carry through from each project and they go on for -- for the three hearings you have before you tonight, so I could certainly address those now or at the end, but in this particular case I can take this one and, then, come back again and repeat the testimony for each subsequent one after or I can do it once, whatever you would prefer to -- to do. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 28 of 77 Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: It would probably be helpful, Cornell, if you could do it -- the specifics on each one -- Larsen: On each one? De Weerd: -- as they are presented. Larsen: Okay. Zaremba: Thank you. Larsen: Be happy to do that. De Weerd: Okay. Larsen: We have read the staff report and I also have -- just so you know, I have Chuck Christensen here who is with me tonight with Quadrant and he may need to answer some questions, if you have questions on platting, because I'm not sure I'm up to speed on that, but I am on the rest of the project. So, he may need to come up and visit with you if you have a question there. We have looked at the staff report and we wanted to suggest some modifications to the conditions -- to the bullet points under the Verona development agreement. First, I'd like to talk about the building materials. We submitted many photos to staff and they had picked the ones that you have seen in the staff report, but we actually submitted probably 30 or 40 photos. So, the photos that are in the packet are not necessarily consistent with what our long range plan is. We would like to have a little more flexibility in the materials and type of design of the buildings. Those buildings were geared towards a smaller user and as we move through the Verona project we may have the bigger buildings that may have one or two entries, may have common areas, may have other things, so we would like to have some flexibility on the types of materials that we might use in the building and, again, we did submit quite a few photos and staff has selected some good looking buildings and we did some upgraded buildings on that site and -- in an effort to attract some users to a new retail area. What we would like to suggest is that we -- after the word four-sided architecture we add the term where needed. There may be instances where we have a building that may not need four-sided architecture, it may need -- may not need glass on all four sides. But it may need some decoration or some relief on all four sides. So, we'd like to add the words where needed. The stamp and decorative concrete, we'd certainly like to use that selectively, not everywhere. We would like some flexibility on the roofing. If it all has to be composite roofing and the roofing, that, in itself, won't work for us, because we will probably have some flat roofs and some -- maybe even some metal accents. So, we'd like you to consider changing that to also allow us to do some flat roofs and maybe some metal accent roofing. As far as the elevations conforming to the photos that we have submitted, again, we would just like to have a little more flexibility in those particular buildings. I believe we submitted pictures from various projects, including Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 29 of 77 Silverstone, EI Dorado, Boise Research Center and a lot of the buildings in those projects are fairly nice and would be fine in this facility as we move forward with this development. I think staff recommended five -- a minimum of five buildings with no building exceeding 50,000 square feet and we are okay with that change. What we were trying not to do is get a whole bunch of small buildings on the site and we would like to make sure that the minimum number of buildings does give us flexibility for size. As you probably all know at Silverstone and EI Dorado and some of the other projects I have been involved in, we have made many lot splits and many lot line adjustments. Commercial development, unfortunately, is a little different than residential and we have to adjust to the user and as a result of that we have to adjust the lot lines according to some of the users we get. So,.that reducing the minimum number of lots will help us to -- required minimum number of lots will help us to make sure that we can adjust accordingly. There was a comment on generally conforming to the concept plan. Sort of as I just explained, as you know, I don't know that our concept plan for Silverstone and EI Dorado has came out exactly or even close to what he had initially submitted, so we want to make sure that you understand that it is a concept plan and we do need the flexibility in order to move forward with a commercial development, so we'd like to have you add some wording in there that may state that we must meet the requirements of the current UDC, so that we can have a little bit of flexibility in the -- in the concept plan and not be locked into it as it's currently designed. Then, the last comment we had was on the connection to the adjacent property. We have made over time commitments to the people that have bought in Bridgetower that we would try not to connect those properties together for traffic reasons and for circulation through the project. We understand connectivity, but we would -- we might suggest that we make a connection with a pathway system and it might be in this general area right here. We have an easement through there that we could certainly make a pathway connection that might allow users from the adjacent property to come over into this -- into the facility itself and use whatever buildings or services are in that project. Just a brief overview of the master plan. We had potentially looked at a gas station facility here. We were exploring a car wash here. We have some interest in a couple of drive-thru banks, smaller fast food retail has looked at it. Up in this particular area we do have a commitment for some medical. We thought we might be able to track down some health club type uses on the site, potentially. So, those are some of the things we are looking at on this site to maybe give you a feel for the overall concept that we are in search of there. I believe in a couple of the earlier staff reports staff had suggested that we move a couple of these buildings out to the street and we agree to do that, so we get a little bit more connectivity to the street and a little bit more variety of design. I would be happy to answer any questions if you have concerns or comments. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 30 of 77 Bird: Cornell, with the material that we have listed in here, would that, in your opinion, disallow tilt up buildings? As I read it, it would disallow tilt ups, which you said EI Dorado and -- and you took a lot of your pictures out of EI Dorado and Silverstone and Tumbull's project over there at BRC and most of those are tilt ups. Larsen: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, we have done quite a few tilt up buildings, but we have usually tried to create a variety of materials on those buildings from the rock to stone to glass, heavy cornice, a lot of different elements to try to break those -- those buildings up, so they didn't look like a concrete building and, in general, a lot of times we put a textured coating on the building, so it looks more like a stucco project. So, we would hope staff wouldn't eliminate that flexibility, as those have been fairly economical buildings and pretty good energy buildings as well. Bird: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Additional questions? Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: Cornell, you suggested some additional words in one of the recommended comments from staff on the DA and one of them was four-sided architecture as needed and that always puts us on the spot, because I would interpret that as needed to be determined by staff and you would interpret it as to be as needed as determined by you or your client. So, I know we attempt to wordsmith these things to make them sound and do what we all agree to do, but that doesn't do it for me. So, we need some better words there, so you and/or your client and/or our staff have an expectation of what's going to happen there. So, I don't have a problem with what you're saying that there is some flexibility there, but when we just make a statement like that it gets us all in a position of being really angry with one another. Larsen: Madam Mayor, Councilman Rountree, I understand your concerns. I guess where we are coming from is that, you know, on occasions we have retail buildings that have backs to them and we really want to be careful about addressing the backs to make sure that they look decent. We have other buildings that may have service entries or locations where we need to get trucks up to them or for whatever reason and we want to be careful that we don't get into trying to design a bunch of costly facades that really is of no benefit to -- to the end user. In other words, we have double loaded retail buildings with glass on both sides, it's very tough for a retail user to have a back room, a store room, those kind of issues. So, we are concerned, we want the buildings in the City of Meridian to look very nice, be first class. We do not want to get into a situation where we are in disagreement with staff, but we wouldn't like to use all buildings -- we try to design all buildings with four-sided architecture, but sometimes the sites don't need to be as well done as maybe three of the sides on the building. And I'm not sure that I have answered your question, but lunderstand -- Meridian City Council ~ • February 26, 2008 Page 31 of 77 Rountree: I understand your intent and I would ask Anna if she has maybe a better way of stating that to where everybody knows what's going on. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Rountree -- or President Rountree, perhaps it could be for retail uses or those that require loading areas, one facade may be screened in lieu of facade treatment or something like that. Larsen: Yeah. We are open for that -- any kind of language on that that gives us some flexibility where we have service equipment or vehicles or we may have an office building, for example, that may have some generators on the ground, some equipment, some things like that that we don't necessarily have to spend a lot of money on the building, because we have got a lot of equipment right next to the building. So, we would like a little flexibility on that and I think we could work with staff on some verbiage. Rountree: Thank you. Are you comfortable with that, Anna? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, I am. I think the reason the four- sided is in there is related to the concept plan. The concept plan does show very -- kind of open site plan with individual buildings that kind of would need fairly -- most of them would require four-sided architecture the way it's can-ently drawn. I did want to comment on the need for flexibility in the concept plan and I know that this is difficult for the development community to commit to a concept plan and we are very mindful of that. We do try to be very flexible in our interpretation of what's consistent with that concept plan. Our problem is if you just tie it to the UDC there is nothing to say that they couldn't come back with one building that's partitioned into five -you know, one massive building that's perhaps partitioned into five and that would be consistent with their DA, but clearly not consistent with what was presented tonight. And I'm not trying to say that Mr. Vareille will propose that, it's just that those are the kind of issues that come up when we don't have something to fall back on that says, well, you kind of told us you were going to distribute this around the site and not just have a sea of parking and one large building. So, that's why we do ask that you tie it to the concept plan and not just the provisions of the UDC. We commit to developers on a regular basis that we will provide them every sort of flexibility that -- that we can afford to help them get toward the end. Larsen: Madam Mayor, may I address that for just a minute? We -- when we have a building in a situation like this regarding the four-side architecture, a lot of times those are tenant buildings and they may be loaded from two or three sides as a result of how the building's leasing and so in a case where we have a building out on its own like that surrounded by parking or if it's out -- one side is up next to the street and it has parking on three sides, we assume that we are going to need four-sided architecture there in order to attract tenants and make sure that they are all on a level plane. A lot of tenants that lease space in buildings now they want to have their own separate identify and they don't want to look different than the tenant next to them. So, it's important that we do have the four-sided architecture on a lot of that product. The other item with regard to Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 32 of 77 Anna's comments on the concept plan, staff has been very flexible with us in the past on allowing us to do things to the concept plan that generally conform to it and we have had pretty good -- pretty good luck in working with them through those issues. Several of things that Silverstone and EI Dorado have all had to be brought back in for staff to look at it and it's gone fairly well. Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Anything further, Council? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Zaremba: I was just going to add to the same discussion that the flexibility in the roofing materials, it would be the same discussion that we already had, but it's the same as the facades. De Weerd: Okay. Larsen: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Larsen: Now, if you have questions on platting, I would defer to Chuck. Did we have any issues on -- I guess there is no issues on platting or any of the subdivision stuff, so we are okay with those. De Weerd: Thank you. Larsen: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. At this point -- at this time we are taking testimony on Verona, the commercial aspect. Is there anyone who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Seeing none, Anna, we will just go ahead and go to the next item. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think you can take action, if you'd like to, on the -- De Weerd: Ten and eleven? Canning: On ten and eleven and, then, we will come back to the development agreement. I think all the changes that were requested were in the development agreement, so you can make those modifications later if you want to take up that item later. Meridian Ciry Council February 26, 2008 Page 33 of 77 ~J De Weerd: Okay. So, there is no public testimony on either Items 10 or 11? No further comment by the applicant? Okay. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Council, any further information? Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would like to discuss the subject of the drive aisle to the east. We had asked the developers of the property to the east to provide more connectivity than they intended to. They seem to have been resistant to that and, apparently, they have conveyed that to the current applicant as well. But I feel the connectivity is important in spite of the fact that the neighbor is not in favor of it and I would support the staffs request for a drive aisle connection to the east. It's fine with me if it's on the lower property or the southem most property. I'm supportive of the staffs request on that. De Weerd: Council, any further comment on that? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, show us where you -- where the staff kind of has plans to have an access out. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the staff report says that each drive aisle should have some sort of stub currently. I guess as a -- as a proffer, I would say, you know, if we could at least get one, I think that that would be beneficial. And somewhere on this southem lot would seem to make more sense, because you do have residential up here. So, bringing that traffic any -- somewhere away from the residential makes sense. It could come in anywhere along this --that boundary. Bird: Put up -- excuse me, Madam Mayor. Anna, put up a site for the whole area. Isn't there a road that goes right up there? Canning: No. It looks like that. It's an irrigation feature that's been tiled. Bird: Oh, that's the irrigation deal? So, you want it to dump over in that -- Canning: This is the road. I'm song. That's a road. Bird: That's what I thought. Canning: That's that road. Bird: Yeah. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 34 of 77 Canning: But, then, you have two lots to the east of it. So what we are trying to do is get this office traffic to have across-access all along here, so that they are not having to go onto the arterial roadway and it's very typical from commercial development to commercial development we try and get cross-access where ever we can. Zaremba: Madam Mayor. We did -- what we required of Selway is that they have a westem stub from the apartment section into what will be the commercial section and it would make sense that that would connect to something on the eastem end of this property. Bird: Do they come down to the top of that, though? Does Selway come down to the -- north of this project? Zaremba: It's not the entire thing, but it's about -- Bird: Ithink it goes right across there, don't it? Zaremba: Oh. I'm sorry. It ends at Apgar Creek. Bird: Yeah. So, it goes -- it actually don't butt up to this project at all, so what we required them to go to the west is up in that subdivision. Canning: No. We required anorth-south street along the westem edge of their property -- development. Bird: Okay. North-south. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilmember Bird, you're correct, this would not connect directly to Selway Apartments. Zaremba: It would go through the other owner's commercial property. Canning: Correct. De Weerd: So, will that other property have access out onto McMillan? Canning: The preliminary plat for the office lots currently show I believe three access points to McMillan. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Meridian City Council ~ • February 26, 2008 Page 35 of 77 Bird: My concern is that -- is that North Goddard Creek Way road is -- you're dumping everything out on that, why not just let it dump -- let this project dump out on that one road between McMillan and Ten Mile? I don't know why you wanted to go out back through there. And that other project's got all kinds of frontage along McMillan. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, as ACRD progresses in their efforts we are seeing access controls at the arterial roadways. Possibility of more medians to control that access where you have driveways versus public streets, we are really trying to get folks to the public streets, so that they don't have to take the -- necessarily take the arterial roadway. If, for some reason, you have a dentist here and you want to go pick up milk at the -- the Rite-Aid there or something, you don't want to have to get out onto the arterial roadway and that's always staffs goal in asking for the cross-access is to relieve the congestion on the arterial roadways. De Weerd: Would the applicant care to comment on this? Larsen: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Cornell Larsen again. De Weerd: Thank you. Larsen: I was just curious. Anna, did you say there was a road that would just come down along that boundary of the property? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Mr. Larsen, it's not right along the boundary, it's a couple hundred feet, probably, a stub. It's about a -- maybe a quarter of the way over. Larsen: Madam Mayor, I guess our biggest concern is just the -- I guess our biggest concern was just that the residents that have purchased from Bridgetower in the past have been really concerned about that connection and the flow-through traffic and they have not desired that and we were here expressing their wishes tonight as well, so -- De Weerd: So, these are representations that were provided through your neighborhood meeting, then? Larsen: Through the owner, as he's developed these parcels, he's trying to not allow this through traffic or has indicated to the neighbors that he would prefer not to have that traffic through there and -- as it feels like it does end up being a detriment to his neighborhood. And the applicant has indicated to me that they have also discussed that at the neighborhood meetings. De Weerd: Okay. Any questions, Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 36 of 77 Larsen: Thank you. De Weerd: Council? Rountree: Madam Mayor. Anna, would you put up the site plan. Canning: That one or this one? Rountree: Okay. So, on the eastern boundary of the two commercial lots, I don't see any provision for a fence or landscaping or whatever. If we are talking about access or no access, it seems to me if there is no access there ought to be some kind of a bamer there. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we -- they seem to be depicting a five foot landscape buffer for the parking lot. Rountree: Is that indicated on the plat? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, no, because we don't usually put just parking lot landscaping on the plat that the -- landscape easements that we general show on the plats are either street buffers or land use buffers. So, this wouldn't be one of those times that we ask for that. It would allow a little more flexibility in the design of the building. Rountree: So, I guess what I'm getting at -- I'm confused. on the landscaping requirements. If this was an industrial site it would be required to be landscaped with a buffer. Canning: Yes. They would have to have a buffer to residential uses. We are not -- it's an unusual situation. It's zoned R-8, but it's approved for L-O, so we tend to treat it as if it's nonresidential use. Rountree: Okay. Canning: So, we did not require the land used buffer to those properties, because they are approved for office uses. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: But how about on the north side of that? Isn't that residential? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yes, it is. I suspect that the staff report already notes that there is a land use buffer required there. I can verify. But there is a land use buffer required there. Meridian City Council ~ • February 26, 2008 Page 37 of 77 De Weerd: Okay. Larsen: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Larsen: Cornell Larsen again. There is a planted buffer along there already currently existing. De Weerd: Oh. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Anything further, Council? If there is nothing further, I would entertain a motion to close the public hearings on Items 10, 11 and 12. Bird: No. No. Not 12. Rountree: ten and eleven. De Weerd: Ten and eleven. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Rountree: I move that we close public hearings on Items 10 and 1. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 10 and 11. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carves. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, on the rezone, it had nothing to do with the development agreement, so all we are doing there is going from a minimum of nine to five; is that right? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the DA is associated with the rezone, but you could take action on the rezone without worrying about the DA agreement at this time. Bird: I thought the DA come down on the 12. Maybe I misunderstood. Canning: Correct. So, the rezone -- we can for the development, because there is a rezone application before you, but the two aren't Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 38 of 77 Bird: Where would you prefer it? Canning: It needs to be in the DA discussion. Bird: In what? Canning: The DA discussion. Rountree: Item 12. Bird: In Item 12. Canning: Yes, sir. • Bird: Right. Okay. So, RZ is just the rezone from five to -- or from nine to five. And from C-G -- or R-8 to C-G and L-O; right? Canning: Correct. The latter. Yes. Bird: Okay. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve RZ 07-017, the rezone of 5.29 acres from R-8 to C-G and L-O zone for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development Group and to include all staff, applicant, and public testimony. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 10. Is there any discussion or clarification needed? Seeing none, Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Item 11. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve PP 07-022, preliminary plat approval for Verona Commercial by Primeland Development Group, LLC. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 39 of 77 Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Verona, Item 11. Discussion? Zaremba: Madam Mayor, again, this is a question of where is it appropriate. Would it be the preliminary plat where we decide whether there will be access to the east or not? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if we knew -- Councilmember Zaremba, if we knew exactly where it needed to be on the plat we could, but I don't think -- staff didn't have that specificity at this time. We'd like to leave the developer that ability to move it, so it would be better as a DA provision. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Items 13 and 14. Rountree: Twelve. De Weerd: Did you want to do the DA's at the end of all of these? Canning: Yes, ma'am. Bird: We are going to move 12? De Weerd: Yes. We are going to consider it at the end of all of these discussions. Twelve and fifteen we will consider after Item 17. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, one of the things I forgot to mention when I get to the last presentation is part of the reason we are asking you to defer on those, the reason they are still intertwined is because although we proposing new DA's for these projects that are before you tonight, the existing DA remains for the properties that are not under not the applicant's control. So, that's why they are -- still go on. So, they are just -- the only complicated thing about this is the development agreements and so they -- De Weerd: The only complicated. Bird: Don't confuse me. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 40 of 77 Canning: I'm song. Okay. We are going to move onto -- we are going to move onto Bridgetower Crossing Office. This is -- we switched roads on this one. We have moved over about a mile to the east. It's the southwest comer of Linder and McMillan. This project is 12.64 acres and the existing zoning is R-4. The applications before you tonight are a rezone and preliminary plat. They are asking for 11 nonresidential lots, which would be -- and, actually, 12 buildings as shown on the submitted concept plan. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is office, reflecting its planned development approval in years past. We shift aspects here, so north is going to the -- the left side of the page -- or the screen. The Planning Commission has recommended a new development agreement specifically for this area and the discussion with regard to the materials is the same as the previous one and the elevations are the same as previously proposed. The development -the other site specific comment would be that the development of the property shall generally comply, as determined by the planning director, with the concept site plan submitted as you see before you. Minimum of -- there is the concept plan. Minimum of eight buildings with no one building exceeding 15,000 square feet shall be constructed on the lots associated with the Bridgetower Crossing Office Subdivision. The maximum allowable nonresidential square footage for this development shall be 137,640 square feet. The Commission recommended approval at their January 3rd, 2008, Public Hearing. Chuck Christensen spoke in favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition or commented or provided written testimony. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were tiling the Settler's Canal along the northern property boundary, which, again, is toward the left of your page -- of your screen. Limiting the number of access points on Linder Road. In the key Commission changes to staff recommendation were the portion of the Settler's Canal along McMillan Road and west of Bellagio Way is not expected to be tiled. So, that would be this portion. Outstanding issues for the Council -- in the Bridgetower Crossing DA modification section it reads that to remove the properties shown in Exhibit C and it says pages nine to 14. It just should say pages seven to 14. That's just clerical edit that we would ask Council to put on the record. With that, I will answer any questions Council may have with regard to this application. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Zaremba: In the section where the waterway would not be tiled is there still -- it looks like this is depicting sidewalk. Am I correct that there is sideway there? Canning: I believe so. It's already platted as residential, as you can see from the -- from the photo. So, I -- I'm sure the applicant will address that in his testimony. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council ~ • February 26, 2008 Page 41 of 77 De Weerd: Okay. We will ask that of the applicant. Okay. Anything else for staff at this point? Okay. Would the applicant like to comment. Larsen: Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, my name is Cornell Larsen, address is 210 Murray Street, Garden City. This under the development agreement had the same bullet points as we had on the previous application. However, we wanted to suggest a couple of modifications on that as well and, then, in addition to the -- I'll give you a little insight on the Settlers Canal. We tiled a portion of this to widen the road and to have access at this point. The Settlers Canal requested that we not the the rest of it. There is a walkway, a fence way, and, then, an open ditch, I believe, along the -- along the boundary of McMillan. And so that's what currently exists there at this point in time. Under the bullet points in the development agreement we had already mentioned are concerns about the materials. Second bullet point was the elevations. Under the third bullet point it required a minimum of eight building lots and we were going to request that we'd like to see that made five building lots and when we met with staff on the Verona project we had talked to them about 25 percent coverage being kind of a normal coverage that we shoot for on the -- on the projects and so that's how they got to the 137,650 number that's in your report. We'd like to see if you would consider that going to 155,00 square feet, instead of the 137,650. And part of the reason for doing that is some of the buildings that we do actually have a little better coverage than 25 percent. We get a little better land use and some buildings that we do, don't, and it sort of depends on the use. For example, a medical facility we may put quite a bit more parking on it, because of their use and the number of patients they have coming and going, whereas an office building that may have a lot of offices and have very little parking, we could actually get a little more coverage on it. So, we'd like to see that number potentially up in the 155 range. And, then, on the last bullet point it would be our same concerns, we would like you to make sure that you know that this is a concept plan and there will be changes to it as a result of the type of project that it is. And I would be happy to answer any questions if you have those. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Ijust -- so, you want a minimum of five? Larsen: Minimum of five lots. De Weerd: And no one -- Larsen: Five buildings. Excuse me. De Weerd: Buildings. Larsen: Five buildings. Meridian City Council ~ • February 26, 2008 Page 42 of 77 De Weerd: And no one building exceeding -- Larsen: Fifteen thousand square feet is okay. That's what staff had asked for. De Weerd: Okay. And, then, you have 155,000 square feet. Larsen: For the total square footage. De Weerd: Okay. Larsen: That gives us a little bit of flexibility, we can only get on there what we can, but if we are locked into 25, we can't -- percent coverage we may not be able to exceed that on a given site and we want to be sure we have got a little flexibility. De Weerd: Okay. Larsen: And I believe staff does have some flexibility in the ordinance, too. I think they can have a little flexibility as well. De Weerd: Okay. So, Council, anything further? Thank you. Larsen: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. I would accept public testimony on Items 13 and 14. Okay. Seeing none. Council, any further information needed? Rountree: Madam Mayor. Anna, if you would put the aerial back up, I just need to -- and, then, if you would -- one of the items for discussion was minimize access on Linder. Are we talking about the need for this particular street? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, because that one lines up directly across the street I don't think it was, but -- Rountree: I think they both apparently line up, so -- Canning: Yeah. I'd have to -- I would have to peruse the minutes. I'm not sure. This cushion may have actually been that they are consolidating the access on those public streets and it may have been more of a positive comment than the way it appears in the bulleted items. Rountree: Okay. Canning: And, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I don't have any concerns with the changes proposed by the applicant. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 43 of 77 Bird: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. If there isn't anything further -- Zaremba: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba. • Zaremba: Having heard staff and applicant testimony and given the opportunity to the public to testify, I move we close the public hearings on Items 13 and 14. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 13 and 14. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Canning: Okay. Any discussion? Zaremba: And, again, I would clarify that the changes that Mr. Larsen mentioned would be appropriate to the DA motion later; right? In that case, Madam Mayor, I move that we approve RZ 07-018, request for a rezone, and at the same time approve PP 07-023, request for preliminary plat approval, both relating to Bridgetower Crossing Office. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Items 13 and 14. Any discussion? Hearing none -- Zaremba: And part of the motion was to include all staff comments and -- Rountree: I agree. De Weerd: Okay. Madam Clerk. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. And, finally, Items 16 and 17. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we are back over toward the Verona side of life and we have Bridgetower Crossing Commercial and it is located on the east side of Ten Mile Road and approximately 400 feet south of McMillan Road. It's 7.37 acres, the preliminary plat is, and the existing zoning is C-G and, again, a residential Meridian City Council ~ • February 26, 2008 Page 44 of 77 designation of R-4. The applications before you tonight are a rezone and preliminary plat and a development agreement, of course. The highlights of the proposed development are eight nonresidential building lots and one other lot with two to seven buildings as shown on the submitted concept plan. So, we have quite a few for this one. Let me tell you what the recommended DA provisions are and, then, we will get into some of the issues for the end again. Again, the same quality of materials, same elevations, same concept plan comments. Minimum of four buildings with no one building exceeding 33,725 square feet shall be constructed on lots within this subdivision and the maximum allowable nonresidential square footage for the development shall be 80,260 square feet. Again, our aspect has shifted. I think north is to the right side of the screen now. It's still to the left? Okay. I'm sorry. Now, they are back at the top. North is back at the top. So, these were the concept plans submitted with the application. The applicant's preference is shown to the left there. The concept plan that the Planning and Zoning Commission approved was kind of a hybrid of a couple of those, so this is the Planning and Zoning recommended plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval at their January 3rd Public Hearing. Chuck Christensen spoke in favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition, nor commented, nor provided written testimony. Key issues of discussion by the Commission forwarding the project to City Council without the Ada County Highway District staff report. Tiling of the White Drain along the southern boundary of the project. The combination of concept plan one and three to allow the larger building pads north of Capris Street and transition to smaller buildings south of Capris Street and that's the concept plan you see before you. Key Commission changes to staff recommendation. They didn't require two mains to Locust Grove within the Public Works Department. And the concept plan was -- as shown before you tonight was recommended forward. So, the outstanding issues -- the applicant is very concemed about this concept plan as recommended by Planning and Zoning Commission. They are working on a project immediately across the street to the west. They are re-thinking the approved commercial project to the west of this site and that would have a number of smaller uses as shown on the recommended site plan for the south of Capris Street. So, they are concemed that these will compete with the project they are working on across the street. The applicant prefers the concept plan that allows the one larger tenant, as noted as the applicant's preference. When the Council acts on this one for the development agreement, you will need to specify which concept plan or plans should be included in the DA. All of them work to some extent and all could be included or they -- the Council can select one, if you would like. And with that I'll answer any questions you may have about this project. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, any questions? Zaremba: Not at this time. Rountree: Not right now. De Weerd: Would the applicant like to comment? Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 45 of 77 Larsen: Madam Mayor, Members of the City Council, my name is Cornell Larsen, 210 Murray Street, Garden City. I'd like to take a minute and maybe walk you through this project a little more. If Anna would be so kind as to go back to kind of the overall aerial that shows the zoning. That one would be good. Thank you. We've -- as Anna, said, we have been looking at developing a project here, as well as up in this particular area and when we started through this project over here we were trying to keep the White Drain open, use that as an amenity for the back side of some buildings that would be along a streetscape and they would be smaller buildings, maybe in the same form as Ballen Crossing, we would be looking for some smaller tenants, a little bit more of a streetscape design and as we started looking at that project and, then, realizing that we had a good deal of product in this area that was small and we felt like it would be advantageous to the overall area to have a couple of larger sites that we could use for a -- for example, a garden store or an office store, craft store, something like that that would allow us -- maybe even a hardware store that would allow us to have a larger user in that particular area that may benefit the residences. So, when we picked the larger buildings for these sites we were looking at a couple of things. There is a fairly large 100 foot landscape barrier between these residences and the roadway that separates these buildings. I believe the Bridgetower waterfall and water features in this area and, then, it wraps up clear up into here. So, we felt like that with that extended buffer, with the street buffer, we could potentially support a few larger users on that site without being detrimental to the adjacent residential area. And with what we were doing in the proposed adjacent property that we will have before you in the near future -- and we have shown that concept to staff, they have looked at -- at our proposed overall project, and we felt like that we needed some -- some bigger builders. Now, we did -- at staffs request submit three or four different concept plans, but the one we preferred was the two building concept. And so with that I could go through the bullet points again on the development agreement. That's kind of how we got to where we are on that particular project. As far as tiling the White Drain, the White Drain -- we are finding the same situation we are in Settlers, they wanted us to leave that open and we have had that before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council before and as a request we are continuing to leave that open, we would like to do so. We hope to be able to utilize that as an amenity as we move over onto the other project, as I mentioned before, so -- but under bullet point -- the first bullet point we would, again, pretty much the same comments as we had on Verona regarding the building materials. Bullet point two, same comments on the elevation, so we'd like to see a little flexibility in the elevations. Minimum buildings, we would like to change that from what it is down to two, I think, would be acceptable to us for minimum buildings. We are okay with the size of the 33,725. And, again, we'd like to have a little more flexibility than 25 percent coverage and would like to suggest 90,000 square feet for the development. And, then, once again, our concerns about the concept plan that we have flexibility in that. And with that I would be happy to answer any questions you might have. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Mr. Zaremba? Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 46 of 77 Zaremba: Madam Mayor. I didn't do the math on the other ones, but this one is fairly simple. If you have two buildings that don't exceed 33,700, you're not going to be anywhere near 90,000 -- Larsen: Correct. Zaremba: -- square feet. Larsen: Correct. Zaremba: So, you're saying that you may possibly put three buildings there and that might be up to 90. Larsen: Correct. Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba, that would be correct. We could put three buildings on there. We could -- we could work around the 90,000 number or the 33,000 number on the two sites. So, it does give us flexibility and we may only have 33,000 on each site as it develops out, as we know what the user is and know what the parking requirements are. But we were willing to live with it. The down side, too, if that occurred, we just needed to -- we thought we needed to have some larger users there for marketability and services in the area. Thank you. De Weerd: Anything further, Council? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Larsen: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there any public testimony on Item 16 or 17? Okay. Staff, any additional information? Canning: No, ma'am. De Weerd: Council, any further information needed? Rountree: Madam Mayor, just a question for Anna. On the photos that were submitted and apparently we just saw a portion of them, were there any buildings of the magnitude that have been described here for these two presented for consideration? Canning: I'll have to check the file, sir. Rountree: And maybe Cornell has one in his portfolio. I don't know. Meridian City Council ~ • February 26, 2008 Page 47 of 77 Larsen: Madam Mayor, President Rountree, We took several pictures of buildings out in Silverstone and EI Dorado and a lot of those buildings are in the 20 to 40 thousand square foot range as their average size, but we do have smaller ones, obviously, but a lot of the commercial office buildings or -- and, actually, a couple of the retail buildings along the street are in the 18 to 20 thousand range. De Weerd: Yeah. I looked through my packet and (couldn't -- Bird: I didn't see it. De Weerd: I only saw the ones that were -- Rountree: Give me a name on a couple of those, so I can have a point of reference, if you would, please. Larsen: Let's see. The building that is called EI Dorado One Retail Building, which is at the comer of Bonito and Eagle Road is about 21,000 square feet. Fairly good sized building. The building that is in Silverstone, which would be right at the gate on Overland Road, is about 40,000 square foot building. That is on what I'd call the intersection of Silverstone and Overland. It would be on the southwest side of Overland and it was the very first building that went up in that project. De Weerd: Who's in that? Larsen: I know Pioneer Title was in it for awhile, but they have moved out. I'm not sure who's -- they kind of blend together after awhile. De Weerd: Ooh, I don't think they would like to hear that. Bird: Him they do. Larsen: Yeah. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, anticipating -- or I suspect that Councilmember Rountree is asking for examples so that we can reference them in the DA. Maybe one thing we can do is you do act on the DA separately from tonight. You approve it separately. We could work with the applicant to get additional photos to include in the DA and just make sure we point them out to Council before you approve that development agreement. Rountree: Thank you. Larsen: Madam Mayor, President Rountree, another building that might be a good example would be an Office Max is about 25,000 square feet. GI Joe's was about 50,000 square feet over in Centre Pointe. That might give you another feel for scale. Meridian City Council ~ • February 26, 2008 Page 48 of 77 Rountree: I have a sense of scale. I don't have a sense of the architecture at that scale. Larsen: No. De Weerd: Those two examples of scale are kind of scary on the residential side. Larsen: Yeah. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Just in trying to mull over the concept plan that the Planning and Zoning Commission moved forward with a recommendation, the difference seems to be in the southern portion that they were liking the buildings closer to the street. I can see the practicality of that with the smaller buildings, but would it be appropriate to have a single large building move forward like that? Would you do that or would you want to set that back? Larsen: Madam Mayor, Councilman Zaremba, we would probably prefer to set that back. We'd like to keep the parking away from the residential area, probably keep the back of the building with some -- some four-sided architecture, if you will, but try to keep traffic and noise off of the side that would be facing the residential area. De Weerd: Anything further, Council? Rountree: I have nothing. De Weerd: Okay. Larsen: Thank you very much for all the trips and listening. Rountree: Got your exercise. De Weerd: Good exercise. Bird: You're not done yet. De Weerd: If there is no further public testimony or staff comments, Council, I'd entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing on Items 16 and 17. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing on RZ 07-022 and PP 07-026. Meridian City Council ~ • February 26, 2008 Page 49 of 77 Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion to close Items 16 and 17. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carves. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Discussion or comments? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Hearing no discussion, I move we approve RZ 07-022 and PP 07-026 with applicant and staff comment. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion and a second. Council -- oh, is it in the DA that you would want the specifics on the buildings? Bird: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Hearing none, Madam Clerk. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: Madam Mayor, on the remaining two items, what I would recommend is that I can guide you -- kind of facilitate a discussion on the five development agreements that are really before you tonight and, then, you could make a motion based on staff, applicant, and public comments. Bird: We need the help. Canning: I think the first issue of discussion for the Council and Mayor is are you in favor of removing the properties that you have discussed tonight from the existing Verona and Bridgetower Crossing development agreements. Rountree: I believe so. Meridian City Council • February 26, 2008 Page 50 of 77 De Weerd: It looks like it. Canning: Okay. Rountree: Do we need a motion to that effect or -- Canning: Well, it's -- as long as -- Rountree: We already moved to include that with the plats. Canning: Pardon, sir? Rountree: We already made a motion to, essentially, approve that when we approved the plats. Canning: It's just a development agreement discussion. These were the -- the issues that were raised in the miscellaneous applications before you tonight. So, the first one is a larger one of -- we are just recommending that you get new DAs for these and just remove them from the existing development agreements. So, it sounds like there is consensus that that's the appropriate approach to take. Rountree: I believe so. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would say yes, but just to confirm, the old DA still applies to all the remaining property? Canning: Yes, sir, it does. Zaremba: That we have not specifically talked about tonight. Canning: Correct. They will remain in effect and we will continue to try and get those rezoned from R-4 to an appropriate commercial designation. But it will remain in effect for those properties. Zaremba: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: Okay. The second issue -- I think these are the general provisions that are common to all three development agreements that I'm anticipating you'll want the same treatment for all three DA's, but if you don't, just, please, let me know. One was the building materials. What I -- .and at this point I'm not sure if you want me to summarize Meridian City Council • February 26, 2008 Page 51 of 77 what I have heard or if one of the Council members wants to recommend language with regard to these items. De Weerd: Council, would you like Anna to paraphrase what she's heard? Rountree: That would be good. Canning: With regard to building materials, I have heard that stamped decorative concrete is expected, but not with every project. But it is -- selectively I wasn't quite sure what to do with that, so it sounds like it should be an accent within the development pattern. Rountree: Madam Mayor -- and a point on Anna. The way that paragraph reads to me is that these are suggested items, but not limited to. So, if they use a combination of these, it doesn't mean they need to use all of them, but these are the kinds of materials that represent the high quality materials we would expect. Canning: Okay. Rountree: So, I don't know that I would interpret that that they have to have that. Canning: With that clarification, then, I think all we need to do is add flat roofs and accent metal roofing or metal roofs, as an example, within that list. Zaremba: I would agree with that, but, then, add the end of the sentence that additional variations may be approved by the director. Canning: And I believe it already says that. It says including, but not limited to. Zaremba: Okay. Canning: So, I think that gives that kind of flexibility. Zaremba: My point was to decide who it is that's going to decide. Canning: Ah. As determined by the director? Zaremba: Yes. Canning: Excuse my pause. Sony. With regard to four-sided architecture, I believe that the discussion was for retail development, one side may not need full facade treatments if there is screening for loading areas. With regard to elevations, the applicant will submit -- or the applicant and staff will work on examples of larger buildings to include in the development agreement and those will be shown to Council prior to approval of the DA? Meridian City Council ~ • February 26, 2008 Page 52 of 77 Rountree: Okay. Zaremba: Works forme. Canning: And the last one was with regard to the concept plan. I believe that the applicant has the flexibility he's looking for. I understand that -- the hesitancy on the part of the development community on just relying on the fact that I'm going to be good to them. I mean I know that's difficult. But I don't know if Council wants to make a statement with regard to the need for flexibility in concept plans or not. That's -- that's something I -- I feel it's there, but if you want to make a statement with regard to that, that's fine, too. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: We are trusting them in building materials, so they can trust you; right? Yes. Zaremba: I would just express an opinion that a concept plan is a concept, it isn't necessarily etched to be exactly the same, but there is some point at which a concept isn't being followed. If they are proposing offices and, them, some day they come in and say, well, we want this to be an airport, they clearly haven't followed the concept. But if it's just a different kind of office or a different kind of retail or a different shape, that still, to me, within the concept. De Weerd: Anna, maybe you can kind of give a summary of the things that -- that you really look for that would be a substantial difference. Canning: Certainly, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I typically look at the relationship of the buildings to the surrounding property owners, if they have changed significantly. If there was, you know, 50 feet of landscaping and now there is five feet of landscaping and a hundred foot concrete block wall with no fenestration on it. That would be a significant change in my book, because it affects the surrounding property owners significantly. If they took -- if the concept plan were for a distributed max'ing of individual buildings and they came in with a strip mall, that would be something where I would call their bluff, basically. Well, not call their bluff, but say, no, I won't approve this and they'd have to appeal it up to you and I have done that before. So, those are kind of the big scale changes that we are looking for. If, for some reason the access points change significantly or the traffic flow was significantly different and it's an impact to surrounding property owners, I would probably bring -- raise concerns with that as well. So, those are typically the things I am looking for. With regard to the number of buildings and the square foot and the overall square foot, those are spelled out in more concrete terms and there is certainly flexibility there. I mean you can't state it as a concept plan and have only two buildings. I mean it's not going to work. Or the ones where they have ten lots and asked for the flexibility of five buildings. Obviously, there is flexibilities open to those parameters as well. Meridian City Council • • February 26, 2008 Page 53 of 77 De Weerd: Thank you. Rountree: Madam Mayor, I just was going to comment to what Anna was saying. There is a great deal of latitude that we allow the director. I think in approving a concept plan of this nature there is a lot of trust on both sides of this that what we want and what you want will be accomplished. It's when that trust is violated that things really get uncomfortable on both sides. I agree with Anna, what she explained in terms of conceptually we see a smattering of buildings on this particular properly. If you want to twist and turn them or whatever, as long as you don't puf five Walgreens on your property, I'm fine with it. De Weerd: Probably even if you don't put two. Maybe even one. Rountree: So -- but, you know, there is a lot of give and take with these things that are somewhat nebulous. The other extreme, I guess, is that we could require that this be platted and engineered and we'd know what the building -- each building is going to look like and who is going to be in it and that doesn't do these guys any good. It doesn't do the community any good, because we don't know what we are going to get, then, either. So, I think as long as we can play together well we will be just fine and our trust and our mutual respect remains high and I think in this particular application it's there. De Weerd: Well, this applicant has had a great track record, so -- Zaremba: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Yes. Zaremba: I would support that comment. The only issue I have with being too liberal is that it is possible for the applicant sell it to somebody who we might not have quite as good a relationship with and that has burned us a couple times before. Rountree: That's why we are getting a little more specific all the time. De Weerd: We know his address. Canning: All right. Madam Mayor, moving on to the other - on the new Verona DA, the two access -- the two issues I heard were reducing from nine buildings to five buildings and, then, the Council needs to address the cross-access issue. Zaremba: I'm in favor of the access. Rountree: Madam Mayor, having visited a community in southern California recently and a very upscale community, I was very disappointed at seeing -- I was excited about the access control that went on in the community. I was excited about the signage that was not allowed in the community. But what I found very disappointing is that as the traveling public that you would be controlled accessed into a rather large parking lot and Meridian City Council • • February 26, 2008 Page 54 of 77 see a retail or commercial establishment that you wanted to get to and you couldn't, because there was no cross-access. Every -- almost every store or every site you drove into you were contained to that particular development and all the other developments around it, you either had to go in it right in or right out or find an access to an arterial and go around the block and get to it. So, I strongly support cross-access in these kinds of situations and I know it may not happen, but I think the DA ought to be written in such a way as that it be investigated and be required to be dealt with not only with this parcel and the future development of the one adjacent to it. Unfortunately, they are not occumng at the same time. I don't know how we can tell them to put your cross-access at this point out into a vacant field when we don't know what kind of retail and what kind of concept we are going to see next door. But I think when that happens we need to have these parties come together and understand that they are going to allow cross- access amongst one another, so people can get from their establishments to the other ones and from the other one to theirs without having to go on an arterial. So, I support it, but I don't know how you word it when you -- we have a preliminary plat, but we don't have specifics, we have a concept. We have an adjacent use that's a similar use, but no concept or preliminary plat, so it's really tough to say you're going to put it here. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, President Rountree, typically what we do is at the time of the CZC approval we just require that they get to -- who's ever in first, basically, selects where the cross-access goes. If you want to apply it to the southern lot or the north and south lot, we would just get it when they come in for a building permit and just say, you know, you can put it where you want, but -- and, then, the next guy just hooks up to it. Rountree: Well, my preference would be the southern lot, but if that doesn't fit with their concept, then, where they decide to put it I'm okay with that as well. But I would think one would be sufficient. De Weerd: Okay. Any other comment? Canning: Okay. Moving on to the new Bridgetower Crossing Office. The amendments to the DAs I heard there were from -- requiring eight buildings down to five, from limiting square feet to 137,650, bumping that up to 155,000. And, then, this was the one that has the edits that instead of pages nine to 14, it should be pages seven of 14. And I don't think any of those were contested or -- those were all fine with staff, if Council is okay with those amendments as well. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: And finally -- De Weerd: Hold on. Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: And we are okay with them not tiling the -- what was it, Settlers? Meridian City Council • • February 26, 2008 Page 55 of 77 Bird: And the Settlers Canal. Rountree: Settlers Canal. Canning: I believe that's the way it's currently written, so -- and, then, moving on, finally, to new Bridgetower Crossing Commercial. The changes I heard were four buildings down to two buildings and -- or a minimum of two buildings and instead of 80,260 square feet, they'd like a maximum cap of 90,000 square feet. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, what number is the MI for the Bridgetower Crossing Commercial? Twelve is for Verona -- Verona and 15 is just Bridgetower Crossing Office. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the whole reason we started off by opening all of these is because the DAs are very entertained at this point. So, what we are suggesting is that a new DA be developed for the commercial areas that's currently, actually, part of Bridgetower DA, I believe. Bird: With the south -- the southwest comer of the Ten Mile and McMillan you want a new DA for it completely? Canning: Yes. We want new DAs for all of the projects. Bird: Well, new DAs for all of them, but we have already got two and this other one intertwined. Canning: And, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, that's why I suggested that the Council approval just reflect all of the conversation that went on, because it's, really, the same for both miscellaneous applications that are before you tonight, since they are both --one's just -- they are all tied together. De Weerd: Okay. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Zaremba: And on this one there was a discussion of which concept plan we would -- De Weerd: Oh, yes, sir. Thank you. I forgot that. Yeah. The concept plan. One, two, three or all four or -- Zaremba: Hybrid or not or -- Meridian City Council • • February 26, 2008 Page 56 of 77 Canning: Right. Zaremba: Frankly, I don't have an opinion. Bird: Frankly, I'm for whatever the market allows them to do. Rountree: Madam Mayor, if we have a minimum of two buildings that it seems to me to incorporate all the concepts that have been presented -- I think there was one that didn't seem to do much for me and it was the one where the -- the middle one where it seemed to be -- I have a tough time figuring out how you're going to get around that middle one. Get in and out of those parking spaces between those buildings. So, I would think either the one on the left or the one on the right work forme. De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I agree with Councilman Rountree, the middle one is not attractive or probably not good circulation, but would we want to allow them the flexibility to choose version one or version three or the lower portion of one or the other, just exclude version two, to mix the versions. Is that too much flexibility? Rountree: I think they have got that flexibility if either one of them are okay. Canning: Okay. Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Those were all the issues, I believe, with regard to the two miscellaneous applications. De Weerd: Okay. Those two public hearings are open. Applicant comments? No? Any public testimony? Okay. Council, any further information needed? If not, I'd entertain a motion to close the public hearings on Item 12 and 15. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Having heard all staff and applicant testimony and giving the public the opportunity to testify, I move that we close the public hearings on Items 12 and 15. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on items 12 and 15. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carves. MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Canning: If there isn't any further discussion, I would entertain a motion on these two items. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 57 of 77 Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we approve MI 07-013 and MI 07-014 and the related development agreements that will relate to Verona Commercial, Bridgetower Crossing Office, and Bridgetower Crossing Commercial with all of the changes that the staff has just read to us. De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion? Rountree: I have none. Bird: Did we have a second? De Weerd: Did we have a second? Rountree: No. De Weerd: Yes. Bird: Are you going to second it? Rountree: Second it. Bird: Okay. Discussion now. Did that -- did that include the applicant's testimony, public testimony also? Zaremba: Yes. De Weerd: But it was clarified in the questioning that Anna walked Council through. Zaremba: I believe the applicant's response was they didn't have any changes to what Director Canning was -- Bird: Well, they had already testified earlier is what they have testified on, is what I was getting at. To include that. De Weerd: Okay. Anything further? Rountree: I have nothing. De Weerd: Madam Clerk, will you, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Zaremba, yea; Borton, absent. Meridian City Council February 26, 2008 Page 58 of 77 MOTION CARRIES: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, thanks. Sony that one was a little convoluted, but thank you for sticking with us on that. Item 18: Public Hearing: RZ 07-019 Request for a Rezone of 0.602 of an acre from I-L to C-G zone for Rockin KB Saloon by Patrick McKeegan - 3163 East Lanark: Item 19; Public Hearing: CUP 07-019 Request for Conditional Use Permit approval of a drinking establishment in a proposed C-G zone for Rockin KB Saloon by Patrick McKeegan - 3163 East Lanark: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Items 18 and 19 are public hearings on RZ 07-019 and CUP 07-019. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Rockin KB Saloon project. It's located at 3163 East Lanark Street on the southwest comer of Eagle Road and Lanark. The applications before you tonight include a rezone and conditional use approval. The highlights of the proposed development are the rezone of 2.20 acres from I-L to C-G zoning and the Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a drinking establishment in the proposed C-G district. The gross square footage of the structure is 8,042 square feet. It an existing structure. The Comprehensive Plan designation is currently for industrial. The property just north of this was just today approved for commercial designation, so it's surrounded pretty much by commercial. The proposed DA requirements, we aren't recommending a DA or the planning commission has not recommended a DA. The Conditional Use Permit would take care of any conditional requirements necessary for the drinking establishment. We do have elevations of the structure. And this is the floor plan. The floor plan does -- or the proposal does include a portion of the adjoining structure, that's where they would have some of their storage maintenance and bathroom facilities. I believe it's these two sections. The Commission recommended approval at their January 3rd, 2008, Public Hearing. The -- Patrick McKeegan spoke in favor of the applicant representing the -- spoke in favor of the application, representing the applicant. And Kevin Kelly, who is the applicant, also spoke. No one spoke in opposition. Ron Van Auker commented about the parking concerns. And written testimony was provided by Bradley Miller, also of Van Auker Properties. And those written testimonies, we have letters dated December 19th, January 3rd, and February 25th, all with regard to the parking issue. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the adequacy of the off-street parking for the proposed use. The location of the restroom in the adjacent building and the landscaping sidewalk, what's in the street buffer along Eagle Road. The key Commission changes to staff recommendation, they add a condition of approval for the restroom facilities in the adjacent building to remain available as a condition of the Conditional Use Permit. And s Marc~1 14, 2008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2008 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Request for Reconsideration for Denial of RZ 07-019 and CUP 07-019 for Rockin KB Saloon by Patrick McKeegan at 3163 East Lanark: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CffY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: '~.+ IC Emailed: A iY1~V~/ Materials COMMENTS See aftached Request /Minutes Date: Staff Initial at pubpc meetings shall become properly of ~ AO$' of Meridian. l.J [`nllnr March 14, 2008 RZ 07-019 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2008 APPLICANT Patrick MCKeegan ITEM NO. ~ O REQUEST Findings for Denial -Request for a Rezone of 0.602 of an acres from I-L to C-G zone for Rocldn KB Saloon - 3163 East Lanark AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: See attached Contacted: Emailed: LJ Phone- ~}Z,y • ~(~~ at public meetings shall become properly of the Cffy of Meridian. COMMEMS See Request for Reconsideration /Minutes See attached Denial Findings • BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL C/C 03/11/08 IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR RE-ZONING OF .602 ACRES FROM I-L TO C-G FOR ROCKIN KB SALOON BY Case No. RZ 07-019 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL PATRICK MCKEEGAN APPLICANT The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for public hearing on February 26, 2008, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m., Anna Canning, City Planning and Zoning Administrator for the Planning and Zoning Department and Patrick McKeegan and Kevin Kelly, appeared and testified. The City Council having duly considered the evidence and the record in this matter therefore make the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT The notice of public hearing on the application for annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to said public hearings scheduled for February 26, 2008, before the City Council, the first publication appearing and written notice having been mailed to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred (300') feet of the external boundaries of the property under consideration more than fifteen (15) days prior to said hearings and with the notice of public hearings having been posted upon the property under consideration more than one week before said hearing; and that copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations as public service announcements; and the matter having been duly considered by the City Council on February 26, 2008, public hearing; and the applicant, affected property owners, and government FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL ROCKIN KB SALOON; CASE NO. RZ 07-019 PAGE 1 OF 4 CJ subdivisions provided services within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian, having been given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence. Z. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Idaho Code §§67-6509 and 67-6511, and §11-SA, Municipal Code of the City of Meridian. 3. The City Council takes judicial notice of its zoning, subdivisions and development ordinances codified at Title 11, Municipal Code of the City of Meridian, and all current zoning maps thereof, and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382, and maps and the ordinance Establishing the Impact Area Boundary. 4. The property is approximately .602 acres in size and is generally located at 3163 East Lanark, Meridian, Idaho. 5. Kevin Kelly, 580 W. Meridian Road, Meridian, Idaho, is the current property owners. 6. Patrick McKeegan, 280 N. Latah, Suite 100, Boise, Idaho, is the applicant. 7. The subject property is currently zoned I-L (Light Industrial District). 8. The Applicant requests the property be zoned C-G (General Commercial District). The property which is the subject of this application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 9. The entire parcel of property is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 10. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following manner: A drinking establishment. 11. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map designates the subject property as Light Industrial. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The City of Meridian has discretionary authority to annex real property upon written request for annexation and the real property being contiguous or adjacent to city boundaries and that said property lies within the area of city impact as provided by Idaho Code §50-222. The Municipal Code of the City of Meridian §11-SB-3 provides the City may FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL ROCKIN KB SALOON; CASE NO. RZ 07-019 PAGE 2 OF 4 annex real property that is within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. The provisions of Idaho Code §50-222 govern the conditions upon which the City may exercise its authority to annex territory, but the exercise of that authority is discretionary as determined by the City Council. DECISION AND ORDER NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, the City Council does hereby order and this does order: That the application for re-zoning is denied for the following reasons: The current zone is compatible with the current neighborhood and that the area has not changed significantly to warrant a zoning change. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAHINGS ANALYSIS The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code §67-8003, the Owner may request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code §67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by this decision may, within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order, seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL ROCKIN KB SALOON; CASE NO. RZ 07-019 PAGE 3 OF 4 By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the ~ day of March, 2008. ROLL CALL: COUNCILMAN DAVID ZAREMBA VOTED COUNCILMAN JOE BORTON VOTED COUNCILMAN CHARLIE ROUNTREE VOTED UfA. COUNCILMAN KEITH BIRD VOTED ~t 1PQ~ MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD (TIE BREAKER) VOTED ~~~ DATED: I Y I (L~ ~~1 I~, MOTION: APPROVED: X DISAPPROVED: MAYOR T de WEERD ATTEST: JAYCEE HOLMAN, CITY ~~® ~~~ s i~~','~ ' ``a*e~ I~~Illilll IIII11~~`` Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works Dep ent, and City Attorney. 3- s-a By: Dated: 2 City Clerk's Office FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL ROCKIN KB SALOON; CASE NO. RZ 07-019 PAGE 4 OF 4 L~ March 14, 2008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2008 FP 08-002 APPLICANT Touchmark of the Treasure Valley ITEM NO. 11 REQUEST Final Plat approval for 52 single-family residential building lots, 2 commercial building lots and 8 common lots on 19.80 acres in an L-O zone for Meadowlake Village Subdivision No. 1 -SEC of Franklin Road and Touchmark Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted:: ~ l i Emailed: mnY11 n AM 1~ n n, , presented at pubUc COMMENTS See aHached Staff Report APp'~` No Comments / See attached Comments See attached Commenrts Date: ~~- Phone: 2. l.e _ g3~ Initials: become property of the City of Meddtan. BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF TOUCHMARK OF THE TREASURE VALLEY FOR FINAL PLAT APPROVAL OF 52 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING LOTS, 2 COMMERCIAL BUILDING LOTS, AND 8 COMMON LOTS ON 19.80 ACRES IN AN L-O ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED SOUTH OF FRANKLIN ROAD, APPROXIMATELY A %Z MILE EAST OF EAGLE ROAD IN THE N OF SECTIO N16, T. 3N., R. lE CASE NO. FP-08-002 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT This matter coming before the City Council for Final Plat approval pursuant to Unified Development Code 11-6B-3 on March 18, 2008 and the Council finding that the Administrative Review is complete from Kristy Vigil, Assistant City Planner for the Planning Department, and Scott Steckline, Development Services Coordinator for the Public Works Department, dated: Hearing Date: March 18, 2008, to the Mayor and Council, and the Council having considered the requirements of the preliminary plat the Council takes the following action: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Final Plat of "PLAT SHOWING MEADOWLAKE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION NO.1 LOCATED IN THE N %i OF SECTION 16, T. 3N., R. 1 E., BOISE ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR MEADOWLAKE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1 / (FP-08-002) Page 1 of 4 • • MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2007, HANDWRITTEN DATE: 11/02/07, SHEET 1 OF 8, WRG DESIGN, INC.", TOUCHMARK OF THE TREASURE VALLEY, Developer, is Conditionally Approved subject to those conditions of Staff comments as set forth in the Memorandum to the Mayor and City Council from Kristy Vigil, Assistant City Planner for the Planning and Zoning Department and Scott Steckline, Development Services Coordinator for the Public Works Department, dated: Hearing Date: March 18, 2008, listing 14 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS/FINAL PLAT and 17 GENERAL REQUIItEMENTS, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A", and consisting of 5 pages, and by this reference incorporated herein, and the response letter from WRG Design, Inc., a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "B" and consisting of 6 pages, and by this reference incorporated herein, and the additional requirements of the Council taken at their March 18, 2008 meeting as follows, to-wit: 1.1 Adopt the Recommendation of the Central District Health Department as follows: The Central District Health requires after written approval from the appropriate entities are submitted, they can approve this proposal for central sewage and central water; that plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality for central sewage and central water; that run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem; and require plans to be submitted for a plan review of any food establishment, beverage establishment, and grocery store. ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR MEADOWLAKE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1 / (FP-08-002) Page 2 of 4 • • 2. The final plat upon which there is contained the Certification and signature of the City Clerk and the City Engineer verifying that the plat meets the City's requirements shall be signed only at such time as: 1. The Plat dimensions are approved by the City Engineer; and 2. The City Engineer has verified that all off-site improvements are completed and/or the appropriate letter of credit or cash has been issued guaranteeing the completion of off-site and required on-site improvements. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAHINGS ANALYSIS The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, the Owner may request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by this decision may, withintwenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order, seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the ~ ~ day of I t ,a,~ l~' ~ , 2008. ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR MEADOWLAKE VII.LAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1 / (FP-08-002) Page 3 of 4 By: T d Attest: City Clerk Copy served upon Applicant, City Attorney. `~~,,,~~~~~~~~~~~,,,~~ ammy e d ````\`~~,.~`~ p~ ~~.,~~~~'R' Mayor, Ci Meridian ~~ ~ o $E/~1LL .~ T tst • ~~~ th~j~~~~ Z~epartment, Public '/~~~~~~h~ni n~s~~~~~``~~ By: ~C~IQ,~Y~L~ ~_ City Clerk's Office Works Deparhnent, and Dated: ~- q U ~ ORDER OF CONDTTIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR MEADOWLAKE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1 / (FP-08-002) Page 4 of 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPAR• NTS STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT: Meeting Date: March 18, 2008 E IDIAN~--- TO: Mayor and City Council ~ ~ ~ ~I FROM: Kristy Vigil, Assistant City Planner 208-884-5533 Scott Steckline, Development Services Coordinator 208-898-5500 SUBJECT: Meadowlake Village Subdivision No. 1 • Request for Final Plat Approval of Meadowlake Village Subdivision No. 1 Consisting of 52 Single-family Residential Building Lots, 2 Commercial Building Lots, and 8 Common Lots on 19.80 Acres in an L- O Zoning District by Touchmark of the Treasure Valley (File# FP-08- 002). • Request for private street approval within the L-O Zoning District (File # PS-08-001). We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments and conditions of the applicant. These conditions shall be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: APPLICATION SiJMNIARY & LOCATION The applicant, Touchmark of the Treasure Valley, has applied for final plat approval of 52 single-family residential building lots, 2 commercial building lots, and 8 common lots on 19.80 acres of land for Meadowlake Village Subdivision No. 1. The zoning district for the proposed subdivision is L-O (Limited Office District). Meadowlake Village Subdivision No. 1 is located south of Franklin Road, approximately a %i mile east of Eagle Road in Section 16, T. 3N., R. lE. This property has not been previously platted The City Council approved the preliminary plat for Meadow Village North Subdivision on August 14, 2007. The submitted final plat substantially complies with the approved preliminary plat. The applicant is proposing to construct a private street in this development. The private street extends south from E. Biel Ct. to Putter Lane via across-access easement offered by the developer. ACRD has reviewed and approved the proposed private street locations. Staff has reviewed the private street design and is recommending approval of the private street with the conditions set forth in this report. Staff recommends approval of Meadowlake Village Subdivision No. 1 with the comments and conditions stated in this report. SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS 1. Applicant is to meet all terms of the approved development agreements (instrument # 101048096, 101048097, 102143308, and 103137119), and approved Meadowlake Village North modified development agreement (instrument # 108022885), annexation (AZ-99-021), preliminary plat Exhibit "A" FP-08-002 Meadowlake Village Subdivision No. 1 FP.doc PAGF CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPART~NTS STAFF REPORT (PP-07-009), and conditional use permit (CUP-99-039 and CUP-07-068) applications for this subdivision. 2. If the City Engineer's signature has not been obtained by 08/14/09, the Final Plat approval for this subject phase shall expire. 3. Prior to submittal for the City Engineer's signature, have the Certificate of Owners and the accompanying acknowledgement signed and notarized. 4. Include a detail of the parking areas located within Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3 on a page within the final plat. The parking areas shall meet the standards set forth in UDC 11-3C-1. The private street (labeled fire lane and located on Lot 46, Block 1) shall be constructed per UDC 11-3F-4. The width of the travel lane shall be at least 24 feet or 26 feet wide (proposed as 42 feet wide), as determined by the fire marshal. A Fire Department approved turnaround shall be provided and the adjacent curb shall be painted red; post the private street "No Parking". Gates or other obstacles shall not be allowed. Construct a 5-foot wide sidewalk on each side of the private street, as proposed. Graphically depict the NMID easement for the Ridenbaugh Canal on the face of the plat. Graphically depict a landscape easement for the plaza located on Lots 24 and 25, Block 1 on the face if the plat. 8. Revise or add the following note(s) on the face of the plat prepared by WRG Design, Inc., stamped on 11/02/07 by Michael S. Byrns, prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer: 2.) Revise note to include Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3. 6.) Delete note. 7.) Revise to read, "...approved by ~'T T~ ^~Q CUP-O7-O08 ... r'T'-°~ ^~Q CUP-07- 008). " 8.) Delete note. *.) Add a note, "This plat is subject to the development agreements recorded as instrument numbers 1010,1048096, 101048097, 102143308, 103137119, and 108022885 of Ada County Records." *.) Add a note addressing the maintenance responsibilities of the landscape easement located on Lots 24 and 25, Block 1. *.) Add a note, "The bottom elevation of building footings shall be set a minimum of 12 inches above the highest known normal ground water elevation." Prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer, all existing structures shall be removed or relocated from the site. 10. All fencing installed on the site must be in compliance with UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7, and as proposed on the landscape plan. Temporary construction fencing to contain debris shall be installed at the subdivision boundary where permanent fencing does not exist. Perimeter fencing shall be installed on the east side prior to release of building permits for this subdivision. 11. The landscape plan, prepared by WRG Design, Inc., and dated 10/15/07 is approved with the following changes: a. Include a calculations table on the face of the plan. Exhibit "A" FP-08-002 Meadowlake Village Subdivision No. 1 FP.doc PAGF CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~ING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPAR• NTS STAFF REPORT b. Add 4 additional trees to the 8-foot parkways for a total of 102 trees. c. A sanitary sewer line is located within Lot 19, Block 1 and trees are not permitted. Relocate the trees shown on Lot 19, Block 1 to another common area within the subdivision. d. Include the lawn symbol on all parkways located with in the subdivision. e. Revise the plan to accurately reflect the lot numbers. Submit three copies of a revised landscape plan to the Planning Department prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. Said plan shall be consistent with the changes listed above. 12. Prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer, the applicant shall provide a letter from the United States Postal Service stating that the applicant has received approval for the location of mailboxes. Contact the Meridian Postmaster, Richard Buttram, at 887-1620 for more information. 13. All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11- 3B-11 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel- or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B-11. If the stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-11, then the applicant shall relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. It is the responsibility of the developer to comply with ACRD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at the time of final construction. 14. Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or conditions from the preliminary plat does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. GENERAL REQUIItEMENTS 1. Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. Plans will need to be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department prior to plan approval. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. 2. Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, sewer line shall be installed and passed air test and video inspection, final plat recorded and road base shall be approved prior to applying for building permits. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% shall be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 4. All development improvements, including but not limited to water, sewer, fencing, micro-paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy, or as otherwise allowed by UDC 11-SC-1. A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, landscape designer or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan upon completion of the landscape installation. The Certificate of Completion shall verify that all landscape improvements, including plant materials and sprinkler installation, are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan. Exhibit "A" FP-08-002 Meadowlake Village Subdivision No. 1 FP.doc PAGF CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA•ING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPAR• NTS STAFF REPORT The applicant shall provide a 20-foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and hydrants). The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. 7. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat. Compaction test results must be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 10. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 11. All development features shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 12. Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those trees that have to be removed. 13. Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. 14. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. 15. The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 16. The applicant's design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or the ACRD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. 17. At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and Exhibit "A" FP-08-002 Meadowlake Village Subdivision No. 1 FP.doc PAG)= CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPART•NTS STAFF REPORT approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the final plat for Meadowlake Village Subdivision No. 1 (FP-08-002) with the above stated comments and conditions. Exhibit "A" FP-08-002 Meadowlake Village Subdivision No. 1 FP.doc PAGF • D E S I G N I N C. March 17, 2007 Ms. Kristy Vigil Assistant City Planner City of Meridian Planning Department 660 East Watertower Lane Suite 202 Meridian, Idaho 83642 DEVELOPMENT RE: Meadowlake Village Subdivision No. 1 Staff Report for Final Plat SERVICES and Private Street (FP-08- 002 and PS-8-001) . Dear Ms. Vigil; On behalf of our Client, Touchmark of the Treasure Valley, LLC please LAND accept the following comments in regards to the staff report regarding the PLANNING Meadowlake Village Subdivision No.l final plat and private street applications: SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS CIVIL E NGI'JEER,NG 1, Applicant is to meet all terms of the approved development agreements (instrument # 101048096, 101048097, 102143308, and 103137119), and approved Meadowlake Village North modified development agreement (instrument # 108022885}, annexation (AZ-99-021), preliminary plat (PP-07-009), and LANDSCAPE conditional use permit (CUP-99-039 and CUP-07-068) ARCHIT ECTVRE applications for this subdivision. Response: We will comply. LAND 2. If the City Engineer's signature has not been obtained by suRVE~ 08/ 14/09, the Final Plat approval for this subject phase shall expire. Response: Uaderstood. 3. Prior to submittal for the City Engineer's signature, have the Certificate of Owners and the accompanying acknowledgement signed and notarized. 453 S. Fitness Pfate Response• We will comply. Eagle.ld 83616 PN 208,246.8300 FX 208!246 8320 www.wrgd tom Exhibit "B" • 4. Include a detail of the parking areas located within Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3 on a page within the final plat. The parking areas shall meet the standards set forth in UDC 11-3C-1. Response: The parking stalls will be shown in detail on the construction documents. 5. The private street (labeled fire lane and located on Lot 46, Block 1) shall be constructed per UDC 11-3F-4. The width of the travel lane shall be at least 24 feet or 26 feet wide (proposed as 42 feet wide), as determined by the fire marshal. A Fire Department approved turnaround shall be provided and the adjacent curb shall be painted red; post the private street "No Parking". Gates or other obstacles shall not be allowed. Construct a 5-foot wide sidewalk on each side of the private street, as proposed. Response: We will comply. 6. Graphically depict the NMID easement for the Ridenbaugh Canal on the face of the plat. Response: We will comply. 7. Graphically depict a landscape easement for the plaza located on Lots 24 and 25, Block 1 on the face if the plat. Response: We will comply. 8. Revise or add the following note(s) on the face of the plat prepared by WRG Design, Inc., stamped on 11/02/07 by Michael. S. Byrns, prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer: 2.) Revise note to include Lot 1, Block 2 and Lot 1, Block 3. 6.) Delete note. 7.) Revise to read, "...approved by ~r ro nn nnsz CUP-07-008. . , r~r T AA8 CUP-07-008). " 8.) Delete note. *.) Add a note, "This plat is subject to the development agreements recorded as instrument numbers 1 0 1 0 1 048096, 101048097, 102143308, 103 137 1 19, and 108022885 of Ada County Records." *.) Add a note addressing the maintenance responsibilities of the landscape easement located on Lots 24 and 25, Block 1. *.) Add a note, "The bottom elevation of building footings shall be set a minimum of 12 inches above the highest known normal ground water elevation." Response: Note #8 is required on the final plat per Idaho Code Title 50, Chapter 13 and the Central District Health Department. F.n~n~t ••a.. ©~© D E S I G N I N C. • 9. Prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer, all existing structures shall be removed or relocated from the site. Response: We will comply. 10. All fencing installed on the site must be in compliance with UDC 11-3A-6 and 11-3A-7, and as proposed on the landscape plan. Temporary construction fencing to contain debris shall be installed at the subdivision boundary where permanent fencing does not exist. Perimeter fencing shall be installed on the east side prior to release of building permits for this subdivision. Response: We will comply. 11. The landscape plan, prepared by WRG Design, Inc., and dated 10/ 15/07 is approved with the following changes: a. Include a calculations table on the face of the plan. b. Add 4 additional trees to the 8-foot parkways for a total of 102 trees. c. A sanitary sewer line is located within Lot 19, Block 1 and trees are not permitted. Relocate the trees shown on Lot 19, Block 1 to another common area within the subdivision. d. Include the lawn symbol on all parkways located with in the subdivision. e. Revise the plan to accurately reflect the lot numbers. Submit three copies of a revised landscape plan to the Planning Department prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer. Said plan shall be consistent with the changes listed above. Response: We will comply. Revised landscape plans will be submitted prior to signature of the t3na1 plat. 12. Prior to signature of the final plat by the City Engineer, the applicant shall provide a letter from the United States Postal Service stating that the applicant has received approval for the location of mailboxes. Contact the Meridian Postmaster, Richard Buttram, at 887-1620 for more information. Response: We will comply. 13. All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11-3B-11 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B-11. If the stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3B-11, then the applicant shall relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. It is the responsibility of the developer to comply with ACHD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at the time of final construction. Response: We wiU comply. Exhibit "[3" ©~© D E S I G N I N C. • 14. Staff s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or conditions from the preliminary plat does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. Response: Understood. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. Plans will need to be approved b_y the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department prior to plan approval. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Response: We will comply. 2. Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, sewer line shall be installed and passed air test and video inspection, final plat recorded and road base shall be approved prior to applying for building permits. Response: We will comply. 3. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110%, shall be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. Response: We will comply. 4. All development improvements, including but not limited to water, sewer, fencing, micro-paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy, or as otherwise allowed by UDC 11-5C-1. Response: We will comply. 5. A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, landscape designer or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan upon completion of the landscape installation. The Certificate of Completion shall verify that all landscape improvements, including plant materials and sprinkler installation, are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan. Response: We will comply. 6. The applicant shall provide a 20-foot easement for all public water/sewer mains outside of public right of way (include all water services and h_ydrants). The easements shall not be dedicated via the plat, but rather dedicated outside the plat process using the City of Meridian's standard forms. The easement shall be ~.n[ni~ °[3° ©~ D E S I G N I N C • graphically depicted on the plat for reference purposes. Submit an executed. easement (on the form available from Public Works), a legal description, which must include the area of the easement (marked EXHIBIT A) and an 81/2" x 11" map with bearings and distances (marked EXHIBIT B) for review. Both exhibits must be sealed, signed and dated by a Professional Land Surveyor. DO NOT RECORD. Add a note to the plat referencing this document. Response: We will comply. 7. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat. Response: We will comply. $. Compaction test results must be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. Response: We will comply. 9. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. Response: We will comply. 10. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. Response: We will comply. 11. All development features shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. Response: We will comply. 12. Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those trees that have to be removed. Response: We will comply. 13. Any existing domestic well system within this project shall be removed from domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8 contact the City of Meridian Engineering Department at (208)898-5500 for inspections of disconnection of services. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation if approved by Idaho Department of Water Resources Contact Robert B. Whitney at (208)334-2190. Fxhibil "I3" ©~~ D E S I G N I N C. ~ ~ Response: We will comply. 14. Any existing septic systems within this project shall be removed from service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Contact Central District Health for abandonment procedures and inspections (208)375-5211. Response: We will comply. 15. The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. Response: We will comply. 16. The applicant's design engineer shall be responsible for inspection of all irrigation and/or drainage facility within this project that do not fall under the jurisdiction of an irrigation district or the ACHD. The design engineer shall provide certification that the facilities have been installed in accordance with the approved design plans. This certification will be required before a certificate of occupancy is issued for any structures within the project. Response: We will comply. 17. At the completion of the project, the applicant shall be responsible to submit record drawings per the City of Meridian AutoCAD standards. These record drawings must be received and approved prior to the issuance of a certification of occupancy for any structures within the project. Response: We will comply. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this staff report and the recommended conditions of approval. If you should have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me at 208.246.8300 or at megan.johnsonl~rwrgdesign.com. Sincerely, WRG Design, Inc. Megan Johnson Senior Planner Enclosure CC: Touchmark of the Treasure Valley, LLC Exhibit "I3" D E S I G N I N C W R G March 14, 2008 FP 08-004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March l8, 2008 APPLICANT Spurwing Limited Partnership ITEM NO. 12 REQUEST Fnal Plat approval for 65 single-family building lots and 5 common lots on 20.51 acres in an R-4 and R$ zone for Olive Tree at Spurwing Subdivision - north of W. Chinden Boulevard and west of N. Spunnring Way AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CfTY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: See arched Staff Report INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: See attached Comments OTHER: Contacted: ~GIL ~lCa Date:. " - Phone: _ Emailed: [~_bp t'1fl(~(~,I t 1P.~~._ h e ~. Staff Initials Materials prdsented at public meetings shop become properly of the City of Merid[an • March 14, 2(308 MERIDIAN CPTY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2008 TE 1 APPLICANT Jake Miller ITEM NO. 13 REQUEST Public Hearing -Approval for an 18-month Time Extension to record the Fnal Plat for Redfish Subdivision (aka Whitewater Subdivision) - 4120 N. Linder Rd AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: see attached staff Report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comments CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US W EST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ~~~ b~ OTHER: Contacted: T~ ~ ~ r Date: ~~ Pho : $G~~ Emailed: Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the CNy o! Meridian. March 14, 2008 ZOA 07-002 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2008 APPLICANT City of Meridian Planning Department ITEM NO. 14 REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 3/4/08- Zoning Ordinance Amendment to amend the current provisions in Chapter 3, Article E of the UDC and the definition of Temporary Use found in Chapter 1, Article A forTemporary Use UDC Text Amdmt AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet /Minutes See attached Memo ~e~ t ~ ~~ ~~ Date: Staff Initials: • Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. '~ i March 14, 2008 RZ 07-020 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2008 APPLICANT Meridian Apartments, LLC ITEM NO. ~ Jr REQUEST Public Hearing -Rezone of 10.1 acres from R-4 to R-40 zoning district for Selway Apartments -west of N. Goddard Creek Road and north of McMillan Road AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: See attached P.&Z Item Packet /Minutes CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: IN CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: ~ Q CITY WATER DEPT: V CITY SEWER DEPT: ~ . CITY PARKS DEPT: ' \ ) MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: y/ SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of ~~ ~~~~ ~V~ ~~ See attached Response to Staff Contacted: ~.r~ Fl u K>v Date: ~ ~ Phone: Emailed: d~'~ u..1~..~ ~ILLb. CCm Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. LO • March 14, 2008 RZ 07-023 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL March 18, 2008 APPLICANT Landmark Engineering and Planning, Inc. ITEM NO. ~ 6 REQUEST Public Hearing -Rezone of 0.62 acres from R-4 zone to an R-8 zone for Blackstone No. 2 - 4700 W. Aspen Creek Street AGENCY COMMENTS ~~ CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See attached P8Z Item Packet /Minutes See attached Recommendations OTHER: See attached Affidavit of Posting Contacted: Lennt,~ P•t'CC. ~a Date: Emailed: ~enn~t i2an OQndn-~.n~.-~~~Catn Staff Initials ry `~ Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the Hy of Meridian. March 14, 2008 PFP 07-004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: March 18, 2008 APPLICANT Landmark Engineering & Planning, Inc. ITEM NO. 17 REQUEST Public Hearing- Combined Preliminary/Final Plat approval of 3 residential lots on 0.59 of an acre located in the R-4 zoning district for Blackstone No. 2 - - 4700 W. Aspen Creek Street AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See attached P8~Z Item Packet /Minutes See attached Recommendations ~~~ ~~L ~~c OTHER: See attached Revised Plans Contacted: 171'1 ~I~ Q Date: ~- ~~_ Phone: ~2- ~p?~O Emailed: • Q,~- . ~ Staff Initials: M erials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~o V~ • March 14, 2008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: APPLICANT RC Meridian Partners, LLC AZ 07-020 March 18, 2008 ITEM NO. ~ S REQUEST Public Hearing- Annexation and Zoning of 21.81 acres from RUT to an R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles - NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: COMMENTS See attached PAZ Item Packet /Minutes See attached Recommendations ~~ ~e~" ~~°~ INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: See attached letter from Citizens Contacted: ~(~~ ~'1~~, Date: ~ Phone: _"j '~ ~- ~33f~ Emailed: r~~`~t°lice~ ~~.~- C,on-, Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Merfdfan. c~~ • ~ March 14, 2008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: March 18, 2008 PP 07-027 APPLICANT RC Meridian Partners, LLC ITEM NO. 19 REQUEST Public Hearing- Preliminary Plat approval for 3 residential building lots 8~ 1 common lot in a proposed R-15 zone for Chalet Marseilles - NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS See attached P8~Z Item Packet /Minutes See attached Recommendations ~~ %~ ~'LpQXP FF~` L ~r ~ t Contacted: ~~ ~ U K~ Date: 3- Phone: ~[ l0 --]~J30 Emailed: ~ ~ ~ K~ It..ab C~ Staff Initials: Materials presen ed at pubflc meetings shall become property of the City of Meridkrn. • March 14, 2D08 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING: March 1$, 2008 APPLICANT RC Meridian Partners, LLC CUP 07-023 • ITEM NO. 2O REQUEST Public Hearing from 1 /17/08 -Conditional Use Permit for 122 multi-family dwelling units in a proposed R-15 zone on approximately 21.8 acres for Chalet Marseilles - NWC of E. Ustick Road and N. Locust Grove Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICES: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS' IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: OTHER: COMMENTS See attached P8~Z Item Packet /Minutes See attached Recommendations ~~ ,_~d P" Contacted: ~`~"~ ~ll~.. Date: ~-~ Phone: ~v'~L.Q--13~ Emailed: G~~r ~UY-t 0~ jUb. ~~ Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • March 14, 2008 AP 08-001 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2008 APPLICANT Metro Commercial Properties ITEM NO. 21 REQUEST Public Hearing -City Council Review of an Appeal of Planning Director's Determination to deny an application to modify a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development to allow a private education institution within an I-L zone for Treasure Valley Technical Center - 1250 W. Overland Road AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: COMMENTS (~ 6y~Cu,L ~vt ~i~,l~ No Comments No CommerrFs See attached Comments ~, ~~`" OTHER: See attached Affidavit of Posting Contacted: ~hQ ~ n N iC~G1 Date: Phone: Emailed: Snicue~~rr~1~~A Up_ Staff Initials: Materials presented at pub ' mee ngs shall become property of the C(ty of Meridian. • • March 14, 2008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 18, 2008 APPLICANT ITEM NO. Z2 REQUEST Ordinance -Amendment to Pretreatment Ordinance: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at pubtlc meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. COMMENTS ~d„~ See attached Og,\3~3 ~~~ wcY ( • ~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. ~~" ~~J~ BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING TITLE 9 CHAPTER 2 SEWER PRETREATMENT OF THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE PROVIDING FOR GENERAL PROVISIONS; GENERAL SEWER USE REQUIREMENTS; PRETREATMENT OF WASTEWATER; WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT APPLICATION; WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT ISSUANCE PROCESS; ADDITIONAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS; COMPLIANCE MONITORING; CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION; PUBLICATION OF USERS IN SIGNIFICANT NONCOMPLIANCE; ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT REMEDIES; JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT REMEDIES; SUPPLEMENTAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION; AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS; WASTEWATER TREATMENT RATES; MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR EFFECT OF INVALIDITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Meridian deems it to be in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of its citizens to regulate the general sewer requirements and the pretreatment of wastewater; WHEREAS, this ordinance is to amend the City of Meridian Sewer Pretreatment Ordinance, passed by the City Council of the City of Meridian on April 17, 2007 (City of Meridian Ordinance no. 07-1309); WHEREAS, City of Meridian Ordinance no. 07-1309 was not properly codified, and for this reason, the City of Meridian Sewer Pretreatment Ordinance is therefore set forth herein in its entirety, with the substantive amendments thereto as adopted by this ordinance, to facilitate proper codification thereof; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO: SECTION 1: That Title 9 Chapter 2 Sewer Pretreatment of the Meridian City Code is hereby amended as follows: SEWER PRETREATMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 9-2-1-GENERAL PROVISIONS ......................................................................... 4 9-2-1-1 Purpose and Policy .................................................................................................. 4 9-2-1-2 Administration ........................................................................................................4 9-2-1-3 Abbreviations ..........................................................................................................4 9-2-1-4 Definitions ...............................................................................................................5 PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 1 of 43 (• ~~ SECTION 9-2-2 -GENERAL SEWER USE REQUIREMENTS ....................................... 12 9-2-2-1 Prohibited Discharge Standards ..............................................:............................. 12 9-2-2-2 Federal Categorical Pretreatment Standards ......................................................... 15 9-2-2-3 State Requirements ............................................................................................... 15 9-2-2-4 Local Limits .......................................................................................................... 15 9-2-2-5 City of Meridian Right of Revision ...................................................................... 16 9-2-2-6 Special Agreement ............................................................................................... 16 9-2-2-7 Dilution ................................................................................................................ 16 9-2-2-8 Pretreatment Facilities .......................................................................................... 16 9-2-2-9 Deadline for Compliance with Applicable Pretreatment Requirements ............... 17 9-2-2-10 Additional Pretreatment Measures ....................................................................... 17 9-2-2-11 Accidental Spill Prevention Plans ........................................................................ 18 9-2-2-12 Septic Tank Wastes ............................................................................................... 19 SECTION 9-2-3 -WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT 9-2-3-1 Wastewater Discharge Permitting: Existing SIU ................................................. 19 9-2-3-2 Wastewater Discharge Permitting: New Source and New User ........................... I9 9-2-3-3 Wastewater Discharge Permit Application Contents ............................................ 20 9-2-3-4 Signatory and Certification Requirement .............................................................. 22 9-2-3-5 Wastewater Discharge Permit Decisions ............................................................. 23 9-2-3-6 Wastewater Discharge Permit Contents ............................................................... 23 9-2-3-7 Wastewater Discharge Permit Appeals ................................................................ 24 9-2-3-8 Wastewater Discharge Permit Duration ................................................................ 25 9-2-3-9 Wastewater Discharge Permit Modification ......................................................... 25 9-2-3-10 Wastewater Discharge Permit Transfer ................................................................ 26 9-2-3-11 Wastewater Discharge Permit Revocation ............................................................ 26 9-2-3-12 Wastewater Discharge Permit Re-issuance ........................................................... 27 SECTION 9-2-4 -REPORTING REQUIItEMENTS ...........................................................27 9-2-4-1 Final Compliance Report (Initial Compliance Report) ......................................... 27 9-2-4-2 Periodic Compliance Report ................................................................................. 27 9-2-4-3 Compliance schedules for meeting applicable pretreatment standards ................. 28 9-2-4-4 Notification of Significant Production Changes ................................................. 29 9-2-4-5 Hazardous Waste Notification .............................................................................. 29 9-2-4-6 Notice of potential problems, including accidental spills, slug loads ....................30 9-2-4-7 Non-Compliance Reporting .................................................................................. 30 9-2-4-8 Notification of Changed Discharge ...................................................................... 30 9-2-4-9 Reports from Un-permitted Users ......................................................................... 30 9-2-4-10 Record Keeping .................................................................................................... 31 SECTION 9-2-5- SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL REQUIItEMENTS ......................... 31 9-2-5-1 Sampling Requirements for Users ........................................................................ 31 9-2-5-2 Analytical Requirements ....................................................................................... 32 9-2-5-3 The City of Meridian Monitoring of User's Wastewater ...................................... 32 PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 2 of 43 ~~ ~~~ SECTION 9-2-6 -COMPLIANCE MONITORING ............................................................ 32 9-2-6-1 Inspection and Sampling ...........................................:.......................................... 