Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-03-06• i t,~ ~s: CITY OF ~~%~~ri~i~n t~n--~o ~h ~c ~q ~• TRensuRe V N~~ t CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho Tuesday, March 6, 2007 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 best of the ability of the presenter." 1. Roll-call Attendance: _~ David Zaremba k Joe Borton O Charlie Rountree x Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd ~ivwµcaC~ ~ 8= Z~~~^-' Z. Pledge of Allegiance: ~~ai»G ~o~-~+-~~~ 3. Community Invocation by ~i~l ~t/cv~~v 4. Adoption of the Agenda: t~%/~-~ ~- 5. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of February 6, 2007 City Council Regular Meeting: ~ ~~.~.,~,,..~ B. Approve New Beer and Liquor License Applications for EI Tenampa Restaurant by Dave Edmark - 906 N. Main Street: ~~~~ ~-- C. Development Agreement RZ 06-004 Request for a Rezone of 5.49 acres from R-4 to R-15 (2.17 acres) and L-O (3.32 acres) for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC - 1021 West Pine Avenue: av~ D. Resolution No. ®~~ ~~~ :VAC 07-002 Request to Vacate a public utility, drainage & irrigation easement common to Lots 1 & 2, Block 1 of the Olson & Bush Industrial Park for Lanark Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -March 6, 2007 Page 1 of 3 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. • Street Easement by Ronald W. Van Auker - NWC of Eagle Road and East Lanark Street at 3180 East Lanark Street: ~~j~-~~ E. Approve Task Order 0666 with Civil Survey Consultants Inc., for Engineering Services related to Sanitary Sewer Relocation Study for $25,000.00: ~'~~ ~- 6. Department Reports: ~ h.oru- 7. Items Moved from Consent Agenda: - w+~- 8. Request for Refund of Fees regarding withdrawn application for Baltic Place CPA in the amount of $1018.00: ~rr~ ~- 9. Continued from February 20, 2007: FP 07-002 Request for Final Plat approval of 120 single-family residential building lots and 13 common lots on 34.74 acres in an R-8 zone for Solitude Subdivision No. 2 by Solitude Development, LLC -SEC of McMillan Road and Meridian Road: 10. Continued Public Hearing from February 27, 2007: Proposed Fireworks Ordinance: ~,~,„,~,;,,~„~, a.-..• Ytti... {~ri ~~~ f-0 ~-! 3-O 7 11. Public Hearing: VAC 07-003 Request for a Vacation of the 10 foot wide properly drainage and utility easement located on portions of Lots 5 and 6, Block 5, Gemtone Center #5 for Gemtone Center Subdivision #5 by DMB Investments, LLC - 2589 and 2547 E. State Avenue: ~~~~ 12. Public Hearing: AZ 06-062 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.12 acres from RUT to a C-C zone for Hovd Annexation by Kendall Hoyd - east of N. Meridian Road and north of E. Fairview Avenue: 13. Public Heanng: AZ 06-057 Request for nnexation and Zoning of 9.91 acres from RUT to an R-15 zone for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River Development, LLC - 6055 & 6185 N. Jericho Road: ~e~a.c ~l~ ~ G l~ ~- ~-*-~ 14. Public Hearing: PP 06-056 Request for Prelimina~t approval of 73 residential units and 10 common lots on 9.52 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River Development, LLC - 6055 & 6185 N. Jericho Road: l~r~~,~ ~~~. ~ ~~~( ~r ~~~-`°'~``"~ 15. Public Hearing: VAR 06-024 Request for a Variance for zero lot line side setbacks and 4 foot rear setbacks for the attached units within the proposed Jericho Subdivision for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River Development, LLC - 6055 & 6185 N. Jericho Road: E~i~Oliti~w ~`9~j7u ~~--~ Meridian Ciiy Council Meeting Agenda -March 6, 2007 Page 2 of 3 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. • • 16. Public Hearing: VAR 07-003 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3B-7C2 to count 15 feet of existing right-of--way for Eagle Road towards the landscape street buffer in the C-G zone, for Centre Pointe North Subdivision by W.H. Moore, Co -northwest comer of Eagle Road and Ustick Road: ~~wu. ~/~ f Cl~ ~vY 17. Public Hearing: AZ 06-052 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.17 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Portico Place Subdivision by Portico, LLC -1780 E. MlcMillan Road: ~~,.,,,,,,~, pG`~ f c~ ~,-- 18. Public Hearing: PP 06-053 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 26 single-family residential building lots and 3 common /other lots on 5.17 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Portico Place Subdivision by Portico, LLC -1780 E. MicMillan Road: ~0"~,.e._ ~~~ ~l~ oP,,- 19. Ordinance No. _ ©?-~~~ 9 RZ 06-008 Request for a Rezone of 8.96 acres (Lots 41-45, Block 49, Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12) from R-4 to C-N zone for Lochsa Falls Office /Commercial Addition by Farwest, LLC -south of Chinden Boulevard and west of North Linder Road: ~~~"""' 20. Ordinance No. ~ ~ _ ~ 3O D RZ 06-004 Request for a Rezone of 5.49 ;acres from R-4 to R-15 (2.17 acres) and L-O (3.32 acres) for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC - 1021 West Pine Avenue: ~~,,,~,~,,,,~ Meridian City Council Meeting Agenda -March 6, 2007 Page 3 of 3 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. Broadcast Report Date/Time 03-02-2007 04:20:36 p.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Llne 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Llne 2 This document :Failed (ireduced sample and details below} Document size : 8.5 "x11 " ~lXts/.t2, ~(~J"~' 'fi6l' ~I~GtC.• ~.~fi Ce.," l~vareKs ~ f ~,,,.,~~,,(~'`~"'~J° CITY COUNCIL REGULAR ~1'Vlc°Y1~1~Gf'1? MEETING AGENDA ~ ~~ City Coundi Cfiambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, IMlaridian, idafio Tuesday, March 8, ZQ07 at 7:00 p.m. °fitthougf~ fhe Cky of AAerldlan rro longer requkes sworn festrr-ony, Bll pleBaRfatlOAS before UDB May9Dl acrd City COLrxx7 alb eXp80~ to be trlllll/Ul arm havi8~ f0 b6sf Of t!'ie abHity Of tYte ~W'@SBlffBf. ° 9. Rota-cab Attendance: _,_ David zaremba ~~ Charlie Rountree Joe l3orton Kit Strd Mayor Tammy de WaeM Z. PYedge of Allegiance: 3. Community imrocatlon by Pastor t:ot~tn Styter wttlt Treasons Yalley Worship Center 4. Adopebn of the Agenda: 3. Cotttgettt Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of February 8, 2007 City Courtoil Regular Meeting: B. Approve New Beer and Liquor l.ioertse Appiteatfons for q TenRmRs, RUraM sty Oanra Edmarec - B08 N. Main Street: C. 0®~reiopmant Agreement RZ 0&004 R~ttest for a liezane of 5.4!3 scree from R-4 to R 16 ]2.17 acres] arnt L-O {3.32 across) to- RuO~imotp ~ulxliv(srlan by 8LC tnvestmertts, LLC - 1024 Wei Ptnr~ Avenue: Q. Ras~alutlon No. :VAC 07.002 12~u~t ~ Vacate a public utfitiy, dralneye & 6riga6tan easement oammon to Loos 1 & 2, Block 1 of the CNson & t3usfi lrrdustriat Park for La srk naorwsm cmy comra tn~ ages-tom s, zom ~ ~ ota nn preeer~ad ~ pro rt ~ i>ecar~a property otti~ CZgror a~atan. n„y«,e ~argrwd~n for related ao avxtfort, please amasrt the pertc's oP&e at at feast 4t3 hoiea prior ~ the putdbcrne~g. Total Pages Scanned : 3 Toi:al Pages Confirmed : 57 No. Job Remote Station Start Time Duration Pages Llne Mode Job Type Results 001 864 3810160 03:44:20 p.m.03-02-2007 00:00:00 0/3 1 G3 HS FA 002 864 8989551 03:44:20 p.m.03-02-2007 00:00:46 313 1 EC HS CP21600 003 864 8848723 03:44:20 p.m.03-02-2007 00:01:13 313 1 EC HS CP94400 004 864 8886854 03:44:20 p.m.03-02-2007 00:00:38 3/3 1 EC H5 CP28800 005 864 8985501 03:44:20 p.m.03-02-2007 00:01:13 3!3 1 EC HS CP14400 006 864 8467366 03:44:20 p.m.03-02-2007 00:00:38 313 1 EC HS CP28800 007 864 8950390 03:44:20 p.m.03-02-2007 00:00:37 313 1 EC HS CP31200 _ Broadcast Report - ~ Date/Tlme 03-02-2007 04:20:43 p.m. Transmit HeaderText City of Meridian Idaho Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Une 1 Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2 Na. Job Remote Station StartTime Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 008 864 2088882682 03:44:ZOp.m.03-OZ-2007 00:00:37 313 1 EC HS CP33600 009 664 8840745 03:44:20 p.m.03-02-2007 00:00:40 3I3 1 EC HS CP28800 010 864 2083876393 03:44:20p.m.03-02-2007 00:01:14 313 1 EC HS CP14400 011 864 2877909 03:44:20 p.m.03-02-2007 00:01:13 313 1 EC HS CP14400 012 864 2088885052 03:44:20 p.m.03-02-2007 00:00:37 3!3 1 EC HS CP31200 013 864 8886573 03:44:20 p.m.03-02-2007 00:03:07 3/3 1 EC HS CP9600 014 864 8881983 03:44:20 p.m.03-02-2007 00:00:46 3i3 1 EC HS CP24000 015 864 2083776449 03:44:20 p.m.03-02-2007 00:01:13 313 1 EC HS CP14400 016 864 4679562 03:44:20 p.m.03-02-2007 00:00:40 313 1 EC HS CP26400 017 864 2088886701 03:44:20 p.m.03-02-2007 00:00:36 313 1 EC HS CP31200 018 864 3886924 03:44:20 p.m.03-02-2007 00:00:45 3/3 1 EC HS CP24000 019 864 8841159 03:44:20 p.m.03-02-2007 00:00:37 313 7 EC HS CP31200 020 864 2088840744 03:44:20 p.m.03-OZ-2007 OO:Q0:46 313 1 EC HS CP24000 Abbreviations: HS: Host send PL: Polled local MP: Malibox print TU: Terminated by user HR: Host receive PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group 3 WS: Waiting send MS: Malibox save FA: Fall RP: Report EC: Error Correll • Meridian Citv Council Meeting March 6, 2007 A meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:05 P.M., Tuesday, March 6, 2007, by President Joe Borton. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Joe, Borton, Keith Bird, and David Zaremba. Members Absent: Charlie Rountree. Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Len Grady, Gene Trakel, Joe Silva, Caleb Hood and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X David Zaremba 0 Charlie Rountree X X Joe Borton X Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd Borton: Welcome, everybody. We will go ahead and get started. We will go ahead and get started. It's Tuesday, March 6th City Council meeting at about 7:18. We will begin this Council meeting with roll call attendance. Mr. Berg. Item 2: Pledge of Allegiance: Borton: Thank you. Item No. 2, the Pledge of Allegiance. We will be led today by Blaine Moorhouse. If you will, please, rise and join us in the pledge. (Pledge of allegiance recited) Item 3: Community Invocation by Bill Nary. Borton: Thank you, Blaine. Blaine, if you will come on forward. We appreciate you leading us in the pledge and we are going to give you a City of Meridian pin. Appreciate it. Item No. 3 is our community invocation. We will be led tonight by Pastor Gordon Slyter. If he is present or another representative with the Treasure Valley Worship Center. Or, in the alternative, we will be led by our City Attorney Mr. Nary. Nary: Thank you, Mr. President. If we could all take a moment, please. Lord, we thank you for bringing all these people together. We ask you to bless our city, bless our leadership, God. Give them wisdom to cant' out the needs of the city and to make wise decisions and just decisions for all of our community. We bless all the people that have taken their time out of their day and their lives to be here this evening as well, God, and we just ask for this meeting to be conducted in a good manner and a positive manner as we move forward on the business of the city, in your name we pray, Jesus, amen. Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 2 of 48 Item 4: Adoption of the Agenda: C Borton: Thank you, Mr. Nary. We will provide you with a City of Meridian pin. If you need some more, they are in your drawer. Item No. 4, adoption of the agenda. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: On the agenda as published, on the Consent we got a resolution and that number will be 07-548. Item No. 9 on the regular agenda has been asked to be continued to the 20th of March 2007. And Items 19 and 20 are ordinances and those numbers will be 07-1299 and 07-1300. With that I move we approve the revised agenda. Zaremba: I second that. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to adopt the revised agenda. All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 5: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of February 6, 2007 City Council Regular Meeting: B. Approve New Beer and Liquor License Applications for EI Tenampa Restaurant by Dave Edmark - 906 N. Main Street: C. Development Agreement RZ 06-004 Request for a Rezone of 5.49 acres from R-4 to R-15 (2.17 acres) and L-O (3.32 acres) for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC - 1021 West Pine Avenue: D. Resolution No. :VAC 07-002 Request to Vacate a public utility, drainage & irrigation easement common to Lots 1 & 2, Block 1 of the Olson & Bush Industrial Park for Lanark Street Easement by Ronald W. Van Auker - NWC of Eagle Road and East Lanark Street at 3180 East Lanark Street: E. Approve Task Order 0666 with Civil Survey Consultants Inc., for Engineering Services related to Sanitary Sewer Relocation Study for $25,000.00: Borton: Thank you. Item No. 5, the Consent Agenda. C Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 3 of 48 Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: On the Consent Agenda, Item D is Resolution No. 07-548 and with that I move we approve the Consent Agenda as published and for the president to sign and the clerk to attest on all papers. Zaremba: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda. Mr. Berg, please, call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Department Reports: Borton: Thank you. There are no department reports. Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: Borton: And there are no items that have been requested to be removed from the Consent Agenda. Item 8: Request for Refund of Fees regarding withdrawn application for Baltic Place CPA in the amount of $1018.00: Borton: So, Item No. 8, request for refund of fees regarding a withdrawn application. Anna, tum it over to you. Canning: President Borton, Members of the Council, the requested refund is for a project that was submitted and withdrawn before we had done any substantial work, so we are recommending that Council refund the entire fee. Borton: Thank you. Council? Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move on the recommendation of staff that we approve to refund the fees for Baltic Place CPA in the amount of 1,018 dollars. Zaremba: I'll second that. Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 4 of 48 Borton: It's been moved and seconded to approve the refund of fees. Any discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 9: Continued from February 20, 2007: FP 07-002 Request for Final Plat approval of 120 single-family residential building lots and 13 common lots on 34.74 acres in an R-8 zone for Solitude Subdivision No. 2 by Solitude Development, LLC -SEC of McMillan Road and Meridian Road: Borton: Thank you. Item No. 9 has been asked to be continued to March 20th. Zaremba: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we continue FP 07-002 to our regularly scheduled meeting of March 20th, 2007. Bird: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item 9 to March 20th, 2007. Any discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 10: Continued Public Hearing from February 27, 2007: Proposed Fireworks ®rdinance: Borton: Thank you. Item No. 10, continued Public Hearing on the proposed fireworks ordinance and, Mr. Nary, I think I'll let you initiate as far as the scope of the discussion and presentation for this evening. Nary: Thank you, Mr. President, Members of the Council. It was a very late night last Tuesday night, Council, if you recall. You continued this Public Hearing for a couple of purposes. One was the fire department, because of the late hour, didn't have the opportunity to rebut any of the comments that were brought forward and whether or not they had any recommended changes or recommended amendments to the ordinance in regards to the public comment. Secondarily, the legal department, we had requested another week to do additional clean up. There was some language that we were a little uncomfortable with, we wanted to have another opportunity to get cleaned up and, again, making sure that we were clear as to the intent of the ordinance and what was going to be required. And, third, you had invited any written comments from the public. Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 5 of 48 They would have the rest -- the remainder of last week to provide that written comment and we have had some written comment that has come in and Deputy Chief Silva will be addressing some of that in -- in his comments as well. So, we have received public comment. It was not to have an additional Public Hearing tonight, but simply to invite the -- or allow the time for staff response, as well as written comment. I would make note there was a couple of things that we in the legal department had reviewed and have amended in this draft ordinance that's in front of you. If I could just point out those things. There was a -- okay. Sony. There was a concem that was raised in regards to part of the language in the permitting process that gave the clerk the discretion to not issue a permit if it would serve the best interest of the city. We weren't comfortable in being able to find a definition in the Idaho Code that we felt would be applicable to that section, so we took that out. There is a provision that is already in the state code in regard to initiated investigation and exercising of reasonable powers of the city clerk and, basically, verifying the information that's requested in the permitting process. So, that language still is contained in the ordinance, but the language regarding the discretion to not issue in the best interest of the city has been deleted. Borton: Mr. Nary? Nary: Yes. Borton: If you have got a page number or item number -- Nary: Oh, sure. Borton: -- that you can make reference to. Nary: Certainly. The section that's been deleted was Section 5-4-05C.2 and it's the portion, again, that is regarding -- that says whether the issuance of such permit will serve the best interest of the city. That language has been deleted. There was a section in 5-4-05B.10b. This is in regards to the application for non-aerial common fireworks permits. There was a concem that was raised that it says the -- the portion that has now been deleted says the distance from any structure to any and all temporary firework stands and their short-term storage containers. So, that -- that portion of that section has been deleted. Make sure Ihave -- the next there was a concem that was raised in regard to the length or period of time that the permits were to be good for and the prior -- the original one that you had seen last week, basically, had two permitting periods per year. There was a term raised that the period of time should be once a year, there should be an annual permit, rather than twice a year permit. State code does support that notion and so in Section 5-4-05D we have recommended amending that to, basically, have one permitting period a year. The time period is still the same for the application, it's just that now the permit, instead of having to come back a second time in October for the same permit, the applicants can apply once annually for this permit and receive it for both sales periods that are allowed under the code. In section -- excuse me -- in Section 5-4-07D, one of the people testifying had raised a concem that the language in regards to residential districts was confusing, that this type Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 6 of 48 of sales of fireworks is not allowed in a residential district in the city and the person testifying was concerned that that wasn't clear as to what that was supposed to be. So, we have amended 5-4-06E and D to -- excuse me -- and 5-4-07D to reflect that residential districts are what are defined in our code and the Unified Development Code does define what those types of districts are, so there is across-reference there, hopefully, to make that clearer to folks. The last one in 5-4-06P14 and also it indicates it's the same language in 5-4-071.13 and 5-4-08A.6. There was a concem raised by one of the people testifying that the prior language that said it was unlawful for the operator to allow discharge of fireworks within 300 feet of their stand was problematic from the sales permittees's operation, since they can't necessarily control everything within 300 feet. So, what this code provision has been recommended to be amended was, basically, it still requires the signage, which was in the code to begin with, that they must display signs that indicate that no fireworks could be discharged within 300 feet, but our -- the responsibility of the enforcement and responsibility for discharge is on the person discharging them. So, the permittee isn't responsible if some other third party goes out and discharges fireworks. That's not their responsibility to police that. And the reason we felt that was an appropriate change was as was stated, they don't always have the legal authority to enforce things that are 300 feet away from them, but the person certainly igniting fireworks has that responsibility. So, we felt that was a reasonable change. I think -- and Deputy Chief Silva can correct me if this was an amendment or a clarification. There was some concem raised regarding the times of the sales of when the sales can begin and end and so Mrs. Kane in her review of that in the definition section, which is in 5-4-02, subsection H and subsection I, for the summer and winter sales period, makes it clear that the beginning of summer sales period can begin at 11:59 p.m. on June 22nd and ends at 12:01 a.m., July 5th, and that the sales period for the wintertime in I begins at 11:59 p.m. on December 25th and ends at 12:01 a.m. on January 1st. So, those were some clarifications we felt were appropriate to clean up in the draft and I think Deputy Chief Silva has a few more, but those are what we took from the comments that we received. Again, I would let Deputy Chief Silva take the rest of it. Borton: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Deputy Chief Silva. Silva: President Borton, Members of the Council, we were able to clarify -- we took a lot of that input that was provided to us and clarified it with some of the comments provided by the vendors. With respect to the sales period, there was some -- it was kind of ambiguous the way it was worded in state law and our existing city ordinance, so we clarified that and put specific times. We, in effect, lengthened the sales period by just a few minutes to, but that provides specific times when sales start and when it ends. We -- one of the things that was indicated by one of the vendors was, for example, the -- they wanted some language incorporated in 5-4-04C that they were -- just would be responsible for producing records and displaying licenses and permits issued by the city, because the records of where their product may have come from may be back at their business office. So, we incorporated that language. One comment on 5-4-05, for example, in ten, subsection D, referred to just some clarification on what constitutes waste receptacles. As Mr. Nary had referred to, what we did is we made -- we Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 7 of 48 shortened the notification process or the -- I would call it the reactivation of a permit, because a permit would be issued for a one year period and when a vendor has operated during the summer and, then, reactivates that permit, what we have done is just simplified that process. Instead of having to go through the entire application process, they would just have to notify the city that they intend to activate a permit at a given location consistent with the requirements that were laid down -- or that were associated with that permit issuance at that particular location. And, then, there was just some clarifying language with reference to the Uniform Development Code where that applied. And with that, basically, those are the highlights of the changes we made. We made some other small changes to route the document, but those just were some editing and things that were provided -- input provided by the vendors. So, with that I will stand for any questions should you have any. Borton: Thank you, Joe. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: Joe, have the vendors had a chance to see the revised draft ordinance in its entirety; do you know? Silva: President Borton, Councilman Bird, I don't believe they have seen the most -- the latest revisions that were incorporated from the legal department. That would have been -- I received it about 5:00 o'clock on the 5th. So, that has not been uploaded, would be my understanding. You could perhaps consult with Bill Nary. Nary: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, from a process standpoint I guess if -- we can take a couple of different actions, depending on what your desire is. If your desire is to see the changes that we have discussed tonight in a final format prior to the beginning of the reading schedule, we can do that. It's not required by statute, but you certainly can do that if. you wish. The changes that we have made were, basically, in response to the people°s concems. So, you know, they may have a different perspective, but to me we have addressed some of their concems, we haven't addressed, obviously, all of the concems that were raised. I mean as you sat through the Public Hearing last week and had some written communication, obviously, there are some things that we are going to have to agree to disagree on from the -- at least the fire department's standpoint. We feel from the legal department that we are at a place with the ordinance that you can either direct to have another discussion or review by you prior to the reading process or you can begin the reading process. Under the state statute you can have three readings, you can have an accelerated reading schedule, that's your -- that's your choice. There is some method to doing it either way. If you • Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 8 of 48 want to invite additional written comment, again, you're not obligated to hold public hearings on legislative actions, which is what this is, but if you want to invite written comment, because some issues may not have been raised to this point that -- that the fire department's not aware of, that the legal department's not aware of, that you as a Council are not aware of, if you want to invite written comment, that's part of what the reading process is meant to accomplish, some opportunity for people to provide some further written input. If they wish they can do that. So, that's your decision. We will certainly take whatever direction you want us to do on bringing this matter forward. Borton: Thank you, Mr. Nary. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: I got a question for Mr. Nary. We very rarely go through three readings on an ordinance and this has no fees or anything. You give me some reasons to why we probably needed to go through three readings, but was that -- is that the basic reason you think we need to go through three or would you mind stating why you feel that this one ordinance we need to go through three. Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, there isn't any particular reason. I mean the state code, like I said it gives every city the option in passing ordinances to accelerate the reading process. Mr. Bird is correct, on the majority of the ordinances that are in front of you, which are predominately land use ordinances, you generally don't have three readings, you almost always have one and only one. On legislative acts, such as criminal ordinances and the like, we have done it both ways and it's just -- it's, basically, at your discretion. Obviously, there is a lot of public interest. We had a lot of testimony. We have had a lot of opportunity to have written comment and public comment on the record submitted to you. If you want to have another opportunity -- we can begin the reading process next week and if you want to invite additional comment you can. If you're comfortable that after that comment that nothing in that has really raised a different concern or a new concern to you, you can ask to accelerate the second and third readings into one reading the following week or if you still want time to consider that or ponder something, you can allow the second and the third reading to occur. So, really, I guess it's anon-answer to your question, but it's really your call, you can do it either way you want. Bird: Yeah. And I understand. Thanks, Bill. Zaremba: Mr. Chairman? Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: A couple of questions. I guess the first one I will direct to Mr. Nary. I'll direct my first question at Mr. Nary. We were given the memo that you read from and my first Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 9 of 48 comment was that I felt it addressed most of the things that had been raised. I don't think you read all the ones where the answer was no, but the fact that we didn't change something doesn't mean that we didn't address it. It was considered and there are reasons for not changing it. So, I just didn't want to leave it unclear that a subject that you didn't mention hadn't been considered, it was certainly considered and the answer was no. My second question is having seen that memo, were those changes incorporated into the draft that we are looking at or are we looking at a draft that doesn't have those changes? Nary: I believe the draft that's still in front of you that was on your packet is a draft from last week. Zaremba: Okay. Nary: So, those changes have not been incorporated, because, as Mr. -- as Deputy Chief Silva said, we finished that -- the real -- that redraft yesterday, so I hadn't transmitted that before tonight to you, but the intent was if we are going to put this on for the reading schedule, then, that will be the process that you have it back in front of you, but I wanted to make sure you knew what those were. I can certainly go through the other -- some of the other points that were raised if you would prefer. Zaremba: I don't think that I -- Nary: Okay. Zaremba: What I was thinking was to an eventual motion should we move this forward, we need to incorporate that memo into the motion I take it. Nary: Well, like I said, if, for example -- and, Councilmember Zaremba, you have raised a great point. I mean there were some of the things in the information that was provided to the Council that was the intent of the ordinance and I will just give you an example. One of the questions that was raised was that the ordinance prohibits sales from any permanent structure. That was the intent. And so there was no intent to change that. Another question was raised about under the ordinance the public may not have access to the fireworks under any circumstances, that the fireworks are to remain behind the sales staff and only be accessed by sales staff and, then, given to the public. That was the intent. So, no change was noted. So, yeah, there are certainly some of those that haven't been changed and because this is a pretty lengthy ordinance and because there has been a lot of contention, I certainly understand if you folks want to either have another discussion week or at least you want to have the opportunity at the first reading to make sure it fits all of these things that you folks envision this to be, we certainly can do that, so -- and if there is something else that you think I haven't raised that we changed that you or -- or you want to ask fire department about, that's something that we should be talking about as whether to change or not, you're certainly welcome to do that. That was the intent of tonight to give you folks that opportunity. Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 10 of 48 Zaremba: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I also have a new subject that I would raise if I may. I realize it's late in the process, but prompted by a submitted -- a submission from Ralph Chappell, I have worked my way down to the violation penalty sections and it says any violation thereof shall constitute a misdemeanor, which shall be punishable by fine and/or imprisonment. And I guess what we were sent I think we all got and is probably in the public record, is a copy of a news release about another city that changed their ordinances and included administrative fines as the first step and I -- and what brings -- what that brings to mind is whether we might -- is it too complicated to make several tiers in the penalty that first there would be an administrative fine, which is money that the city keeps and, then, the second offense is a misdemeanor and the third offense is stronger than a misdemeanor, whatever that is, I forget. Do we want a tiered set of penalties or is -- are we satisfied with what it says, any violation is a misdemeanor period? Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Councilmember Zaremba, gosh, I wish I could do that, but I can't. We don't have the means in Idaho for a city to impose anything other than a misdemeanor or an infraction as a penalty. So, there isn't a mechanism in Idaho that I'm aware of that allows to create an administrative fine from a city standpoint. So, we don't have a means to do that. So, we are kind of hamstrung by that misdemeanor provision and infraction provision. Infractions can only be what are considered -- called civil penalties and they are a maximum of a hundred dollars and there is no jail time, so all of the penalties in this -- in this currently are misdemeanor offenses, which has a maximum under the state code of a thousand dollar fine, so -- and ayear in jail. So, there is higher penalties for misdemeanors, but that's the most the city has the power to do. Zaremba: Mr. President, a follow up. Are we able to -- I can see a situation where what would appear to be one instance actually would be multiple misdemeanors. Are we able to treat -- I mean if somebody sets off ten aerial fireworks, is that ten misdemeanors? Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Councilmember Zaremba, as long as the factual circumstances can be separately distinguished and there is two -- there is two things you're really asking. If one person commits ten violations, sets off ten bottle rockets, are those ten distinct criminal acts in themselves. Probably. But it depends. It depends. It depends on how it's done. Courts will normally look at a couple of things and one of the things they will look at is there, really, essentially, a merging of one act. And so if you -- if how it's done is so closely related that a court can't really or doesn't really think it's distinguishable as separate events, they are so close in time the way they are done they are all closely together when they are done -- so it depends. Another question that comes up that's similar is can you have multiple violations of the same offense. If you were a person selling fireworks and selling an legal firework that violated our permit requirements and you sold ten different -- to ten different people, are Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 11 of 48 those ten criminal acts. Same thing. I mean if you commit a theft and you steal ten items in a store, a court merges those together as one theft, not ten. It's the same thing in a sale circumstance, it depends on what the circumstances are. So, unfortunately, I wish I could tell you, but the law is not quite so clear as I'd like it to be. Depending on what it is it may be one act, it may be -- it may be multiple violations. Most of the time, especially when you're looking at illegal activities of this nature, it would be a fairly rare circumstance that a person has only one illegal firework or commits only one violation when they do it. Not that it can't happen, but it's certainly more rare. It's more likely that a person has multiple types of illegal fireworks and commits multiple violations of them, but, again, it really is driven by whatever the individual facts of the circumstance are. Zaremba: Thank you. Borton: Mr. Nary, I think the best way going forward, in light of the fact there has been some recent changes and not everyone's had an opportunity to review it, this is -- I'll float this out and see if Council agrees with it, that we continue the Public Hearing to next week and, if permissible, have a Public Hearing and perhaps the first reading scheduled at the same time and invite the public to provide written comment after receiving I think it's only fair so everyone receives these most recent changes, had a chance to review them. The written comment is extremely helpful. We have received a lot of it. In my mind have raised many good questions and to the extent these additional changes create some moue questions and concerns, I'd rather have us know that on the front end and if we shorten, perhaps, the reading schedule on the back end and provide the better product, since this is a pretty comprehensive change. So, I would be inclined to continue this hearing until March the 13th and have it scheduled for a first reading at that time as well in between now and then receive that additional written comment from whomever cares to do so. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: I agree wholeheartedly, but -and we'd also make sure that the drafts get out to the people that would so want to come in and pick it up, so that all the vendors and stuff can have an opportunity to read it, too. Nary: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council, Councilmember Bird, what we could do is we could have the final draft with the changes that Deputy Chief Silva has and the changes that our legal department have to the city clerk by -- by the end of business tomorrow and, then, any member of the public that would like it can have access to that from Mr. Berg's office - I guess it's not common, but I guess we could probably put it on our website, if you'd like. Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 12 of 48 Borton: Whatever provides better access to the public. Bird: Yeah, that's the -- Borton: It could be on the site fine and the clerk's office. Berg: Mr. President, it's not uncommon. We did that with the lease agreement with the golf course and -- as long as they know it's a proposed ordinance, I think they can find it and we can have it on there. Nary: We can have a pdf copy on our website probably by the end of tomorrow. Borton: Okay. Let's do that. We need a motion to continue this hearing to next week. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we continue the Public Hearing for the proposed fireworks ordinance, a revision, until March 13th, 2007. Zaremba: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item 10 to March 13th. Any discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Berg. Berg: Mr. President, I know your preliminary motion referred to a first reading. Is that still the intent of the motion or not? Bird: First reading and also with -- along with the Public Hearing. Borton: Second agrees? Zaremba: Second agrees. Borton: All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: Public Hearing: VAC 07-003 Request for a Vacation of the 10 foot wide property drainage and utility easement located on portions of Lots 5 and 6, Block 5, Gemtone Center #5 for Gemtone Center Subdivision #5 by DMB Investments, LLC - 2589 and 2547 E. State Avenue: Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 13 of 48 Borton: Thank you. Item No. 11 is a Public Hearing on VAC 07-003 for a request for vacation by Gemtone Center Subdivision. Canning: President Borton, Members of the Council, this is the Gemtone Center Subdivision No. 5. There we go. Thank you. sir. Sony about that. Our new fangled technology. This is a request for a -- the project is located on the -- north of East Pine Avenue and west of Eagle Road as shown on the slide before you. Borton: Mrs. Canning, can you hold on one second. Canning: Okay. Borton: We are going to grab the door real quick. Canning: The requested vacation -- am I good to go now? The requested vacation is for the platted property drainage and utility easement located on portions of Lot 5 and Lot 6, Block 5 of Gemtone Center Subdivision No. 5. So, here are those. The properties have been combined through a property boundary adjustment and they are just vacating the easement. Staff has received all necessary relinquishments and there are no outstanding issues before Council. Borton: Thank you, Anna. Is the applicant here? Please come forward if you have anything to add for us. Kirkpatrick: Good evening. Wendy Kirkpatrick, I'm with Stanley Consultants. My business address is 1940 Bonito Way here in Meridian. And this is all very straight forward. We did a lot line adjustment, so we could build an office building on these two lots and we were not able to move the easement along with the lot line, so we are asking to have it vacated and all the agencies said it's fine and staff said it's fine and they recommend approval. Borton: Thank you, Wendy. Kirkpatrick: Any questions? Borton: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Borton: Thank you. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone from the public here to provide comment? Seeing none. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Meridian Ciry Council March 6, 2007 Page 14 of 48 Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing on VAC 07-003. Zaremba: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item No. 11. All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: Don't hear any conversation; I move we approve VAC 07-003. Zaremba: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item No. 11, VAC 07-003. Any discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 12: Public Hearing: AZ 06-062 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 1.12 acres from RUT to a C-C zone for Hoyd Annexation by Kendall Hoyd - east of N. Meridian Road and north of E. Fairview Avenue: Borton: Thank you. Item No. 12 is a Public Hearing on AZ 06-062. We will begin this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: President Borton, Members of the Council, this is the Hoyd project. It's located on the northeast comer of Meridian and Carmel Drive, approximately a quarter mile north of Fairview on Meridian Road. It is just north of the Albertson's. The application that they have submitted is for annexation and the development includes request to annex 1.12 acres to community business district, which is C-C, and the applicant intends to construct a two story office building on the site. Hours of operation will be from approximately 8:00 a.m. to approximately 6:00 p.m. The building that's proposed on the site -- I should explain that just to the north is Hartz's Music and, then, to the east there is attached single family homes. To the west is the empty pasture that's designated mixed use. And, then, you have some higher density residential to kind of the northeast. This is the proposed site plan. The project is a little unusual in shape, because of this little triangle that's within the drainage basin. The one comer -- the one office they propose is -- is brought forward to the streets and the parking is tucked behind. The concept plan that you see before you shows access only from Carmel Drive, with no direct access to North Meridian Road. The driveway also stubs to • Meridian Ciry Council March 6, 2007 Page 15 of 48 the north boundary for future cross-access with the Hartz's Music property. That property is currently requesting the annexation and you will see that request before you soon. Staff has recommended a development agreement associated with this and that includes the cross-access easement to Carmel Drive shall be provided to Hartz's Music. Hours of operation for future businesses on this site would be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and that's in recognition of the residential properties immediately to the east of this one. Any future building on the site needs to comply with the conceptual site plan and the elevations that I'll show you in a moment. There are also several provisions related to the points I have talked about so far, the no direct lot access to Meridian Road and, then, also the 25 foot wide landscape buffer along Meridian Road, ten foot wide landscape buffer along Carmel Drive, and, then, the 25 foot wide landscape buffer adjacent to any existing residential use. And, then, finally, sidewalks along Meridian Road and Carmel Drive and an elevation certification is required, because a portion of the site is within a flood plane. So, we do have elevations and these elevations are new since the Planning and Zoning Commission and they have really stepped it up quite a bit since the Planning and Zoning Commission saw this, so this is the east and west elevations that would face the neighborhood and face Meridian Road. And, then, this is the side elevations. So, that would face Carmel Drive and it would face Hartz's Music. The Commission recommended approval at their February 1st, 2007, Public Hearing. Kendall Hoyd spoke in favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition or commented. Key issues of the discussion by the Commission were the design of the building and the appearance from Meridian Road and the key Commission changes to staff recommendation, there were none. Outstanding issues before the City Council, they were required to submit a rear building elevation and, as I said, this is what the revised elevations they have proposed and they are substantially improved from the last elevations. There has been no additional written testimony since staffs report was written and I will answer any questions you may have. Borton: Thank you, Anna. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Zaremba: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Just one for Director Canning. I like the building forward I guess we'll call it, moving it closer to the street and putting the parking lot on the other side. Did staff take into consideration that Meridian at some point will be five lanes wide at that point? It may be 20 years off in the future, but are they out of that right of way? Canning: I will have to check the staff report or maybe the applicant can answer that. Zaremba: Okay. I will ask the applicant. Canning: Okay. ~] Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 16 of 48 n ~~ Borton: Thank you. Would the applicant care to come forward? Hoyd: Good evening. My name is Kendall Hoyd, I'm the owner of the property in question. And the setbacks from the property line as described in the preliminary site layout that we gave to the P&Z staff incorporate the additional 18 feet for the widening of Meridian Road north of Fairview and also the 25 foot setback. So, that's also incorporated in the site plan already. Zaremba: Great. Thank you. Hoyd: Any other questions? Borton: Council, any -- Bird: I have none. Zaremba: Mr. President, I would only comment that I appreciate the elevations and treatment given to the Meridian side of the building. I know when you think that's the back of the building you don't always want to dress it up, but I -- Hoyd: Yeah. We made the mistake of bringing in a barracks last time and -- I turned somebody very expensive lose on this one. It's much better now. Borton: We appreciate the effort. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone from the public that wishes to provide testimony? Seeing none, Mrs. Canning, any additional information? Canning: No, sir. Zaremba: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we close the Public Hearing on Item 12. Bird: Second. Gorton: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-062. All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Zaremba: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 17 of 48 Zaremba: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move to approve file number AZ 06-062 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of March 6, 2007, with no modifications. Bird: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 12. Is there any discussion? Hearing none, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 06-057 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.91 acres from RUT to an R-15 zone for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River Development, LLC - 6055 & 6185 N. Jericho Road: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 06-056 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 residential units and 10 common lots on 9.52 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River Development, LLC - 6055 & 6185 N. Jericho Road: Item 15: Public Hearing: VAR 06-024 Request for a Variance for zero lot line side setbacks and 4 foot rear setbacks for the attached units within the proposed Jericho Subdivision for Jericho Subdivision by Heron River Development, LLC - 6055 & 6185 N. Jericho Road: Borton: Thank you. Item No. 13, AZ 06-057, request for annexation, Jericho Subdivision. We will begin this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: President Borton, Members of the Council, this is the Jericho project. It's located on the west side of Jericho Road about a fifth of a mile south of Chinden -- Borton: I'm going to interrupt you again real quick. We are openings Items 13, 14, and 15. I apologize. Canning: That's okay. Jericho Road currently takes access from Chinden Boulevard and, then, it swings down into Arcadia and connects over to Saguaro Canyon and, then, provides access for Westborough Subdivision on the east as well. The applications before you tonight are for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and a variance, but please note that the initial application required the variance to a rear setback that has since been substantially revised, partially to meet staffs and neighbor concerns such that it no longer requires the variance. Highlights of the proposed development include annexation and zoning of 9.91 acres to the R-4. And that would be along Jericho Road on the east side of the property and that's 2.41 acres. And to R-15 on the remainder of • • Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 18 of 48 the property, 7.89 acres. And then -- did I say R-15? R-15 on those 7.89. And preliminary plat approval of 68 residential lots and, then, approval of two -- the project also includes two private streets. The subdivision will provide a mix of housing types, including a common MEW. And this is the MEW area that's a minimum of 50 feet wide. It should be on the landscape plan there. It shows up a little better. And there will be attached single family homes facing that MEW and, then, also taking access from the private street. And there is also detached single family housing wrapping around the attached lots and, then, also on Jericho Road. Lots range between 2,300 square feet and 8,725 square feet. The average lot size is about 6,400 square feet. 6.5 percent of the site is in open space, which equates to .586 acres, and these R-8 lots, there is a pedestrian crossing -- or a pedestrian micro-path through the project to connect to Jericho Road. The intent of the separation between the R-4 lots and Jericho Road is to -- I need to go up here. You see the large one acre lots that currently take access from Jericho Road, the 8,000 square foot and up lots are intended as the transmission between that and the smaller MEW lots and, then, the kind of medium density residential lots surrounding those. The project will take access -- and I have forgotten the name of this subdivision. Hightower. Thank you. So, the intent is that when Hightower went through you may or may not remember, they agreed to request vacation of Jericho Road as it connects to Chinden. So, what will happen is folks will go up Jericho Road, come through Hightower, and access Chinden at this point here in the property. This -- we do anticipate that this access to Chinden will go away. There was initially some concerns when Arcadia went through and -- that this Jericho Road would become very heavily used as an access to get out to Chinden, but now it's not as direct as it will be to come through Hightower. So, we are not expecting those high volumes of traffic we were originally. So, folks will come -- the rest of the project feeds into Hightower and out to this exit as well. Okay. The gross residential density is 7.14 units per acre. It has a net of 8.56 units per acre. And this is consistent with the neighborhood center designation, which calls for a minimum eight dwelling units per acre. These are elevations of the single residences and floor plans. And, then, these are the proposed townhouse elevations. So, these are the lots that will face the MEW and, then, take access from the private street. The Commission recommended approval at their February 1st Public Hearing. Becky McKay spoke in favor of the application. No spoke in opposition or commented and there was no written testimony. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the variance submitted for the rear setbacks, the fact that it was no longer needed, and perimeter fencing. The applicant does wish to coordinate fencing with the adjacent developments of Arcadia and Hightower Subdivisions. And mitigation for existing trees on site. The key Commission changes to staffs initial recommendation was that the applicant would not be required to donate 50 trees to the local park, that, instead, the number would be determined by the Meridian Parks Department after closer inventory of the existing trees. There are quite a few trees on the property at this time. Staffs -- and, then, as I said before, staffs initial recommendation was for denial, but the applicant went back and worked with the property owners and staff to come up with a revised plan and I believe they came up with that before it actually went to the Planning and Zoning Commission for the first time. So, it is substantially revised from their initial submittal. The outstanding issues before City Council -- you know, the staff report notes two items, but they weren't really Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 19 of 48 outstanding issues, it was more of issues that had been recently resolved. So, to my knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council. And we have not received any additional written testimony since the staff report. And with that I will answer any questions Council may have. Gorton: Thank you, Mrs. Canning. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Zaremba: Mr. President -- Gorton: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: -- if I can just clarify one thing with Director Canning. What the Planning and Zoning Commission saw on February 1st is the version that we are looking at? Canning: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Gorton: Thank you. Would the applicant care to come forward? McKay: Thank you. Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. I'm representing the applicant on this particular application. Just to give the Council a little brief history on this project. It is on the periphery of a mixed use community neighborhood center, so even though this is nine and a half acres, it was a challenge for us to, obviously, meet the intent of criteria set forth in the Comp Plan under that neighborhood center section. One of the things that we struggled with was, obviously, that density of trying to hit eight dwelling units per acre. We had more preapplication conferences on this nine and a half acres than I typically have on projects that are hundreds of acres, just because of the complexity and the fact that it is in-fill. With Hightower wrapping all the way from the north to the west, Arcadia on our south and, then, Westborough Estates on our eastern boundary, we had stub streets that we had to interconnect to as you see here and here and, then, we had the issue of Jericho. We submitted what we thought was a good plan and, then, the staff reviewed it, the neighbors reviewed it, and they were not satisfied. So, we asked the Planning and Zoning Commission to defer us for I think about a month or two to give us the opportunity to have a roundtable discussion with both the staff and the neighbors on Jericho and what you see before you is what we came up with: The primary concern of the Jericho residents -- there are five one acre lots on the east side of Jericho Street. They were very concerned with the fact that Jericho is their neighborhood street, but, yet, it was not being treated that way. It was being treated more like a collector and we had two entrances that came out onto Jericho and they said, you know, we realize this property is going to develop and we are supportive of some high density here, just complete our neighborhood. That's all we ask. And they said if you could give us just eight single family detached lots, 8,000 square feet and up, and try to send your traffic Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 20 of 48 into Hightower versus accessing Jericho, we feel that that would be a good plan and we could support that. So, that's what we did. We went back to the city staff, met with them, they were supportive of it, and Ada County Highway District was supportive of it. The fact that they vacated this northern portion of Jericho, the whole transportation in this section is very well interconnected according to ACHD staff and that primary focus up to Chinden is the new collector that will be -- is being installed with Hightower. So, that's what we utilize as our primary vehicular access and we did go through and complete that Jericho neighborhood, so now they have homes on the west side. We told them we would go in and, obviously, make improvements to match what they have and do a nice subdivision. The other thing they asked is that if we had attached units, that we put them in the center, so that there was kind of a transitioning of the larger lots than smaller detached lots and, then, the attached units right here in the center. We have got some alleys here that will allow us a little more creativity on our front elevations with the rear access and, then, we have got these lots here that are on the MEW or an open space. These have to be private roads, they can't be alleys under Ada County Highway District's definition, because for these lots on the green that is their primary access point. This project, if you look at Hightower, it blends, it meets that innovative flexible design which is encouraged by the Comp Plan and it also encourages kind of a grid-like pattern. We think we found a good compromise and we ask the Council to support it. And we did -- this is R-4 here, for the record, and, then, this is R-15. And that was also at the request of the Westborough neighbors, that we have a transition in that zoning designation, too. Any questions? Borton: Thank you, Mrs. McKay. McKay: Thank you. Borton: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Borton: I have none. Just for a comment, I appreciate and I know you know that we appreciate efforts towards the transition phases that you have done in regards to the various densities. It's greatly appreciated. McKay: Thank you. Borton: This is a Public Hearing -- this is a Public Hearing. Would anyone care to provide comment or testimony? Hearing none, Council, any additional information needed from staff or the applicant? Bird: Not me. Zaremba: Mr. President, I would just -- they work for the neighbors, that's clearly shown by the fact that nobody's here to object to it, even though there are larger properties around, and I think it's a project that could be a good addition to the city. ~ ~ Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 21 of 48 Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: Hearing that, I move we close the public hearings on AZ 06-057, PP 06-56, and VAR 06-024. Zaremba: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to close the public hearings on Items 13, 14 and 15. Before we vote, Mr. Nary, Item 15 is a variance request, which it sounds like it's being withdrawn. Do we -- well, at what point do we address that? Nary: Mr. President, Members of the Council -- and, I'm sorry, I know Mrs. Canning stated it. I don't recall -- I didn't think I heard Mrs. McKay state she didn't need it anymore. I know you closed the Public Hearing. As long as we have some confirmation that they don't need that any longer, you can certainly just move to, essentially, vacate that request. That would be fine. Borton: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Items 13, 14 and 15. All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borton: Thank you. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve AZ 06-057 and incorporate applicant, staff comments. Zaremba: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 13, AZ 06-057. Any discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Borton: Thank you. Item 14. Bird: Mr. President? s • Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 22 of 48 Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve PP 06-056, preliminary plat for Jericho Subdivision and I believe the date on that is 1/18/07. Zaremba: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 14, PP 06-056. Any discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we vacate VAR 06-024, as it is no longer needed. Zaremba: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to vacate Item 15 at the applicant's request. Zaremba: Might we want to state that as accept the withdrawal of it? Borton: Thank you. The variance. Berg: Vacate a vacation. Borton: That's as muddy as we can make it. Zaremba: Okay. Borton: Vacate the variance to vacate -- all those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 16: Public Hearing: VAR 07-003 Request for a Variance to UDC 11-3B-7C2 to count 15 feet of existing right-of--way for Eagle Road towards the landscape street buffer in the C-G zone, for Centre Pointe North Subdivision by W.H. Moore, Co -northwest comer of Eagle Road and Ustick Road: • Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 23 of 48 Borton: Thank you. Item 16 is a Public Hearing on VAR 07-003, request for variance for Centre Pointe North Subdivision and we will begin this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: President Borton, Members of the Council, this is the Centre Pointe North project. It's located on the northwest comer of Eagle and Ustick Roads, actually just north of Centre Pointe, hence the Centre Pointe North name. The application before you tonight is for a variance. They are requesting a variance from portions -- from the portions of the Unified Development Code that require a 35 foot landscape buffer along entryway corridors and that landscape buffers along streets be in a common lot or within a permanent easement. If approved the variance would allow the applicant to count some of the adjacent ITD right of way towards the landscape street buffer width. The application -- the applicant is proposing to reduce the area of the landscape buffer on their property to 20 feet and, then, use approximately 15 feet of ITD right of way towards the remainder width. On June 22nd, 2006, the Meridian City Council approved the same request for a landscaping variance for Centre Pointe Subdivision No. 1 and that's, obviously, just to the south of this project. The subject proposal is for the balance of the project. Staff did recommend approval. We felt that given the previous approval that we could, again, make the findings. The first one being that the variance shall not grant a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district. The applicant is actually proposing up to -- to landscape up to 27 feet of IDT right of way, so the total width will be 47 feet in some places and, then, down to a minimum of 20 feet that would be on the applicant's side. The second finding is that the variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site. And, again, when ITD purchased the right of way what we have heard is that they were anticipating additional lanes, but that they are not moving forward with those lanes, so they do have a fair amount of remainder right of way that in other cases may have gone just unimproved, but in this case the applicant is willing to improve that landscaping in exchange for waiving some of his -- the requirement for a zone. The variance shall not be -- the third finding is that the variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare and, again, there was no concern that granting the variance to the buffer width would cause any public's health safety concerns. So, to our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council and we have not received any written testimony since the staff report was finished. And I'll answer any questions you may have. Borton: Thank you, Mrs. Canning. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Zaremba: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: Just to clarify, the 15 feet of their buffer that will be within the existing right of way, they are still going to landscape; is that correct? • • Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 24 of 48 Canning: The 15 feet -- Zaremba: They will, actually, have 35 feet of landscaped buffer, 20 of it's on their property and 15 is in the right of way. Canning: Yes, sir. Zaremba: But it will be landscaped. Canning: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Do they need any kind of a license from ACH -- or from ITD? Canning: Yes. And the staff report talks about that. It had a couple provisions tied with it, one of them being that they get a license agreement. Zaremba: I thought I saw that someplace and that's why I thought of it. Canning: Yes. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. Borton: Any other questions, Council? Bird: I have none. Borton: Thank you. Would the applicant care to come forward? Seal: Good evening.. Jonathan Seal, W.H. Moore Company, 1940 Bonito, Meridian. If I can, first, what I would like to do -- and I will pass these around. Anna: Jonathan, make sure you talk into a microphone. I'm sorry. Mr. Seal. Seal: Anna, if you could put the concept map up, really, very briefly. And I will try to keep this short. What you're looking at -- you see that kind of green line, that is the right of way line. Just a very brief history on this. As you may be aware I have been in front of the Council on this before. We have done the improvements along Eagle Road. If you have driven down this lately, we have put in the curb and gutter, we have done the widening along here the entire length of this. So, at this point all the curb and gutter, the right-hand tum lanes, the dual left-hand tum lanes, all the striping, the approaches are all in place. If you look at that -- that copy that I gave you, if you have to look at number two, you will notice that -- that we got anywhere from about 21 to 27 feet of excess right of way, which we would landscape and in answer to that question, yes, we would landscape it; yes, we do have to have a license agreement -- in fact, this is the license agreement we got with the other phase. So, what we would do, as we have done with the other one, which, I guess, you know, the proof is in the pudding and you can see if Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 25 of 48 you have gone out there before, is we have landscaped that right of way in what we call Centre Pointe Sub No. 1. So, right now you're looking at -- and, Councilman Zaremba, you had asked -- you're looking anywhere from -- if I'm doing my math right, 40 to 47 feet of landscaping in there. Again, I think it captures the intent of the city's desire to have that 35 feet, we are, actually, giving you more since we have landscaped it. So, I think it's very attractive and, again, it would continue on from what we have done already. So, I think unless there is any questions, we are in agreement with it. We would, obviously, get a license agreement. As I say, we have added for that. We would submit another one. It's kind of an administrative thing and it will be fairly easy to do. We will put that in a 20 foot landscaped area and we are prepared to honor the conditions that are set forth in the staff report. So, unless there is any questions, I will sit down. Borton: Thank you, Mr. Seal. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Borton: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to provide comment or testimony? Seeing none, any additional information Council needs from staff or the applicant? Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: Hearing none, I move we close the Public Hearing on VAR 07-003. Zaremba: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 16. All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird: Mr. President? Borton: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve VAR 07-003, the variance for Centre Pointe North Subdivision. I think it's number two. And to include staff and applicant testimony. Zaremba: Second. Borton: It's been moved and seconded to approve Item 16, VAR 07-003. Any discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Berg. • • Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 26 of 48 Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 17: Public Hearing: AZ 06-052 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 5.17 acres from RUT to an R-8 zone for Portico Place Subdivision by Portico, LLC -1780 E. McMillan Road: Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 06-053 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 26 single-family residential building lots and 3 common /other lots on 5.17 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Portico Place Subdivision by Portico, LLC -1780 E. McMillan Road: Borton: Thank you. Item 17 is a Public Hearing on AZ 06-052 -- De Weerd: You were on a roll. I will go ahead an open the two public hearings on AZ 06-052 and PP 06-053 with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. This is the Portico Place project. It's located at 1780 East McMillan Road on the north side of McMillan Road just east of the intersection of Locust Grove and McMillan. The applications before you tonight are for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat, and altemative compliance. This is a reconsideration hearing, so staff, as is always an awkward process, will present the application as it originally came forward from the Planning and Zoning Commission. You did receive a memo responding to the applicant's request for reconsideration and the new material presented with that, but my presentation will be largely on the recommendation as forwarded by the Planning and Zoning Commission. So, the proposed development includes annexation and zoning of 5.17 acres to R-8 and, then, preliminary plat approval of 27 -- or 26 single family residential and townhouse building lots. The altemative compliance request is for reduction to the street buffer width along East McMillan Road from the 35 feet down to now 30 feet. The original hearing the request was down to 25 feet, but now they are requesting just a five foot reduction. And that would be along the south side -- excuse me -- of the existing home. The building lots consist of 20 attached units, five detached units, and the one existing home. A gazebo, pathway, and parking areas are proposed within the common area located centrally in the subdivision. The existing home is on the southwest comer of the property. The gross residential density is 5.03 dwelling units per acre. The net density 6.98 dwelling units per acre. The development agreement includes the following provisions that were added by the Planning Commission. I'm song. This is where it gets a little confusing. When the Planning Commission reviewed this project, the applicant was still asking for access to McMillan Road, so the Planning Commission added some provisions to the development agreement that addressed resubdivision of that property. The applicant has withdrawn that request, so those provisions will need to likely be removed by staff. So, the development agreement could -- as presented from the Planning and Zoning Commission, they are recommending some items regarding re-subdivision of that property, but I think that they are no longer necessary. The applicant has submitted revised elevations and those are before you. Mrs. Wafters • Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 27 of 48 summarized some of those changes in her memo and I think that -- I'm sure the applicant will want to focus on those in his presentation as well. Planning Commission did recommend approval at their December 21st, 2006, Public Hearing. Ron Sargent spoke in favor of the application. No one spoke in opposition or commented. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the retention of the existing access to McMillan Road. Key Commission changes to staff recommendations were to require development agreement that included provisions for that 35 foot landscape buffer to be installed upon redevelopment of the property. And, again, this gets to those items that are probably no longer necessary. Since the original staff report was written you have received applicant's response letter to that and a subsequent request for reconsideration that contained new information. The key point of that, though, is that the applicant no longer requests direct lot access to McMillan Road and no longer requests a full ten foot reduction in the landscape buffer, it's only a five foot now. With regard to outstanding issues before City Council, it is always a little difficult for staff to get the appropriate documents before you for these reconsideration hearings, so if Council chooses to approve this request, we would ask that you give us three weeks to prepare the Findings, instead of the usual two. That will give us a chance to do the Findings and run them by the applicant to make sure we haven't missed anything, since he doesn't have those before him tonight to respond to. And we are confident that we can do this, but it would just be -- we'd need the extra week to coordinate with the applicant on the wording of any revisions that Council may have for us tonight. And with that I will answer any questions that Council -- Mayor or Council may have. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions of staff at this time? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. I was asked by Mr. Bird to get clarity on the young members in our audience. If you're high school students, you're trying to gain extra credit, I do have City of Meridian pins up here for you, so you might even get extra credit. I'll give it to Mr. Berg and he will deliver it to you. Bird: They have sat through the whole meeting. And didn't have to say the pledge or anything. De Weerd: Now, see, we think we are very entertaining, but I'm sure without me it was pretty boring. I have to -- John, song, you don't qualify. I will ask if the applicant is here this evening and would like to make comment. Sargent: Ron Sargent. 1883 North Wildwood Street in Boise, I'm the applicant, and I have some handouts I guess to -- okay. I'll try to simplify this as best I can. Before from the Planning and Zoning Commission there was forwarded a recommendation for a development agreement and part of this came up -- Anna, could you put on the site -- no, the landscape plan from before. Yes. There we go. Thank you. There is an existing house in this location and we had requested a direct access to McMillan Road, which we are now requesting -- or no longer requesting and we are pulling that off and Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 28 of 48 so we plan on landscaping all the way along the McMillan Road area which is located here. I think you can see better on site plan is that we are proposing that there -- we will only have a five foot distance between the house and the landscape buffer, which would mean that that would be a 30 foot landscape buffer, rather than the code requirement of 35. We are also doing an alternative compliance where we are going to plant an additional 44 shrubs and an additional three trees. We are also going to berm that area in there and we think when people travel along McMillan Road they will not be able to tell that there is only a 30 foot buffer there, rather than 35, because with the berm, the additional shrubbery, the additional trees, we think that that will blend in and they won't be able to see very much of a difference. The reason that we are asking for a five foot setback alongside the house is that we need that to be able to meet the setback requirements of the zone and we need a minimum of five feet on the side yard setback. And so that's what -- that's the minimum so we meet the building requirements to be able to build a house there. So, that's -- so because of those reasons, we do not feel that the development agreement that was originally proposed -- is no longer necessary and that we feel that the UDC code more than covers any future development on that property. If that house was to be tom down, then, we feel that that would be the opportunity at that time for the city to ask for the additional five feet in the landscaping. I have also included at the back of the handout a photograph of the existing house and it's a red brick house. We think that -- De Weerd: Anna, do you want to put that up. Sargent: We think that is a very -- it's a very nice house. We think it's going to be around for a number of years and that's why we are proposing that we have that five foot setback, because without the five foot setback I think it would be a nonconforming use and the only thing that we could think of that we'd have to tear the house down, which we don't think there is really a need and we think the house kind of fits in with the character of the neighborhood as well. De Weerd: Mr. Sargent, where would that house take access -- have access? Sargent: It would come up Beethoven, which is the road here off McMillan and, then, it -- meeting the highway district's setback it was -- it would be -- there would be a driveway approximately -- I think it's 120 or 150 feet back from McMillan. We would also move the garage doors from the south side, which faces McMillan, we'd move them to the west side, so they'd face directly towards Beethoven, the new proposed road. Does that -- De Weerd: And currently it takes access off of McMillan? Sargent: Yes. Today the access in approximately in this location right here. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we have a new technology and to be able to move it onto the one that projects up there I have to be able to minimize it and I Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 29 of 48 can't do that, so I can't figure out how to get it over there. I apologize. We will try and perfect our system. Sargent: Madam Mayor, maybe Icould -- De Weerd: No. I have it in front of me. I was hoping to show it to those that are sitting out in the audience. Sargent: Oh. This is the existing house. De Weerd: That's technology. Here it is. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: On that subject, the access to the main street closed and taking it off of -- was it Beethoven? Sargent: Beethoven is the name of the new street. Zaremba: The new street. Speaking for fire, police, and post office, they probably would want that house readdressed to a Beethoven address. Is that in the works? Sargent: Yeah. I assume that's what would happen, because the front of the house would face Beethoven, so there would have to be a change of address. So, I'm assuming -- I'm assuming that's what would happen. We submit the plat to Public Works and they determine the addressing for us. So, we don't have input in the addressing process. Zaremba: Okay. So, it wouldn't be a surprise of that happened. Sargent: No. We were -- in fact, we were sort of anticipating more than likely that would take place. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Sargent: Okay. The other -- let's see. The other issue, before I look at the elevations, is -- also on the landscape plan I wanted to point out is that in the middle we have created a large green area to be shared by all the homeowners. We primarily sell our houses to seniors and we probably sell 60 or 70 percent of our houses to seniors and what we do is we set up a homeowners association that does all the maintenance for the front and back yards and so that they don't have to do any mowing or weeding or any exterior landscape maintenance and so they share in that common area that's in Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 30 of 48 the center. We also feel, because we are primarily selling to seniors that we have to have single level homes. We feel that's really important to do that and a lot of our designs I think are driven toward that. Anna, I guess you're ofFline. And the other thing I guess I wanted to point out with this map that's on the very front of the handout, which I guess is -- it's something similar -- is that our project's approximately right in the middle of the map -- oh, here we go. Yes. And this area around here is R-8. This is R-8 in this area. This is also R-8. And this is an Idaho Power substation, so it's not going to be developed in the future. And, then, as I understand it, there is an application to change this to a commercial -- an L-O use. I think there is a proposal in for that. So, I guess the point I was trying to make is that the areas around the subdivision are built out. We find that that is very good for our product, because of the seniors that we sell to, what they want to be is near their kids and grandkids and the fact that there is a lot of subdivisions around this area being sort of near where the rest of the family is, tends to -- typically is very important to our type of buyer. So, I guess what I'd like to do is move on to the elevations and what we have designed and we have tried to do our best -- this is some of the existing product and we have included this in a handout, because this has been a very popular item and we still feel that we'd like to continue to build that and we have tried to change some of the roof lines over the garage, added some more stone, changed -- added a couple different roof lines here and because this is so popular we wanted to continue this in our product offering to our seniors. If you will go to the next slide, Anna. And this one we have attempted on the roof lines to make it look as much as we can somewhat like two houses. We have even talked about the possibility of painting them slightly different colors to -- even though they are attached to make them look as separate as they can. And so this is kind of the basic idea here. On this one we had added dormers in the front to change the elevation that way that looks and in your handout there is one additional design that we have been working and, once again, we were trying to -- we are attempting -- it's the one with the -- it's colored somewhat yellow. We are attempting to have it look like two separate homes, but that they are attached on a zero lot line. It's very difficult to do that on a -- on a single level home, but we feel that that's -- we have been to three different designers and these are some of the ideas that they have come back with. With that I guess I'd stand for questions. De Weerd: Council, any questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none, Mayor. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Ron, do you have -- do you have something in writing -- I just would love to see it -- from this elderly blind homeowner to have the right of way -- or, excuse me -- some landscaping buffer five feet from her existing front door and moving garage doors from the south to the west and totally redesigning this lady's house. Is that a particular concern for her? • Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 31 of 48 Sargent: In our purchase agreement in our contract we actually put in there that if we were denied direct access through the application process that we would, at our expense -- we own the house, bu# we had to clarify that, that we would move the garage doors from the south facing to the west facing. So, we in our -- so, contractually, we have actually, you know, gone to her and she -- her big concem was that she didn't want a major disruption in her home as we did all this work, but she agreed to the fact that we could move the garage doors and we, actually, have a specific time frame within which we do that and I think it's at the beginning of the site construction or at the end of the site construction, I don't recall exactly when it was, but we were going to delay it for a reasonable period of time before we actually moved those garage doors. The other thing is in the house -- it's better to -- I don't know if you can see it over here. This is kind of a -- this little wing that fits out to the north, that's kind of a big living room area and, then, the kitchen is next to it. It was an addition to the house. Most of the access by the family is kind of through this back door area in here. So, we even -- don't know if she will -- you will want to consider that as her front door. One of her concerns was -- is that the people -- that we wanted the sidewalk as far away from the windows as we possibly could have it, because she didn't want people walking on the sidewalk and being able to walk up to her living room window and look in. So, if -- I don't know if you can -- it's really small. We have a meandering sidewalk here and, then, about this area here we have it right along McMillan Road. We tried to keep -- so, at her request we tried to keep the sidewalk as far away from the house as we could. So, we have done -- you know, she's aware that there is going to be some fairly significant changes and we have -- we tried to anticipate as many of those changes as we could in our agreement. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: A follow-up concem. Was there any concem either from this homeowner or from our staff with regards to a possible driveway access right there? You have got, you know, your entire community accessing McMillan from this new street. You have got, you know, a larger berm, heavily landscaped, and now a driveway. Is there some safety concem with a driveway popping right around the comer? Sargent: Well, I guess, you know, first of all, is that we will comply with the city and the highway district's ordinances as far as your sight triangle is concerned. You know, both into the driveway and, then, McMillan onto Beethoven. And they have some specific requirements that back a certain distance we can only have a three foot high shrub or berm or other type of landscaping. So, it's going to be free and clear. So, in this area in here we need to -- we have to make sure that we comply with those requirements. The other thing is that we also have set the driveway to ACHD standards of a local road off a -- I believe McMillan is a collector. So, there is certain distances that we are required to be back before we can set the driveway. So, we have -- we are designing it to all those requirements. So, we are in compliance. We are not asking for any variance to any of those. But I do see your recommendation as I think it's important that that is free. The Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 32 of 48 other thing is -- maybe it's easier to see over here, if you can. There is quite a bit of distance from what will be the garage doors to Beethoven. My assumption is that they will be able to pull out of the garage, tum around, and go onto Beethoven facing forward. There is enough room in the driveway to tum around in that area. It's quite -- it's kind of -- I don't know the exact distance, but there is quite a distance from Beethoven over to the garage doors. Borton: Thank you. De Weerd: Anna, did ACHD make comments on this new design and did they raise any concems about the clearance from the driveway to McMillan Road? Canning: Madam Mayor, they have not commented on the new design. I think their concem was more with the access staying to McMillan Road. I can check through the staff report, but Idon't -- I mean we were always advocating that they actually take access from Beethoven and I don't remember there being a concem about -- expressed about that at all. De Weerd: Okay. I guess my concem, too, would be -- and I don't want to stereotype, so -- but that is an extremely busy road and this is still fairly close to the intersection of Locust Grove and McMillan and you have an older population and if they are anything like my grandparents, it's frightening. They shouldn't be driving. But, you know, with that access -- I guess I just have concems with the access out onto McMillan and I don't think that stub to the north goes anywhere yet. Sargent: Correct. De Weerd: But there is a stub from -- Edinburgh? Is Edinburgh to the east of this? Sargent: Sheridan Place. De Weerd: Sheridan Place. Do they have an access just north and east of your upper - Sargent: Their road -- let's see where -- oops. Yeah. Their road ends right about there and our road from the south is -- does not allow connection at this point in time. When this property to the north of us is developed, then, that road will go on through. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think the applicant has proposed a good solution to the problem of backing out onto Beethoven and that's just to -- I do think -- still think we need a development agreement to include the elevations that the applicant has proposed and the Council could just include that he provide a turnaround on site in that yard, so that they can exit facing front. De Weerd: I guess that doesn't answer my question. I think what you had indicated is Ada County Highway District did comment about their access onto McMillan, then. Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 33 of 48 Canning: And they -- yes. They required that it be -- De Weerd: If that helps for the entire subdivision. • Sargent: If I could address it, because in ACHD's report specifically we had requested this direct access from the house to McMillan. And ACRD -- De Weerd: Oh, so you'd have two accesses. Sargent: Yeah. And ACHD declined -- or they did not approve that direct access. De Weerd: I guess my comment is as we look at these arterials we need to look at them almost just as much as we need to look at the Chinden corridor as to how many accesses do we continue to allow onto these arterials and still have a safe driving situation. Canning: Yes, ma'am. De Weerd: I guess that's my concern. Canning: I understand now. I'm sorry I didn't understand you the first time. And we were concerned with that and that's why Mr. Sargent's project has the entrance road immediately along the western property boundary. The intent is that all three of these properties will share that access eventually. You may remember with the Woodland Springs, although the project was denied, one of the specific provisions were that that driveway access would go away over time and would connect through to this proposed access. So, we have been working to consolidate the access points for the remainder of this area. De Weerd: So, with that consideration, then -- and I appreciate that clarification, but, then, does it make sense to have the existing house access at that particular point on Beethoven, rather than to the north, where everything else is converging on that one road, does it make sense putting the driveway there? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, is it ideal? Probably not. Would it make sense to run a driveway parallel to the street? Probably not either, because it would create an odd -- awkward circumstance where you brought it over. Short of tearing down the house there aren't too many options there. You know, I have to say that the applicant, although he advocated for the access to McMillan perhaps longer than he should have or would have normally, he has tried to accommodate the existing structure into the subdivision and meet the needs of that particular property owner. Sargent: Madam Mayor, could I maybe make a recommendation to resolve this is that, first of all, is that we in our agreement have said that if we couldn't direct access to McMillan Road that we would have access to Beethoven, you know, to the west, so they could access their garage from the west side. We did say that we would place that in a Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 34 of 48 location that was recommended by a govemment agency. If the city so desired, we could move that access further to the north in that direction to get it further away from McMillan. I guess as long as it's requested of us by a govemment agency, then, I think we have fulfilled the -- our part of the agreement. So, if that's your desire to move that forward, I guess there is -- there is a considerable amount of room in this area here, as I said, to do a turnaround and so we could -- we could certainly design an access to the garage in that area to allow a turnaround and to move that driveway further to the north. Would that be a -- De Weerd: How deep is the lot? Sargent: Excuse me? De Weerd: How deep is that? How deep is that lot? Sargent: My guess is it's probably 150, 170 feet from this side of the lot to this side. Somewhere in that area. I think this area from the house to the driveway is probably 50 feet, maybe, maybe more than that. Fifty, sixty feet. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Can I ask a question. Can you put -- can you put the -- do the garages go all the way through? Does the garage go all the way through from south to north? Sargent: No. There is -- Bird: There is another room? So, you can't put the entry into the garage on the north side. Sargent: No. That would be very awkward to do that. Bird: I'm like the Mayor, I think the farther north you can get it to come out on Beethoven would certainly be my recommendation. I would -- I wouldn't want you real close there to the -- Sargent: We designed it according to the highway district standards and that's what -- that's how we have proceeded and we -- I mean as I said, if we are mandated to move it further to the north, we -- you know, I think we can still feel -- fulfill our agreement to the owner of the property and give her access off that -- Bird: If it's that far down, I see where the things come from, but, you know, with the front landscaping and stuff a guy turning right in there isn't going to see that car until it's right down the street if it's that close. I would -- if you got that kind of area between the house where -- or the garage doors from that deal, I don't know why you can't go up a • • Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 35 of 48 hundred feet or so, at least give some people time to stop when they tum, because, you know -- Sargent: Right. Bird: -- you're going to have that landscaped and Ijust -- it's got to go north. It can't stay there. De Weerd: And ACHD standards are defined minimum standards. It doesn't mean you can't do more. Sargent: Yes. And as the applicant we are willing to move it further to the north on Beethoven and also to create a turnaround, so that they would be facing forward going out. We could also -- I mean look at this entire landscaping area in here and even though it may meet the site triangle requirements, we can make sure that this area in here is -- only has three foot or lower shrubs and that would I think also make it a lot more visible of somebody turning off here to see a driveway up in this area. Bird: What we are creating -- excuse me, Madam Mayor. What we are creating is another Locust Grove and Pine where you can't see what's coming like you can't from the west coming down Pine there on Locust Grove and Idon't - I mean Lieutenant Trakel could probably tell us, but I think there is -- have a lot of wrecks over there with that, even though they did cut the fence down to three feet, it's still -- it's horrible. I mean if you're in a big pickup or something it's not so bad, but if you're in a little Tracker like mine or a car it's tough, you have to get halfway out in the deal and I can see this same problem starting here and, then, to dump a driveway right there close to it, no way. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Zaremba: Madam Mayor, just a comment on the same subject. That as I recall the ACHD report did, as well as the city, say no access to McMillan, so the choices are either Beethoven or the cross street. The difficulty that I see with the cross street is the applicant's drawing over here, in order for a driveway to come out onto that cross street, you'd have to deal with a setback from Beethoven and either a setback or an alignment with this other piece of the street, which means you end up with more driveway than not driveway. I mean they would have to pave three-quarters of that lot to take access onto the cross street. So, I realize it's not a perfect situation, but I think with the applicant agreeing to move it further and further from McMillan and to reduce the height of the shrubbery right at the comer, that's not a happy compromise, but it's probably the best compromise. Canning: Madam Mayor, I have some numbers for you, too, if you'd like. It's about 140 feet from right of way on this street -- I can read the name right now -- to the right of way along McMillan. So, 30 feet of that is the landscape buffer. So, you have got -- • Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 36 of 48 Bird: One hundred and ten -- Canning: -- about 110 feet. I thought it was more than that. Now I'm confused. Bird: You've got 140, you're taking 30 out. Canning: Thirty out, it would be 110, but I thought it was more than that, so now I got to check it again, so -- there is a fair amount of distance there. If the applicant were to have the back out area heading south and, then, move it up a little bit that may work. Bird: You mean heading north, don't you? Canning: No. You would want them to have -- well, it depends on how long you want them to back out. Bird: I mean you want him to go up, don't you, Anna? Canning: Yes. Bird: Yeah. I agree with that. Sargent: As a compromise, what if we put it half -- you know, began the driveway going north halfway between McMillan and this other -- and this street is Whitehawk. Bird: That's approximately 70 feet off of the right of way and you're taking out 30 feet of landscaping, which is going to be not visible. It's a blind comer. I would take it a hundred feet from the right of way on McMillan. Sargent: Okay. Bird: That will give -- that will give you 70 feet from the landscaping for people to see, get scar -- you know, what is cars running now, 22, 24 feet, something like that, long. I don't know. I think it should be at least a hundred feet off of the right of way -- Sargent: Okay. Bird: -- where you start to tum out. Zaremba: In support of what Councilman Bird is saying -- Canning: It's about right there. Zaremba: -- that would further encourage anybody that's trying to use that driveway to tum around. They are not going to back up that whole distance. Bird: That's right. t. J Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 37 of 48 Zaremba: And it would encourage them to use the turnaround and come out forward, so I think that's a good suggestion. Bird: Madam Mayor? And I think with the carry he's got there, you can back up and just turn and come out. Just back out of the deals, bring it out, and I realize it's going to be a lot more asphalt. Then, just turn and go north up there and, then, come out. I can't accept anything any closer than that myself personally. Sargent: We are not -- we are not opposed to that recommendation. De Weerd: Okay. Well, you know, I -- I see Kristi here and I thought she was still with Garden City. I kind of was trying to figure out what she was doing here. Now that I understand you're no longer with Garden City now it makes sense. If you would like to comment, we would love to have you do so. Richardson: Thank you. Kristi Richardson representing the Ada County Highway District. Madam Mayor, Council members. De Weerd: Well, welcome back. Richardson: Thank you. It's good to be back. We do have a condition in our staff report related to the internal streets and we do have a requirement for 50 feet from any intersection. So, while we agree with you, if we can get more than 50 feet off of McMillan, we also have to be concerned about Whitehawk and we got those same site distance issues for those people exiting the subdivision, making the comer around Whitehawk. So, my preference would be if the condition could just be that the driveway be located 50 feet south of Whitehawk, that's close to the hundred feet, but not quite, and that would still meet our conditions and would still get you away from McMillan a little bit further. But that way the sight distance should be okay for both the McMillan intersection and the Whitehawk intersection. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Uh-huh. Bird: And that's -- you want 50 feet from the road there that goes east-west? Richardson: Correct. That's Whitehawk. Bird: So, that gives us 90 off of the right of way. Richardson: Approximately. Bird: I could probably live with that. • Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 38 of 48 De Weerd: Kristi, as you look down the road -- I forget the -- but as the other properties kind of converge to that point, is that even going to give them very good access with the stacking or anything else? Richardson: I think with the applicant's willingness to install a turnaround on site, just the ability of the vehicles to pull out into traffic, rather than backing out we will be fine. De Weerd: As long as they don't have guests there that eliminates that ability to -- you know, there is -- there is all those worst case scenarios and don't want to be doom and gloom, but I guess trying to design a subdivision around an existing house always proves to make a very difficult application and -- and sometimes not real ideal. Richardson: We are pleased the access is off McMillan. Removed, not off of. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: No longer. Yes. Zaremba: Is the assumption that Beethoven would be treated like a collector and there would be no parking on it? Richardson: Madam Mayor, Councilmember Zaremba, I don't think we had any conditions at the present time. In the future as those properties to the west develop that's a very good possibility. We will have to see what the future of this house holds. If it stays a house, you know, we are certainly sensitive to the needs of the resident, too, and making sure there is adequate parking for gatherings. As those properties to the west develop, if there are more of a nonresidential type use, we will look at restricting parking. But not with the present application. And, of course, we do have requirements about restricting parking off of streets. So, parking will be restricted for a short period on Beethoven off of McMillan. De Weerd: Would you allow parking on Beethoven? Richardson: Because this is so short here with the requirement coming off of McMillan and, then, the -- and, then, the driveway, yeah, that leaves us with little and the short distance between intersections. So, you're right, probably nothing on Beethoven right now anyway and with the west side being unimproved. Good point. De Weerd: Okay. Don't want to kick a dead horse. Zaremba: Madam Mayor, I would have one more question for the applicant. De Weerd: Mr. Sargent, we have a question for you. Zaremba: As Director Canning suggested that your Beethoven is designed to think of the future uses of the two properties to the west and combining the accesses, the • Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 39 of 48 mechanics of accomplishing that and -- I was on the Planning and Zoning Commission when it came through there, but refresh my memory. I see on one of the drawings what is apparently a landscape strip. Is that put in a separate common lot that can be sold into right of way when it needs to be? Sargent: One of the requests from Ada County Highway District is that that landscaping strip along here be removed and that we have a gravel shoulder, so that when the street is finished out there isn't landscaping that will have to be removed. So, our design didn't meet the highway district's requirements, so they have requested us to put gravel in that location and take out the landscaping. So, does that -- Zaremba: You have resolved that. Sargent: Yeah. And on this newer version we met their requirement. We removed it. I didn't -- Zaremba: Thank you. De Weerd: Anything further? Okay. Sargent: Okay. Thank you. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: If nobody has anything, more public testimony or anything, I move we close AZ 06-052 and PP 06-053. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the public hearings on Items 17 and 18. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carves. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Any comments? Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I guess the question is one of mechanics and maybe our attorney Mr. Nary and Director Canning need to chime in on this, but I'm satisfied with the changes that have been made, but how do we incorporate that into the motion? Can we reference the applicant's letter of January -- I think it was 26th. I'm trying to get to the date portion • Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 40 of 48 on it. And does that mean that we should put that into the development agreement or are we satisfied to eliminate the development agreement and reference January 26th? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, what I would suggest is that probably the easiest thing is for Council just to state their desired changes or their desired facts regarding this case. If it's no driveway to McMillan. The driveway from the existing house shall be 50 feet south of Whitehawk Street. The development agreement -- or those would be more -- no, that would be the development agreement. That the elevations be tied to the development agreement, if that's what you want. That there only be a five foot reduction in the street landscape width. So, that's probably the easiest thing to do. Then, we will go make all the necessary changes and if you want me to present them to Council I can, but I can work with the applicant and I'm sure he will tell me if I got something wrong. Or Mr. Nary will. And, then, we will accomplish it that way. I think that's the easiest thing to do. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: For purposes of discussion there really isn't, from my perspective, been something that's changed with this application sufficient enough for me to be supportive of it. We might have a mix of opinions. I appreciate the applicant's efforts in trying to resolve this issue. I think from my mind I agree with the Mayor's comments concerning the challenges in developing a project around an existing home and this is one that is uniquely difficult. I understand that, by my concerns several weeks ago really haven't been alleviated by the changes. I'm not -- I'm not presently ready to accept the application as submitted, even with these changes. De Weerd: Council, any other comments? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: If not -- Zaremba: Madam Mayor'? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I would just comment that I am, of course, on record as a Planning and Zoning Commissioner of having voted to recommend approval of this, with the conditions that were originally asked for in the development agreement. My biggest bugaboo at the time was the 25 foot landscape buffer and making that a permanent thing. I felt that the rest of the development pretty well complied with the Comprehensive Plan and the Unified Development Code. But the biggest issue was the access and, again, as the Mayor states, designing around the existing house, how do you do it, how do you access it, how much property do you have. And when this • • Meridian Ciry Council March 6, 2007 Page 41 of 48 Council denied it, I voted to deny at that point, because I was not satisfied that the buffer issue was being addressed. I now am more satisfied -- I can live with a 30 foot landscape buffer. As the applicant has said, they are going to berm it some and 30 years from now somebody driving down McMillan may not even be aware that it's five feet less buffer than the rest of it, which was my biggest concern that we have variations as somebody drives along McMillan. So, contrary to Councilman Borton, I would have to say that my issues have been pretty well resolved and I could be satisfied with this project. De Weerd: You know, Mr. Zaremba, I appreciate those. I guess I, too, would say someone might not notice that the landscape or setback was five feet less, but you have a meandering sidewalk that now is all of a sudden straight and we like the meandering sidewalks, because it brought the pedestrians further away from the busy street and because of, again, designing around an existing residence, it's dictated where the sidewalk has to be, because they don't want them peeking in their house. I understand that. But one of the reasons that Meridian has supported the detached is to keep the pedestrian away from the busy street. McMillan is a busy street and it certainly has it challenges. I just -- you know, I'd like the interior park design, it just -- there is just still a couple of concerns that I have. Mr. Bird, did you -- I'm song. Bird: Oh, no problem, Mayor. I can't think of where we got meandering sidewalks on McMillan Road. I know the subdivisions to the east don't, because I have walked them a few times and I don't remember them being a detached deal and I could be wrong there. I, too, agree with Councilman Zaremba. I -- the applicant went back -- I don't know -- and I understand why that lady wants to stay in that house and I'm not for one for her having to move out. I think he's went and done everything we asked him to do, in my opinion. The landscape buffer. No access from McMillan. He is willing to go 50 feet south with the driveway from Whitehawk or whatever street that is. I can support it now. De Weerd: Okay. Well, do I have a motion, Council? Zaremba: Refresh my memory. Did we already close the Public Hearing? Bird: Yeah. De Weerd: Yes, we did. Zaremba: Okay. Thank you. In that case, Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that we approve AZ 06-052 for Portico Place Subdivision to include all staff comments and to include a development agreement, but to make some changes to the development agreement, to eliminate the requirement that if Lot 17, Block 1, ever redevelops, re-subdivides, et cetera, that the landscape buffer will have to Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 42 of 48 C~ be changed and to accept the applicant's revision to make the landscape buffer be 30 feet, instead of the 35. The development agreement directed that the existing access to McMillan be dropped. The applicant has already agreed to that, so I would rephrase that to state that the access to Beethoven will include both a tumaround and a driveway that meets the street as close to 50 feet south of Whitehawk as possible. I would include in the development agreement a reference to the elevations that have been provided to the Council tonight and let me interrupt to ask staff, am I missing anything? Bird: Three weeks for the -- three weeks for Findings. Give her three weeks for Findings. Zaremba: Oh, yes. And staff has asked for three weeks for Findings and that's acceptable. Okay. End of motion. Bird: I will second it. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 17 with the changes as noted. Any further discussion? Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, nay. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we approve PP 06-053 for Portico Place Subdivision and, let's see, what preliminary plat do I reference? They have made some modifications. Bird: What's the date on it? Canning: The landscape buffer. The landscape lot along the street being 30 feet wide, instead of 25. Zaremba: Okay. So, we are accepting the original preliminary plat, but the changes are that the landscape buffer will be a minimum of 30 feet along McMillan. Is that the only change to the plan? Bird: Before I second that, David, would you add something in there. I believe that we need a drawing of some sort showing the tumaround and the exit and entry of the driveway for the existing house, that that be shown to the staff before -- before the Findings are done. Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 43 of 48 Zaremba: I would incorporate -- • Bird: The final plat, definitely, yeah. But I'd like to see it -- I'd like to have staff see it as soon as possible. Zaremba: I would incorporate that into the motion. Bird: I would second it, then. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, clarification. There was thrown out prior to adoption of the Findings and prior to final plat. Either of those would work, but could you specify which one it is? Zaremba: Let's see. I think you have already said that you're going to work together with the applicant to get to the Findings and I would include it as part of that discussion. I don't think Councilman Bird was saying that we had to see it. Bird: No. No. No. No. Zaremba: Yeah. That's -- we want staff to see it and agree. Canning: So, prior to adoption of Findings? Zaremba: Yes. Canning: And not to further muddy things, but did you want that also included in the development agreement? Bird: Yes. Zaremba: That probably should be. Canning: Okay. Zaremba: Do we need to revote -- well, let's finish this vote, I guess. Do we need to revote on the AZ? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: We probably should. Just to be safe, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. If you would like an additional condition placed on the development agreement, then, clearly on the record, if that's your direction that would be the easiest. Zaremba: I would suggest that when we conclude with the preliminary plat and I will amend the AZ issue. Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 44 of 48 Bird: We need to pull the preliminary plat first De Weerd: If you could probably withdraw the motion. Zaremba: Okay. I would withdraw the motion on the preliminary plat. Berg: Just a question. De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Berg. Berg: Madam Mayor, could you approve the motion and vote on it and, then, amend the previous motion and -- Nary: Well, he's withdrawn it. Berg: But he could have -- Bird: No. Berg: -- amended the motion, because you can amend amotion -- Bird: But we might not have passed with the amendment to the AZ -- it might not pass and, then, you have already passed the preliminary plat, so you have got to wait and do it in order. De Weerd: Okay. So, since we do not have amotion -- Bird: I'm listening to the boss. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move that -- De Weerd: You know, guys, you really ruin things. You know, Mr. Borton just whipped through that agenda so fast, I got here and now it's just really stuck. Bird: I wonder why? Who come in? De Weerd: I don't know, but you don't hear me talking. Zaremba: I know. I know. I'm the reason that the Planning and Zoning Commissions went so long, so -- De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Zaremba. Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 45 of 48 Zaremba: Now that I'm here aren't you all song. We had a previous motion on AZ 06- 052. I would make that entire motion stand, but add one addendum and that is that a provision of the development agreement is that applicant will work with staff and show staff a rendering of how the driveway is going to have a turnaround and access Beethoven. Bird: Of that existing house. Yes. Zaremba: With the existing house. Bird: Second agrees. De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion on the annexation as stated previously, with the addition, and that's on Item 17. Is there any further discussion? Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, nay. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Zaremba: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Zaremba. Zaremba: I move we approve PP 06-053, to include all staff comments with no changes. Bird: Second. Canning: No. Zaremba: I'm song; do we need to reference the development agreement stuff again? Canning: No, sir. You need the 30-foot landscape buffer. Bird: Yeah. Zaremba: I'm sorry. Okay. De Weerd: And second agrees? Bird: Second agrees. Zaremba: To include the 30-foot landscape buffer. Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 46 of 48 De Weerd: Thank you. Any further discussion? I'm almost afraid to ask. Okay. Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, nay. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Item 19: Ordinance No. 07-1299 RZ 06-008 Request for a Rezone of 8.96 acres (Lots 41-45, Block 49, Lochsa Falls Subdivision No. 12) from R-4 to C-N zone for Lochsa Falls Office /Commercial Addition by Farwest, LLC -south of Chinden Boulevard and west of North Linder Road: Item 20: Ordinance No. 07-1300 RZ 06-004 Request for a Rezone of 5.49 acres from R-4 to R-15 (2.17 acres) and L-O (3.32 acres) for Rushmore Subdivision by SLC Investments, LLC - 1021 West Pine Avenue: De Weerd: See, there was just nothing easy about this one, even the motion. Okay. Items 19 and 20 are ordinances number 07 -- Bird: -- 1299 and 1300. De Weerd: 1299 and 1300. Mr. Berg, will you, please, read these ordinances by title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Ordinance No. 07-1299, an ordinance finding that Lochsa Falls, LLC, the owners of certain real property has made a written request for rezone of zoning classification for real property being Lots 45 through -- 41 through 45, Block 49, Lochsa Falls No. 12 located in the northwest quarter of Section 26, Township 4 north, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A of this ordinance and rezoning certain lands and territories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, and rezoning the land use zoning classification of these lands from R-4 to C-N and L-O in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date. Berg: Ordinance No. 07-1300, an ordinance finding that Meridian Friends Church and Berr International, Inc., the owners of certain real property has made a written request for rezone of the zoning classification for real property being situated in the west one half of Lot 2, West Lawn Subdivision, situation in a portion of the northeast quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 12, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Meridian, Ada Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 47 of 48 County, Idaho, as described in Attachment A of this ordinance and the rezoning certain lands and temtories situated in Ada County, Idaho, and within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, and rezoning the land use zoning classification of said lands from R-4 to R-15 and L-O in the Meridian City Code, providing that copies of this ordinance shall be filed with the Ada County assessor, the Ada County recorder, and the Idaho State Tax Commission, as required by law, and providing for a summary of the ordinance and providing for a waiver of the reading of the rules and providing an effective date. De Weerd: Well, after that stimulating reading of these two ordinances, is there anyone who would like to hear them read in their entirety? It would be even more stimulating. Hearing none. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve Ordinance 07-1299 with suspension of rules. De Weerd: Do you also want to do -- Bird: Oh, we want to do both? Yeah. 07 -- also approval 07-1300 with suspension of rules. Zaremba: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to pass these two ordinances. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Zaremba, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Council, I would invite you and anyone else who has an interest -- I do -- our youth council has been involved with the Treasure Valley Youth Partnership and I have a DVD that has a number of PSAs on here that were developed by the youth of our community and our valley at large, 30 second PSAs on the March -- for the March Against Meth. Their schools developed 30 second PSAs to lead up to the March Against Meth and these will be showing in the high schools and I do have the DVD that shows all 12 of them. So, we will take ten minutes and it will be at the conclusion of this meeting. If you would like to view the talent of the youth of our valley, I would be more than happy to share them with you. With that said, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Bird: So moved. Borton: Second. ~ ~ Meridian City Council March 6, 2007 Page 48 of 48 De Weerd: Thank you. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carves. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 9:26 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: MA OR TA DE WEERD ®~.®~~~ ~~ `''~~,o e~ `~® ~ TTU~ s ~ ~ '~®® ~ T ' ~.~ \~e /pigllllf111116`g4` / ~ /-~- DATE APPROVED G. BERG JR., ~Y CLERK March 2, 2007 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 6, 2007 APPLICANT ITEM NO. S-A REQUEST Approve Minutes of February 6, 2007 City Council Regular Meeting: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: Refer to Distributed Minutes 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 public meeflngs shall become property of the City of Meridian. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 6, 2007 APPLICANT Dave Edmark ITEM NO. S-B REQUEST Approve New Beer and Liquor License Applications for EI Tenampa Restaurant - 906 N. Main Street AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: See Fire Comments 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 Department Approvals Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. ~ ~ March 2, 2007 RZ 06-004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 6, 2007 APPLICANT SLC Investments, LLC ITEM NO. 5-C REQUEST Development Agreement -Request for a Rezone of 5.49 acres from R-4 to R-15 (2.17 acres) and L-O (3.32 acres) for Rushmore Subdivision - 1021 West Pine Avenue AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY See Attached Development Agreement 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 shall become property of the City of Meridian. ADA COUNTY RECORDER J. ~ NAVARRO AMOUNT .00 62 BOISE IDAHO 03108107 01:36 RECOROEDa REQUEST OF III I~llll'I'I'III'll'IIIIIII'I'III'll City of Meridian 1 ~7~3~6~~ DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PARTIES: 1. City of Meridian 2. Meridian Friends Church, Owner 3. SLC Investments, LLC, Developer/Owner THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (this Agreement), is made and entered into this Z~'~'-day of F6~-K~~-~ , 2007, by and between City of Meridian, a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho, hereafter called CITY, SLC Investments, LLC, whose address is 3210 E. Chinden Boulevard, Suite 115-327, Eagle, Idaho, 83616, hereinafter called DEVELOPER/OWNER, and Meridian Friends Church, whose address is 1021 W. Pine Street, Meridian, Idaho 83642, hereinafter called OWNERS. RECITALS: 1.1 WHEREAS, Developer/Owner and Owners are the sole owners, in law and/or equity, of certain tract of land in the County of Ada, State of Idaho, described in Exhibit A for each owner, which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, herein after referred to as the Property; and 1.2 WHEREAS, I.C. § 67-6511A, Idaho Code, provides that cities may, by ordinance, require or permit as a condition of re-zoning that the Developer/Owner and/or Owners make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject Property; and 1.3 WHEREAS, City has exercised its statutory authority by the enactment of the Meridian Unified Development Code, which authorizes development agreements upon the annexation and/or re- zoning of land; and 1.4 WHEREAS, Developer/Owner has submitted an application for annexation and re-zoning of the Property described in Exhibit A, and has requested a designation of (R-15) Medium-High Density Residential District and L-O (Limited Office District), (Municipal Code of the City of Meridian); and 1.5 WHEREAS, Developer/Owner and/or Owners made representations at the public hearings both before the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission and before the Meridian City Council, as to how the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (RZ 06-004) RUSHMORE SUBDIVISION PAGE 1 OF 12 subject Property will be developed and what improvements will be made; and 1.6 WHEREAS, record of the proceedings for the requested annexation and zoning designation of the subject Property held before the Planning & Zoning Commission, and subsequently before the City Council, include responses of government subdivisions providing services within the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction, and received further testimony and comment; and 1.7 WHEREAS, City Council, the 25~` day of July, 2006, has approved certain Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order, set forth in Exhibit B, which are attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, hereinafter referred to as (the Findings); and 1.8 WHEREAS, the Findings require the Developer/Owner and/or Owners to enter into a development agreement with relation to the R- 15 (Medium-High Residential District) before the City Council takes final action on annexation and zoning designation; and 1.9 DEVELOPER/OWNER and/or OWNERS deem it to be in their best interest to be able to enter into this Agreement and acknowledges that this Agreement was entered into voluntarily and at their urging and requests; and 1.10 WHEREAS, City requires the Developer/Owner and/or Owners to enter into a development agreement for the purpose of ensuring that the Property is developed and the subsequent use of the Property is in accordance with the terms and conditions of this development agreement, herein being established as a result of evidence received by the City in the proceedings for zoning designation from government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction and from affected property owners and to ensure re- zoning designation is in accordance with the amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382, and the Zoning and Development Ordinances coded in Meridian City Code Title 11. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (RZ 06-004) RUSHMORE SUBDIVISION PAGE 2 OF 12 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 2. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS: That the above recitals are contractual and binding and aze incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 3. DEFINITIONS: For all purposes of this Agreement the following words, terms, and phrases herein contained in this section shall be defined and interpreted as herein provided for, unless the clear context of the presentation of the same requires otherwise: 3.1 CITY: means and refers to the City of Meridian, a parry to this Agreement, which is a municipal Corporation and government subdivision of the state of Idaho, organized and existing by virtue of law of the State of Idaho, whose address is 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642. 3.2 DEVELOPER/OWNER: means and refers to SLC Investments, LLC, whose address is 3210 E. Chinden Boulevard, Eagle, Idaho 83616, the party developing and owning a portion of said Property and shall include any subsequent developer(s) and/or owner(s) of the Property. 3.3 OWNERS: means and refers to Meridian Friends Church, whose address is 1021 W. Pine Street, Meridian, Idaho 83642the parties that own a portion of said Property and shall include any subsequent owner(s) of the Property. 3.4 PROPERTY: means and refers to that certain pazcel(s) of Property located in the County of Ada, City of Meridian as described in Exhibit A describing the parcels to be re-zoned R-15 (Medium-High Density Residential District) and L-O (Limited Office District) attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth at length. 4. USES PERMITTED BY THIS AGREEMENT: 4.1 The uses allowed pursuant to this Agreement are only those uses allowed under City's Zoning Ordinance codified at Meridian City Code Section 11 which are herein specified as follows: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (RZ 06-004) RUSHMORE SUBDIVISION PAGE 3 OF 12 Construction of six 4 Alex lots in the proposed R-IS zone and I church lot and 2 common lots in the proposed L-O zone on 5.49 acres, and the pertinent provisions of the City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan are applicable to this RZ 06-004 application. This Agreement shall apply only to the R-l5 portion of the property. 4.2 No change in the uses specified in this Agreement shall be allowed without modification of this Agreement. 5. CONDITIONS GOVERNING DEVELOPMENT OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: 5.1. Developer/Owner and/or Owner shall develop the Property in accordance with the following special conditions: 5.1.1 That all future uses shall not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. 5.1.2 That all future development of the subject property shall be consistent with the approved preliminary plat unless otherwise modified by other provisions of the DA, or in the future by the City Council. 5.1.3 That all future development of the subject property shall be constructed in accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of the development. 5.1.4 That the future uses and lots on this site shall conform to the District Regulations contained in the Unified Development Code (UDC), in effect at the time of development 5.1.5 That the applicant be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. 5.1.6 That any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service, per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517, when services are available from the City DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (RZ 06-004) RUSHMORE SUBDIVISION PAGE 4 OF 12 of Meridian. Wells maybe used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 5.1.7 That prior to issuance of any building permit, the subject property shall be subdivided (a recorded plat) in accordance with the City of Meridian Unified Development Code. 5.1.8 That when any new construction occurs on Lot 1, Block 1 (Church lot), a landscape street buffer along Pine Avenue will be constructed in accordance with the UDC or a new CUP must be submitted and approve by the City. 6. COMPLIANCE PERIOD/CONSENT TO REZONE: This Agreement and the commitments contained herein shall be terminated, and the zoning designation reversed, upon a default of the Developer/Owner and/or Owners or Developers/Owners and/or Owners heirs, successors, assigns, to comply with Section 5 entitled "Conditions Governing Development of Subject Property" of this agreement within two years of the date this Agreement is effective, and after the City has complied with the notice and hearing procedures as outlined in Idaho Code § 67-6509, or any subsequent amendments or recodifications thereof. 7. CONSENT TO DE-ANNEXATION AND REVERSAL OF ZONING DESIGNATION: Developer/Owner and/or Owners consent upon default to the reversal of the zoning designation of the Property subject to and conditioned upon the following conditions precedent to-wit: 7.1 That the City provide written notice of any failure to comply with this Agreement to Developer/Owner and/or Owners and if the Developer/Owner and/or Owners fails to cure such failure within six (6) months of such notice. 8. INSPECTION: Developer/Owner and/or Owners shall, immediately upon completion of any portion or the entirety of said development of the Property as required by this agreement or by City ordinance or policy, notify the City Engineer and request the City Engineer's inspections and written approval of such completed improvements or portion thereof in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Development Agreement and all other ordinances of the City that apply to said Development. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (RZ 06-004) RUSHMORE SUBDIVISION PAGE 5 OF 12 9. DEFAi7LT: 9.1 In the event Developer/Ownerand/or Owners, or Developer/Owner's and/or Owners' heirs, successors, assigns, or subsequent owners of the Property or any other person acquiring an interest in the Property, fail to faithfully comply with all of the terms and conditions included in this Agreement in connection with the Property, this Agreement maybe modified or terminated by the City upon compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 9.2 A waiver by City of any default byDeveloper/Ownerand/or Owners of any one or more of the covenants or conditions hereof shall apply solely to the breach and breaches waived and shall not bar any other rights or remedies of City or apply to any subsequent breach of any such or other covenants and conditions. 10. REQUIItEMENT FOR RECORDATION: City shall record either a memorandum of this Agreement or this Agreement, including all of the Exhibits, at Developer/Owner's and/or Owners' cost, and submit proof of such recording to Developer/Owner and/or Owners, prior to the third reading of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the re-zoning of the Property by the City Council. If for any reason after such recordation, the City Council fails to adopt the ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the Property contemplated hereby, the City shall execute and record an appropriate instrument of release of this Agreement. 11. ZONING: City shall, following recordation of the duly approved Agreement, enact a valid and binding ordinance zoning the Property as specified herein. 12. REMEDIES: This Agreement shall be enforceable in any court of competent jurisdiction by the City or Developer/Owner and/or Owners, or by any successor or successors in title or by the assigns of the parties hereto. Enforcement may be sought by an appropriate action at law or in equity to secure the specific performance of the covenants, agreements, conditions, and obligations contained herein. 12.1 In the event of a material breach of this Agreement, the parties agree that City and Developer/Owner and/or Owners shall have thirty (30) days after delivery of notice of said breach to correct the same prior to the non-breaching party's seeking of any remedy provided for herein; provided, however, that in the case of any such default which cannot with diligence be cured within such thirty (30) day period, if the DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (RZ 06-004) RUSHMORE SUBDIVISION PAGE 6 OF 12 defaulting party shall commence to cure the same within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter shall prosecute the curing of same with diligence and continuity, then the time allowed to cure such failure may be extended for such period as may be necessary to complete the curing of the same with diligence and continuity. 12.2 In the event the performance of any covenant to be performed hereunder by either Developer/Owner and/or Owners or City is delayed for causes which are beyond the reasonable control of the party responsible for such performance, which shall include, without limitation, acts of civil disobedience, strikes or similar causes, the time for such performance shall be extended by the amount of time of such delay. 13. SURETY OF PERFORMANCE: The City may also require surety bonds, irrevocable letters of credit, cash deposits, certified check or negotiable bonds, as allowed under Meridian City Code, to insure that installation of the improvements, which the Developer/Owner and/or Owners agree to provide, if required by the City. 14. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: The Developer/Owner and/or Owners agree that no Certificates of Occupancy will be issued until all improvements are completed, unless the City and Developer/Owner and/or Owners have entered into an addendum agreement stating when the improvements will be completed in a phased developed; and in any event, no Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued in any phase in which the improvements have not been installed, completed, and accepted by the City. 15. ABIDE BY ALL CITY ORDINANCES: That Developer/Owner and/or Owners agree to abide by all ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Property shall be subject to de-annexation if the owner or his assigns, heirs, or successors shall not meet the conditions contained in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, this Development Agreement, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 16. NOTICES: Any notice desired by the parties and/or required by this Agreement shall be deemed delivered if and when personally delivered or three (3) days after deposit in the United States Mail, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (RZ 06-004) RUSHMORE SUBDIVISION PAGE 7 OF 12 CITY: c/o City Engineer City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, ID 83642 OWNERS: Meridian Friends Church 1021 W. Pine Street Meridian, ID 83642 with copy to: City Clerk City of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, ID 83642 DEVELOPER/OWNER: SLC Investments, LLC 3210 E. Chinden Boulevard, Ste 115-327 Eagle, ID 83616 16.1 A parry shall have the right to change its address by delivering to the other party a written notification thereof in accordance with the requirements of this section. 17. ATTORNEY FEES: Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorney's fees as determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed to be a separate contract between the parties and shall survive any default, termination or forfeiture of this Agreement. 18. TIlVIE IS OF THE ESSENCE: The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to each and every term, condition and provision hereof, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of and a default under this Agreement by the other party so failing to perform. 19. BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' respective heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives, including City's corporate authorities and their successors in office. This DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (RZ 06-004) RUSHMORE SUBDIVISION PAGE 8 OF 12 Agreement shall be binding on the Developer/Owner and/or Owners of the Property, each subsequent owner and any other person acquiring an interest in the Property. Nothing herein shall in any way prevent sale or alienation of the Property, or portions thereof, except that any sale or alienation shall be subject to the provisions hereof and any successor owner or owners shall be both benefited and bound by the conditions and restrictions herein expressed. City agrees, upon written request of Developer/Owner and/or Owners, to execute appropriate and recordable evidence of termination of this Agreement if City, in its sole and reasonable discretion, had determined that Developer/Owner and/or Owners have fully performed its obligations under this Agreement. 20. INVALID PROVISION: If any provision of this Agreement is held not valid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed to be excised from this Agreement and the invalidity thereof shall not affect any of the other provisions contained herein. 21. FINAL AGREEMENT: This Agreement sets forth all promises, inducements, agreements, condition and understandings between Developer/Owner and/or Owners and City relative to the subject matter hereof, and there are no promises, agreements, conditions or understanding, either oral or written, express or implied, between Developer/Owner and/or Owners and City, other than as are stated herein. Except as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto unless reduced to writing and signed by them or their successors in interest or their assigns, and pursuant, with respect to City, to a duly adopted ordinance or resolution of City. 21.1 No condition governing the uses and/or conditions governing re-zoning of the subject Property herein provided for can be modified or amended without the approval of the City Council after the City has conducted public hearing(s) in accordance with the notice provisions provided for a zoning designation and/or amendment in force at the time of the proposed amendment. 22. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AGREEMENT: This Agreement shall be effective on the date the Meridian City Council shall adopt the amendment to the Meridian Zoning Ordinance in connection with the annexation and zoning of the Property and execution of the Mayor and City Clerk. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (RZ 06-004) RU5HMORE SUBDMSION PAGE 9 OF 12 • • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have herein executed this agreement and made it effective as hereinabove provided. LLC OWNERS: MERIDIAN FRIENDS CHURCH B . <Ta~k o,,. ~/. N2we// CI7 By: Attest: CITY CLERK `\~\\,\I I I I ~ I I INf }7~~/ J~(`J ~ ~ ~'~- ~ C/ ~ f~ (~f/9'b(~t/(, ~~'~~I CiWJ+/(, >~ .~°~ ~ ~~ Gib GB-w,.,, ~;C~ 3 ~ -o o ~ o. ~~ ~, 0 ~~~ =- ~ ~~ ~' ®/ ~ ~. ~9Ja O ~~~~~~tttt;E11tt11`\\\ DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (RZ 06-004) RUSHMORE SUBDIVISION PAGE 10 OF 12 • STATE OF IDAHO, ) County of Ada, ss On this ~ day of ~E~ . , 2007, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ~at1h C,fn,n s+evl .~ ~.. , known or identified to me to be the 1f~ ~ fir. f of 5LC Investments, LLC, acknowledged to me that they executed the same on behalf of said corporation. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal tl~,da <an,~ xeaz in this certificate first above written. 4\~~t~ti `` ~` ~1'a p_f1~p 'i ~` ~y ~~~ 6.!" ~ ~ ~~ °e ~ . ®aAaa~s `~: ~.• STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss County of Ada, ) ,~ ~ U~ Notary Public for Idaho Residing at:~ 1 ~ •~L.J~ My Commission Expires: ~ a 3- ~ o On this day of _ Ft36 • , 2007, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared _ .a sin ~. 11)p . ~ o / / , known or identified to me to be the ~riNr~.~ g Tvu.s ~e~.c of Meridian Friends Church, acknowledged to me that they executed the same on behalf of said church. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and yeaz in this certif e ' •st a ove written. ~~~~ b~'U ~G,~ * ... AUB L1G i~,j- ~'~ ,..y,~~8 oP 1~ ~~ Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: ~~ oQ~ My Commission Expires: . / . D DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (RZ 06-004) RUSHMORE SUBDIVISION PAGE 11 OF 12 i ~ STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada ) .-~ ~ "~~~ On this ~~~ day of F r c ~ G ~"1 , 2007, before me, a Notary blic~rsonally appeaze and William G. Berg, Jr., know or identified ~,(,~ ~}ut~Lc ~ to me to be the and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, who executed ~~ ~.~~Z.t the instrument or the person that executed the instrument of behalf of said City, and acknowledged to me that such City executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and yeaz in this certificate first above written. ~ha~ m ~'~/-~-- (SEAL) e e Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: ~.~. /d~c ~~Q~ Commission expires: I 0-lS`- /l DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (RZ 06-004) RUSHMORE SUBDIVISION PAGE 12 OF 12 x1 lE~ ~ff l+in ~ : 8~~~ €'~ . ~ ~.{# .fit ° ; ~'~ vn, ~ ~~~~~~'~ P~~~ g ~ 2006 1~ .' i~ ~$ ~~ ~ CORKS DE Tt~ ~~ r, mix ~- .~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ Its - °~~rr~ ~ ~~• •~ ~~ t ...n~ .~ `~To.: ~~~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ _ ~~ ~crs. ~t~a ~n x,or ~ T~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~! i t 1 t ~ ~~. . r ~' ~ ~~~s ~~~ ~~ . ~ , _ ~~~ .~ ~. .~. ~~ ~'~ ~`~ ~~ ~5~~ ~T,~~. SLR 1 ~ ~~. ' ~ ~~ ~dE~ ~`, Its .f+kt~. ~~ al z 3 ~~'~'a~i~b 7.i~i4~i1 i~i~ ,i ~iCEB ~~ JN~V J, it S ~ .~`7[ SPA 8a te`a' ~'~i' ~~, 1~ ~ 17iy ~ ~ y 6 x 4 ~~ ~~ ~~' E34~it$~r$ • ~3Tx^i*4',~+6'Rt`ffi p! ~~Rib9&~ .-Y ~ ~„ ~ ~~~ ~9i98~5 ~~ X75 2~. ~'~ ~! ~® ~~[~~~'~44~~d ~ ~P~rF ~~: ~~k. ~~ ~ ~v ~ ~ait.srtrsts~pN ~ ~, i~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~, ~~~ ~~~ t~z .~ ~~ sa 90d' d Z~+IUI~ m ~-oF ~ ~ ®R-i5 °-i~~'Ni~ ii1 d'l'~eyq ~~44tt //~~ J{~ ~Y t7'~~'~' +L7d~' ~~~~I~t1tT~~1i"4~ ,GMKy ~~ '~ ~ ~ ~~ °- ,~, ~:+~cx~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~; ~s g ` ~ b ~ ~" .. ~_ V ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~z~e ~~~1211~~~. ~~~ ~~ g ~r~ ~ ~I~riasc~ ~w ~a~~ • CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER e a i ~ JUL 20 ~i~y ®f Mera.dian rk Office ;e x e-ta~ a~ ~l ` " ~_ x ~,~.~ ,~ '~~~*r ~,,~ --~~ ~ ~~ `rte In the Matter of Rezone of 5.49 acres to R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential)(2.17 acres) and L-O (Limited Office)(3.32 acres), AND Preliminary Plat of 7 building lots (siz 4- ple~ lots and 1 church lot) and 2 common lots on 5.33 acres, AND Conditional Use Permit to construct six multi-family (4-plea) dwelling units, by SLC Investments, LLC. Case No(s): RZ-06-004, PP-06-021 and CUP-06-014 For the City Council Hearing Date of: July 5, 2006 (Findings approved on July 25, 2006) A. Findings of Fact Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 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). RZ-06-004 / PP-06-021/ CUP-06-014 -PAGE 1 of 5 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, Landscape Plan, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 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 January 24, 2006 is hereby conditionally approved; 2. The applicant's Landscape Plan as evidenced by having submitted the Landscape Plan dated February 14, 2006 is hereby conditionally approved; and, 3. The following modifications to site specific conditions were made at the City Council hearing: a. The Development Agreement for this property shall only apply to the R-15 portion of the property. b. The applicant shall install non-flammable fencing along the southern boundary of the site, adiacent to the rail road tracks. 4. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits (as applicable) 1. Notice of Eighteen (18) Month Conditional Use Permit Duration Please take notice that the conditional use permit, when granted, shall be valid for a maximum period of eighteen (18) months unless otherwise approved by the City. During this time, the applicant shall commence the use as permitted in accord with the conditions of approval, satisfy the requirements set forth in the conditions of approval, and acquire building permits and commence construction of permanent footings or structures on or in the ground. For conditions use permits that also require platting, the CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-06-004 / PP-06-021/ CUP-06-014 -PAGE 2 of 5 • i final plat must be recorded within this eighteen (18) month period. For projects with multiple phases, the eighteen (18) month deadline shall apply to the first phase. In the event that the development is made in successive contiguous segments or multiple phases, such phases shall be constructed within successive intervals of one (1) year from the original date of approval. If the successive phases are not submitted within the one (1) year interval, the conditional approval of the future phases shall be null and void. Upon written request and filed by the applicant prior to the termination of the period in accord with 11-SB-6.G.1, the Director may authorize a single extension of the time to commence the use not to exceed one (1) eighteen (18) month period. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the Commission maybe granted. With all extensions, the Director or Commission may require the conditional use comply with the current provisions of Meridian City Code Title 11. 2. 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 record a 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 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 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-06-004 / PP-06-021/ CUP-06-014 -PAGE 3 of 5 • 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 July 5, 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-06-004 / PP-06-021/ CUP-06-014 -PAGE 4 of 5 • L J By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the ~ day of 2006. COUNCIL MEMBER SHAUN WARDLE VOTED-~~~''~~ COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON VOTED__E~~~' COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE VOTED__~~~ COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIlZD VOTED_ ~~~1~ TIE BREAKER MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED '~~ ~l e WEERD \ er ATTEST: ~~ ~~~ - d WILLIAM G. B RG, JR., C (~ ~. ~~ ,'~ /~ ~ d® lPiPH19i 911i1i1 Copy served upon: ~ Applicant Planning Department Public Works Department City Attorney By: ~ I~,.Q~~..~ Dated: °~-2~-01 City Clerk's Office CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). RZ-06-004 / PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 -PAGE 5 of 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA,G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: July 5, 2006 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: C. Caleb Hood, Current Planning Manager Meridian Planning Department 208-884-5533 SUBJECT: Rushmore Subdivision Y ~~ . ~~ j;~, ct-s+v rya ~~ ~`~ ;{ _ .__{ _.. ~~@a ~~ . trao ~.~. RZ-06-004 -Rezone of 5.49 acres to R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential)(2.17acresy and L-O (Limited Office)(3.32 acres) PP-06-021- Preliminary Plat of 7 building lots (six 4-plea lots and 1 church lot) and 2 common lots on 5.33 acres CUP-06-014 -Conditional Use Permit to construct six multi-family (4-plex) dwelling units 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, SLC Investments, LLC, has applied for Rezoning (RZ) of 5.49 acres from R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) to R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential)(2.17 acres) and L-O (Limited Office)(3.32 acres); Preliminary Plat (PP) approval of 6multi-family building lots, 1 church office lot and 2 common lots; and, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to construct six multi-family dwelling units (4-plexes). Currently, there is a church (Meridian Friends Church) on the north part of this site; the south part of the site is vacant. The site is part of the West Lawn Subdivision, which was recorded in 1906. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area and the corporate boundazies of the City of Meridian. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION The subject applications were submitted to the Planning Department for concurrent review. Generally, the Planning & Zoning Commission is the final decision making body on a Conditional Use Permit request. However, because the City Council is the final decision making body on the Rezone and Preliminary Plat applications, all three of the subject applications are being combined into one staff report. The Commission should make recommendations to the Council on all of the subject applications. Below, staff has provided a detailed analysis and recommended conditions of approval for the requested Annexation and Zoning and Preliminary Plat applications. Staff is recommending approval of the proyosed Rushmore Subdivision (RZ-06-004, PP-06-OZ1 and CUP-06-014) with the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Staff R ort. The Meridian Plannin and Zonin Commission heazd the item on Ma 18 2006. At the ublic hearing then moved to recommend approval a. Summary of Public Hearing: i. In favor: Michael Vance, Ken Redford ii. In opposition: None iii. Commenting: None iv. Staff presenting application: Caleb Hood v. Other staff commenting on application: None b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Appropriate width and construction timeline for the street buffer along Pine Avenue; ii. Fencing; and, iii. Neighborhood interconnectivity. c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN(~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA1~ DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 i. Recommended allowing landscape buffer along Pine Avenue to be constructed when the Church expands; ii. Required fencing along the south property line, adjacent to the railroad tracks. d. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. None. 3. PROPOSED MOTION (to be considered after the public hearing) Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Numbers RZ-06-004, PP-06-021 and CUP-06-014 as presented in staff report for the hearing date of July 5, 2006 with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Numbers RZ-06-004, PP-06-021 and CUP-06-014 as presented during the public heazing of July 5, 2006 for the following reasons: (You should state specific reasons for denial of the annexation and you must state specific reason(s) for the denial of the plat.) Continuance I move to continue File Numbers RZ-06-004, PP-06-021 and CUP-06-014 to the hearing date of (insert continued hearing date here) for the following reason(s): (You should state specific reason(s) for continuance.) 4. APPLICATION AND PROPERTY FACTS a. Site Address/Location: 1021 W. Pine Avenue; South side of Pine Avenue, east of Linder Road, in Section 12, Township 3 North, Range 1 West. b. Owners: Meridian Friends Church 1021 W. Pine Street Meridian, ID 83642 Burr International, Inc. P.O. Box 6486 Boise, ID 83707 c. Applicant: SLC investments, LLC 3210 E. Chinden Boulevard, Ste 115-327 Eagle, ID 83616 d. Representative: Michael Vance e. Present Zoning: R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Public/Quasi-Public g. Description of Applicant's Request: The applicant has applied for Rezoning (RZ) of 5.49 acres from R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) to R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential)(2.17 acres) and L-O (Limited Office)(3.32 acres); Preliminary Plat (PP) approval Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 of 6multi-family building lots, 1 church/office lot and 2 common lots; and, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval to construct six multi-family dwelling units (4-plexes). The average multi-family lot size in the proposed development is 5,880 square feet. All of the proposed 4- plexes contain two two-bedroom units and two three-bedroom units. The total square footage of each building is 4,160 square feet. The gross density of this development is 4.5 dwelling units per acre, while the density of the area proposed for R-15 zoning is 11.06 dwelling units per acre (excludes church site). Approximately 7.3% of the site is being set aside for open space (17% of the multi-family area). The applicant is proposing to construct a management office, a bike storage area, a maintenance building, a community directory map, and a children's play area within the common area, Lot 1, Block 2. 1. Date of preliminary plat (atta.ched in Exhibit A): 1/24/06 2. Date of landscape plan (attached in Exhibit A): 2/14/06 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute a rezone as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Unified Development Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. b. 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 Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. c. The subject application will in fact constitute a conditional use as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Unified Development Code Title 11 Chapter 5, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. d. Newspaper notifications published on: May 1 gc and May 15`", 2006 (for Planning & Zoning Commission hearing) and June 12~' and 26`x, 2006 (for City Council hearing) e. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: April 21~`, 2006 (for Planning & Zoning Commission hearing) and June 9`~, 2006 (for City Council hearing) f. Applicant posted notice on site by: May 8`s, 2006 (for Planning & Zoning Commission hearing) and June 25a`, 2006 (for City Council hearing) 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): There are existing church buildings and a parking lot on the north part of this site. The south part of this site is currently vacant. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: Across Pine Avenue and to the east are primarily single-family homes. To the south are the railroad tracks and to the west is the proposed Rock Creek development that includes multi-family dwellings and two office lots. This area can be classified as urban mixed use. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Single-family homes, zoned R-4, Canna Lilly Estates Subdivision 2. West: Future multi-family dwellings and offices, zoned R-15 and L-O, Rock Creek Subdivision 3. South: Railroad tracks and industrial uses, zoned I-L 4. East: Single-family homes, zoned R-8, Tremont Place Subdivision d. History of Previous Actions: None. Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN(~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: Sewer stub in West Broadway Avenue and the north side of Nine Mile Creek on each side of the property. Location of water: Water stub in West Broadway Avenue and there is a main in W. Pine Street. Issues or concerns: Flood plain associated with Ninemile Creek. 2. Floodplain: Portions of this property are within the Ninemile Creek floodplain. 3. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: The Rutledge Lateral runs along the southern boundary of this property. The Ninemile Creek bisects this property; this waterway should be protected. All other open ditches or laterals, including the Rutledge, that cross the subject site should be tiled in accordance with the UDC. 4. Hazards: Staff is recommending that the Ninemile Creek be fenced with open-vision fencing to protect the safety of the residents in this area. Staff is not aware of any other hazards associated with this property. 