Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-23• • CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Revised 5-22-06 Tuesday, May 23, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 1. `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." Roll-call Attendance: ~ Shaun Wardle Joe Borton ~ Charlie Rountree Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd ~-i-~ ~ ?: /0 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Presentation /Posting of the Colors and the Pledge of Allegiance by the American Legion Post #113: ~1~,,~ Community Invocation by Res ~r~r,GGl~L~~~'~ Proclamation: American Legion Poppy Day -May 27, 2006 s.U~.d~u- Adoption of the Agenda: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of April 25, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: ~~r•ov~ B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 05- 060 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.92 acres from RUT to C- Gzone for Ada County Hi4hwav District Ustick Road Property by the Ada County Highway District - 3595 East Ustick Road: ~~ wc- C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06- 006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.01 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Kniahthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC - southwest comer of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard: ~~,ro v~C. Meridian City Council Agenda -May 23, 2006 Page 1 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • ~ Revised 5-22-06 D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06- 005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4 commercial lots and 1 common lot on 10.01 acres in a proposed C-G zone for Kniahthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC -southwest comer of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard: ~~r'rov~~ E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06- 011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision by Pacific Landmark Development - 5603 North Locust Grove Road: ~~~ F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06- 009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 88 building lots and 10 common lots on 29.69 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision by Pacific Landmark Development - 5603 North Locust Grove Road: o~- G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for Denial: AZ 06-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.43 acres from RUT to R-2 for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Subdivision, LLC - 4240 East Bott Lane: ~'~'~'~- H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for Denial: PP 06-010 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval for 18 single- family residential lots and 4 common lots on 9.43 acres in a proposed R-2 zone for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Properties, LLC - 4240 East Bott Lane: ~?~~- I. Approve Permanent and Temporary Easement Contract for the Black Cat Phase 2 Sewer Project: ~i7~~- J. Approve Contract for Professional Services with Jim Cox for the Biosolids Improvement Project Review: ~~~r""°V~ K. Approve Supplemental Agreement with Civil Survey Consultants for Acquisition of Sewer Easements for ACHD Overland Road, Linder to Meridian Project: ~r~~ L. Approve Reimbursement Agreement with Tuscany Develoument. Inc. for construction of oversized sewer through Tuscany Lakes, Tuscany Village, Glacier Springs, Messina Village and Messina Hills subdivisions: ~~~ M. Approve Contract with A.M.E. Electronics. Inc., for Power and Radio Installation at three PRV Sites: ~,~,,,,,,~ Meridian City Council Agenda -May 23, 2006 Page 2 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • Revised 5-22-06 N. Approve Bid Award for Adventure Island Splash Pad to Recreation Idaho, Inc.: ~"' ~ O. Approve Access Easement Between the City of Meridian (Grantor) and ACHD (Grantee) on Lot 21 of the Amended Plat of Block 1 of the Townsite of Meridian (55 East Broadway) requested as a Condition of the Creamery Alley Vacation: ~~~- 7. Department Reports: A. Planning Department Discussion with Shawn Nickel on the proposed expansion of the Treasure Valley Veterinary Hospital by Theresa Shackleford: ~Gfi' B. Fire Department 1. Discussion of Line Item Adjustment for Installation Costs for New 700 MHZ radios in vehicles and stations: ~~~ ~- ~~~, Sb0 C. Parks Department 1. Discussion of an Extension of the Park Development Park Impact Fee Reimbursement and Real Property Conveyance Agreement for Champion Park with Hillview Development Corporation to September 1, 2006: ~~~~- D. Public Works Department 1. Discussion of AutoCAD Template to Change the Format Engineering Drawings: ~~~~ 8. Items Moved from Consent Agenda: 9. FP 06-021 -Request for Final Plat approval of 16 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 4.99 acres in an R-4 zone for Buckeye Place Subdivision by John Fackelman -SEC of Manship Road and N. Black Cat Road: ~v~ 10. FP 06-023 -Request for Final Plat approval of 31 single-family residential building lots and 5 common lots on 9.02 acres in an R-8 zone for Settlement Bridge