32 9-2-6-2 Monitoring Facilities ............................................................................................ 33 9-2-6-3 Search Warrants ................................................................................................... 33 9-2-6-4 Vandalism ............................................................................................................. 33 SECTION 9-2-7 - CONFIDENTL~I. INFORMATION ....................................................... 33 SECTION 9-2-8 -PUBLICATION OF USERS IN SIGNIFICANT NON COMPLIANCE ......................................................................................... 34 SECTION 9-Z-9 -ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT REMEDIES .......................... 35 9-2-9-1 Notification of Violation ....................................................................................... 35 9-2-9-2 Consent Orders ...................................................................................................... 35 9-2-9-3 Show Cause Hearing ............................................................................................. 35 9-2-9-4 Compliance Orders .......................................................................................:...... 35 9-2-9-5 Cease and Desist Orders ...................................................................................... 36 9-2-9-6 Administrative Fines ............................................................................................. 36 9-2-9-7 Emergency Suspension of Service and Revocation of Permit .............................. 36 9-2-9-8 Termination of Discharge (Non-Emergency) ....................................................... 37 SECTION 9-2-10 -JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT REMEDIES ....................................... 38 9-2-10-1 Injunctive Relief ................................................................................................... 38 9-2-10-2 Civil Penalties ....................................................................................................... 38 9-2-10-3 Criminal Prosecution ............................................................................................ 38 9-2-10-4 Remedies Non-exclusive ...................................................................................... 38 SECTION 9-2-11-SUPPLEMENTAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION ............................... 39 9-2-11-1 Performance Bonds ............................................................................................... 39 9-2-11-2 Water Supply Severance ...................................................................................... 39 SECTION 9-Z-12 -AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS...... 39 9-2-12-1 Upset .....................................................................................................................39 9-2-12-2 Prohibited Discharge Standards ............................................................................ 40 9-2-12-3 Bypass .............................:..................................................................................... 40 SECTION 9-2-13 -WASTEWATER TREATMENT RATES ............................................ 41 SECTION 9-2-14 -MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS ..................................................... 42 9-2-14-1 Pretreatment Charges and Fees ............................................................................ 42 9-2-14-2 Severability ...........................................................................................................42 9-2-14-3 Conflicts ................................................................................................................42 PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 3 of 43 r~ ~~ SECTION 9-2-1-GENERAL PROVISIONS 9-2-1-1 Purpose and Policy This ordinance sets forth uniform requirements for users of the Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) for the City of Meridian and enables the City to comply with all applicable State and Federal laws, including the Clean Water Act (33 United States Code § 1251 et seq.) and the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR, Parts 403). The objectives of this ordinance are: A. To prevent the introduction of pollutants into the POTW that will interfere with the operation of the POTW; B. To prevent the introduction of pollutants into the POTW which will pass through the POTW, inadequately treated, into receiving waters or otherwise be incompatible with the POTW; C. To protect POTW personnel who maybe affected by wastewater and bio-solids in the course of their employment and to protect the general public; D. To ensure that the quality of the wastewater treatment plant bio-solids is maintained at a level which allows its use and disposal in compliance with applicable statutes and regulations; E. To provide equitable fees for administrative cost recovery, permitting, inspection, compliance enforcement, damages and technical assistance resulting from the program described herein; and F. To improve the opportunity to recycle and reclaim wastewater and bio-solids from the POTW. This ordinance shall apply to all users of the POTW. The ordinance authorizes the issuance of wastewater discharge permits, authorizes monitoring, compliance, and enforcement activities; establishes administrative review processes, requires user reports and provides for the setting of fees for the equitable distribution of costs resulting from the program established herein. 9-2-1-2 Administration Except as otherwise provided herein, the Superintendent shall administer, implement, and enforce the provisions of this ordinance. Any powers granted to or duties imposed upon the Superintendent maybe delegated by the Superintendent to other City of Meridian personnel. 9-2-1-3 Abbreviations The following abbreviations, when used in this ordinance, shall have the designated meanings: ASPP Accidental Spill Prevention Plan BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand CFR Code of Federal Regulations COD Chemical Oxygen Demand EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency GPD Gallons per Day IDP Indirect Discharge Permit PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 4 of 43 ~. ~ L Liter LEL Lower Explosive Limit milligrams milligrams per liter MIU Minor Industrial User NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System O&M Operation and Maintenance POTW Publicly Owned Treatment Works RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act SIC Standard Industrial Classification SIU Significant Industrial User SWDA Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901, et sea.) T5S Total Suspended Solids USC United States Code 9-2-1-4 Definitions Unless a provision explicitly states otherwise, the following terms and phrases, as used in this ordinance, shall have the meanings hereinafter designated. ACT OR "THE ACT". The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et spec,. APPLICABLE PRETREATMENT STANDARDS. For any specified pollutant, City of Meridian prohibitive standards, City of Meridian specific pretreatment standards (local limits), or EPA's Categorical Pretreatment Standards (when effective), whichever standard is appropriate or most stringent. APPROVAL AUTHORITY. The Regional Administrator of the EPA, Region 10, Seattle, Washington. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE USER. (1) If the user is a corporation: (a) The president, secretary, treasurer, or avice-president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar policy or decision-making functions for the corporation; or ro) o The manager of one or more manufacturing=production, or operation facilities, provided, the mangers if authorized to make management decisions which govern the operation of the regulated facility including having explicit or implicit duty of making major capital investment recommendations and initiating and directing_other comprehensive measures to assure lopg term environmental compliance with environmental laws and regulations; can ensure PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 5 of 43 f ~ ~~ that the necessary systems are established or actions taken to gather complete and accurate information for control mechanism requirements; and where authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedure. (2) If the user is a partnership or sole proprietorship: ageneral partner or proprietor, respectively. (3) If the user is a Federal, State, or local governmental facility: a director or highest official appointed or designated to oversee the operation and performance of the activities of the government facility, or their designee. (4) The individuals described in paragraphs 1 through 3, above, may designate another authorized representative if the authorization is in writing, the authorization specifies the individual or position responsible for the overall operation of the facility from which the discharge originates or having overall responsibility for environmental matters for the company, and the written authorization is submitted to the Superintendent or designee. The terms Best Management PYactices or BMPs means schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to implement the prohibitions listed in 403.5(x)(1) and (b). BMP also include treatment requirements, operating procedures, and practices to control plant runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage from raw materials storage. BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND BODE The quantity of oxygen utilized in the biochemical oxidation of organic matter under standard laboratory procedure in five (5) days at 20° Celsius, usually expressed as a concentration [milligrams per liter (mg/1)]. BOARD OF APPRAISERS. The Board constituted pursuant to Section 9-1-17 of the Meridian Municipal City Code. CATEGORICAL PRETREATMENT STANDARD OR CATEGORICAL STANDARD. Any regulation containing pollutant discharge limits promulgated by the U.S. EPA in accordance with Sections 307(b) and (c) of the Act (33 U.S.C. § 1317) which applies to a specific category of users and which appear in 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N, Parts 405-471. CATEGORICAL USER. A user regulated by one of EPA's Categorical Pretreatment Standards. CITY: Refers to the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. COLLECTION SYSTEM: Any devices, pipes, conduits, ditches, sewers or other systems used to collect or convey sewage. COLOR. The optical density at the visual wave length of maximum absorption, relative to PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 6 of 43 ~ ~ ~~ distilled water. One-hundred percent (100%) transmittance is equivalent to zero (0.0) optical density. COMPENSATION POINT. To make up for, counter balance. COMPOSITE SAMPLE. The sample resulting from the combination of individual wastewater samples taken at selected intervals based upon an increment of either flow or time. CONTROL AUTHORITY. (1) The POTW if the POTW's Pretreatment Program Submission has been approved in accordance with the requirements of 403.11: or (2) the Approval Authority if the Submission has not been approved. COOLING WATER/NON-CONTACT COOLING WATER. Water used for cooling which does not come into direct contact with any raw material, intermediate product, waste product, or finished product. Cooling water may be generated from any use, such as air conditioning, heat exchangers, cooling or refrigeration to which the only pollutant added is heat. DOMESTIC USER (RESIDENTIAL USER). Any person who contributes, causes, or allows the contribution of wastewater into the City of Meridian POTW that is of a similar volume and/or chemical make-up to that of a residential dwelling unit. Discharges from a residential dwelling unit typically include up to 100 gallons per capita per day, 0.2 pounds of BOD per capita per day, and 0.17 pounds of TSS per capita per day. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPAZ The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency or, where appropriate, the Director of Region 10 Office of Water and Watersheds, other duly authorized official of said agency. EXISTING SOURCE. A categorical industrial user, the construction or operation of which commenced prior to the publication by EPA of uroRosed categorical pretreatment standards, which will be applicable to such source if and when the standard is thereafter promulgated in accordance with Section 307 of the Act. EXISTING USER. Any non-categorical user which was discharging wastewater prior to the effective date of this ordinance [or include a specific date such as the date the code will become effective]. GRAB SAMPLE. A sample which is taken from a wastestream on a one-time basis without regard to the flow in the wastestream and without consideration of time. INDIRECT DISCHARGE OR DISCHARGE. The introduction of pollutants into the POTW from any non-domestic source regulated under Section 307(b), (c), or (d) of the Act. The discharge into the POTW is normally by means of pipes, conduits, pumping stations, force mains, constructed drainage ditches, surface water intercepting ditches, and all constructed PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 7 of 43 ~i '• devices and appliances appurtenant thereto. INTERFERENCE A discharge, which alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, either (1) inhibits or disrupts the POTW, its treatment processes or operations; (2) inhibits or disrupts its bio-solids processes, use or disposal; or (3) is a cause of a violation of the City of Meridian's NPDES permit or of the prevention ofbio-solids use or disposal in compliance with any of the following statutory/regulatory provisions or permits issued thereunder (or more stringent State or local regulations ): Section 405 of the Clean Water Act; the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), including Title II commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); any State regulations contained in any State sludge management plan prepared pursuant to Subtitle D of the SWDA; the Clean Air Act; and the Toxic Substances Control Act; [and the Marine Protection Research, and Sanctuaries Act]. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE DISCHARGE LIlVIIT. The maximum concentration (or loading) of a pollutant allowed to be discharged at any time, determined from the analysis of any discrete or composite sample collected, independent of the industrial flow rate and the duration of the sampling event. MEDICAL WASTE. Isolation wastes, infectious agents, human blood and blood products, pathological wastes, sharps, body parts, contaminated bedding, surgical wastes, potentially contaminated laboratory wastes, and dialysis wastes. MINOR INDUSTRIAL USER (MI[n. Anon-domestic user with an indirect discharge to the POTW which does not meet the criteria of a Significant Industrial User, but whose operation and discharge may warrant inspection to ensure compliance with discharge prohibitions, pretreatment facility operation, spill prevention measures, and pollution prevention assistance. NEW SOURCE. (1) Any building, structure, facility, or installation from which there is (or may be) a discharge of pollutants, the construction of which commenced after the publication of proposed pretreatment standards under Section 307(c) of the Act which will be applicable to such source if such standards are thereafter promulgated in accordance with that section, provided that: (a) The building, structure, facility, or installation is constructed at a site at which no other source is located; or (b) The building, structure, facility, or installation totally replaces the process or production equipment that causes the discharge of pollutants at an existing source; or (c) The production of wastewater generating processes of the building, structure, facility, or installation are substantially independent of an existing source at the same site. In determining whether these are substantially independent, factors such as the extent to which the new facility is integrated with the existing plant, and the extent to which the new facility is engaged in the same general type of activity as the existing source, should be considered. (2) Construction on a site at which an existing source is located results in a modification rather PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 8 of 43 ( • than a new source if the construction does not create a new building, structure, facility, or installation meeting the criteria of New Source (1) (b) or (c) above but otherwise alters, replaces, or adds to existing process or production equipment. (3) Construction of a new source as defined under this paragraph has commenced if the owner or operator has: (a) Begun, or caused to begin, as part of a continuous onsite construction program (i) any placement, assembly, or installation of facilities or equipment; or (ii) significant site preparation work including clearing, excavation, or removal of existing buildings, structures, or facilities which is necessary for the placement, assembly, or installation of new source facilities or equipment; or (b) Entered into a binding contractual obligation for the purchase of facilities or equipment which are intended to be used in its operation within a reasonable time. Options to purchase or contracts which can be terminated or modified without substantial loss, and contracts for feasibility, engineering, and design studies do not constitute a contractual obligation under this paragraph. NEW USER. A "new user" is a user that is not regulated under federal categorical pretreatment standards but that applies to the City of Meridian for a new building permit or occupies an existing building and plans to commence discharge of wastewater to the City of Meridian collection system after the effective date of this ordinance. Any person that buys an existing facility that is discharging non-domestic wastewater will be considered an "existing user" if no significant changes are made in the manufacturing operation. NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit program as administered by the U.S. EPA or State. OTHER WASTE. Decayed wood, sawdust, shavings, bark, lime, refuse, ashes, garbage, offal, oil, tar, chemicals and all other substances except sewage and industrial wastes. PASS THROUGH. A discharge which exits the POTW into waters of the United States in quantities or concentrations which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, is a cause of a violation of any requirement of the City of Meridian NPDES permit (including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation). PERMITTEE. A person or user issued a wastewater discharge permit. PERSON. Any individual, partnership, co-partnership, firm, company, corporation, association, joint stock company, trust, estate, governmental entity, or any other legal entity; or their legal representatives, agents, or assigns. This definition includes all Federal, State, and local governmental entities. gH. A measure of the acidity or alkalinity of a substance, expressed in standard units. PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 9 of 43 ~ • ,• POLLUTANT. Any dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, medical wastes, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discharged equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, agricultural and industrial; wastes, and the characteristics of the wastewater {i.e., pH, temperature, TSS, turbidity, color, BOD, Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), toxicity, or odor]. ` PRETREATMENT. The reduction of the amount of pollutants, the elimination of pollutants, or the alteration of the nature of pollutant properties in wastewater prior to, (or in lieu of), introducing such pollutants into the POTW. This reduction or alteration can be obtained by physical, chemical, or biological processes; by process changes; or by other means, (except by diluting the concentration of the pollutants unless allowed by an applicable pretreatment standard). PRETREATMENT REQUIREMENTS. Any substantive or procedural requirement related to pretreatment imposed on a user, other than a pretreatment standard. PRETREATMENT STANDARDS OR STANDARDS. Prohibited discharge standards, categorical pretreatment standards, and local limits established by the City of Meridian POTW. PROHIBITED DISCHARGE STANDARDS OR PROHIBITED DISCHARGES. Absolute prohibitions against the discharge of certain substances, which appear in Section 9-2-2-1(A) and (B) of this ordinance. PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS (POTW~ A "treatment works", as defined by Section 212 of the Act (33 U.S.C. § 1292) which is owned by the City of Meridian. This definition includes any devices or systems used in the collection, storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature and any conveyances which convey wastewater to a treatment plant. SEPTIC TANK WASTE. Any sewage from holding tanks such as vessels, chemical toilets, campers, trailers, and septic tanks. SEWAGE. Human excrement and gray water (household showers, dishwashing operations, etc.). SEWER. Any pipe, conduit, ditch or other device used to collect and transport sewage from the generating source. SHALL, MAY. "Shall" is mandatory, "may" is permissive. SIGNIFICANT INDUSTRIAL USER. (1) A user subject to categorical pretreatment standards; or (2) A user that: (a) Discharges an average of 25,000 GPD or more of process wastewater to the POTW (excluding sanitary, non-contact cooling, and boiler blow down PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 10 of 43 ~ ~`• wastewater); or (b) Contributes a process waste stream which makes up five (5) percent or more of the average dry weather hydraulic or organic capacity of the POTW treatment plant; or (c) Is designated as such by the City of Meridian on the basis that it has a reasonable potential for adversely affecting the POTW s operation or for violating any pretreatment standard or requirement. (3) Upon a finding that a user meeting the criteria in Subsection (2) has no reasonable potential for adversely affecting the POTW's operation or for violating any pretreatment standard or requirement, the City of Meridian may at any time, on their own initiative or in response to a petition received from a user [and in accordance with procedures in 40 CFR 403.8(f) (6)] determine that such user should not be considered a significant industrial user. SLUG LOAD. Any discharge at a flow rate or concentration which could cause a violation of the discharge standards in Section 9-2-2-2 through 9-2-2-4 of this ordinance or any discharger of a non-routine, episodic nature, including, but not limited to, an accidental spill or anon-customary batch discharge. STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION (SICK CODE. A classification pursuant to the Standard Industrial Classification Manual issued by the United States Office of Management and Budget. STORM WATER. Any flow occurring during or following any form of natural precipitation, and resulting from such precipitation, including snowrnelt. SUPERINTENDENT. The person designated by the City of Meridian, to supervise the operation of the POTW, who is charged with certain duties and responsibilities by this ordinance, or duly authorized representative. TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS. The total suspended matter that floats on the surface of, or is suspended in, water, wastewater, or other liquid, and is removable by laboratory filtering. TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT. The discharge from the POTW into waters of the United States. TOXIC POLLUTANTS. Pollutants or combination of pollutants listed as toxic in regulations promulgated by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under Section 307 (33 U.S.C. 1317) of the Act. UPSET. An exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with categorical pretreatment standards because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the user. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventative PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 11 of 43 r ~ ~• maintenance, or careless or improper operation thereof. USER OR INDUSTRIAL USER. A source of indirect discharge. The source shall not include "domestic user" as defined herein. WASTEWATER. Liquid and water-carried industrial wastes and sewage from residential dwellings, commercial buildings, industrial and manufacturing facilities, and institutions, whether treated or untreated, which are contributed to the POTW. WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT (INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT, DISCHARGE PERMIT . An authorization or equivalent control document issued by the City of Meridian to users discharging wastewater to the POTW. The permit may contain appropriate pretreatment standards and requirements as set forth in this ordinance. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT OR TREATMENT PLANT. That portion of the POTW which is designated to provide treatment of municipal sewage and industrial wastewater. The use of the singular shall be construed to include the plural shall include the singular as indicated by the context of its use. SECTION 9-2-2 -GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 9-2-2-1 Prohibited Discharge Standards A. General Prohibitions: No user shall introduce or cause to be introduced into the POTW any pollutant or wastewater which causes pass through or interference. These general prohibitions apply to all users of the POTW whether or nor they are subject to categorical pretreatment standards or any other National, State, or local pretreatment standards or requirements. B. Specific Prohibitions: No user shall introduce or cause to be introduced into the POTW: the following pollutants, substances, or wastewater. 1. Pollutants which create a fire or explosive hazard in the POTW, including, but not limited to, waste streams with aclosed-cup flashpoint of less than 140 F (60 C) using the test methods specified in 40 CFR 261.21; 2. Wastewater having a pH less than ~5 6.0 or greater than 9.0 or otherwise causing corrosive damage to the POTW or equipment. 3. Solid or viscous substances in amounts which cause obstruction of the flow in the POTW resulting in interference [but in no case solids greater than'/2 inch or 1.27 cm in any dimension}; 4. Pollutants, including oxygen-demanding pollutants (BOD, etc), released in a discharge at a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration which, either singly or by interaction with other pollutants, will cause interference with the POTW. 5. Wastewater having a temperature which will inhibit biological activity in PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 12 of 43 the treatment plant resulting in interference, but in no case wastewater which causes the temperature at the introduction into the treatment plant to exceed 104°F (40°C) unless the Approval Authority, upon the request of the POTW, approves alternate temperature limits; 6. Petroleum oil, non-biodegradable cutting oil, or products of mineral oil origin, in amounts that will cause interference or pass through; 7. Pollutants which result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within the POTW in a quantity that may cause acute worker health and safety problems; 8. Trucked or hauled pollutants, except at discharge points designated by the Superintendent or designee; 9. Noxious or malodorous liquids, gases, solids, or other wastewater which, either singly or by interaction with other wastes, are sufficient to create a public nuisance or a hazard to life, or to prevent entry into the sewer or collection system for maintenance or repair; 10. Wastewater which imparts color which cannot be removed by the treatment process, such as, but not limited to, dye wastes and vegetable tanning solutions, which consequently impart color to the treatment plant's effluent, thereby violating the City's NPDES permit. Color (in combination with turbidity) shall not cause the treatment plant effluent to reduce the depth of the compensation point for photosynthetic activity by more than ten percent (10%) from the seasonably established norm for aquatic life; 11. Wastewater containing any radioactive wastes or isotope except as specifically approved by the Superintendent or designee in compliance with applicable State or Federal regulations; 12. Storm water, surface water, ground water, artesian well water, roof runoff, subsurface drainage, swimming pool drainage, condensate, de-ionized water, non-contact cooling water, and unpolluted water, unless specifically permitted by the Superintendent or designee; 13. Any sludge's, screenings, or other residues from the pretreatment of industrial wastes or from industrial processes; 14. Medical wastes, except as specifically authorized by the Superintendent or designee; 5. Wastewater causing, alone or in conjunction with other sources, the treatment plant's effluent to fail a toxicity test; 16. Detergents, surface-active agents, or other substances which may cause excessive foaming in the POTW; 17. Any liquids, solids or gases which by reason of their nature or quantity are, or maybe sufficient, either alone or by interaction with other substances, to cause fire or explosion or be injurious in any other way to the POTW or to the operation of the POTW. At no time shall two (2) consecutive readings on an explosion hazard meter, at the point of discharge into the system (or at any point in the system), be more than five percent (5%) nor PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 13 of 43 r any single reading over ten percent (10%) of the Lower Explosive Limit (LEL) of the meter. 