5. Proposed and Existing Zoning: This property is currently zoned R-4. The applicant is proposing to zone 2.2 acres to R-15 (Medium High-Density Residential) and 3.3 acres to L-O (Limited Office). 6. Size of Property: 5.49 acres f. Subdivision Plat Information: 1. Residential Lots: 2. Non-residential Lots: 3. Total Building Lots: 4. Common Lots: 5. Other Lots: 0 6. Total Lots: 9 7. Gross Density: g. Landscaping 6 multi-family (4-plea) 1 (church/office) 7 2 11 dwelling units per acre (net 18.8 d.u./acre)(Block 2) 1. Width of street buffer(s): A 20-foot wide street buffer is required along Pine Avenue, a collector street (UDC 11-2A-6). The existing church parking lot encroaches into the required street buffer for Pine Avenue. Please see Section 10 of the Staff Report below for further analysis. 2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: N/A 3. Percentage of site as open space: The applicant states that 17.5% (0.38 acres) of the site is being set aside for open space (0.14 acres of common open space). Please see Section 10 of the Staff Report for more details. h. Amenities: For multi-family developments between 20 and 75 units, three amenities shall be provided, with 1 from each category (Quality of Life, Open Space, and Recreation)(UDC 11- 4-3.27D-2d). The applicant is providing amenities as follows: enclosed bike storage (Quality Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 of Life), property management office, maintenance storage area, development map/directory, (Recreation), tot-lot (Recreation), walking path/sidewalks (Recreation), and open space (Open Space). i. Off-Street Parking: UDC 11-3C-6A requires multi-family dwellings with 2 or more bedrooms to have atwo-car covered carport or garage for each unit. The submitted preliminary plat proposes covered parking spaces for most of the multi-family (4-plea) dwellings. Because all of the units in this development contain two or more bedrooms, all of the parking stalls in this development should be covered. Also, staff has concern about the remoteness of some of the parking stalls, in relation to the units. Please see Section 10 of the Staff Report below for more analysis. j. Conditional Use Information: 1. Non-residential square footage: 200 square feet bike & maintenance storage 2. Proposed building height: 22 feet; R-15 zone allows 40 feet 3. Percentage of site devoted to building coverage: approximately 25% 4. Percentage of site devoted to landscaping: approximately 20% 5. Percentage of site devoted to paving: approximately 55% 6. Percentage of site devoted to other uses: 0% 7. Number of Residential units: 24 k. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): There are two public streets stubbed to the subject property from the east. West Broadway Avenue is stubbed to the southern portion of this site and Idaho Avenue is stubbed to the northern portion of this site. The applicant is proposing to extend Broadway Avenue into the site from the east with a cul-de-sac. A loop private driveway system is proposed azound the Broadway Avenue cul-de-sac. The applicant is not proposing to extend the Idaho Avenue stub into the site. NOTE: ACRD is not requiring that Idaho Avenue be extended into the site at this time. When and if the church lot, Lot 1, Block 1, comes in for a Certificate of Zoning Compliance for any additions or re-constructions in the future, staff intends to require a permanent public turnaround for Idaho Street. There are two existing driveways to Pine Avenue that serve the existing church. ACRD has not evaluated these driveways for compliance with policy. Please see Exhibit B for ACHD's comments and conditions regazding this development. 7. AGENCY COMMENTS MEETING On Apri128, 2006, staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present included: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS The subject site is designated `Public/Quasi-Public' on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Public/Quasi Public is defined as "Areas are designated to preserve and protect existing private, municipal, state, and federal lands for area residents and visitors. This category includes churches and public lands (excluding pazks and schools) within the Area of Impact. Upon redevelopment of such properties, a change in designation and use maybe appropriate. The redevelopment of these areas should be guided by the intensity of the existing use, the underlying zoning of the property, the surrounding land uses, the location of the property, and transportation issues associated with the proposed development of the property. The appropriate land use Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAL DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 designation and accompanying zoning for these areas will be determined by City Council on a case by case basis." (Chapter VII, Section 1, Pg. 99, Meridian Comprehensive Plan). Within this report, staff has evaluated the subject proposal using the existing use, the underlying zoning, the surrounding land uses, the location of the property, and transportation. The lands immediately to the west have previously been approved for multi-family uses. The property to the north and east are residential. Staff believes that the existing church, zoned R-4, and the proposed multi-family development can be compatible uses. This property is located between Pine Avenue, a collector roadway, and the railroad, a potential future transportation corridor. Staff believes that the location of this proposed medium-high density development is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. While the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use map does not explicitly support the proposed zone change, staff fmds that there are several Comprehensive Plan policies that do support the proposed zone change. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the proposed development (staff analysis in italics below policy): • Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. (Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1) 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: • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department. This service will not change. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Police Department (MPD). This service will not change. • 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 #2. This service will not change. • The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian Library District. This service will not change and the Meridian Library District should suffer no revenue loss as a result of the subject rezone. 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. • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2: Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets. Pine Avenue is classified as a collector roadway in this area. The existing access points to Pine Avenue should comply with ACM's standards. • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1: Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels. This is an infill parcel with the properties adjacent to the subject site varying in density and housing type. North of the site are existing single family dwellings. East of the site is a single family subdivision. West of the site is a mixed-use development with multi family Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINCi~'ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 dwellings. Staff believes that the proposed development should be compatible with the existing land uses. • Chapter V, Goal 1, Objective A, Action 11: Improve and protect creeks (Five Mile, Eight Mile, Nine Mile, Ten Mile, South Slough, and Jackson and Evans drainages) throughout commercial, industrial and residential areas. The Rutledge Lateral and the Ninemile Creek course through or are adjacent to this site. Staff believes that the Ninemile Cheek should be protected and enhanced by being left open and by the applicant constructing a pathway adjacent to the Ninemile CYeek (see Exhibit B). • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 5: Require appropriate landscape and buffers along transportation corridor (setback, vegetation, low walls, berms, etc.). The applicant is not proposing anv landscaping adjacent to Pine Avenue. By ordinance, a 20- footwide landscape buffet is Yequired adjacent to Pine Avenue. • Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 3: Consider "Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel: A Recommended Approach" from the National Center for Bicycling and Walking in all land-use decisions. This publication encourages jurisdictions to establish bikeway and walkway facilities in new construction and reconstruction projects, in a manner that is safe, accessible and convenient. Staff believes that the subject applications generally comply with the policies listed in the literature noted above. • Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 6: Require street connections between subdivisions at regular intervals to enhance connectivity and better traffic flow. The project to the west, Rock Creek, has not provided opportunities for the subject site to provide vehicular connectivity (no stub streets or driveways). However, two stub streets were provided to this site from the east. The applicant is proposing to extend one of the two stub streets into this site. This proposal will provide interconnectivity with the subdivisions to the east. • Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 5: Require pedestrian access connectors in all new development to link subdivisions together to promote neighborhood connectivity as part of a community pathway system. The adjacent project to the west, Rock Creek, has provided a pedestrian connection to this site along the north side of the Ninemile Creek. The applicant is proposing to extend this pathway to and through the development. Because the property to the east has already been developed, the City should Zook into extending the pathway further to the east. This proposal should enhance the community pathway system. • Chapter VII, Goal 1V, Objective C, Action 6: Require pedestrian access in all new development to link subdivisions together and promote neighborhood connectivity. See analysis above. Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINC,~PPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 ~ Chapter VII, Goal I, Objective D, Action 9: Require new residential development to provide permanent perimeter fencing to contain construction debris on site and prevent windblown debris from entering adjacent agricultural and other properties. Prior to construction of any buildings, fencing should be constructed around the perimeter of this site. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when determining if the applicant's zoning and development request is appropriate for this property. 9. UNIFIEED DEVELOPMENT CODE a. Allowed Uses in the Residential Districts: UDC Table 11-2A-Z lists multi-family development uses as conditional uses in the R-15 zoning district; churches aze principally permitted in the L-O zoning district. b. Purpose Statement of Zones: MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-15): The purpose of the residential districts is to provide for a range of housing opportunities consistent with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Connection to the City of Meridian water and sewer systems is a requirement for all residential districts. Residential districts are distinguished by the allowable density of dwelling units per acre and corresponding housing types that can be accommodated within the density range. Residential land uses aze also allowed within the O-T, TN-C, and TN-R districts as set forth in Chapter 3 Article D. LIMITED OFFICE DISTRICT (L-O): 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. c. Multifamily Development (iIDC 11-4-3.27) The following standards shall apply for the multifamily units, including standards for Site Design, Common Open Space, Site Amenities, Architectural Character, Landscaping, and Maintenance. Site design (UDC 11-4-3.27B): A minimum of 80 square feet of private, usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches, patios, decks, and/or enclosed yazds. Landscaping, entryway and other access ways shall not count toward this requirement. For the purposes of this Section, vehicular circulation azeas, parking azeas, and private useable open space shall not be considered common open space. The parking shall meet the requirements set forth in Chapter 3 of this Title. Developments with 20 units or more shall provide the following: a property management office, a maintenance storage area, a central mailbox location, a directory and map of the development at an entrance or convenient location for those entering the development. Common open space design requirements fUDC 11-4-3.27C1: Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINC~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 A minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a) 150 square feet for each unit containing 500 or less squaze feet of living area; b) 250 square feet for each unit containing more than 500 square feet and up to 1,200 square feet of living area; and c) 350 square feet for each unit containing more than 1,200 square feet of living area. Common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a constructed barrier at least 4 feet in height. Site development amenities (UDC 11-4-3.27DZ All multifamily developments shall provide for quality of life, open space and recreation amenities to met the particular needs of the residents as follows: a) Quality of Life (clubhouse, fitness facility, enclosed bike storage, and public are such as a statue); b) Open Space (open grassy area of at least 50 by 100 feet in size, community garden, ponds or water features, and plazas); and c) Recreation (pool, walking trails, children's play structures, and sports courts). The number of amenities shall depend on the size of the multifamily development as follows: For multifamily developments between 20 and 75 units, 3 amenities shall be provided, with at least 1 from each category. Architectural Character (IIDC 11-4-3.27.EZ All building elevations shall have a minimum portion of the elevation devoted to architectural features designed to provide articulation and variety. These features shall include, but aze not limited to windows, bays and offsetting walls that extend at least two feet; recessed entrances; and changes in material types. Changes in material types shall have a minimum dimension of two feet and minimum area of 25 square feet. Main entrances, which are the primary point(s) of entry where the majority of building users will enter and leave, shall be designed as an obvious entrance and focal point of the building through architectural treatment, lighting, and address identification. Entrances shall be adequately covered, recessed, or treated with a permanent architectural feature in such a way that weather protection is provided. Roof forms shall be distinctive and include variety and detail when viewed from the street. Sloped roofs shall have a significant pitch. Flat roofs should include distinctive cornice treatments. Exterior building materials and finishes shall convey an impression of permanence and durability. Materials such as masonry, stone, stucco, wood, terra cotta, and the are encouraged. Windows are required to allow views to exterior activity areas or vistas. Windows shall be provided on any building facing any common area used for children's recreation. All roof and wall-mounted mechanical, electrical, communications, and service equipment should be screened from public view from the adjacent public streets and properties by the use of parapets, walls, fences, enclosures, or by other suitable means. Landscaping~iJDC 11-4-3.27.F1: Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINC~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 Development shall meet the minimum landscaping requirements in accord with Chapter 3 of this Title. All street-facing elevations shall have landscaping along their foundation. The foundation landscaping shall meet the following minimum standards: The landscaped area shall be at least three feet wide; for every three lineal feet of foundation, an evergreen shrub having a minimum mature height of twenty-four inches shall be planted; and groundcover plants shall be planted in the remainder of the landscaped area. UDC 11-4-3.27.G: All multifamily developments shall 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, and other development features. Outdoor storage/refuse areas (UDC 11-3A-12„Z Outdoor utility meters, HVAC equipment, trash dumpsters, trash compaction and other service functions shall be incorporated into the overall design of buildings and landscaping so that the visual and acoustic impacts of these functions are fully contained and out of view from adjacent properties and public streets. 10. ANALYSIS Analysis Leading to Staff Recommendation As submitted, the subject applications appear to substantially comply with the Unified Development Code and the Comprehensive Plan. However, there are some modifications to the site plan, the preliminary plat, and the landscape plan that staff would like to see made. In each section below, staff has listed the items that staff would like to see amended. 1. AZ Application: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan staff believes that this is a good location for a higher density development and the proposed R-15 and L-O zoning. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of the required facts and findings for a Zoning Amendment. The annexation legal description submitted with the application (stamped on 3/8/2006 by Robert W. Fodrea, PLS) shows the property within the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian. UDC 11-SB-3D2 and Idaho Code § 65-6711A provides the City the authority to require a property owner to enter into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City that may require some written commitment for all future uses. Staff believes that a DA is necessary to ensure that this property is developed in a fashion as to not negatively impact nearby properties. Prior to the rezone ordinance approval, a Development Agreement (DA) shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, property owner(s) (at the time of rezone ordinance adoption), and the developer. The applicant shall contact the City Attorney,, Bill Nary, at 888-4433 to initiate this process. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council direct the City's Legal Department to draft a development agreement for the R-15 portion of Rushmore Subdivision ody ,as follows: Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 10 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINC~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ DATE OF JiJLY 5, 2006 1. That all future development shall not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfaze by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. 2. That all future development of the subject property shall be consistent with the applicant's approved preliminary plat unless otherwise modified by other provisions of the DA, or in the future by the City Council. 3. That all future development of the subject property shall be constructed in accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development. 4. That the future uses and lots on this site shall conform to the District Regulations contained in the Unified Development Code (iJDC), in effect at the time of development. 5. That the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. 6. That any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service, per City Ordinance Section 5-7-517, when services are available from the City of Meridian. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 7. That prior to issuance of any building permit, the subject property be subdivided (a recorded fmal plat) in accordance with the City of Meridian Unified Development Code. 8. That when any new construction occurs on Lot 1, Block 1 (church lot), a landscape street buffer along Pine Avenue will be constructed in accordance with the UDC (or a new CUP must be submitted and approved by the Ci 2. PP/CUP Applications: Landscaping_ The landscape plan prepared by South Landscape Architecture, on 2-14- 06, labeled Sheet L1.0, is approved with the following modifications/notes: • Provide landscaping in compliance with UDC 11-3B-12, adjacent to the pedestrian pathway on the north side of the Ninemile Creek. • Widen to at least 5 feet (measured inside curbs) and provide at least one tree within the landscape planter in the parking stalls between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 (UDC 11-3B-8C2) • All azeas 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 11-3B-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. • A written certificate of completion shall be prepazed by the landscape azchitect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan and submitted prior to City Council signature of the Final Plat. All standazds of installation shall apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 11 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINC~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 Submit revised landscape plans with the final plat application. Multi-family Standards: The UDC has several specific standards that apply to multi- family developments (See UDC Section 9 above for a complete list.) These standards apply to Site Design, Common Open Space, Site Amenities, Architectural Character, Landscaping, and Maintenance. Below are some of the standards that the applicant should be required to comply with. Private Useable Open Space: UDC 11-4-3.27B requires a minimum of 80 square feet of private, usable open space shall be provided for each unit. This requirement can be satisfied through porches, patios, decks, and/or enclosed yards. Landscaping, entryway and other access ways shall not count toward this requirement. It appears that there is some type of a patio area on the rear of the proposed 4-plexes. However this does not appear to be enough private area for each unit within each building. The applicant should clarify, at the Uublic hearing, how the Urivate useable open Space requirement will be met for each unit. Parking:, UDC 11-3C-6A requires multi-family dwellings with 2 or more bedrooms to have atwo-car covered carport or garage for each unit. All 24 of the proposed units contain 2 or more bedrooms. The submitted preliminary plat does depict that 44 of the 48 proposed parking spaces will be covered. The applicant should be required to comply with the off-street parking requirements of the UDC. NOTE: Staff has concerns with how far away the parking area on the northeast side of the multi-family portion of this development is from the units. See Site Layout below. Amenities: The applicant is required to provide amenities for the multifamily development. For multi-family developments between 20 and 75 units, three amenities shall be provided, with 1 from each category (Quality of Life, Open Space, and Recreation)(ITDC 11-4-3.27D-2d). The applicant is providing amenities as follows: enclosed bike storage (Qua.lity of Life), property management office, maintenance storage area, development map/directory, (Recreation), tot-lot (Recreation), walking path/sidewallcs (Recreation), and open space (Open Space). Staff believes that the proposed amenities satisfy the UDC requirements. Staff is supportive of the proposed amenities. Elevations: With the application submittal the applicant provided one building elevation (front) for the proposed 4-plea structures. Since the original submittal the applicant has provided all four building elevations to staff. UDC 11-4-3 requires multifamily structures to comply with the design standards listed in this section. It appears that the elevations provided comply with UDC 11-4-3.27E. NOTE: Staff will ensure that when CZC applications are submitted for construction of the 4-plex buildings in the future, that the elevations also comply with the UDC requirements and are consistent with those attached in Exhibit A. Pedestrian Paths: With the approval of the Rock Creek development to the west, a 5- foot wide pedestrian walkway was required on the north side of the Ninemile Creek. The applicant is proposing to extend the pedestrian pathway in Rock Creek to this site's eastern boundary. Said pathway should be constructed in accordance with UDC 11-3A-8 (construction) and UDC 11-3B (landscaping). Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 12 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 In 1996, COMPASS adopted the pathway recommendations laid out in the Ridge-to- Rivers Pathway Plan (1996). The goals of the plan include developing a bikeway and pathway system that encourages non-motorized transportation and enhances recreational opportunities. The Union Pacific Raikoad corridor abutting the south property line is shown as a proposed multi-use pathway in Figure VI-3 (Off-Street Multiple-Use Pathways) in the adopted Comprehensive Plan. There is also amulti-use pathway shown adjacent to the Ninemile Drain in the Comprehensive Plan. In the past, the City has not required the construction of a pathway within the Union Pacific Railroad corridor, but has required developers that abut the future pathway to provide a minimum of 5-feet of landscaping. Consistent with previous Council action, the Applicant should not be required to construct amulti-use pathway adjacent to the southern boundary, but should be required to provide a minimum of 5-feet of landscaping along the south property line. There is an existing 25-foot wide irrigation easement within the rear setback. At a minimum, the Applicant should be required to plant trees in accordance with MCC (1 tree per every 35-lineal feet) on the south side of the buildings. Ninemile Creek and Rutledge Lateral• The Ninemile Creek and the Rutledge Lateral course through or are adjacent to this site. UDC 11-3A-6 requires natural waterways to be left open as a natural amenity, and for irrigation ditches, laterals, canals and drains that are not being used as an amenity to be piped or otherwise covered. The Ninemile Creek is a natural waterway that should be protected and enhanced by leaving it open and constructing a pathway adjacent to it. The Rutledge Lateral should be piped. Multi-family Setbacks: The UDC does not have a specific setback between internal multi-family units. However, there may be a problem with not providing a full 10-foot front setback to the 4-plex units; utilities may need a wider easement. The front setback shown on the proposed 4-plex units, approximately 12 to 14 feet, should be sufficient. At least a 10-foot wide front setback should be provided between all 4- plexes and the back of the adjacent sidewalk. Pine Avenue Street Buffer: A 20-foot wide street buffer is required along Pine Avenue, a collector street (UDC 11-2A-6). There is existing parking for the church near Pine Avenue that encroaches into the required buffer area. Staff realizes that the church lot is not developing at this time, but it is part of the subject subdivision and subject to compliance with the UDC. Therefore, staff recommends that prior to occupancy of the first 4-plex, the applicant agrees to submit and gain approval for alternative landscaping compliance adjacent to Pine Avenue. Further, when any new construction occurs on Lot 1, Block 1 (church lot) in the future, a landscape street buffer along Pine Avenue will be constructed in accordance with the UDC. NOTE: Staff has made this a provision of the Development Agreement and not a condition of the plat or CUP. Open Space: Open space is defined as an area substantially open to the sky that may be on the same property with a structure. The areas may include, along with the natural environment features, parks, playgrounds, trees, water areas, swimming pools, tennis courts, community centers or other recreational facilities. The term shall not include streets, parking areas, or structures of habitation (C1DC 11-1A). UDC 11-4- 3.27C requires a minimum area of outdoor common open space shall be provided as follows: a) 150 square feet for each unit containing 500 or less square feet of living Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 13 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINC~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 area; b) 250 square feet for each unit containing more than 500 square feet and up to 1,200 square feet of living area; and c) 350 square feet for each unit containing more than 1,200 square feet of living area. Common open space areas shall not be adjacent to collector or arterial streets unless separated from the street by a constructed barrier at least 4 feet in height. The applicant states that 0.14 acres (6,098 square feet) of the site is being set aside for common open space. Based on the square footage of the proposed 4-plexes, each unit contains 4,160 square feet, 8,400 square feet of common open space should be provided. Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Rushmore Subdivision Home Owners' Association(s). The applicant should explain where and how the common open asp ce r~nirements mentioned above will be met Fencing: The applicant has not proposed any fencing for this the development. Staff recommends that the applicant test' at the public hearing if perimeter fencing will be installed and what type. A detailed fencing plan should be submitted upon application of the final plat. If permanent fencing is not provided before issuance of a building permit, temporary construction fencing to contain debris must be installed around the perimeter. Perimeter, common open space, and micro-path fencing shall be designed according to UDC 11-3A-7. Per UDC 11-3A-6B3 requires open vision fencing along waterways where it is in the best interest of public safety. Staff recommends that the Council require open-vision fencing on both sides of the Ninemile Creek. 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 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 used, 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. Site Layout: As mentioned above, the submitted plat does propose 48 parking stall on this site. However, staff believes that there is one problem with the way the development is currently laid out. Lot 5, Block 2, which is located in the southwest corner of the development has no parking in front of the building. Staff is concerned about the remoteness of the parking area in the northeast corner in relation to the units. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council determine if there are too many units on this site. Staff Recommendation: Based on the facts provided in this report, staff recommends approval of File Numbers RZ-06-004, PP-06-021 and CUP-06-014 with the conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Staff Report. On Mav 18, 2006 the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of the subiect applications to the Citv Council with the Development Agreement provisions listed in Section 10 and the Conditions listed in Exhibit B of the Staff Report. 11. E~~ITS A. Drawings Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 14 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 1. Preliminary Plat (dated: 1-24-06) 2. Landscape Plan (dated: 2-14-06) 3. 