Subdivision No. 5 by Capital Development, Inc. - SEC of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road: ~~~ Meridian City Council Agenda -May 23, 2006 Page 3 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • • Revised 5-22-06 11. Public Hearing: VAR 06-010 Request for a Variance to allow for larger temporary structures from the maximum 500 square feet allowed per UDC 11-3E-4C1 for TNT Tents by TNT Fireworks - 1601 S. Meridian Road, 1600 Main Street, 1850 E. Fairview Avenue and 4051 E. Fairview Avenue: 12. Public Hearing: VAR 06-011 Request for a Variance to allow for larger temporary structures from the maximum 500 square feet allowed per UDC 11-3E-4C1 for fireworks sales, Christmas tree sales, and produce sales for Fat City Fireworks by Richard Handke - 535 N. Eagle Road, 3301 W. Cheny Lane, 20 E. Fairview Avenue, 1375 E. Fairview Avenue, 97 Main Street, and for the lot at the northwest comer of Ten Mile Road and W. Franklin Road: js.,,~ p `!~, ,~ ~ ~'_®~ 13. Public Hearing: AZ 06-014 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.16 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) for Cabella Creek Subdivision by ATM Development, LLC -northeast comer of East Victo Road and South Mesa Way: 14. Public Hearing: PP 06-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 47 single family residential lots and 11 common lots on 18.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Cabella Creek Subdivision by ATM Development, LLC -northeast comer of East Victory Road and South Mesa Way: 15. Public Hearing: AZ 06-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 58.56 acres from RR to R-4 (32.86 acres), TN-C (14.54 acres) and C-C (11.16 acres) for Knight Skv Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC - northwest comer of Chinden Boulevard and Linder Road: 16. Public Hearing: PP 06-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 126 residential lots (22 townhouse lots and 102 detached single-family lots), 7 commercial lots and 26 common lots on 55.83 acres in a proposed R-4, TN-C and C-C zones for Knight Skv Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC -northwest comer of Chinden Boulevard and Linder Road: 17. Public Hearing: AZ 06-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.50 acres from RUT to a R-4 zone for Cardigan Bav Subdivision by Big River, LLC - 5450 and 5500 Larkspur Way: 18. Public Hearing: PP 06-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 28 building lots and 3 common lots on 11.50 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Cardigan Bav Subdivision by Big River, LLC - 5450 and 5500 Larkspur Way: ~~p~ ~/~f ~/,~ ~- ~a~,..,"~ 19. Public Hearing: AZ 06-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.65 acres from RUT to a C-G zone for Williams Pipeline by Northwest Pipeline Corporation -1301 Locust Grove Road: ~,,,.,,Jyr~.~,e,~~ili.ly L~~d Meridian City Council Agenda -May 23, 2006 Page 4 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • ~ Revised 5-22-06 20. Executive Session per Idaho State Code 67-2345(1)(c) - (to conduct deliberations concerning labor negotiations or to acquire an interest in real property, which is not owned by a public agency) and (fib - (to consider and advise its legal representatives in pending litigation): /'~Qi ty~9 YL Meridian City Council Agenda -May 23, 2006 Page 5 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ~ TX ~RMATION REPORT ~ AS OF MAY 19 '01,4 PRGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIRN DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC P(a'S CMDtt STATUS 03 05/19 16:29 PUBLIC WORKS EC--S 01'20" 004 039 OK 04 05/19 16:31 20138840744 EC--S 01'23" 004 039 OK 05 05/19 16:33 POLICE DEPT EC--S 01'19" 004 039 OK 06 05/19 16:35 8985501 EC--S 01'19" 004 039 OK 07 05/19 16:37 LIBRARY EC--S 01'20" 004 039 OK 08 05/19 16:39 2083776449 EC--S 01'19" 004 039 OK 09 0,5/19 16:40 3886924 EC--S 01'19" 004 039 OK 10 05/19 16:42 P-AND-Z EC--S 01'19" 004 039 OK 11 05/19 16:44 FIRE DEPT EC-S 01'20" 004 039 OK 12 05/19 16:46 208 888 2682 EC--S 01'21" 004 039 OK 13 05/19 16:48 208 387 6393 EC--S 01'19" 004 039 OK 14 05/19 16:50 ADA CTY DEVELMT EC--S 01'20" 004 039 OK 15 05/19 16:52 2088885052 EC--S 01'20" 004 039 OK 16 05/19 16:54 LRKEVIEW li0LFC0U G3--S 02'35" 004 039 OK 17 05/19 16:57 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC-S 01'19" 004 039 OK 18 05/19 16:59 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC--S 01'21" 004 039 OK 19 05/19 17:01 20886701 EC--S 01'21" 004 039 OK 20 05/19 17:07 k~TER DEPT EC--S 01'20" 004 039 OK 21 05/19 17:12 3810160 EC--S 02'18" 004 039 OK ~I~as~ ~~~5 F -f o~c~ ~ubU'~ IU~fi ~ - `Thc~n~s CITY pF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, May 23, 2008 at 1:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho "Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony, all presentations before the Mayor and City Councfl are expected to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter. " 1. Roll-call Attendance: Shaun Wardle Joe Borton Charlie Rountree Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Presentation /Posting of the Colors and the Pledge of Allegiance by the American Legion Post #113: 3. Community Invocation by Pastor Kevin Moyer: 4. Proclamation: American Legion Poppy pay -May 27, 2006 5. Adoption of the Agenda: 6. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of April 25, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 05- 060 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.92 acres from RUT to G G zone for Ada Coun i hors District Ustick Roe Pro a by the Ada County Highway District - 3595 East Ustick Road; C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ Oli- 0os Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.01 acres from RUT to GG zone for Kni hthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC - southwest comer of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard: Meridian City Covnal Agenda -May 23, 2UU6 Page 1 of 4 All materials presented at pubGC meetings shay become ProPerH of the City of Meridian. Myone desiring axommodation for diseb~ibes related to documerds andlor hearings, Phase contact the City Clerk's Office at SSt3-4433 at least 4fl hours prior to the public meeting, ~~f,(~Se i~b~+ v~ `~i~b~~C No-l~e -7~1Can~S CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, May 23, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho `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: Shaun Wardle Joe Borton Charlie Rountree Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd 2. Presentation /Posting of the Colors and the Pledge of Allegiance by the American Legion Post #113: 3. Community Invocation by Pastor Kevin Moyer: 4. Proclamation: American Legion Poppy Day -May 27, 2006 5. Adoption of the Agenda: 6. Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of April 25, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 05- 060 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.92 acres from RUT to C- Gzone for Ada County Hi4hwav District Ustick Road Property by the Ada County Highway District - 3595 East Ustick Road: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06- 006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.01 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Knighthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC -southwest corder of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard: Meridian City Council Agenda -May 23, 2006 Page 1 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • • D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP~06- 005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4 commercial lots and 1 common lot on 10.01 acres in a proposed C-G zone for Kniahthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC -southwest comer of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06- 011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision by Pacific Landmark Development - 5603 North Locust Grove Road: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06- 009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 88 building lots and 10 common lots on 29.69 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision by Pacific Landmark Development - 5603 North Locust Grove Road: G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for Denial: AZ 06-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.43 acres from RUT to R-2 for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Subdivision, LLC - 4240 East Bott Lane: H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for Denial: PP 06-010 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval for 18 single- family residential lots and 4 common lots on 9.43 acres in a proposed R-2 zone for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Properties, LLC - 4240 East Bott Lane: I. Approve Permanent and Temporary Easement Contract for the Black Cat Phase 2 Sewer Project: J. Approve Contract for Professional Services with Jim Cox for the Biosolids Improvement Project Review: K. Approve Supplemental Agreement with Civil Survey Consultants for Acquisition of Sewer Easements for ACRD Overland Road, Linder to Meridian Project: L. Approve Reimbursement Agreement with Tuscany Develoament. Inc. for construction of oversized sewer through Tuscany Lakes, Tuscany Village, Glacier Springs, Messina Village and Messina Hills subdivisions: M. Approve Contract with A.M.E. Electronics. Inc., for Power and Radio Installation at three PRV Sites: Meridian City Council Agenda -May 23, 2006 Page 2 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • • N. Approve Bid Award for Adventure Island Splash Pad ~ to Recreation Idaho, Inc.: O. Approve Access Easement Between the City of Meridian (Grantor) and ACHD (Grantee) on Lot 21 of the Amended Plat of Block 1 of the Townsite of Meridian (55 East Broadway) requested as a Condition of the Creamery Alley Vacation: 7. Department Reports: A. Planning Department 1. Discussion with Shawn Nickel on the proposed expansion of the Treasure Valley Veterinary Hospital by Theresa Shackleford: B. Fire Department 1. Discussion of Line Item Adjustment for Installation Costs for New 700 MHZ radios in vehicles and stations: C. Parks Department 1. Discussion of an