18. Grease, animal guts or tissues, paunch manure, bones, hair, hides or fleshing, entrails, whole blood, feathers, ashes, cinders, sand, spent lime, stone or marble dusts, metal, glass, straw, shavings, grass clippings, rags, spent grains, spent hops, waste paper, wood, plastics, gas, tar asphalt residues, residues from refining or processing of fuel or lubricating oil, mud, or glass grinding or polishing wastes. 19. Any substance which will cause the POTW to violate its NPDES and/or other disposal system permits. 20. Any wastewater, which in the option of the Superintendent or designee can cause harm either to the sewers, sewage treatment process, or equipment; have an adverse effect on the receiving stream, or can otherwise endanger life, limb, public property, or constitute a nuisance, unless allowed under special agreement by the Superintendent or designee (except that no special waiver shall be given from categorical pretreatment standards). 21. The contents of any tank or vessel owned or used by any person in the business of collecting or pumping sewage, effluent, septic tank waste, or other wastewater unless said person has first obtained testing and approval as maybe generally required by the City of Meridian and paid all fees assessed for the privilege of said discharge. 22. Any hazardous waste as defined in rules published by the State of Idaho or in 40CFR Part 261. 23. Persistent pesticides and/or pesticides regulated by the Federal Insecticide Fungicide Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). 24. Sewage sludge, except in accordance with the city's NPDES permit, providing that it specifically allows the discharge to surface waters of sewage sludge pollutants. 25. Pollutants, substances, or wastewater prohibited by this section shall not be processed or stored in such a manner that they could be discharged to the POTW. 26. Limitation Discharge Point; No person shall discharge any substance directly into a manhole or other opening into the POTW without a current permit issued by the Superintendent or designee. 27. Ground Water/Wastewater generated from the cleanup of spills, leaking underground storage tanks, monitoring wells or other similar sources shall not be discharged to the sewer or collection system without a temporary discharge permit issued by the Superintendent or designee. 28. Any substance which may cause the POTW's bio-solid effluent or treatment processes to be unsuitable for reclamation and reuse. 29. Prohibitions on Unpolluted Water: Unpolluted water, including, but not limited to, swimming pools, ponds, non contact cooling water, process water or blowdown from cooling towers and evaporative coolers shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the POTW unless PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 14 of 43 (. a authorized through a temporary discharge permit. SAC Prevention Practices Best Management Practices or BMPs; schedules of activities, prohibitions of practices, maintenance procedures, treatment requirements as specified by the City of Meridian to meet acceptable discharge of influent wastewater to the collection system and POTW. ~1-D Each business establishment for which a grease interceptor is required shall have an interceptor which shall serve only that establishment. 9-2-2-2 Federal Categorical Pretreatment Standards The National categorical pretreatment standards as amended and promulgated by EPA pursuant to the Act and as found at 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N, Parts 405-471 are hereby incorporated and shall be enforceable under this ordinance. 9-2-2-3 State Requirements State requirements and limitations on discharges to the POTW shall be met by all users which are subject to such standards in any instance in which they are more stringent than Federal requirements and limitations, or those in this ordinance or other applicable ordinances. 9-2-2-4 Local Limits The following pollutant limits are established to protect against pass through and interference. No person shall discharge wastewater containing pollutants in excess of the following specified discharge limits: Maximum Daily Parameter Concentration (mg/1) Arsenic 4.0 mg/1 Cadmium 0.8 mg/1 Chromium (total) 3.2 mg/1 Copper 5.0 mg/1 Cyanide (total) 5.0 mg/1 Iron 1.50 mg/1 Lead 4.0 mg/1 Mercury 0.16 mg/1 Nickel 5.81 mg/1 Silver 4.0 mg/1 Zinc 5.0 mg/1 Total Organics (TTO) 2.13mg/1 ** The above limits apply at the point where the wastewater is discharged to the POTW (end of pipe). All concentrations for metallic substances are for "total" metal unless indicated PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 15 of 43 otherwise. Where a user is subject to a categorical pretreatment standard and a local limit for a given pollutant, the more stringent limit or applicable pretreatment standard shall apply. **Metal Finishing Subcategory of 40 CFR, part 433.11 (e) provides definition for the term TTO as to mean the total toxic organics, which is the summation of all quantifiable values greater than 0.01 milligrams per liter for the listed toxic organics identified in 40 CFR part 433.11 (e). ** See list of organic chemicals included in total toxic organics (TTO) regulated under electroplating and metal finishing categories maintained at the Meridian POTW. The following pollutants are regulated to ensure compliance with the City of Meridian NPDES Permit. Higher concentration levels of wastewater discharge for the following are subject to City Code 9-4-9 Cl. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) Total Suspended Solids (TSS) Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) Phosphorus 9-2-2-5 The City of Meridian Right of Revision The City of Meridian reserves the right to establish, by ordinance or in wastewater discharge permits, more stringent standards or requirements on discharges to the POTW. 9-2-2-6 Special Agreement The City of Meridian reserves the right to enter into special agreements with users setting out special terms under which they may discharge to the POTW. In no case will a special agreement waive compliance with a categorical pretreatment standard of federal pretreatment requirement. However, users may request anet/gross adjustment to a categorical standard in accordance with 40 CFR 403.15. They may also request a variance from the categorical pretreatment standard from the Approval Authority in accordance with 40 CFR 403.13. 9-2-2-7 Dilution No user shall ever increase the use of process water, or in any way attempt to dilute a discharge, as a partial or complete substitute for adequate treatment to achieve compliance with an applicable pretreatment standard or requirement unless expressly authorized by an applicable pretreatment standard or requirement. The Superintendent may impose mass limitations on users which he believes may be using dilution to meet applicable pretreatment standards or requirements or in other cases when the imposition of mass limitations is appropriate. 9-2-2-8 Pretreatment Facilities Users shall provide necessary wastewater treatment as required to comply with this ordinance and shall achieve compliance with all applicable pretreatment standards and requirements set PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE -16 of 43 • ~ • out in this ordinance within the time limitations specified by the EPA, the State, or the Superintendent, whichever is more stringent. Any facilities required to treat wastewater to a level acceptable to the City of Meridian shall be provided, operated, and maintained at the user's expense. Detailed plans showing the pretreatment facilities and operating procedures shall be submitted to the City of Meridian for review and shall be acceptable to the City of Meridian before construction of the facility. The review of such plans and operating procedures will in no way relieve the user from the responsibility of modifying the facility as necessary to produce an acceptable discharge to the City of Meridian under the provisions of this ordinance. 9-2-2-9 Deadline for Compliance with Applicable Pretreatment Requirements Compliance by existing sources covered by Categorical Pretreatment Standards shall be within 3 years of the date the Standard is effective unless a shorter compliance time is specified in the appropriate standard. The City of Meridian shall also establish a final compliance deadline for any existing user not covered by categorical pretreatment standards or for any categorical user when the local limits for said user are more restrictive than the federal Categorical Pretreatment Standards. New source and new users are required to comply with applicable pretreatment standards within the shortest feasible time, not to exceed ninety (90) days from the beginning of discharge. New Sources and new users shall install, have in operating condition, and shall start up all pollution control equipment required to meet applicable pretreatment standards before beginning to discharge. Any wastewater discharge permit issued to a categorical user shall not contain a compliance date beyond any deadline established in EPA's Categorical Pretreatment Standards. Any other existing user or a categorical user that must comply with a more stringent local limit which is in non-compliance with any local limits shall be provided with a compliance schedule placed in an industrial wastewater permit to insure compliance within the shortest time feasible. 9-2-2-10 Additional Pretreatment Measures A. Whenever deemed necessary, the Superintendent or designee may require users to restrict their discharge during peak flow periods, designate that certain wastewater be discharged only to specific sewers, relocate and/or consolidate points of discharge, separate sewage waste streams from industrial waste streams, and other such conditions as may be necessary to protect the POTW and determine the user's compliance with the requirements of this ordinance. B. Each user discharging into the POTW greater than 10,000 gallons per day ,shall install and maintain, on its property and its expense, a suitable storage and flow-control facility to insure equalization of flow over atwenty--four 24 hour period. The facility shall have a capacity for at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the daily discharge volume and shall be equipped with alarms and a rate of discharge controller, the regulation of which shall be directed by the Superintendent or designee. A wastewater discharge permit maybe issued solely for flow equalization. C. Grease, oil, and sand interceptors shall be provided when, in the opinion of the PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 17 of 43 r • Superintendence or designee, they are necessary for the proper handling of wastewater containing excessive amounts of grease and oil, and sand, except that such interceptors shall not be required for residential users. All interceptor units shall be of type and capacity approved by the Superintendent or designee and shall be located to be easily accessible for cleaning and inspection. Such interceptors shall be inspected, cleaned, and repaired regularly, as needed, by the user at its expense. D. Users with the potential to discharge flammable substances may be required to install and maintain an approved combustible gas detection meter. 9-2-2-11-Accidental Spill Prevention Control Plans The Superintendent or designee may require any user to develop and implement an accidental spill prevention plan (ASPP) or slug control plan. Where deemed necessary by the city, facilities to prevent accidental discharge or slug discharges of pollutants shall be provided and maintained at the users cost and expense. An accidental spill prevention plan or slug control plan showing facilities and operating procedures to provide this protection shall be submitted to the city for review and approval before implementation. The City of Meridian shall determine which user is required to develop a plan and require said plan to be submitted 60 days after notification by the city. Each user .shall implement its ASPP as submitted or as modified after such plan has been reviewed and approved by the City of Meridian. Review and approval of such plans and operating procedures by the city shall not relieve the user from the responsibility to modify its facility as necessary to meet the requirements of this ordinance. A. Any user required to develop and implement an accidental spill prevention plan shall submit a plan which addresses, at a minimum, the following: (1) Description of discharge practices, including non-routine batch discharges; (2) Description of stored chemicals; (3) Procedures for immediately notifying the POTW of any accidental or slug discharge. (4) Procedures to prevent adverse impact from any accidental or slug discharge. Such procedures include but are not limited to, inspection and maintenance of storage areas, handling and transfer of materials, loading and unloading operations, control of plant site runoff, worker training, building of containment structures or equipment, measures for containing toxic organic chemicals (including solvents), and/or measures and equipment for emergency response. B. The user shall immediately telephone and notify the Wastewater Treatment Plant of the incident regulated by this ordinance. The notification shall include the location of the discharge, date and time thereof, type of waste, concentration and volume, and corrective actions. Any affected user shall be liable for any expense, loss, or damage to the POTW, in addition to the amount of any fines imposed on the city on account thereof under state or federal law. C. Within five (5) days following an accidental discharge, the user shall submit to the Superintendent or designee, a detailed written report describing the cause(s) of the discharge and the measures to betaken by the user to prevent similar future PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE -18 of 43 ri ~• occurrences. Such notification shall not relieve the user of any expense, loss, damage, or other liability which may be incurred as a result of damage to the POTW, fish kills, or any other damage to person or property nor shall such notification relieve the user of any fines, civil penalties, or other liability which may be imposed by this ordinance or other applicable law. D. Signs shall be permanently posted in conspicuous places on the user's premises advising employees whom to call in the event of a slug or accidental discharge. Employers shall instruct all employees, who may cause or discover such a discharge with respect to emergency notification procedures. 9-2-2-12. Septic Tank Wastes A. Septic tank waste maybe introduced into the POTW only at a designated receiving structure at such times as designated by the Superintendent or designee. Wastewater discharge permits are required; waste will not be accepted without an approved permit application by the hauler company. B. The designated process requires the hauler to sign a disposal information sheet. This sheet requires name of hauler, address, driver, and truck identification, sources of waste, volume and characteristics of the waste or additional information as determined by the Superintendent or designee. C. Fees for dumping hauled waste will be established as part of the user fee system as authorized in Section 9-2-14-1 of this ordinance. D. Recreational vehicles (RV) waste tank effluent is allowed to be disposed by the general public at the POTW in the designated RV Dump Site. No permit is required at this time. Commercial haulers are not allowed to discharge at this site location. SECTION 9-2-3 -WASTEWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT No significant industrial user shall discharge wastewater into the POTW without first obtaining a wastewater discharge permit from the Superintendent or designee. Any violation of the terms and conditions of the discharge permit shall be deemed a violation of this ordinance and subjects the wastewater discharge permittee to the sanctions set forth in this ordinance. Obtaining a wastewater discharge permit does not relieve a permittee of its obligations to comply with all federal and State pretreatment standards or requirements or with any other requirements of Federal, State, and local law. The Superintendent or designee may require other users, including liquid waste haulers, to obtain wastewater discharge permits to carry out the purposes of this ordinance. 9-2-3-1 Wastewater Discharge Permitting: Ezisting: SIU Any SIU that was discharging wastewater into the POTW prior to the effective date of this ordinance and that wishes to continue such discharges in the future, shall, within (60) days after PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 19 of 43 ~ . ~. notification by the Superintendent or designee submit a permit application to the City of Meridian in accordance with Section 9-2-3-3 of this ordinance and shall not cause or allow discharges to the POTW to continue after one hundred eighty (180) days of the effective date of this ordinance except in accordance with a wastewater discharge permit issued by the Superintendent or designee. 9-2-3-2 Wastewater Discharge Permitting: New Source and New User At least 90 days prior to the anticipated start-up, any new source, which is a source that becomes a user subsequent to the proposal of an applicable categorical pretreatment standard that is later promulgated, and any new user considered by the City of Meridian to fit the definition of SIU shall apply for a wastewater discharge permit and will be required to submit to the city at least the information listed in paragraphs (A)-(E) of Section 902-3-3. Anew source or new user cannot dischagee without first receiving a wastewater discharge hermit from the City of Meridian. New sources and new users shall also be required to include in their application information on the method of pretreatment they intend to use to meet applicable pretreatment standards. New Sources and new users shall give estimates of the information requested in paragraphs (D) and (E) of Section 9-2-3-3. 9-2-3-3 Wastewater Discharge Permit Application Contents. All users required to obtain a wastewater discharge permit must submit, at a minimum, the following information. The superintendent or designee shall approve a form to be used as a permit application. Categorical users submitting the following information shall have complied with 40 CFR 403.12 (b). A. Identifying information. The user shall submit the name and address of the facility including the name of the operator and owners. B. Permits. The user shall submit a list of all environmental control permits held by or for the facility. C. Description of operations. The user shall submit a City DDF (Data Disclosure Form) that describes the operational processes. D. Flow Measurement. (1) Categorical User: The user shall submit information showing the measured average daily and maximum daily flow, in gallons per day, to the POTW from each of the following: (i) Regulated or manufacturing process streams; and (ii) Other streams as necessary to allow use of the combined waste stream formula [40 CFR 403.6 (e)]. (2) Non-Categorical User The user shall submit information showing the measured average daily and maximum daily flow, in gallons per day, to the POTW from each of the following: (i) Total process flow, wastewater treatment plant flow, total plant PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 20 of 43 flow or individual manufacturing process flow as required by the Superintendent or designee. The City of Meridian may allow for verifiable estimates of these flows where considerations justified by cost or feasibility. E. Measurements of pollutants (1) Categorical User: (i) The user shall identify the applicable pretreatment standards for each regulated or manufacturing process. (ii) In addition, the user shall submit the results of sampling and analysis identifying the nature and concentration (or mass where required by the Categorical Pretreatment Standard or as required by the City) of regulated pollutants (including standards contained in Section 9-2-1 through 9-2-4, as appropriate) in the discharge from each regulated or manufacturing process. Both daily maximum and average concentration (or mass, where required) shall be reported. The sample shall be representative of daily operations and shall conform to sampling and analytical procedures outline in Section 9-2-5. (iii) The user shall take a minimum of one representative sample to compile that data necessary to comply with the requirements of Section 9-2-3-3(E). (iv) Where an alternate concentration or mass limit has been calculated in accordance with 40 CFR 403.6 (e) for a categorical user, this adjusted limit along with supporting data shall be submitted as part of the application. (2) Non-Categorical User (i) The user shall identify the applicable pretreatment standards for its wastewater discharge. (ii) In addition, the user shall submit the results of sampling and analysis identifying the nature and concentration in the discharge (or mass where required by the City of Meridian) of regulated pollutants contained in Section 2.1 through 2.4, as appropriate. Both daily maximum and average concentration (or mass, where required) shall be reported. The sample shall be representative of daily operations and shall conform to sampling and analytical procedures outlined in Section 5. (iii) The user shall take a minimum of one representative sample to compile that data necessary to comply with the requirements of Section 9-2-3-3(E). (iv)Where the Superintendent or designee developed alternate concentration or mass limits because of dilution, this adjusted limit along with supporting data shall be submitted as part of the application. F. Certification. The user shall submit a statement, worded as specified in Section 9-2-3- 4, which has been reviewed by an authorized representative of the user, and certified by a qualified professional, indicating whether the applicable Pretreatment Standards are being met on a consistent basis, and, if not, whether additional operation and maintenance (O and M) and/or additional pretreatment is required for the user to meet the applicable Pretreatment Standards and Requirements. PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 21 of 43 I~ G. Compliance Schedule. If additional pretreatment and/or O and M will be required to meet the applicable Pretreatment Standards, the user shall submit the shortest schedule by which the user will provide such additional pretreatment and /or O and M. The users schedule shall conform with the requirements of section 9-2-4-3. The completion date in this schedule shall not be later than the completion date established pursuant to section 9-2-2-9 of this ordinance. (1) Where the user's categorical Pretreatment Standard has been modified by a removal allowance (40 CFR 403.7), the combined wastestream formula (40 CFR 403.6(e), and/or a Fundamentally Different Factors variance (40 CFR 403.13) at the time the user submits the report required by this paragraph, the information required by paragraphs (F) and (G) of this section shall pertain to the modified limits. (2) If the categorical Pretreatment Standard is modified by a removal allowance (40 CFR 403.7), the combined wastestream formula (40 CFR 403.6(e), and/or a Fundamentally Different Factors variance (40 CFR 403.13) after the user submits the report required by paragraphs (F) and (G) of this section, then a report containing modified information shall be submitted by the user within 60 days after the new limit is approved. H. The user shall submit any other information as maybe determined necessary by the superintendent or designee to evaluate the wastewater discharge permit application. Incomplete or inaccurate applications will not be processed and will be returned to the user for revision. 9-2-3-4 Signatory and Certification Requirement All wastewater discharge permit applications and user reports must be signed by a responsible officer or manager, sole proprietor or general partner as applicable or duly authorized representative. A. For the purpose of this section, a responsible officer or manager means; a. a president, vice president, secretary, or treasurer of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar policy-or decision-making functions for the corporation, or b. the manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or operating facilities, provided, the manager is authorized to make management decisions which govern the operation of the regulated facility including having the explicit or implicit duty of making major capital investment recommendations and initiating and directing other comprehensive measures to assure long term environmental compliance with environmental laws and regulations; can ensure that the necessary systems are established or actions taken to gather complete and accurate information for control mechanism requirements; and where authority to sign documents has been. assigned or delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures. This authorization must be made in writing by the principle executive officer or ranking elected official PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 22 of 43 ~• '• and submitted to the Approval Authority prior to or together with the report being submitted of the user and contain the following certification statement: B. A duly authorized representative is an individual designated by the responsible officer, manager, sole proprietor or general partner in writing. The written authorization must be submitted to the City of Meridian and also specifies either an individual or position having the responsibility of the overall operation of the facility from with the industrial Discharge originates, such as the position of plant manager, operator of a well, or well field superintendent, or a position of equal responsibility, or having overall responsibility for environmental matters for the company. If an authorization in this section is no longer accurate because a different individual or position has responsibly for the overall operation of the facility, or overall responsibility for environmental matters for the company, a new authorization satisfying the requirements of this section must be submitted to the City of Meridian prior to or together with any reports to be signed by an authorized representative. "I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations." 9-2-3-5 Wastewater Discharge Permit Decisions. The Superintendent or designee will evaluate the data furnished by the user and may require additional information within thirty (30) days of receipt of a complete wastewater discharge permit application, the Superintendent or designee will determine whether or not to issue a wastewater discharge permit. Upon a determination to issue, the permit shall be issued within [30] days of full evaluation and acceptance of the data furnished. The Superintendent or designee may deny any application for a wastewater discharge permit. 