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. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District C. Legal Descriptions D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code Rushmore Subdivision RZ-06-004/PP-06-021/CUP-06-014 PAGE 15 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINC~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 A. Drawings 1. Preliminary Plat (dated: 1-24-06) Ea .-"i ~~' - _ _ - E ~- ~+ e ¢.-~_ . _ -- .~.- ~- ~ ~_ .~~~~ ~ -~~, : ~r , ~ ~ ,.:~ ~~ ~_ ~. `•.fx1a -~..--,~...,,.___~_,_ _ 1 r~en,~e`om°`c~~a P ~~ ~ ~ ~ 9 ~~; 8~~ S tl ~~~ F~t~y~~e 1 ll~al~ II~C'~ Exhibit A -Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 2. Landscape Plan (dated 2-14-06) - - - - - II t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i • g ~ ~ s ~ 4t~lEttg alt~~~ee:e~ o+eiags ~~ Cy. ll! ~$ .B ~~ ~® ~~ I ~ ' Y 13 3 ~ ~ ! Exhibit A -Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 3. Elevations Exhibit A -Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 i I I i 1 i I I 1 J I, it it (I t~ ii i t .! J i Exhibit A -Page 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN(.~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF NLY 5, 2006 ,n J Exhibit A -Page 5 ~Z ~°~~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 1.1 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS-pREL1MINARy PLAT (PP-06-021) 1.1.1 The preliminary plat/site plan labeled Sheet No. 1 o f 1, prepared by Rennison Fodrea, Inc., dated January 24, 2006, is approved, with the conditions listed herein. All comments/conditions of the accompanying Rezone (RZ-06-004) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP-06-014) shall also be considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat (PP-06-021). 1.1.2 The landscape plan prepared by South Landscape Architecture, on 2-14-06, labeled Sheet L1.0, is approved with the following modifications/notes: • Provide landscaping in compliance with UDC 11-3B-12, adjacent to the pedestrian pathway on the north side of the Ninemile Creek. • Widen to at least 5 feet (measured inside curbs) and provide at least one tree within the landscape planter in the pazking stalls between Lots 3 and 4, Block 2 (CTDC 11-3B-8C2) • All azeas 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. • A written certificate of completion shall be prepazed by the landscape azchitect, designer, or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan ~.nd submitted prior to City Council signature of the Final Plat. All standards of installation shall apply as listed in UDC 11-3B-14. Submit revised landscape plans with the final plat application. 1.1.3 Provide a cross pazking/cross access easement for all of the lots in Block 2 to use common Lot 1 as access to Broadway Avenue. A copy of a recorded cross-access/ingress-egress and pazking maintenance agreement shall be provided to the City. 1.1.4 Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Rushmore Subdivision Homeowners' Association. 1.1.5 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways (Ninemile Creek), intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per MCC 12-4-13, unless otherwise approved by the Irrigation District(s). 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. If lateral users association approval can not be obtained, alternate plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to final plat signature. Per UDC 11-3A-6B3, open vision fencing is required along waterways where it is in the best interest of public safety. Staff recommends that the Council require open-vision fencing on both sides of the Ninemile Creek. 1.1.6 Other than the public street access approved by ACHD, direct lot access to W. Pine Avenue is prohibited. A note shall be placed on the final plat restricting access to W. Pine Avenue. Exhibit B -Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 1.1.7 Underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all lots within this development. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. The applicant shall 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 used, 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. 1.1.8 Provide a minimum 5-foot wide landscape buffer along the southern boundary of the development. Said landscape buffer may be included within the existing irrigation easement for the Rutledge Lateral if a license agreement for landscaping is obtained from the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District (NMID). If the Applicant is unable to obtain a license agreement from NMID, provide a minimum 5-foot wide landscape buffer outside of the NMID easement. 1.1.9 All internal sidewalks shall be constructed as submitted and in accordance with MCC 12-5-2.K. 1.1.10 No building or other structure shall be erected, moved, added to or structurally altered, nor shall any building structure or land be established or change in use on this site without first obtaining a Certificate of Zoning Compliance (CZC) from the Meridian Planning and Zoning Department (MCC 11-19-1). 1.1.11 Prior to obtaining certificate(s) of occupancy, all development improvements, including perimeter fencing, irrigation, and landscaping shall be installed. Prior to signature of the final plat(s) by the City Engineer, a letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all fencing, landscaping, pressurized irrigation, amenities, sewer, water, etc. 1.1.12 The construction of the required landscape street buffer adjacent to Pine Avenue can be delayed and made a part of the Church's expansion project. 1.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT (PP-06-021) 1.2.1 A detailed landscape plan, in compliance with the landscape and subdivision ordinance and as noted in this report, shall be submitted for the subdivision with the final plat application(s). 1.2.2 The applicant shall submit a detailed fencing plan with the final plat application for the subdivision. 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. All fencing should be installed in accordance with City Code. Non-flammable fencing shall be constructed along the south side of the nroiect, adiacent to the railroad property 1.2.3 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 mitigated. 1.2.4 Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to UDC 11-3A-17. 1.2.5 All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stonYnwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11- Exhibit B -Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 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 11-3B. 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. 1.2.6 Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Works Department. 1.2.7 Staff s failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved annexation and conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.2.8 Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 1.3 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (CUP-06-014) 1.3.1 Comply with all of the standards listed in UDC 11-4-3.27 regarding multi-family developments, including Site Design, Common Open Space, Site Amenities, Architectural Character, Landscaping, and Maintenance. 1.3.2 The front elevation, including colors and construction materials of all of the 4-plex buildings in this development shall conform to Sheet OF, prepared by Ram-Tech Design, dated 2-21-06. All elevations of the 4-plex buildings shall conform to the elevations in Exhibit A of the Staff Report. All roof and wall-mounted mechanical, electrical, communications, and service equipment shall be screened from public streets and properties by the use of parapets, walls, fences, enclosures, or by other suitable means. 1.3.3 Provide at least 0.38 acres of open space, 0.19 acres of common open space, at least 80 square feet of private useable open space for each unit (such as a patio or deck), bike storage, a maintenance building, a management office, atot-lot area, a .community directory, and a pedestrian pathway on the north side of the Ninemile Creek. 1.3.4 Provide at least 48 covered parking stalls for this development. 1.3.5 Provide front setbacks as shown on the proposed plat (at least 10 feet to the sidewalk); and side setbacks (10-feet between buildings). 1.3.6 Provide open-vision (chain link) fence along both sides of the Ninemile Creek. 1.3.7 All comments and conditions of the accompanying Rezone (RZ-06-004) application and Preliminary Plat (PP-06-021) application, shall also be considered conditions of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP-06-014). 2. Public Works Department 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension of mains in West Broadway Avenue. The applicant shall install mains to and through this development; applicant Exhibit B -Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 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 The applicant shall be required, as depicted on the preliminary plat, to install mains between the two manholes located adjacent to this site and just north of Ninemile Creek. This will allow for the sewer lift station in Tremont Place to be decommissioned. 2.3 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in West Broadway Avenue. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and thraugh this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. 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 A portion of this property lies within a FEMA recognized flood plain with a zone designation of A. Prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer the applicant shall provide a Base Flood Elevation report from a professional surveyor or other licensed professional qualified to prepare said document. 2.6 Upon submittal of the final plat to the City Engineer for signature the applicant shall submit an entirely separate, second plat for use by the Building Department that contains the floodplain overlay. 2.7 All lots encumbered by the floodplain shall submit flood plain elevation certification prior to occupancy. 2.8 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. 2.9 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water ([TDC 11-3A-6). 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. 2.10 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. 2.11 Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall be removed from 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. 2.12 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. Exhibit B -Page 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 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. 2.13 The applicant has not indicated how the storm drainage from the proposed parking lots. 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 azeas. 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 regazding Shallow Injection Wells. 2.14 Street signs aze 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. 2.15 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. 2.16 Sewer, water, pressurized irrigation, and any life safety development improvement shall receive final approval prior to occupancy. Other required development improvements such as fencing, micro-paths, and landscaping may be bonded for prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.17 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. 2.18 It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all development features comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 2.19 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.20 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.21 Developer shall coordinate mailbox locations with the Meridian Post Office. 2.22 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. 2.23 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations aze 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. 2.24 One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights shall be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. Height for 100 watt fixtures is 25-feet, height for 250 watt fixtures is 30-feet. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity aze 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. Fire Department Exhibit B -Page 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINC~I'ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 3.1 One and two family dwellings will require afire-flow of 1,000 gallons per minute available for duration of 2 hours to service the entire project. Fire hydrants shall be placed an average of 500' apart. International Fire Code Appendix C 3.2 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. 3.3 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 spec. d. Locations with fire hydrants shall have the curb painted red 10' to each side of the hydrant location. e. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. f. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. g. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. h. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. i. Fire sprinklers required for four-plexes. 3.4 All entrance and internal roads shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 3.5 For all Fire Lanes, paint the curb red and provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane". 3.6 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. 3.7 The roadways shall be built to Ada County Highway Standards cross section requirements and shall have a clear driving surface, available at all times, which is 20' wide. Streets with less than a 29' street width shall have no parking. Streets with less than 33' shall have parking only on one side. These measurements shall be based on the face of curb dimension. 3.8 Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure. 3.9 The first digit of the Apartment/Office Suite shall correspond to the floor level. 3.10 All aspects of the building systems (including exiting systems), processes & storage practices shall be required to comply with the International Fire Code. 3.11 Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. 3.12 The Fire Department requires that any roadway greater than 150 feet in length that is not provided with an outlet shall be required to have an approved turn around. 3.13 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). For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). Exhibit B -Page 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN(~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 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). 3.14 All R-2 occupancies with 3 or more units or with 3 floors shall be required to be fire sprinklered. 3.15 Side yard fences shall not be allowed. 4. Police Department 4.1 Prior to release of buildine vermits, the applicant shall submit a parkins elan for all off-street Uarkine in the multi-family development to the Planning Department All parking spaces shall be assigned to a specific dwelling unit or for guest use The parking space identification shall use a different numbering svstem than the dwelling units. 4.2 The proposed multi-family development shall limit landscaping shrubs and bushes to species that do not exceed three feet in height. 4.3 Any interior fencing shall allow visibility from the street or shall not exceed four feet in height if solid fencing is used. 4.4 To increase emergency access to the site, the Police Department recommends that the applicant provide a stub street to the property to the north or west. 5. Parks Department 5.1 Pathway and Trail standards: The proposed pathway and/or trail shall be constructed in accordance with the Meridian Park Department's requirements. 6. Sanitary Service Company 6.1 Please contact Bill Gregory at SSC (888-3999) for detailed review of your proposal and submit stamped (approved) plans with your certificate of zoning compliance application. 7. Ada County Highway District Site Specific Conditions ofApnroval 7.1 a Locate the cul-de-sac of West Broadway Avenue abutting the eastern property line, as proposed, with the 48-foot turn radii. Construct curb, gutter and a 5-foot attached concrete sidewalk along the entire cul-de-sac. 7.1b Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. Standard Conditions of Approval 7.1b Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of--way. 7.2b Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACPID roadway or right-of--way. Exhibit B -Page 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 7.3b All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 7.4b 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.Sb Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy. 7.6b 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. 7.7b 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. 7.8b 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. 7.9b 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. 7.1 Ob Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #200, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 7.1 lb 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 (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 7.12b 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. 7.13b 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 are submitted, we can approve this proposal for central sewage and central water. Exhibit B -Page 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF JiJLY 5, 2006 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 a mosquito breeding problem. 8.4 It is recommended that storm water bepre-treated prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to ground water and surface water quality. The engineers and architects involved with the design of this project should obtain current best management practices for storm water disposal and design a storm water management system that is preventing groundwater and surface water degradation. 9. Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District 9.1 Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District requires that a Land Use Change Application be filed, for review, prior to final platting. Please contact Donna Moore at 466-7861 for further information. 9.2 All laterals and waste ways must be protected. The District's Nine Mile Drain courses through the middle of this proposed project and the District's Rutledge Lateral courses along the south boundary. These easements must be protected and any encroachment without a signed License Agreement and approved plan, before any construction is started, is unacceptable. 9.3 All municipal surface drainage must be retained on site. If any municipal surface drainage leaves the site, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District must review drainage plans. 9.4 The developer must comply with Idaho Code 31-3805. 9.5 It is recommended that irrigation water be made available to all developments within the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. Exhibit B -Page 9 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAI~i DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 C. Legal Descriptions O~ Box 189 toa id htain~reet cap, s~~~ c-s; ~.-~z-~ta ~~+' ` 5rurs ~ Pdrrrartc~s o~ i~s~~ ~ tde~u, ~~ ~2~t i'3~TE ~/~,~ 1'2' moo.: ~53r# '~` - ~. ~+d {~1Te~ Pfd ~ ~ S~ '~i ~ tart ~ W~ vv~ 5uvdivi~ " ~ t1.T~ ~ west t T. 31'41 .R.1 ~1,, ,~ ~ ~~ fo+l~$J~-~ ldalio b}- ~e~niscm F ham. ~~~~ ~v wT~~-.,,'.r- 4 ~ ~C ~; Exhibit C -Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINC~ARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 1(ta t+lli^L.+~t:~(tr3 d`~ Sttt?tt.°s1.~t`s o ~P'luttttc°rc 1~4~~.ip~9 C.~rcmdm, {,:lahEi 93?~.11 ' 5~e B C tEfiC~ 24k4-3S2-~~ Eagle. Icg,~3tS36 Fa~.".~s-38I~llf} +~ffie~e zesty __ 1'atu ~3A-2~1 D~iTE 3f$/06 Pict Nd» 153 ~ ~t~t~'k#~ilf~~tl ~#'iG{ ~L'S~ ~Lti~ # ~ ~, ,~fSlT~i~ ~y ~i~@'3 W 1~2 OE 1y ~@$E ~SN'~ S~t~3~@F! Bk. ~, ~~~ 4fiat~ being ~ ~ of Wei Pine$tceei aiad ttoe west sh of Lcst~, Wi~# Lav~m av~~, Pg.. P~+rn+ds asf s~iB l~ may. I~~,d Fn a Pam of 6~ JV8'!a c~B~ Sff~ t lid., R 1 ~ ,. ~~r. AdaCouttty, Ic~a~tq be~eg mcarae' pay`iiculart~ ~ ~ T. 3 !chat ~ec~en~r gla c+r ~ , ~, a fotitu$ brass c~ t.I'.[? ~No 9~,1631'~rrof6Coe~t};'itsenraa ~f 6Sti.3~ ikon tt~e ztorflt of b4te~ ~i'.- of~afd ~~~ ~d~T$1° 3tY' Ify 4~1, a dish ~~rCII~11g~~,p See~on 1Z to ~ pErk~ bang EheT~CJE ~H[~fi~' a ~ of 14I89m ~` lb" ~V, ~ ai~tsnce of Z~13.2£eet cue said north '~n~eaheau~ty~~f;~i1t1°~9'Va~.~dcf~QOtaaset5/8~ec~bar~c~ ~ ~, bc-u~,rgr t~f'B4" Fbae ~(~ ~e~srthwestcoreteaflf ~ weal ~ ~t~+ ~e~afS~3Y~8'"W,acer~f~i.~3~ton~ses~vest~~~'estlawv~- h of Lest e Wesf ta~vtt .. ~ a seeSjS imels tt~mr, "D'ha csfsa~i wit 24i.~ 1 feet tc- a se! 5f 8 iii n ~ b!ngj,ofS$~~i' Oii" Q $.d arf oflrt Dff~~Z' ~~°'~~" of safe west tfe of LsrE ~,, W~ 1~~vrt Fattbal€Misitu~; fletr ~,,adaf99~aneastbutuuiary~fltewest~'ie-fF.,~2, fNt'~t T.aq-~tSus ~asetuf S i~ r~r on s~ s~u~, ~*8°~strc~terof 8xa veestib ~~ ~, ikT~ L~t~ ;'fha ~ rehar ~ distanreo€3~lLfl,7~t~y~g~ ~ sgctFNOQ°~'~Y'~e +aa ~ contait~ 3,32[3 a mot tc~fi~ s~iifa aatd spa Y srf'~ectYrd ac~6f ~r y~ ~-e~. i'Y I;emiiso~ ~neln~, tc~ ~t#1~~s~aec Exhibit C -Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINt~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 ~~~ +~Itst~t~ ~ ci~°~a ~~a 1~ $lreel E~r~it~r~ ~ Sum • ~'latrrYers a?~ 5 Fa}~ F.vad ~'~, I~~ ~i€itl Suite H tcialx-!3<~Oi~i C1£6C:~ d~6-'5412 O~ 7.~--a~i['t dac ~-3~2-p P~ ~8-X38-~~#d 1'~ by I~ttP:lt~. t~kres~t,~rr3 ~,. Exhibit C -Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINC~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ DATE OF JiJLY 5, 2006 I~° ~`tJ~t l~E. Nl.1VG I~U~Ti[I~iCe sSAJ~, ®tc 1 1~ FC)R`7E'k~211 C1F ~T 1'II'~l'E 9'~.B~E'~' w ~ a rev€~ s~,r~at~a° or SEC 1i & t2 ~,~i'FS~ .~` ~~ ~ '4a"w ~~~ saw ~~ ~~ ~.~~ as ~ 1 ~._~. c a/~ rs ~cs~ora to ~,~~' ~ e~~ nvs~ ray. sass~~a ti t~ ~ N o m i t ~' s i,~~ c,+~R 's~cmr~ to ~ rust. _ _- - -- -- -------- ~enuit~crn F~dr~a, Ix~c. A a~-sus~rvzst€~ty o~ v~r u~ ~ ~ ~aF . ~ • R~ res~r ~ ~u~tarvc~~ty ~ a ~ ~~ T4t~ N8 2l~ O~'k'SE 9W xd'~ AF ~, Fe 3 Pt.. ~. i t#. w a. w ~, 8•hta CCU Y OP E~t+ ADA t'~U114L'Y,1}6.1.RHt! ,.. Exhibit C -Page 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNINC~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~ DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 I'Y` ~'d~~ V I`aiI3~IG ~~~~ St~~IVISa~I€+I ~LQCAf as : /a ce~Ra~a~ a~~rac~a as ~: az - _ ~._ $,~ ~,~~, ~~ ~~.atar~c r CF~r aad~i r~0. i'~89'a6 'N 2fi5~.84' _ C a fa Cc#aau~aa ~f9J~445 7!1 _ ~a7~.?a3•~ ~"`°- SInCrFC}f> 1'a ~, ~: PIM.~' ST. Sta0'28 44°Mr,,.,,~~.~gCP&f ItbST, Np. ~ e. _ 3A.t1~' 666 93631aa ~~ 8l.CC.tZ ! d ~ ~ „~~ ~ ~ W~'I' LJi; SiIV1a~4'l2d "nay ~ ~ ~ Y> ~~f iR ~ CPBtF aN57: td6. *t,_,~.-o-~.p,~ 881 !7246 ~a3i 1'0;3"iy°24~~` ~ Ol1RJ'd° ~yva B'L'GPlir,N~Nar~ p) ~W ~° ~! X8;13 >~lB. "' r ,~ ]3iflK;lC 2 ~.17YS ACafi89 t rp F ~` Yy"arnatcra:~2 '#' 146' S[7RD1vIh1 ¢'f`'a+$~ ~~ ~a PAQ~FS >#4 a ~~~i { •am .~ ~.susn><v~sto~ a~ , ~ ~>P ~ ~ R~nnisoi~ F+oire~t, . >Ea~ I~as€->r~roH a Ire e~ Tio»t ~ ~,~~ . ~ . rr, ~~~c7i1~~~~ogsxa.r.~n~..>a.ivv: R .~m.~ 8.~.. ~ o>~ >, ens ~~ ~ ~ - - _'~_"~' Exhibit C -Page S CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~PARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEA~G DATE OF JULY 5, 2006 :. ~a F ~'ST ~ ~ ~xs c N 86t;F!!4~ I8 . -i76~.2~ {~El. ~i llOffg3~44`E waati P1sa f 30.G9' ~.1~ ,AC~tF$ t c~~r ~rsr. as ~ Qa++~~ t ~ ~ i i ; agZ' ~~ ~ ,YW69'Cf/sL4l~ ~N~b7C'[d~i9VBEIRD1VtSiOt~t P04K 2y PA4B 94 ~~ ~~~. ~~ ~.u~~~Q~ ~~~~~ ~4~~~t~~~~~veFa CAE~tOF`K$ DE Exhibit C -Page 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING I~IRTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEAR~DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006 D. Required Findings from Unified Development Code 1. Rezone Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application.l`n 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; Council fords that the proposed zoning is in general conformance with the comprehensive plan (please see Section 8 of the Staff Report for detailed analysis of specific comprehensive plan action items that apply to this development). B. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; Council fords that there aze several uses that aze allowed and conditionally allowed within the requested zoning districts of R-15 and L-O. Specifically, multi-family uses aze conditionally allowed in the R-15 zone and churches aze principally permitted in the L-O zone. Council finds that the development of this property should be required to comply with the established regulations and purpose statements of the requested zone. See Section 10, Analysis above for information on the regulations that need to be complied with. C. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; Council finds that the proposed rezone, and subsequent development of this property shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety and/or welfaze. The Commission and Council should 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, 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. E. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (LTDC 11-SB-3.E). This fording is not applicable to the rezone request. 2. 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: A. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; Council finds that the proposed plat is in general conformance with the comprehensive plan (please see Section 8 of the Staff Report for detailed analysis of specific comprehensive plan action items that apply to this development). Exhibit D -Page 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING D~TMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARIl~ATE OF MARCH 16, 2006 B. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; Council finds that services can be made available to accommodate the proposed development. C. 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 cost, Council fords that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. D. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; The Commission and Council should rely upon comments from the public service providers (i.e., police, fire, ACRD, etc.) to determine this finding. (See finding Items 3 and 4 above under Annexation Findings above, and the Agency Comments and Conditions in Exhibit B for more detail.) E. The development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare; and City Council is not aware of any health, safety or environmental problems associated with the development of this subdivision. ACFID considers road safety issues in their analysis. 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. F. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Council finds that the Ninemile Creek should be preserved. Council is unaware of any other natural, scenic or historic features on this site. Therefore, 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, if the Ninemile Creek is preserved and protected. The Commission and Council should 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. 3. CUP Findings: The Commission shall base its determination on the Conditional Use Permit request upon the following: A. That the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed use and meet all the dimensional and development regulations in the district in which the use is located. Council finds that the site is large enough to accommodate all required parking, landscaping, loading and other standard regulations required by the UDC. B. That the proposed use will be harmonious with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and in accord with the requirements of this Title. Exhibit D -Page 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING 1~RTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARI~DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006 Council finds that the proposed uses are is in general conformance with the comprehensive plan and the UDC (please see Sections 8, 9 and 10 of the Staff Report for detailed analysis of specific items that apply to this development). C. That the design, construction, operation and maintenance will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the e~sting or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not adversely change the essential character of the same area. Council finds that the general design, construction, operation and maintenance of the multi-family uses will be compatible with other uses in the general neighborhood and with the existing and intended character of the vicinity as to not adversely change the character of the area. Council fords that a higher density residential use on this site should be compatible with the neighborhood (provided the applicant complies with all UDC provisions.) The Commission and Council should reference any public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposal will adversely affect the other properties in the area. D. That the proposed use, if it complies with all conditions of the approval imposed, will not adversely affect other property in the vicinity. Council finds that the proposed development should not adversely affect other property in the vicinity if the applicant complies with all Preliminary Plat, Development Agreement and CUP conditions and constructs all improvements and operates the use in accordance with the UDC standazds. E. That the proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, schools, parks, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. Please refer to the comments and conditions prepazed by the Meridian Fire Department, Police Department, Pazks Department, Sanitary Services Company and ACRD in Exhibit B. F. That the proposed use will not create excessive additional costs for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. If approved, the developer will be financing the extension of sewer, water, local street infrastructure, utilities and irrigation services to serve the project. The primary public costs to serve the future residents will be fire, police and school facilities and services. Council finds that the applicant should be required to pay to extend the sanitary sewer and water mains into the site. No additional capital facility costs aze expected from the City. The applicant and/or future property owners will be required to pay highway impact fees. Council finds that the proposed uses should not create excessive additional costs for facilities or services and should not be detrimental to the economic welfaze of the community. G. That the proposed use will not involve activities or processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. Council finds that the proposed development will not involve uses that will create nuisances that would be detrimental to the general welfaze of the surrounding azea. Council does not believe that the amount of traffic or noise generated will be detrimental to the general welfaze of the public. The Commission and Council should reference any Exhibit D -Page 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING ~RTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARI~DATE OF MARCH 16, 2006 public testimony that may be presented to determine whether or not the proposal may cause health, safety or environmental problems of which staff is unaware. H• That the proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural, scenic or historic feature considered to be of major importance. Council finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural feature(s) of major importance, if the Ninemile Creek is protected. The Commission and Council should reference any public testimony that maybe 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 -Page 4 ~ i March 2, 2007 VAC 07-002 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 6, 2007 APPLICANT Ronald W. Van Auker ITEM NO. 5-D REQUEST Resolution - Vacate a public utility, drainage & irrigation easement common to Lots 1 &2, Block 1 of the Olson & Bush Industrial Park for Lanark Street Easement - NWC of Eagle Road and East Lanark Street - 3180 East Lanark Street 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 public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. COMMENTS See AtFached Resolution ADA COUNTY RECORDERVID NAVARRO AMOUNT .p0 . BOISE IDAHO 03/08/07 0 . M I III DEPUTY Patti Thompson II I i l ll it 1111 ll l ll l ll l ll l ll 1 1 ll l l i RECORDED-REQUEST OF 107~~~~,~1 City of Meridian CITY OF MERIDL~N RESOLUTION NO. ~' ~~ BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA A RESOLUTION VACATING A PUBLIC UTILITY, DRAINAGE AND IRRIGATION EASEMENT COMMON TO LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 1 OF THE OLSON & BUSH INDUSTRIAL PARK, PHASE 1, RECORDERS NUMBER BOOK 44, PAGE 3581, LOCATED IN SECTION 6, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, STATE OF IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, on February 27, 2007 the City Council of the City of Meridian, held a hearing on the vacation of a public utility, drainage and irrigation easement common to lots 1 & 2, Block 1 of the Olson & Bush Industrial Park, Phase, Recorders Number Book 44, Page 3581, located in Section 6, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, City of Meridian, Ada County, State of Idaho, and WHEREAS, after such hearing, the City Council, by formal motion, did approve said described vacation; and NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: Section 1. That the vacation of a public utility, drainage and imgation easement common to lots 1 & 2, Block 1 of the Olson & Bush Industrial Park, Phase, Recorders Number Book 44, Page 3581, located in Section 6, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, City of Meridian, Ada County, State of Idaho, is hereby vacated. Copies of the necessary relinquishments are attached as Exhibit "A". Section 2. That this Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption and approval. VACATION OF PUBLIC UTITLTIES, DRAINAGE AND IRRIGATION EASEMENT IN OLSON & BUSH SUBDIVISION (LANARK STREET VAC 07-002) Page 1 of 2 • • PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this ~~ day of ~~~~ , 2007. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this ~~ day of % ~~1-~/~. G`" 1-,-447• ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss County of Ada ) e\~,\`tt~lilllllll/III ~o\ ~ ~ ~<i ee ~ 4 ~, ` ~ ~~' .;, a ~~~ ~' ~~ ,IT;Y~' ~,~ • ~ ~• e®s ~i ~~' av~ ~Vy/ qm ~®/'aej'IIIrIIPIV~{ I14 tOq®0~~~``a ~'+~> C~~ ~~~uc ~ref`''~Leht On this ~~'' day of }~~{,/~ CG1 , 2007, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared T A AdA/(t7 ao / ~ and WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known to me to be the • and City Clerk, ~- ' ~, ` ~ ~ ~ ~ respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and r J acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. ~~~ ~i'~yL~ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. ff^^ .••'~1~1.,~ '••~ ~~t GUS ~'? ~~ -f '~-J (SEAL) ~ ~ , QT'~~ ~ ~ NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO ~~ ~ RESIDING AT: }~,Q (~~ J1c~ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ~ -/$ = ~/ • ~•: ~'t)F ~~~ ••....• VACATION OF PUBLIC UTITLTIES, DRAINAGE AND IRRIGATION EASEMENT IN OLSON & BUSH SUBDIVISION (LANARK STREET VAC 07-002) Page 2 of 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DA'Z'E OF FEBRUARY 27, 2007 EXFBBIT B -Recorded Plat Depicting Easement on Lots 1 & 2, Block 1, Olsan & Bush Industrial Park EASEMENTS 10' ALONG EXTERIOR LOT LINES 10' CENTERED ON INTERIOR LOT LINES OTHERS AS NOTED HERON R~ ~, ~ ~ ~~ ~~` ~ qq ~4 _ ~~~ ~ a~~ ~~ ~~~ ~; ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~r~ y y j~ j~+~ g .d ~ W r e QI• 08LLTldpfl '~ ~~ ~ ~-'^ -~, -~ asdln w A7Lb1 1.i~ A S Adldd °o ~msr + oroa~ 3T~r9 N1dON w,sd ~ '(s!„`~, ~ ® Subject ~ ~ ~ Easement E , ...._ m.rd ~v--~ I -___.~- - .D_C7oow ~a t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ® ~ + M'~6P _~~___ ( s1411d I •a''^i ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '° ~ avYtt ~~~ w D~.es h ~ .arm ~ ~~ ~~ k W v rrwa ~ y 3 * ~ D,CDAA dQ7-t7 - ~ ~ a.fip N ~ - ~ ® ~~ ~ ~ _ 'g J~ ~ .~ dr; ~' ..Nltd_._.j __ J N7Yd ~; i ~ a ~ B • • March 2, 2007 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 6, 2007 APPLICANT ITEM NO. S-E REQUEST Approve Task Order 0666 with Civil Survey Consultants, Inc., for Engineering Services related to Sanitary Sewer Relocation Study for $25,000.00: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: See Attached Memo /Task Order CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: EPT ' ~' : CITY SEWER D 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: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meeflngs shall become properly of the City of Meridian. • Memo ~~E~~ BAR 0 ~ 200 To: Will Berg; Tara Green Q:ity of Meridian From Brent Blake City Clerk ®ffic~ CC: File, Keith Watts Date: 3/1107 Re: Proposed Agenda Item for March 1, 2007 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following item be placed on the March 1 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda. for Council's considerafion: Task Order 0666 with Civil Survey Consultants Inc. for Engineering Services Related to Sanitary Sewer Relocation Study Services under this task order will include consultation services to evaluate ~e feasibility of relocating existing sanitary sewer mains a~rrently located within existing alleys and aoross private property in the downtown area. Recommended Council Action: The Publlc Works Department recommends that City Council approves Task Order Q666 with Civil Survey Consultants, Inc. for Engineering Services Related to San'~tary Sewer Relocation Study $25,000 and authorizes the Mayor to sign it. Thank you for your oonsideration. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this item. ~ Page 1 • TASK ORDER N0.0666 CITY OF MERIDIAN (OWNER) AND CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS INC. (ENGINEER) This Task Order is issued by Owner and accepted by the Engineer pursuant to the mutual promises, covenants and conditions contained in the Agreement between the above named parties dated November 8, 2006. CITY OF MERIDIAN DOWNTOWN MERIDIAN SANITARY SEWER RELOCATION STUDY PURPOSE The Engineer's scope of services, time of completion and compensation shall be as set forth herein. Services shall generally be described as Engineering Consulting Services. TASK Q666 - Facilities Review and Planning Per the City's request, the Engineer will provide professional services to evaluate the feasibility of relocating existing sanitary sewer mains currently located within existing alleys and across private properties into existing public right-of--way within the study area. The study area is generally bounded by Cherry Lane !Fairview Avenue on the. north, West 5"' Street on the west, Watertower Street on the south, and Baltic Street on the east. The Engineer will review existing sanitary sewer facilities, develop a conceptual plan for the relocated facilities, provide a preliminary opinion of project cost, and provide a list of possible issues related to the plan. The conceptual plan will be provided electronically on an AutoCAD drawing that will overlay existing city mapping. The Owner will furnish the Engineer with GIS information including the location and size of all existing sewer mains within the study area; location and depth of pipes at all existing manholes; an orthographic photo; existing ground contours and spot elevations; existing property lines; and existing right-of--way within the study area boundary. The Owner will also provide pipe sizes for future over sizing within the study area if applicable. TIME OF COMPLETION. 1IV~thin first month of contract, engineering services will be compie#ed to evaluate the sewer system located between Cherry Lane on the north, Main Street on the east, Washington on the south and Meridian Road on the west. Engineering services for the remainder of the study area will be completed on an as needed basis. COMPENSATION The Not To-Exceed amount for this Task Order No. 0666 is Twenty Five Thousand dollars ($25,000.00). The hourly rate for services and direct expenses is per the previously approved Prevailing Fee Schedule Effective October 1, 2006, and by this reference made a part hereof. CITY OF MERIDIAN BY: TAMMY de WEERD, MAYOR Attest: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK ENGINEER BY: ' ~ ll OTViY A. BU , VICE PRESIDENT Approved by City Council: (Date) Civil Survey Consultants, Inc. Gienn K. Bennett, P.L.S. President 1400 E. Watertower St. Suite l OQ Timothq A. Burgess, P.E. Meridian, Idaho 83642-7786 Vice President CIVIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS CITY OF MERIDIAN PREVAILING FEE SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1, 2006 Labor: Project Manager - $ 105.00 per hour Chief of Surveys - $ 105.00 per hour Project Engineer - $ 95.00 per hour Land Surveyor - $ 85.00 per hour Design Engineer 1 - $ 85.00 per hour Design Engineer 2 - $ 80.00 per hour Design/Survey Technician 1 - $ 70.00 per hour Design/Survey Technician 2 - $ 65.00 per hour Design/Survey Technician 3 - $ 55.00 per hour Direct Expenses: GPS - $ 40.00 per hour Vehicle 2-Wheel Drive - $ No Charge Vehicle 4-Wheel Drive - $ No Charge Outside Printing - $ Cost Long Distance Telephone - $ Cost Sub-Consultants - $ Cost • (208)888-4312 Fax 888-0323 • March 2, 2007 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 6, 2007 APPLICANT L.C. Development Inc. ITEM NO. 8 REQUEST Refund of Fees regarding withdrawn application for Baltic Place CPA in the amount of $1018.00 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 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 Email Request from Shari Sflles See Attached Comments Contacted: ,S~ G~,~ ~ ~ l,z.~' Date: - '~ Z-G~ Phone: Emailed: es -- 3ha+~ ~ ~° Gj~.~--~ Sf , ~`(,~ ~-fi Staff Initials: ~ ! Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the CHy of Meridian. ! i Sharon Smith From: Shari Stiles [es-sharis@gwest.net] Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 1:29 PM To: C. Caleb Hood Cc: Becky McKay; Lee Centers; Sharon Smith; Tara Green; Will Berg; Barbara Shiffer Subject: Baltic Place -Comprehensive Plan Amendment Caleb: On behalf of our client, LC Development, Inc., we hereby request to withdraw the above- referenced application. Also, in accordance with Section 11-5A-7.C., we petition the City Council for return of the application fee of $1,018. Please let me know as soon as possible if you need additional information. Thank you. Shari Stiles Engineering Solutions, LLP 1029 N. Rosario Street, Suite 100 Eagle, ID 83616 Telephone: (208) 938-0980 Fax: (208) 938-0941 es-sharis@gwest.net 1 Page 1 of 2 Sharon Smith From: C. Caleb Hood Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 3:34 PM To: Sharon Smith; Machelle Hill Cc: Will Berg; Anna Canning; Tara Green; Shari Stiles Subject: RE: Baltic Place -Comprehensive Plan Amendment Clerk, The applicant for the submitted Baltic Place CPA application has requested a withdrawal of the application and a refund of the application fees paid. This request comes more than 3 weeks before the public hearing, and the City has not spent a significant amount of time processing this application Therefore, in accordance with UDC 11-5A-7C. staff recommends that the Council aAUrove thethe applicant's request to be reimbursed all of the fees paid for the Baltic Place CPA application, 1 018. Please place this request on the Council's agenda for March 6~`. Thank you, Caleb -----Original Message----- From: Sharon Smith Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 2:24 PM To: Machelle Hi11~C. Caleb Hood Cc: Will Berg; Anna Canning; Tara Green Subject: RE: Baltic Place -Comprehensive Plan Amendment Are we looking at March 6th for considering this request? I can put that on there if you'd like.... -----Original Message----- From: Machelle Hill Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 2:14 PM To: C. Caleb Hood: Sharon Smith Cc: Will Berg; Anna Canning, Tara Green Subject: RE: Baltic Place -Comprehensive Plan Amendment Caleb~I have not processed any of the CPA applications as of yet...so, I would assume they would have a full refund. Thanks. -----Original Message----- From: C. Caleb Hood Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 2:11 PM To: Sharon Smith; Machelle Hill Cc: Will Berg; Anna Canning~Tara Green Subject: FW: Baltic Place -Comprehensive Plan Amendment Have notices and/or transmittals already been sent out for this CPA? Please let me know if you need to retain any of the original fees, or if we can recommend that the Council refund the entire amount. 3/1/2007 Page 2 of 2 'Thanks, -----Original Message--_ From: Shari Stiles [mailto•es-sharis(a~gwest netl Sent: Friday Fe-~ 23, 2007 1.29 PM To: C. Caleb Hood Cc: Beckv McKav Lee Centers• Sharon Smith• Tara Green Will Berg Barbara Bluffer Subiect. Baltic Place -Comprehensive Plan Amendment Caleb: On behalf of our client LC Develo ment Inc. we hereb r uest to withdraw the above-referenced application Also, in accordance with Section 11-SA-7.C we petition the City Council for return of the application fee of 1 018. Please let me know as soon as ossible if ou need additional information. Thank you. Shari Stiles Engineering Solutions LLP 1029 N. Rosario Street, Suite 100 Eagle ID 83616 Telephone• (208) 938-0980 Fax: (208) 938-0941 es-sharis(a clwest net 3/1/2007 March 2, 2007 FP 07-002 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 6, 2007 APPLICANT Solitude Development, LLC ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Continued from February 20, 2007: Request for Final Plat approval of 120 single-family residential building lots and 13 common lots on 34.74 acres in an R-8 zone for Solitude Subdivision No 2 -SEC of McMillan Road and Meridian 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: COMMENTS MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: See Attached Applicant Request to Table to March 20, 2007 Contacted: Emailed: Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Clay of Meridian. March 2, 2007 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 6, 2007 APPLICANT ITEM NO. ~ Q REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from February 27, 2007: Proposed Fireworks Ordinance AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: 2-27-07 Minutes to be copied upon receipt 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 Article Submitted by Ralph Chappell Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the CHy of Merldfan. March 2, 2007 VAC 07-003 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 6, 2~7 APPLICANT DMB Investments, LLC ITEM NO. 11 REQUEST Public Hearing -Vacation of the 10 foot wide property drainage and utility easement located on portions of lots 5 8~ 6 Block 5, Gemtone Center Sub #5 for Gemtone Center Sub #5 2589 and 2547 E. State Avenue 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: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: See Attached Comments SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Attached Comments 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 meeflngs shall become property of the City of Meridian. March 2, 2007 AZ 06-062 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 6, 2007 APPLICANT Kendall Hoyd ITEM NO. 1~- REQUEST Public Hearing -Annexation and Zoning of 1.12 acres from RUT to a C-C zone for Hoyd Annexation -east of N Meridian Road and north of E Fairview Avenue 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 See P8Z Item Packet /Minutes See Attached Recommendations OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shat) become property of the Clfy of Meddlan. March 2, 2007 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 6, 2007 AZ 06-057 APPLICANT Heron River Development, LLC ITEM NO. 13 REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexa#ion and Zoning of 9.91 acres from RUT to an R-15 zone for Jericho Subdivision -6055 8~ 6185 N. Jericho Subdivision 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 See P8,Z ifem Packet /Minutes See Attached Recommendations See AfMched Comments OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented qt public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. March 2, 2007 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 6, 2007 PP 06-05b APPLICANT Heron River Development, LLC ITEM NO. 14 REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval of 73 residential units and 10 common lots on 9.52 acres in a proposed R-15 zone for Jericho Subdivision -6055 8~ 6185 N Jericho 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: COMMENTS See P&Z Item Packet /Minutes See Attached Recommendations MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: See attached Afftdavlt of Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. March 2, 2007 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 6, 2007 VAR 07-003 APPLICANT W.H. Moore, Co. ITEM NO. 16 REQUEST Public Hearing -Variance to UDC 11-36-7C2 to count 15 feet of existing right-of-way for Eagle Road towards the landscape street buffer in the C-G zone, for Centre Pointe North Subdivision - NWC of Eagle Rd and Ustick Rd. 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: COMMENTS See Attached 02-13.07 Ctly Council Minutes See Attached Staff Report No Comment See Attached Comments No Objections MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Posting Contacted: Emailed: Date: Phone: Staff IhitlalS: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. March 2, 2007 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March b, 2007 PP 06-053 APPLIGANT POrtiCO, LLC ITEM NO. ~ S REQUEST Public Hearing -Preliminary Plat approval of 26 single-family residential building lots and 3 common/other lots on 5.17 acrs in a proposed R-8 zone for Portico Place Subdivision - 1780 E McMillan Road AGENCY GITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CfIY 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: COMMENTS See Pti~Z Item Packet /Previous Minutes See Attached Memo /Recommendations MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: See Revised Elevtations Submitted by Apppcant /Posting AfRdavit Contacted: Da#e: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the Ciy of Meridian. • • March 2, 2007 RZ 06-008 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 6, 2007 APPLICANT FarW@St, LLC ITEM NO. 19 REQUEST Ordinance -Rezone of 8.96 acres (Lots 41-45, Block 49, Lochsa Falls Subdivision No 12) from R-4 to C-N zone for Lochsa Falls Office/Commercial Addition - South of Chinden Blvd and West of Norfh Linder Rd 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 Ordinance Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ADA COUNTY RECORDER,I~OAYID NAVARfio Amuuni .uu ~ BOISE IDAHO 03!09107 0(, PM II DEPUTY Patti Thompson III I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~f~~~~ ~ ~~~ RECORDED-REQUEST OF 10 ~~~~~,~~, City of Meridian CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. ~ ~~ t'Z BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA AN ORDINANCE FINDING THAT LOCHSA FALLS, LLC, THE OWNERS OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY HAS MADE A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR REZONE OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION (RZ-06-008 - LOCHSA FALLS OFFICE PARK) FOR REAL PROPERTY BEING LOTS 41-45, BLOCK 49, LOCHSA FALLS SUBDIVISION NO. 12, LOCATED IN THE NE 1/ OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST OF THE BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AS DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT "A" OF THIS ORDINANCE AND RE-ZONING CERTAIN LANDS AND TERRITORY, SITUATED IN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; AND RE- ZONINGTHE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF SAID LANDS FROM R-4 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO C-N (NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT) AND L-O (LIMITED OFFICE DISTRICT) IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF TffiS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal Description herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit "A" is within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for re- zoning by the owner of said property, to-wit: Lochsa Falls, LLC. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby re-zoned from R-4 (Low Density Residential) to C-N (Commercial Neighborhood District) and L-O (Limited Office District) in the Meridian City Code. SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to re-zone said property. RE-ZONE OF LOCHSA FALLS OFFICE PARK- R~-06-008 Page 1 of 3 SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian re- zone said property. SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 6. All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 8. The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner, including the lands herein rezoned, with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to-wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho. SECTION 9. 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 full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this b ~ day of i~~•~/+~-U~ 2007. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this d~ ~'' day of /' / C.Grit,.(~ , 2007. MAYOR T de WEERD RE-ZONE OF LOCHSA FALLS OFFICE PARK- RZ-06-008 Page 2 of 3 ATTEST: ~~~ WII.LIAM G. BERG., JR, CITY STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss. County of Ada ) ..hS ~'B ~'~,~~ "' a s.. ~ r ~~ ~~~~~ On this ~~ day of ~'lGt,/~ G~1 , 2007, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared TAMMY 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 acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. (SEAL) e c~.~ ~~ F~'~ CNYli7v~-~ NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO RESIDING AT: ~ (~P~ ~~ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ~~ -/ S%l/ RE-ZONE OF LOCHSA FALLS OFFICE PARK- R~06-008 Page 3 of 3 DESCRIPTION FOR REZONE LOTS 42-45, BLOCK 49 TO ZONE L-O LOCHSA FALLS SUBDlV1SION NO. 12 December 21, 2006 A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NE 1i4 OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST OF THE BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEING LOTS 42 THROUGH 45, BLOCK 49, OF LOCHSA FALLS SUBDIVISION NO. 12, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 92 OF PLATS, AT PAGES 10958 TO 10960, RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY, IDAHO. SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 7.20 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. NQ,L tAN ~~`O 1ST ~~ WAYNE K BARBER, ~ ~ ~ / ~ P.L.S. No. 8448 /~~ cl+~, /G( Op~o~ ~q ~oF~ ~~ K. 8p~ A pRpVAL REVS ey 1 ~ ,~~~~~ ~ WORKS ~~ ~1O 40403-REZONE-L-O.doc DESCRIPTION FOR REZONE LOT 41, BLOCK 49 TO ZONE C-N LOCHSA FALLS SUBDIVISION N0.12 December 21, 2006 A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 26, TOWNSHIP 4 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST OF THE BOISE MERIDIAN, CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEING LOT 41, BLOCK 49, OF LOCHSA FALLS SUBDIVISION NO. 12, AS RECORDED IN BOOK 92 OF PLATS, AT PAGES 10958 TO 10960, RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY, IDAHO. SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 1.76 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. WAYNE K BARBER, R~1 R~OVAI. BY JAS 1 ~:~ ~~r ~ WORKS DEPT.,C P.L.S. No. 8448 40403 -REZONE-C-N. do c 3 ;~ m ~0 ~~ z m° ~' ~c ~~ ~ ~ :i" N. LONG LAKE WAY ~pp~ag-- I I _ ~ r- --~ I I v -~ ~-I II I ! -I - r' II _ ~~ ~11 ~. lool ~ I r~Zrr7~ - Iz~ ~-~ ''7 O ~ ITT (- I.....• 1 • ~a • • • ~ ~ N y ` ~ • • • •• •• I ( a Ed r-• V1~ty~^ ~ I • • •• ~ I I V --~ C'1 ~ I ~• •• • • •~ _ •• •• \~• w I I -i ty r -~ • • •• •• `• ~ ~ o ~ O - ~ ~ •• •• • •• •• I • • I N I ~~ -~ ~~ •• •• ;••••••••, -c ~ ~ ~ • • `• `• \ ~ ~ ~ I ~ •• •` •• •• • ~ I ~ ~I\J~•>p••••~I r, ~ I •••••lOy~,N •• ••` r • •°•lo• ~• `• `•~ I j ~ ~ ~ •••• •tiFc`•••••••~ I s~ --~ ~ 1_ f3Z sa~r~:e~ ~ ~~ .' S REVISION : BY: 12/21/2006 WKB sNEEr : 1 OF 1 EXHIBIT B RE'LONE $lTI~1T LOCHSA FALLS SUBDIVISION ND. 12 A PORTION OF SECTION 26 T.4N., R1W.. BJL 4~RI ADA COlJMY IDAHO DWG DATE: DWG NO. SCALE: 08/17/06 DPM 40403-REZONE2 1" = 250' EXHIBIT "B" BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC. BRIGGS ENGINEERS PLANNERS SURVEYORS 1800 W. OVEltIAND ROAD • BOISE, 837D5 • (208)344-9700 ~ ~ March 2, 2007 RZ 06-004 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING March 6, 2007 APPLICANT SLC Investments, LLC ITEM NO. 20 REQUEST Ordinance -Rezone of 5.49 acres from R-4 to R-15 (2.17 acres) and L-O (3.32 acres) for Rushmore Subdivision - 1021 West Pine Avenue AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY See Attached Ordinance 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 shall become property of the City of Meridian. ADA COUNTY RECORDER ~ .VID NAVARRO AMOUNT .00 BOISE IDAHQ 03/08/07 01:30 PM DEPUTY Patti Thompson RECORDED-REQUEST OF Ill IIIII~'IIIIIIIIII'llll'll'III l I'll City of Meridian 10~0??~~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. ~ ~ ° l J ® ~ BY THE CITY COUNCIL: BIRD, BORTON, ROUNTREE, ZAREMBA AN ORDINANCE FINDING THAT MERIDIAN FRIENDS CHURCH AND BURR INTERNATIONAL, INC., THE OWNERS OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY HAS MADE A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR REZONE OF THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION (RZ-06-004 - RUSHMORE SUBDIVISION) FOR REAL PROPERTY BEING SITUATED IN THE WEST %Z OF LOT 2 WEST LAWN SUBDIVISION SITUATED IN A PORTION OF THE NE 1/ OF THE SW 1/ OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 WEST, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AS DESCRIBED IN ATTACHMENT "A" OF THIS ORDINANCE AND RE-ZONING CERTAIN LANDS AND TERRITORY, SITUATED IN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND WITHIN THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN; AND RE-ZONING THE LAND USE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF SAID LANDS FROM R-4 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) TO R-15 (MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTL~I, DISTRICT) AND L- O (LIMITED OFFICE DISTRICT) IN THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE; PROVIDING THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED WITH THE ADA COUNTY ASSESSOR, THE ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AND THE IDAHO STATE TAX COMMISSION, AS REQUIRED BY LAW; AND PROVIDING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR A WAIVER OF THE READING RULES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. That the following described land as evidenced by attached Legal Description herein incorporated by reference as Exhibit "A" is within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for re- zoning by the owner of said property, to-wit: McYidian Fiends Chinch c& BuYr InteYnational, Inc. SECTION 2. That the above-described real property is hereby re-zoned from R-4 (Low Density Residential) to R-15 (Medium-High Residential District) and L-O (Limited Office District) in the Meridian City Code. SECTION 3. That the City has authority pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian to re-zone said property. RE-ZONE OF RUSHMORE SUBDIVISION- RZ-06-004 Page 1 of 3 SECTION 4. That the City has complied with all the noticing requirements pursuant to the laws of the State of Idaho, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian re- zone said property. SECTION 5. That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, and all official maps depicting the boundaries and the zoning districts of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 6. All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 8. The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner, including the lands herein rezoned, with the following officials of the County of Ada, State of Idaho, to-wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho. SECTION 9. 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 full be, and the same is hereby, dispensed with, and accordingly, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage, approval and publication. PASSED/BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this ~~ day of G(/LG~I.~ , 2007. APPROVED BY THEM,"AYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this ~. day of / ~ 1. a/t-~~ 2007. MAYOR T de WEERD RE-ZONE OF RUSHMORE SUBDIVISION- R~06-004 Page 2 of 3 ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG., JR, STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss. County of Ada ) ,`Otttlt1111(Ilft!li;, ti'° g~~,~°0~ -~~~ is 4a v .s® ~, ~ e ~, `:. s a ~. _ro ~. CLRRK ~~u ,~~~ ````/''~~~1fPit{ {t9lS`it~~~~FY~6` On this _~ day of ~~? ~~(,~ 2007, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared TAMMY 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 acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. ~~~~sr~~ (SEAL) ; ~ '®~`~~' . . . ~ • • . ~ , • •~ • ~~ • •es~~~~s r~ ~(~ ~~ `~7 NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO RESIDING AT: ~ ~h~ ~o~ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: lv-~,~ ~~ RE-ZONE OF RUSHMORE SUBDIVISION- R~06-004 Page 3 of 3 x i i~ mill 3 F~ ~t~ ~ r~R'. eta ' ,~ * ~ ~y 'san Fod . R; 'e2~~41 v ~ W BY ~ `r ~~R 1 ~ X006 ~~., `- ~~ i~hca tc~: Pax: -~ ..a~~ ~ CORKS DEP'L C ~~ ~.~ ~. I E.~11 ~: ~ -~2 BYO ~• •~~~ ~. E~g~, Id~Ii~ 8:3i5~.€i ~.`. ~~c: _--~ I}~'T~ ~/~jil~ i~ : ~~~sion Wei Pi~a~ ~ X1'0.:1 ~~ ~ :.* f ~ ~/~ fil~+e ~i i~'~ cad `~ A pal ~ pa ~rf ~,''~t t end: the wes# ~/2 of ~tst~; ~I.~~vn ~ulx~i°e~iv~, ~k. `~ ~~. 9~, plat c rat S~d4i ~~a 1Ct ~ pt~r~'irt O~ #~ I~IE ~iP'4 €1~ ~}# Df , ~> `~ lit„ ~.1 '~i., B.,1y Qf fir ~ Ada tniy,. I€a, ~ P~3' °bec~ as tYilYt~!t1~TI1 ~ Ei~4~ ~B 1~Q! t3~ S~7Cl Uii ~ fOllltt~ ~' C ~ ~~.I*. it~#rinrrt~nt I~Tr-: 9~1, ~ cif S~dd Ark ~oty- '~erte~ a ~f ~+T ' 1&" ~VV~ ~; e t~f X33 ~ ~t0 of #~ alp crf mid motion 12 to ~ pa~t~ b~in~ ~'I~tT3E ~~p~' T74 ~,.._ . _.. _. 2_ _ _ ... i._ _ _ P 3 T afAR wwa w y~r srY s • ,....,. a~ _ .. _ .. c~ ~ 4111 ~'~.~Ib~ 7 7 ~~c ll~ ~~r ° ~s •~ s Iclah~ ~5~6 +~JE 2~4 F~c 1 +~ cei 4r coma ~, tr~~ mr- vex . ~'J~ ~ rag~t~a~ ~ a+d ~ cif ~ {cnr use. Pad b~'' ~~ 1izr~. i i 1 ~r3i . ~~s~2 ~ ~. ~ l~~T 1!ti' tt)T 8 1°7rhN-Id ~T3&~IPY181~1Y ~~ 3, PA# S4 ~~ ~. ~~~ C 1,d4 ~9~ ce aa• `'~ ~P~SF 1N~3 t~~. ~~ ~'~ ~ ~$~i~~1P4rI~I~i4T + ''~~T ~/ ~' L+1~T ~ ~asglas~ars • ~urv~yroi~s s !'2socs~r~t `~ flF T'~ ' 1/~ QF l~I ,'~. ~ 1~T.. ~. l '[~t-: Y__...u _'~ ~ us - , ~. ~ i• ~' .~ a 3 ~ ~-ab ~ ~ A: ~ it "' ~` ~~~ ~~~_-- ~. ~- Z~ w r ~~~~ ~ ~<~~~ ~~cxEs LA'~-I ~[J,~EBFIB~ ~~ ~; ~AiG~ 9~# t 5 " " SE!Cfi~V 12 4.3~' ~ 'a'te 9~6aT ~~. ~ ~~ ~ ~ . • ~ '~f~ ~t ~~7'ld~9 ~~ ~PBeF iEW~`F. h~4 'f i 724 ~~ ®w" .b,_ =,r..~..~.r.~..wss ,r,~ w+wear, -•--vs+au 'e~w+~W' ~a'a ica:aafa macs ~r - - ~ ~P ~ _ - _ J6'#. g. A~ - 1"VI~g~~ '~' Imo' ~ ~~ginc~ +~ ~usveya~a°~ ®f'3~mnsa~ I~ ~Y9~'Lfl~1T ~i Ur~'I~~J I~ A ~"'~tE~1T ~I~ _ B.I., CITY` AF a AAA s I~~iHA \ ~ ~... ~Q !aA W i f'~ C~E~R ~, ~ ~ ~': .~~. ,~'~: 3t~.Ofl' 694.39' ~~63i#~ Ct~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ;~ ~~&F IP~T~ ~JQ, gel ~7`~~5 ~•~ a. ~e~i~ 7a ~ a ~_~~ ~ ~~~~~~~ ~ fit.., GISC`~" ~ClP 3~11s+T, .~l14 ~ ' AI~t~ ~~rrcaar~ ~ S?~vx~zrzys~r~ . ~lec~ ~. t89 ~.isa~