Extension of the Park Development Park Impact Fee Reimbursement and Real Property Conveyance Agreement for Champion Park with Hillview Development Corporation to September 1, 2006: 8. Items Moved from Consent Agenda: 9. FP 06-021 -Request for Final Plat approval of 16 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 4.99 acres in an R-4 zone for Buckeye Place Subdivision by John Fackelman -SEC of Manship Road and N. Black Cat Road: 10. FP 06-023 -Request for Final Plat approval of 31 single-family residential building lots and 5 common lots on 9.02 acres in an R-8 zone for Settlement Bridge Subdivision No 5 by Capital Development, Inc. - SEC of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road: 11. Public Hearing: VAR 06-010 Request for a Variance to allow for larger temporary structures from the maximum 500 square feet allowed per UDC 11-3E-4C1 for TNT Tents by TNT Fireworks - 1601 S. Meridian Road, 1600 Main Street, 1850 E. Fairview Avenue and 4051 E. Fairview Avenue: Meridian City Council Agenda -May 23, 2006 Page 3 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • 12. Public Hearing: VAR 06-011 Request for a Variance to allow for larger temporary structures from the maximum 500 square feet allowed per UDC 11-3E-4C1 for fireworks sales, Christmas tree sales, and produce sales for Fat City Fireworks by Richard Handke - 535 N. Eagle Road, 3301 W. Cherry Lane, 20 E. Fairview Avenue, 1375 E. Fairview Avenue, 97 Main Street, and for the lot at the northwest comer of Ten Mile Road and W. Franklin Road: 13. Public Hearing: AZ 06-014 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.16 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) for Cabella Creek Subdivision by ATM Development, LLC -northeast comer of East Victory Road and South Mesa Way: 14. Public Hearing: PP 06-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 47 single family residential lots and 11 common lots on 18.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Cabella Creek Subdivision by ATM Development, LLC -northeast comer of East Victory Road and South Mesa Way: 15. Public Hearing: AZ 06-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 58.56 acres from RR to R-4 (32.86 acres), TN-C (14.54 acres) and C-C (11.16 acres) for Knight Skv Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC - northwest comer of Chinden Boulevard and Linder Road: 16. Public Hearing: PP 06-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 126 residential lots (22 townhouse lots and 102 detached single-family lots), 7 commercial lots and 26 common lots on 55.83 acres in a proposed R-4, TN-C and C-C zones for Knight Skv Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC -northwest comer of Chinden Boulevard and Linder Road: 17. Public Hearing: AZ 06-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.50 acres from RUT to a R-4 zone for Cardigan Bav Subdivision by Big River, LLC - 5450 and 5500 Larkspur Way: 18. Public Hearing: PP 06-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 28 building lots and 3 common lots on 11.50 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Cardigan Bav Subdivision by Big River, LLC - 5450 and 5500 Larkspur Way: 19. Public Hearing: AZ 06-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.65 acres from RUT to a C-G zone for Williams Pipeline by Northwest Pipeline Corporation -1301 Locust Grove Road: Meridian City Council Agenda -May 23, 2006 Page 4 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • Meridian City Council Meeting May 23, 2006 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:00 P.M., Tuesday, May 23, 2006, by Mayor Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Mayor Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, Shaun Wardle, and Joe Borton. Others Present: Bill Nary, Will Berg, Anna Canning, Bob Stowe, Ron Anderson, Joe Silva, Doug Strong, Len Grady, Robin Jack, and Dean Willis. Item 1: Roll-call Attendance: Roll call. X Shaun Wardle X Charlie Rountree X X Joe Borton X Keith Bird Mayor Tammy de Weerd Wardle: All right. I'd like to welcome everyone to our City Council meeting for May 23rd, 2006. I will begin with roll call attendance. Mr. Clerk. Item 2: Presentation /Posting of the Colors and the Pledge of Allegiance by the American Legion Post #113: Wardle: Item No. 2 is presentation and posting of the colors and the pledge of allegiance by the American Legion Post No. 113. If you will all rise. (Pledge of allegiance recited.) Item 3: Community Invocation by Pastor Bud Henthorn: Wardle: Item No. 3 on our agenda is our community invocation by Bud Henthorn. Henthorn: Dear God, we thank you tonight that you are a father who picks us up when we stumble. We ask, Lord, that you would bless this time tonight as we have this awesome privilege of participating in our government. We thank you, Lord, for the privilege of casting a ballot this afternoon. Lord, we pray that as we participate in this great representative government of ours, that we would do so, always keeping in mind what is best for the city, what is best for our nation, what's best for our world. What's best for future generations. Help