9-2-3-6 Wastewater Discharge Permit Contents. Wastewater discharge permits shall include such conditions as are reasonably deemed necessary by the Superintendent or designee to prevent pass through or interference, protect the quality of the water body receiving the treatment plant's effluent, protect worker health and safety, facilitate bio-solids management and disposal, and protect against damage to the POTW. A. Wastewater discharge permits must contain the following conditions: (1) A statement that indicates wastewater discharge permit duration, which in no event shall exceed five (5) years; (2) A statement that the wastewater discharge permit is non-transferable without prior notification to and approval from the City of Meridian and provisions for furnishing the new owner or operator with a copy of the existing wastewater discharge permit; PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 23 of 43 ~ , r~ (3) Applicable pretreatment standards and requirements, including any special State requirements; (4) Self-monitoring, sampling, reporting, notification, submittal of technical reports, compliance schedules, and record keeping requirements. These requirements shall include an identification of pollutants to be monitored, sampling location, sampling frequency, and sample type based on Federal, State, and local law; (5) Requirements for immediate notification to the City of Meridian where self- monitoring results indicate non-compliance; (6) Requirement to report a bypass or upset of a pretreatment facility; (7) Requirement to report immediately to the City of Meridian all discharges, including slug loadings, that could cause problems to the POTW; (8) Requirement for the SILJ who reports non-compliance to repeat the sampling and analysis and submit results to the City of Meridian within 30 days after becoming aware of the violation; (9) A statement of applicable civil, criminal, and administrative penalties for violation of pretreatment standards and requirements, and any applicable compliance schedule. (10) Requirements to control Slug discharges, if determined by the POTW to be necessary. B. Wastewater discharge permits may contain, but need not be limited to, the following conditions: (1) Limits on the average and/or maximum rate of discharge, time of discharge, and/or requirements for flow regulation and equalization; (2) Requirements for the installation of pretreatment technology, pollution control, or construction of appropriate containment devices, designed to reduce, eliminate, or prevent the introduction of pollutants into the treatment works; (3) Requirements for the development and implementation of spill control plans or other special conditions including management practices necessary to adequately prevent any or all unwanted discharges; (4) Development and implementation of waste minimisation plans to reduce the amount of pollutants discharged to the POTW; (5) The unit charge or schedule of user charges and fees for the management of the wastewater discharged to the POTW; (6) Requirements for installation and maintenance of inspection and sampling facilities and equipment; (7) A statement that compliance with the wastewater discharge permit does not relieve the permittee of responsibility for compliance with all applicable Federal and State pretreatment standards, including those which become effective during the term of the wastewater discharge permit; (8) Any special agreements the Superintendent or designee chooses to continue or develop between the City of Meridian and user; (9) Other conditions as deemed appropriate by the Superintendent or designee to ensure compliance with this ordinance, and State and Federal laws, rules, and regulations PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 24 of 43 r• '~ 9-2-3-7 Wastewater Discharge Permit Appeals Any person, including the user, may petition the City of Meridian to reconsider the terms of a wastewater discharge permit within (30) days of its issuance. A. Failure to submit a timely petition for review shall be deemed to be a waiver of the administrative appeal. B. In its petition, the appealing party must indicate the wastewater discharge permit provisions objected to, the reasons for this objection, and the alternative condition, if any, it seeks to place in the wastewater discharge permit. C. The effectiveness of the wastewater discharge permit shall not be stayed pending the appeal. D. If the City of Meridian fails to act within (20) days, a request for reconsideration shall be deemed to be denied. Decisions not to reconsider a wastewater discharge pernut, not to issue a wastewater discharge permit, or not to modify a wastewater discharge permit shall be considered final administrative actions for purposes of judicial review. E. Aggrieved parties seeking judicial review of the final administrative wastewater discharge permit decision must do so by filing a complaint with the Meridian Board of Appraisers by filing a written request for appeal with the Meridian City Clerk within ten (10) days after the decision of the Superintendent is postmarked for mailing to the appellant. The Board of Appraisers shall hold a hearing on the appeal. The appealing party may appear and present evidence and testimony at such hearing. The decision of the Board of Appraisers regarding the petition shall be in writing. F. The decision of the Board of Appraisers maybe appealed to the City Council by filing a notice requesting appeal with the City Clerk's office within ten (10) days after the decision is postmarked for mailing. The City Council may, in its discretion, decide the appeal based solely upon the facts determined by the Board of Appraisers. The decision of the City Council becomes final when it is postmarked for mailing to the appellant. G Aggrieved parties seeking judicial review of a final administrative decision made pursuant to this chapter must do so by filing a complaint with the Clerk of the Court of Ada County, Idaho, within twenty-eight (28) days after the date the decision becomes final. 9-2-3-5 Wastewater Discharge Permit Duration. Wastewater discharge permits shall be issued for a specified time period, not to exceed five (5) years. A wastewater discharge permit maybe issued for a period less than five (5) years, at the discretion of the Superintendent or designee. Each wastewater discharge permit will indicate a specific date upon which it will expire. 9-2-3-9 Wastewater Discharge Permit Modification. The Superintendent or designee may modify the wastewater discharge permit for good cause including, but is not limited to, the following: A. To incorporate any new or revised Federal, State, or local pretreatment standards or requirements; B. To address significant alterations or additions to the user's operation, processes, or PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 25 of 43 • ~~ wastewater volume or character since the time of wastewater discharge permit issuance; C. A change in the POTW that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized discharge; D. Information indicating that the permitted discharge poses a threat to the City of Meridian POTW, City personnel, or the receiving waters; E. Violation of any terms or conditions of the wastewater discharge permit; F. Misrepresentations or failure to fully disclose all relevant facts in the wastewater discharge permit application or in any required report; G. Revision of or a grant of variance from categorical pretreatment standards pursuant to 40 CFR 403.13; H. To correct typographical or other errors in the wastewater discharge permit; I. To reflect a transfer of the facility ownership or operation to a new owner or operator. J. To incorporate special conditions resulting from the issuance of a special order or an enforcement action by the City of Meridian. 9-2-3-10 Wastewater Discharge Permit Transfer Wastewater discharge permits may be reassigned or transferred to a new owner and/or operator only if the permittee gives at least ninety (90) days-advance notice to the Superintendent or designee and the Superintendent or designee approves the wastewater discharge permit transfer. The notice to the Superintendent or designee must include a written certification by the new owner or operator which: A. States that the new owner and/or operator has no immediate intent to change the facility's operations and processes; B. Identifies the specific date on which the transfer is to occur; and C. Assumes full responsibility for complying with the existing wastewater discharge permit beginning on the date of the transfer. Failure to provide advance notice of a transfer renders the wastewater discharge permit voidable as of the date of facility transfer. Provided that the notice required above occurred and that there were no significant changes to the manufacturing operation or wastewater discharge, the new owner will be considered an existing user and will be covered by the existing limits and requirements in the previous owner's permit. 9-2-3-11 Wastewater Discharge Permit Revocation Wastewater discharge permits may be revoked for, but not limited to, the following reasons: A. Failure to notify the Superintendent or designee of significant changes prior to the changed discharge; B. Failure to provide prior notification to the Superintendent or designee of changed conditions; C. Misrepresentation or failure to fully disclose all relevant facts in the wastewater discharge permit application; D. Falsifying self-monitoring reports; E. Tampering with monitoring equipment; PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 26 of 43 r" • F. Refusing to allow the Superintendent or designee immediate access to the facility premises and records upon request; G. Failure to meet effluent limitations; H. Failure to pay fines or fees; I. Failure to pay sewer charges; J. Failure to meet compliance schedules; K. Failure to complete a wastewater survey or the wastewater discharge permit application L. Failure to provide advance notice of the transfer of a permitted facility; or M. If the Superintendent or designee has to invoke its emergency provision as cited in Section 9-2-9-2 of the ordinance. N. Violation of any pretreatment standard or requirement, or any terms of the wastewater discharge permit or this ordinance. Wastewater discharge permits shall be void upon cessation of operations or transfer of business ownership unless specified in section 9-2-3-10. All wastewater discharge permits issued to a particular user are void upon the issuance of a new wastewater discharge permit to that user. 9-2-3-12 Wastewater Discharge Permit Re-Issuance. A user who is required to have a wastewater discharge permit shall apply for wastewater discharge permit re-issuance by submitting a completed wastewater discharge permit application, in accordance with Section 9-2-3 of this ordinance, a minimum of sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the user's existing wastewater discharge permit. A user, whose existing discharge permit has expired and has submitted its re-application in the time period specified herein shall be deemed to have an effective discharge permit until the Superintendent or designee issues or denies a new discharge permit. A user whose existing discharge permit has expired and who failed to submit a re-application in the time period specified herein will be deemed to be discharging without a discharge permit in violation of this ordinance. SECTION 9-2-4 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 9-2-4-1 Final Compliance Report (Initial Compliance Report). A. Within 90 days following the date for final compliance of an existing Significant Industrial User with applicable pretreatment standards and requirements set forth in this ordinance, in federal categorical standards, or in a wastewater discharge permit, or, in the case of a new source or a new user considered by the City of Meridian to fit the definition of SIU, within 90 days following commencement of the introduction of wastewater into the POTW, the affected user shall submit to the City of Meridian an initial compliance report containing the information outlined in Paragraph (D)-(F) of Section 9-2-3-3. B. For users subject to equivalent mass of concentration limits established by the City of Meridian in accordance with procedures established in CFR 40 403.6 (e), this report shall contain a reasonable measure of the users long term production PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 27 of 43 ~ r! rate. For all other users subject to categorical pretreatment standards expressed in terms of allowable pollutant discharge per unit of production (or other measure of operation), this report shall include the users actual production during the appropriate sampling period. 9-2-4-2 Period Compliance Report A Any user that is required to have an industrial waste discharge permit and performs self-monitoring shall comply with all applicable requirements under CFR 403.12 and submit to the City of Meridian during the months of June and December, unless required on other dates or more frequently by the City of Meridian, a report indicating the nature of the effluent over the previous reporting period. The frequency of monitoring shall be as prescribed within the industrial waste discharge permit. At a minimum, users shall sample their discharge at least twice per year. B. The report shall include a record of the concentrations (and mass if specified in the wastewater discharge permit) of the pollutants listed in the wastewater discharge permit that were measured and a record of all flow measurements (average and maximum) taken at the designated sample locations and shall also include any additional information required by this ordinance or the wastewater discharge permit. Production data shall be reported if required by the wastewater discharge permit. Both daily maximum and average concentrations (or mass, where required) shall be reported. If a user sampled and analyzed more frequently than was required by the City of Meridian or by this ordinance, using methodologies in 40 CFR Part 136, it must submit all results of sampling and analysis of the discharge during the reporting period. C. Any user subject to equivalent mass or concentration limits established by the City of Meridian or by unit production limits specified in the applicable categorical standards shall report production data as outlined in Section 9-2-4-2 (B). D. If the City of Meridian calculated limits to factor out dilution ornon-regulated flows, the user will be responsible for providing flows from the regulated process flows, dilution flows and non-regulated flows. E. Flows shall be reported on the basis of actual measurement, provided, however, that the City of Meridian may accept reports of average and maximum flows estimated by verifiable techniques if the City of Meridian determines that an actual measurement is not feasible. F. Discharges sampled shall be representative of the user daily operations and samples shall be taken in accordance with the requirements specified in section 9- 2-5. G. The City of Meridian may require reporting by users that are not required to have an industrial wastewater discharge permit, in accordance to 40 CFR 403.12(h), if information or data is needed to establish a sewer charge, determine the treatability of the effluent, or determine any other factor which is related to the operation and maintenance of the sewer system. PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 28 of 43 i~ • ~ • H. The City of Meridian may require self-monitoring by the user or, if requested by the user, may agree to perform the periodic compliance monitoring needed to prepare the periodic compliance report required under this section. If the City of Meridian agrees to perform such periodic compliance monitoring, it may charge the user for such monitoring, based upon the costs incurred by the City of Meridian for the sampling and analysis. Any such charges shall be added to the normal sewer charge and shall be payable as part of the sewer bills. The City of Meridian is under no obligation to perform periodic compliance monitoring for a user. 9-2-4-3 Compliance Schedules for Meeting Applicable Pretreatment Standards A. The schedule shall contain increments of progress in the form of dates for the commencement and completion of major events leading to the construction and operation of additional pretreatment required for the user to meet the applicable pretreatment standards (e.g., hiring an engineer, completing preliminary plans, completing final plans, executing contract for major components, commencing construction, completing construction, etc.). B. No increment referred to in a paragraph (A) of this section shall exceed 9 months. C. Not later than 14 days. following each date in the schedule and the final date for compliance, the user shall submit a progress report to the City of Meridian including, at a minimum, whether or not it complied with the increment of progress to be met on such date and, if not, the date on which it expects to comply with this increment of progress, the reason for delay, and the steps being taken by the user to return the construction to the schedule established. In no event shall more than 9 months elapse between such progress reports. 9-2-4-4 Notification of Significant Production Changes Any user operating under a wastewater discharge permit incorporating equivalent mass or concentration limits shall notify the City of Meridian within two (2) business days after the user has a reasonable basis to know that the production level will significantly change within the next calendar month. Any user not providing a notice of such anticipated change will be required to comply with the existing limits contained in its wastewater discharge permit. 9-2-4-5Hazardous Waste Notification Any user that is discharging more than 15 kilograms of hazardous waste as defined in 40 CFR 261 (listed or characteristic wastes) in a calendar month or any facility discharging any amount of acutely hazardous wastes as specified in 40 CFR 261.30 (d) and 261.33(e) is required to provide a one time notification in writing to the City of Meridian, to the EPA Region 10 Office of Air, Waste and Toxics Director, and to the State of Idaho Department of Environmental Quality Hazardous Waste Division. Any existing user exempt from this notification shall comply with the requirements contained within 30 days of becoming aware of a discharge of 15 kilograms of hazardous wastes in a calendar month or any discharge of acutely hazardous wastes to the City of Meridian sewer system. Such notification shall include: PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 29 of 43 ( • i~ • A. The name of the hazardous waste as set forth in 40 CFR Part 261, B. The EPA Hazardous waste number; and C. The type of discharge (continuous, batch, or other). D. If an industrial user discharges more than 100 kilograms of such waste per calendar month to the sewer system, the notification shall also contain the following information to the extent it is known or readily available to the industrial user: (1) An identification of the hazardous constituents contained in the wastes. (2) An estimation of the mass and concentration of such constituents in the wastestreams discharged during that calendar month, and (3) An estimation of the mass of constituents in the wastestreams expected to be discharged during the following 12 months. These notification requirements do not apply to pollutants akeady reported under the self- monitoring requirements. Whenever the EPA publishes the final rules identifying additional hazardous waste or new characteristics of hazardous waste, a user shall notify the City of Meridian of the discharge of such a substance within 90 days of the effective date of such regulations. In the case of any notification made under Section 9-2-4-5, an industrial user shall certify that it has a program in place to reduce the volume and toxicity of hazardous wastes generated to the degree it has determined to be economically practical. 9-2-4-6 Notice of Potential Problems Including Accidental Spills, Slug Loads Any user shall notify the Superintendent or designee immediately of all discharges that could cause problems to the POTW, including any slug loads, as defined in Section 9-2-1-4. The notification shall include the concentration and volume and corrective action. Steps being taken to reduce any adverse impact should also be noted during the notification. Any user who discharges a slug load of pollutants shall be liable for any expense, loss, or damage to the POTW, in addition to the amount of any fines imposed on the City of Meridian under state or federal law. 9-2-4-7 Non-compliance Reporting If sampling performed by a user indicates a violation, the user shall notify the Superintendent or designee within 24 hours of becoming aware of the violation. The user shall also repeat the sampling within 5 days and submit the results of the repeat analysis to the POTW within 30 days after becoming aware of the violation [Where the Control Authority has performed the sampling and analysis in lieu of the Industrial User, the Control Authority must perform the repeat sampling and analysis unless it notifies the User of the violation and Requires the User to perform the repeat analysis]. Re-sampling is not required if: A. The POTW performs sampling at the Industrial User at a frequency of at least once per month, or PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 30 of 43 • B. The POTW performs sampling at the User between the time the initial sampling was conducted and the time when the User or POTW receives the results of this sampling. 9-2-4-8 Notification of Changed Discharge All users shall promptly notify the Superintendent or designee in advance of any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants in their discharge, including significant manufacturing process changes, pretreatment modifications, and the listed or characteristic hazardous wastes for which the user has submitted initial notification under 40 CFR 403.12 (p). 9-2-4-9 Reports from Un-permitted Users All users not required to obtain a wastewater discharge permit shall provide appropriate reports to the City of Meridian as the Superintendent or designee may require. 9-2-4-10 Record Keeping Users subject to the reporting requirements of this ordinance shall retain, and make available for inspection and copying, all records of information obtained pursuant to any monitoring activities required by this ordinance and any additional records of information obtained pursuant to monitoring activities undertaken by the user independent of such requirements. Records shall include the date, exact place, method, and time of sampling, and the name of the person(s) taking the samples; the dates analyses were performed; who performed the analyses; the analytical techniques or methods used; and the results of such analyses. These records shall remain available for a period of at least three (3) years. This period shall be automatically extended for the duration of any litigation concerning the user or POTW, or where the user has been specifically notified of a longer retention period by the Superintendent or designee. SECTION 9-2-5 SAMPLING AND ANALYTICAL REQUIREMENTS 9-2-5-1 Sampling Requirements For Users A. Grab samples must be used for pH, cyanide, total phenols, oil and grease, sulfide, and volatile organic compounds. For all other pollutants, 24 hour composite samples must be obtained through flow proportional composite sampling techniques, unless time- proportional composite sampling or grab sampling is authorized by the control authority, the samples must be representative of the Discharge and the decision to allow the alternative sampling must be documented in the Industrial User file for that facility or facilities. Using protocols (including appropriate preservation) specified in 40 CFR Part 136 and appropriate EPA guidance, multiple grab samples collected during a 24-hour period maybe composited prior to the analysis as follows: for cyanide, total phenols, and sulfides the sample maybe composited in the laboratory. Composite samples for other parameters unaffected by compositing procedures as documented in approved EPA methodologies maybe authorized by the Superintendent or designee, as appropriate. B. For sampling required in support of baseline monitoring and 90-day compliance reports, a minimum of four (4) grab samples must be used for pH, cyanide, total phenols, oil and grease, sulfide and volatile organic compounds for facilities for which historical sampling data do not exist, for facilities for which historical PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 31 of 43 f~ sampling data are available, the Superintendent or designee may authorize a lower minimum. For the reports required by 40CFR 403.12 (e) and (h), the Superintendent or designee shall require the number of grab samples necessary to assess and assure compliance by Industrial Users with Applicable Pretreatment Standards and Requirements. C. Samples shall be taken immediately downstream from pretreatment facilities if such exist, immediately downstream from the regulated or manufacturing process if no pretreatment exists, or at a location determined by the City of Meridian and specified in the user's wastewater discharge permit. For categorical user's, if other wastewaters are mixed with the regulated wastewater prior to pretreatment, the user shall measure the flows and concentrations necessary to allow use of the combined wastewater formula of 40 CFR 403.6 (e) in order to evaluate compliance with the Categorical Pretreatment Standards. For other SIUs, for which the City of Meridian has adjusted its local limits to factor out dilution flows, the user shall measure the flows and concentrations necessary to evaluate compliance with the adjusted pretreatment standard(s). D. All sample results shall indicate the time, date and place of sampling and methods of analysis and shall certify that the wastestream sampled is representative of normal work cycles and expected pollutant discharges from the user. If a user sampled and analyzed more frequently than was required in its wastewater discharge permit, using methodologies in 40 CFR Part 136, it must submit all results of sampling and analysis of the discharge as part of its self-monitoring report. 9-2-5-2 Analytical Requirements All pollutant analyses, including sampling techniques, shall be performed in accordance with the techniques prescribed in 40 CFR Part 136, unless otherwise specified in an applicable categorical pretreatment standard. If 40 CFR Part 136 does not contain sampling or analytical techniques for the pollutant in question, sampling and analyses must be performed in accordance with procedures approved by the EPA. 9-2-5-3 The City of Meridian Monitoring of User's Wastewater The City of Meridian will follow the same procedures as outlined in Sections 9-2-5-1 and 9-2-5- 2. SECTION 9-2-6 COMPLIANCE MONITORING 9-2-6-1 Inspection and Sampling The City of Meridian shall have the right to enter the facilities of any user to ascertain whether the purpose of this ordinance and any wastewater discharge permit or order issued hereunder is being met and whether the user is complying with all requirements thereof. Users shall allow the Superintendent or designee ready access to all parts of the premises for the purposes of inspection, sampling, records examination and copying, and the performance of any additional duties. A. Where a user has security measures in force which require proper identification and PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 32 of 43 • clearance before entry into its premises, the user shall make necessary arrangements with its security guards so that, upon presentation of suitable identification the Superintendent, or designee, will be Xiermitted to enter without delay for the purposes of performing specific responsibilities. B. The Superintendent or designee shall have the right to set up on the user's property, or require installation o~f, such devices as are necessary to conduct sampling and/or metering of the user's operations. C. Any temporary or permanent obstruction to safe and easy access to the facility to be inspected and/or sampled shall be promptly removed by the user at the written or verbal request of the Superintendent or designee and shall not be replaced. The costs of clearing such access shall be borne by the user. D. Unreasonable delays in allowing the Superintendent or designee access to the user's premises shall be a violation of the ordinance. 9-2-6-2 Monitoring Facilities Each user shall provide and operate at its own expense a monitoring facility to allow inspection, sampling and flow measurement of each sewer discharge to the City of Meridian. Each monitoring facility shall be situated on the user's premises, except, where such a location would be impractical or cause undue hardship on the user, the City of Meridian may concur with the facility being constructed in the public street or sidewalk area, providing that the facility is located so that it will not be obstructed by landscaping or parked vehicles. The Superintendent or designee, whenever applicable, may require the construction and maintenance of sampling facilities at other locations (iEor example, at the end of a manufacturing line or a wastewater treatment system). There shall be ample room in or near such sampling facility to allow accurate sampling and preparation of samples for analysis. The facility, sampling and measuring equipment shall be maintained at all times in a ~;afe and proper operating condition at the expense of the user. The Superintendent or designee may require the user to install monitoring equipment as necessary. All monitoring f ~cilities shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with all applicable local constructions standards and specifications. All devices used to measure wastewater flow and quality shall be calibrated to ensure their accuracy. 9-2-6-3 Search Warrants If the Superintendent or designee has been refused access to a building, structure, or property, or any part thereof, and is able to demonstrate probable cause to believe that there maybe a violation of this ordinance, or that there is a need to inspect as part of a routine inspection program of the City of Meridian designed to verify compliance with this ordinance or any wastewater discharge permit: or order issued hereunder, or to protect the overall public health, safety and welfare of the community, then the Superintendent or designee shall seek issuance of a search and/or seizure warrant from the Court of proper jurisdiction located in Ada County, Idaho. Such warrant shall be served at reasonable hours by the Superintendent or designee in the company of a uniformed police officer of the City of Meridian. 9-2-6-4 Vandalism No person shall willfully or negligently break, damage, destroy, uncover, deface, tamper with, or prevent access to any structure, appurtenance or equipment, or other part of the POTW. Any PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 33 of 43 r 1 • person found in violation of'this requirement shall be subject to the sanctions set out in this ordinance. SECTION 9-2-7 - CONFII]IENTIAL INFORMATION Information and data on a user obtained from reports, surveys, wastewater discharge permit applications, wastewater dis~~harge permits, monitoring programs, City of Meridian inspection and sampling activities, shalil be available to the public without restriction, unless the user specifically requests, and is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Superintendent or designee, that the release of isuch information would divulge information, processes, or methods of production entitled to proiCection as trade secrets under applicable State law. When requested and demonstrated by the usar furnishing a report that such information should be held confidential, the portions of a report which might disclose trade secrets or secret processes shall not be made available for inspection by the public, but shall be made available immediately upon request to governmental age~acies for uses related to the NPDES program or pretreatment program, and in enforcement proceedings involving the person furnishing the report. Wastewater constituents and characteristics and other "effluent data" as defined by 40 CFR 2.302 will not be recognized as confidential irl~formation and will be available to the public without restriction. SECTION 9-2-8 PUBLIC~-TION OF USERS IN SIGNIFICANT NONCOMPLIANCE The City of Meridian shall publish annually, in a newspaper(s) of general circulation that provides meaningful public ;notice within the jurisdiction(s) served by the POTW, a list of the users which, during the previous twelve (12) months, were in significant noncompliance with applicable pretreatment standards or requirements. For the purposes of this provision, an industrial user in significant noncompliance if its violation meets one or more of the following criteria: A. Chronic violations of wastewater discharge limits, defined here as those in which sixty-six percent (66%) or more of wastewater measurements taken during a six (6) month period exceed (by any magnitude) a numeric Pretreatment Standard or Requirement, ingluding instantaneous limits, as defined by 40 CFR 403.3(1); B. , #~ee-p~e~t-{~ p~a~~~~g ~a a ,,,. v®,,,,;,-o.,.,o„+ .,~ ao~„sa i.., A!1 C~17 ~L1Z-Z 111 .Y.,,14;,.1;ea 1,., ,-t,o •rn r rru r-i ~ .. > > TecYunical Review Criteria (TRC) violations, defined here as those in which thirty-three ercent 33%1 or more of wastewater measurements taken for each pollutant parameter durin a six 6) month period equals or exceeds the product of the defined by 40 CI'R 403.30 multi ley the TRC [TRC=1.4 for BOD, TSS, fats, oils and egr ase, and'/2 for all other pollutants except pHl; C. Any other discharge violation of a Pretreatment Standard or Requirement as defined PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 34 of 43 f ~ '` by 40 CFR 403.3 (1) (daily maximum, longer-term average, instantaneous limit, or narrative Standard) that the POTW determines has caused, alone or in combination with any discharges, interference or pass through (including endangering the health of POTW personnel or the general public); D. Any discharge of pollutant that has caused imminent endangerment to the public or to the environment, or has caused the Superintendent or designee to exercise its emergency authority to halt or prevent such a discharge; E. Failure to meet, within ninety (90) days of the'scheduled date, a compliance schedule milestone contained in a wastewater discharge permit or enforcement order for starting construction, completing construction, or attaining final compliance; F. Failure to provide within thirty (30) days after the due date, any required reports, including baseline monitoring reports, reports on compliance with categorical pretreatment standard deadlines, periodic self-monitoring reports, and reports on compliance with compliance schedules; G. Failure to accurately report noncompliance; or H. Any other violation or group of violations, which may include a violation of Best Managements Practices, which the POTW determines will adversely affect the operation or implementation of the local Pretreatment program. SECTION 9-2-9 ADMINISTRATIVE ENFORCEMENT REMEDIES 9-2-9-1 Notification of Violation When the Superintendent or designee finds that a user has violated (or continues to violate) any provision of this ordinance, a wastewater discharge permit or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement, the Superintendent or designee may serve upon that user a written Notice of Violation [via certified letter]. Within twenty (20) days of the receipt of this notice, an explanation of the violation and a plan for the satisfactory correction and prevention thereof, to include specific required actions, shall be submitted by the user to the Superintendent or designee. Submission of this plan in no way relieves the user of liability for any violations occurring before or after receipt of the Notice of Violation. Nothing in this section shall limit the authority of the Superintendent or designee to take any action, including emergency actions or any other enforcement action, without first issuing a Notice of Violation. 9-2-9-2 Consent Orders The Superintendent or designee may enter into Consent Orders, assurances of voluntary compliance, or other similar documents establishing an agreement with any user responsible for noncompliance. Such documents will include specific action to be taken by the user to correct the noncompliance within a time period specified by the document. Such documents shall have the same force and effect as the administrative orders issued pursuant to Sections 9-2-9-4 and 9-2-9-5 of this ordinance and shall be judicially enforceable. Use of a consent Order shall not be a bar against, or prerequisite for, taking any action against the user. PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 35 of 43 (~ ~ / 9-2-9-3 Show Cause Hearing The Superintendent or designee may order via a certified letter a user which has violated, or continues to violate, any provision of this ordinance, a wastewater discharge permit or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement, to appear before the Superintendent or designee and show cause why the proposed enforcement action should not be taken. Notice shall be served on the user specifying the time and place for the meeting, the proposed enforcement action, the reasons for such action, and a request that the user show cause why the proposed enforcement action should not be taken. The notice of the meeting shall be served personally or by registered or certified mail (return receipt requested) at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. Such notice maybe served on any authorized representative of the user. A show cause hearing shall not be a bar against, or prerequisite for, taking any other action against the user. 9-2-9-4 Compliance Orders When the Superintendent or designee finds that a user has violated or continues to violate any provisions of this ordinance, a wastewater discharge permit or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement, the Superintendent or designee may issue an order to the user responsible for the discharge directing that the user come into compliance within a time specified in that order. If the user does not come into compliance within the time specified in the order, sewer service maybe discontinued unless adequate treatment facilities, devices, or other related appurtenances are installed and properly operated. Compliance orders may also contain other requirements to address the non-compliance; including additional self-monitoring, and management practices designed to minimize the amount of pollutants discharged to the sewer. Issuance of a compliance order shall not be a bar against, or a prerequisite for, taking any other action against the user. 9-2-9-5 Cease and Desist Orders When the Superintendent or designee finds that a user has violated (or continues to violate) any provision of this ordinance, a wastewater discharge permit or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement, or that the user's past violations are likely to recur, the Superintendent or designee may issue an order to the user directing it to cease and desist all such violations and directing the user to: 1. Immediately comply with all requirements; and 2. Take such appropriate remedial or preventive action as may be needed to properly address a continuing or threatened violation, including halting operations and/or terminating the discharge. Issuance of a cease and desist order shall not be a bar against, or a prerequisite for, taking any other action against the user. 9-2-9-6 Administrative Fines A. When the Superintendent or designee finds that a user has violated, or continues to violate any provision of this ordinance, a wastewater discharge permit or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement, the Superintendent or designee may fine such user in an amount not to exceed One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per violation. Such fines shall be assessed on a per violation, per day basis. In the case of monthly or other term average discharge limits, fines shall be PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 36 of 43 • J. assessed for each day during the period of violation. B. Unpaid charges, fines, and penalties shall after thirty (30) calendar days, be assessed an additional penalty of one percent (1%) of the unpaid balance, and interest shall accrue thereafter at a rate of one percent (1%) per month. Alien against the user's property will be sought for unpaid charges, fines, and penalties. C. Users desiring to dispute such fines must file a written request for the Superintendent or designee to reconsider the fine along with full payment of the fine amount within thirty (30) days of being notified of the fine. Where a request has merit, The Superintendent or designee shall convene a hearing on the matter within ten (10) days of receiving the request from the user. In the event the user's appeal is successful, the payment, together with any interest accruing thereto, shall be returned to the user. The City of Meridian may add costs of preparing administrative actions, such as notices and orders, to the fine. D. Issuance of an administrative fine shall not be a bar against, or a prerequisite for, taking any other action against the user. 9-2-9-7- Emergency Suspension of Service and Revocation of Permit The Superintendent or designee may, immediately suspend a user's discharge (after informal notice to the user) whenever such suspension is necessary to stop an actual or threatened discharge which reasonably appears to present or cause an imminent or substantial endangerment to the health or welfare of persons. The Superintendent or designee may also immediately suspend a user's discharge (after notice and opportunity to respond) that threatens to interfere with the operation of the POTW or which presents or may present an endangerment to the environment. The City shall have the authority to physically cap, block or seal the user's sewer line (whether on public or private property) in order to terminate service under this Section. The City shall have the right to enter upon the user's property to accomplish the capping, blocking or sealing of the user's sewer line. The City may reinstate the wastewater treatment service upon clear and convincing proof by the user of the elimination of the non-complying discharge or condition creating the threat as set forth above. A. Any user notified of a suspension of its discharge shall immediately stop or eliminate its contribution. In the event of a user's failure to immediately comply voluntarily with the suspension order, the Superintendent or designee shall take such steps as deemed necessary, including immediate severance of the sewer connection, to prevent or minimise danger to the POTW, its receiving stream, or endangerment to any individuals. The Superintendent or designee shall allow the user to recommence its discharge when the user has demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City of Meridian that the period of endangerment has passed, unless the termination proceedings in Section 9-2-2-8 of this ordinance are initiated against the user. B. A user that is responsible, in whole or in part, for any discharge presenting imminent endangerment shall submit a detailed written statement, describing the causes of the harmful contribution and the measures taken to prevent any future occurrence, to the Superintendent or designee prior to the date of any show cause or termination hearing in Section 9-2-9-3 and 9-2-9- 8 of this ordinance. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as requiring a hearing prior to any emergency suspension under this section. PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 37 of 43 ~ ~ ~ 9-2-9-8 Termination of Discharge (Non-Emergency) In addition to the provisions contained in Section 9-2-12 of this ordinance, any user who violates the following conditions is subject to discharge termination: A. Violation of wastewater discharge permit conditions; B. Failure to accurately report the wastewater constituents and characteristics of its discharge; C. Failure to report significant changes in operations or wastewater volume, constituents, and characteristics prior to discharge; D. Refusal of reasonable access to the user's premises for the purpose of inspection, monitoring, or sampling; or E. Violation of the pretreatment standards in Section 2 of this ordinance. Such user will be notified of the proposed termination of its discharge and be offered an opportunity to show cause under Section 9-2-3 of this ordinance why the proposed action should not be taken. Exercise of this option by the City of Meridian shall not be a bar to, or a prerequisite for, taking any other action against the user. SECTION 9-2-10 -JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT REMEDIES 9-2-10-1 Injunctive Relief When the Superintendent or designee finds that a user has violated (or continues to violate) any provision of this ordinance, a wastewater discharge permit, or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement, the Superintendent or designee may petition the Fourth Judicial District Court of Ada County, Idaho through the City of Meridian's Attorney for the issuance of a temporary or permanent injunction, as appropriate, which restrains or compels the specific performance of the wastewater discharge permit, order, or other requirement imposed by this ordinance on activities of the user. The Superintendent or designee may also seek such other action as is appropriate for legal and/or equitable relief, including a requirement for the user to conduct environmental remediation. A petition for injunctive relief shall not be a bar against, or a prerequisite for, taking any other action against a user. 9-2-10-Z Civil Penalties A. A user who has violated, or continues to violate, any provision of this ordinance, a wastewater discharge permit, or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement shall be liable to the City of Meridian for a maximum civil penalty of One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) per violation, per day. In the case of a monthly or other long-term average discharge limit, penalties shall accrue for each day during the period of the violation. B. The Superintendent or designee may recover reasonable attorneys' fees, court costs, and other expenses associated with enforcement activities, including sampling and monitoring expenses, and the cost of any actual damages incurred by the City of Meridian. C. In determining the amount of civil liability, the Court shall take into account all relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to, the extent of harm caused by PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 38 of 43 • the violation, the magnitude and duration of the violation, any economic benefit gained through the user's violation, corrective actions by the user, the compliance history of the user, and any other factor as justice requires. D. Filing a suit for civil penalties shall not be a bar against, or a prerequisite for, taking any other action against a user. 9-2-10-3 Criminal Prosecution A user which has willfully or recklessly violates any provision of this ordinance, a wastewater discharge permit, or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be prosecuted and punished accordingly. In addition, a user who knowingly makes any false statements, representations, or certifications in any application, record, report, plan, or other documentation filed, or required to be maintained, pursuant to this ordinance, wastewater discharge permit, or order issued hereunder, or who falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or method required under this ordinance, shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be prosecuted and punished accordingly. 9-2-10-4 Remedies Non-exclusive The remedies provided for in this ordinance are not exclusive. The City of Meridian may take any, all, or any combination of these actions against a noncompliant user. Further, the City of Meridian is empowered to take more than one enforcement action against any noncompliant user. These actions maybe taken concurrently. SECTION 9-2-11-- SUPPLEMENTAL ENFORCEMENT ACTION 9-2-11-1 Performance Bonds The Superintendent or designee may decline to issue or reissue a wastewater discharge permit to any user who has failed to comply with any provision of this ordinance, a previous wastewater discharge permit, or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement, unless such user first files a satisfactory bond, payable to the City of Meridian, in a sum not to exceed a value determined by the Superintendent or designee to be necessary to achieve consistent compliance. 9-2-11-2 Water Supply Severance Whenever a user has violated or continues to violate any provision of this ordinance, a wastewater discharge permit, or order issued hereunder, or any other pretreatment standard or requirement, water service to the user maybe severed. Service will only recommence, at the user's expense, after it has satisfactorily demonstrated its ability to comply. SECTION 9-2-12 -AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES TO DISCHARGE VIOLATIONS 9-2-12-1 Upset A. For the purposes of this section, upset means an exceptional incident in which there is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with categorical pretreatment PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 39 of 43 ~ ~ ~ standards because of factors beyond the reasonable control of the user. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or careless or improper operation. B. An upset shall constitute an affirmative defense to an action brought for noncompliance with categorical pretreatment standazds if the requirements of paragraph (C), below, are met. C. A user who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence that: (1) An upset occurred and the user can identify the cause(s) of the upset; (2) The facility was at the time being operated in a prudent and workman-like manner and in compliance with applicable operation and maintenance procedures; and (3) The user has submitted the following information to the Superintendent or designee within twenty-four (24) hours of becoming awaze of the upset [if this information is provided orally, a written submission must be provided within five (5) working days]: (a) A description of the discharge and cause of noncompliance; (b) The period ofnon-compliance, including exact dates and times or, if not corrected, the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue; and (c) Steps being taken and/or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the noncompliance. D. In any enforcement proceeding, the user seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset shall have the burden of proof. E. Users will have the opportunity for a judicial determination on any claim of upset only in an enforcement action brought for non-compliance with applicable pretreatment standazds. F. Users shall control production of all discharges to the extent necessary to maintain compliance with applicable pretreatment standards upon reduction, loss, or failure of its treatment facility until the facility is restored or an alternative method of treatment is provided. This requirement applies in the situation where, among other things, the primary source of power of the treatment facility is reduced, lost, or fails. 9-2-12-2 Prohibited Discharge Standards A user shall have an affirmative defense to an enforcement action brought against it for noncompliance with the prohibitions in Section ~'L1-A-agd~'_ ` +~~^~~^~" '' 9-2-2-1A and 1B and sections 9-2-2-2 throu 9-2-2-4 if it can prove that it did not know, or have reason to know, that its discharge, alone or in conjunction with discharges from other sources, would cause pass through or interference and that either : (a) a local limit exists for each pollutant dischazged and the user was in compliance with each limit directly prior to, and during, the pass through or interference; or (b) no local limit exists, but the discharge did not change substantially in nature or constituents from the user's prior discharge when the City was regulazly in compliance with its NPDES permit, and in the case of interference, was in compliance with applicable bio-solids use or disposal requirements. PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 40 of 43 ' • ~~ 9-Z-12-3 Bypass A. For the purposes of this section, (1) "Bypass" means the intentional or unintentional diversion of waste streams from any portion of a user's treatment facility. (2) "Severe property damage" means substantial physical damage to property, damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays in production. B. A user may allow a bypass to occur which does not cause applicable pretreatment standards or requirements to be violated, but only for essential maintenance to ensure efficient operation. These bypasses are not subject to the provision of paragraphs C and D of this section. C. Notice of Bypass (1) If a user knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice to the Superintendent or designee, at least ten (10) days before the date of the bypass, if possible. (2) A user shall submit oral notice to the City of an unanticipated bypass that exceeds applicable pretreatment standards within twenty-four (24) hours from the time it becomes aware of the bypass. A written submission shall also be provided within five (5) days of the time the user becomes aware of the bypass. The written submission shall contain a description of the bypass and its cause; the duration of the bypass, including exact dates and times, and, if the bypass has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent reoccurrence of the bypass. The POTW may waive the written report on a case-by-case basis if the oral report has been received within twenty four (24) hours. D. Bypass Conditions (1) Bypass is prohibited, and the POTW may take an enforcement action against a user for a bypass, unless (a) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; (b) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime. This condition is not satisfied if adequate back-up equipment should have been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventive maintenance; and (c) The user submitted notices as required under paragraph (C) of this section. (2) The POTW may approve an anticipated bypass, after considering its adverse effects, if the POTW determines that it will meet the three conditions listed in paragraph (D)(1) of this section. SECTION 9-2-13 WASTEWATER TREATMENT RATES Wastewater treatment rates and charges shall be set by resolution of the Meridian City Council. PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 41 of 43 ~ • SECTION 9-2-14 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS l~ 9-2-14-1 Pretreatment Charges and Fees The City of Meridian may adopt reasonable fees for reimbursement of costs of setting up and operating the City's Pretreatment Program which may include: A. Fees for wastewater discharge permit applications including the cost of processing such applications; B. Fees for monitoring, inspection, and surveillance procedures including the cost of collection and analyzing a user's discharge, and reviewing monitoring reports submitted by users; C. Fees for reviewing and responding to accidental discharge procedures and construction; D. Fees for filing appeals; and E. Other fees as the City of Meridian may deem necessary to carry out the requirements contained herein. These fees relate solely to the matters covered by this ordinance and are separate from all other fees, fines, and penalties chargeable by the City. 9-2-14-2 Severability If any provision of this ordinance is invalidated by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall not be effected and shall continue in full force and effect. 9-2-14-3 Conflicts All other ordinances and parts of other ordinances inconsistent or conflicting with any part of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of the inconsistency or conflict. SECTION 3: That all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof or in conflict with this ordinance are hereby voided. SECTION 4: That pursuant to the affirmative vote of one-half (1/2) plus one (1) of the Members of the full Council, the rule requiring two (2) separate readings by title and one (1) reading in the full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect on the ~ day of mohCh , 2008 its passage, approval and publication. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this ~ day of ~~ , 2008. PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 42 of 43 • • APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, this day of rte, , 2008. APPROVED: -~ ~A` DE WEERD `{e s ATTEST: , ` ~~® ,~= ~.~ e q JAYCE HOLMAN, CITY CLERK,,, -~ ~. ~~ , \~ .,~ ~„ ~',,/~~~~~jisinn ioreti~~~~~~0`~~~A PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE - 43 of 43 r' NOTICE AND PUBLISHED SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO I.C. § 50-901(A) CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE N0.08- Q J AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDINGING TITLE 9 CHAPTER 2 SEWER PRETREATMENT OF THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE An Ordinance of the City of Meridian amending Title 9~ Chapter 2 of the Meridian Code, relating to Sewer Pretreatment. A full text of ~~ ~~,available for inspection at City Hall, City of Meridian, 33 East Idaho, ~~ "~i `,Ordinance shall become effective upon passage and publir~tio ~~® City of Me4~idian Mayor and City Council By: Jaycee Holman, City Clerk = ~ ~ ®~~ ~. FirstReadin -0~~~~ '~~~~''''f~-+~~~,,,~,~,~r``;,, II Adopted after first reading by suspension of the Rule as allowed pursuant to Idaho Code § 50-902: YES_~ NO Second Reading: Third Reading: .® STATEMENT OF MERIDIAN CITY ATTORNEY AS TO ADEQUACY OF SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE NO. 08- ~°%~53 ~a The undersigned, William L.M. Nary, City Attorney of the City of Meridian, Idaho, hereby certifies that he is the legal advisor of the City and has reviewed a copy of the attached Ordinance No. 08- 153 of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and has found the same to be true and complete and provides adequate notice to the public pursuant to Idaho Code § 50-901A(3). DATED this ~.~ day of ~" ~~ v~ , 2008. J~~ ~. ~ ~ William. L.M. Nary City Attorney SUMMARY FOR MERIDIAN SEWER PRETREATMENT ORDINANCE- PAGE 1 OF 1