us, Lord, to set aside our own selfish desires and maybe what we think might be best for us and think in terms of what's -- what is the best and the good for the whole. Lord, we pray that you would make your presence to be known among us here tonight, giving us peace, giving us wisdom, filling our hearts with joy, in Jesus' name, amen. Item 4: Proclamation: American Legion Poppy Day -May 27, 2006: Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 2 of 74 Wardle: Item No. 4 is a Proclamation. I'd like to thank the American Legion for being here to present the colors and lead us in the pledge of allegiance and I also have a proclamation regarding Poppy Day. I'm going to come right down here. Whereas the members of the American Legion Auxiliary are asking everyone to wear a poppy in observation of Memorial Day and whereas in the battlefields of Belgium during World War I poppies grew wild amid the ravages of war, the overturned soils of battle enabled the poppy seeds to be covered, allowing them to grow and forever serve as a reminder of the bloodshed of war. And whereas the poppy honors the hospitalized and disabled veterans who make these red handcrafted flowers, providing financial and therapeutic benefits and whereas the displaying of the poppy honors the millions of Americans who have willingly served and are currently serving our nation, as well as all too many who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Therefore, I, Shaun Wardle, on behalf of Tammy de Weerd, Mayor of the City of Meridian, do proclaim Saturday, May 27th, 2006, as American Legion Poppy Day, in recognition of the sacrifices of our veterans and those serving our country today by honoring these brave men and women. Veteran: From the battlefields of World War I weary soldiers brought home the memory of a barren landscape, transformed by wild poppies, red as the blood that had soaked the soil. By that miracle of nature, the spirit of their lost comrades lived on. The poppy became a symbol of the sacrifices of the lives in war and represented the hope that none had died in vain. The American Legion Auxiliary poppy has continued to bloom for the casualties of four wars. Its petals of paper bound together for veterans by veterans, reminding America each year that the men and women who have served and died for their country deserve to be remembered. Poppy Day has become a familiar tradition in almost every American community. This distribution of the bright red memorial flower to the public is one of the oldest and most widely recognized programs of the American Legion Auxiliary. This poppy as a memorial flower to the war dead can be traced to a single individual, Ms. Moyna Michael. She was so moved by Colonel John McCrae's poem, she wrote a response. The poem he wrote was In Flander's Field. In Flander's Field the poppies grow between the crosses row on row, that mark our place and in the skies, the larks still bravely singing, fly scarce heard amid the guns below. We are the dead. Short days ago we lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, loved and were loved, and now we lie in Flander's Field. Take up our quarrel with the foe, to you from failing hands we throw the torch, be yours to hold it high. If ye break faith with us who die, we shall not sleep, though poppies grow in Flanders Field. Her response was: The blood of heroes never dies, but lends a luster to the red of the flower that blooms above the dead in Flander's Field. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you for joining us this evening. I apologize I missed the ceremony. Thank you, Councilman Wardle. Item 5: Adoption of the Agenda: Wardle: We are on Item No. 5, Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Adoption of the agenda. Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 3 of 74 Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: The published revised agenda of 5/22/06. I'd move that we -- at the request of the Council President and he would like Item 20, the Executive Session, removed and the city attorney says there is no problems with that as far as he's concerned. So, with that I would move that we approve the agenda, with the exception of Item 20, which would be deleted. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. The motion is to accept the agenda as stated. All those favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 6: Consent Agenda: A. Approve Minutes of April 25, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 05- 060 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.92 acres from RUT to C- Gzone for Ada County Highway District Ustick Road Property by the Ada County Highway District - 3595 East Ustick Road: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06- 006 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.01 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Knighthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC - southwest corner of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06- 005 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4 commercial lots and 1 common lot on 10.01 acres in a proposed C-G zone far Knighthill Center Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC -southwest corner of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard: E. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 06- 011 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision by Pacific Landmark Development - 5603 North Locust Grove Road: F. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 06- 009 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 88 building lots and 10 common lots on 29.69 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Basin Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 4 of 74 Creek Subdivision by Pacific Landmark Development - 5603 North Locust Grove Road: G. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for Denial: AZ 06-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.43 acres from RUT to R-2 for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Subdivision, LLC - 4240 East Bott Lane: H. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order for Denial: PP 06-010 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval for 18 single- family residential lots and 4 common lots on 9.43 acres in a proposed R-2 zone for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Properties, LLC - 4240 East Bott Lane: I. Approve Permanent and Temporary Easement Contract for the Black Cat Phase 2 Sewer Project: J. Approve Contract for Professional Services with Jim Cox for the Biosolids Improvement Project Review: K. Approve Supplemental Agreement with Civil Survev Consultants for Acquisition of Sewer Easements for ACHD Overland Road, Linder to Meridian Project: L. Approve Reimbursement Agreement with Tuscanv Development, Inc. for construction of oversized sewer through Tuscany Lakes, Tuscany Village, Glacier Springs, Messina Village and Messina Hills subdivisions: M. Approve Contract with A.M.E. Electronics. Inc. for Power and Radio Installation at three PRV Sites: N. Approve Bid Award for A_ dventure Island Splash Pad to Recreation Idaho, Inc.: O. Approve Access Easement Between the City of Meridian (Grantor) and ACRD (Grantee) on Lot 21 of the Amended Plat of Block 1 of the Townsite of Meridian (55 East Broadway) requested as a Condition of the Creamery Alley Vacation: De Weerd: Item 6, Consent Agenda. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 5 of 74 Bird: I'd move we approve the Consent Agenda as published and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest on all papers. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 7: Department Reports: A. Planning Department 1. Discussion with Shawn Nickel on the proposed expansion of the Treasure Valley Veterinary Hospital by Theresa Shackleford: De Weerd: Item 7. Department reports. We will start with the planning department. Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I have suggested that Mr. Shawn Nickel come and talk to you tonight. We have been working with Shawn and the owners of some property on Meridian Road to work on the expansion of their current business and to also bring it into the city and reach their eventual development plans. I think we have been working on and off for about a year. They have decided at this point that they are not ready to commit to the full development of the property, so they would like to go and apply with Ada County to expand their Conditional Use Permit. They are not required to annex into the city by our agreement with Ada County, but they just wanted to come and talk to you and let you know what their plans were, when that referral came from Ada County that you would know what their plans were. So, with that I would suggest that you allow Mr. Nickel to speak briefly. De Weerd: Mr. Nickel. Nickel: Thank you, Madam Mayor and Council for the opportunity. I will be brief. De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address. Nickel: Shawn Nickel. 839 East Winding Creek, Suite 201, in Eagle. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian Ciry Council May 23, 2006 Page 6 of 74 Nickel: And I represent the Shacklefords. They are the owners of the Treasure Valley Animal Hospital located on Meridian Road in south Meridian. As Anna had stated, we have been working with staff for over a year trying to layout and design the property to bring it in with annexation and rezone request to the city. The problem we have had -- we have been waiting on is the extension of sewer and water south along Meridian Road. At this point the services are just not quite available or at least financially available for the Shacklefords to continue with their development of the animal hospital and also they were going to do an office complex on the property. So, what we have decided to do is go to the county, we are in the county in an RUT zone, go to the county and request a new Conditional Use Permit just for the veterinary hospital, which is an allowed use in the county's RUT zone. We will utilize the existing septic system based on our conversations with Central District Health. We will have to upgrade that system. There will be a sign off by Ada County for us to proceed with that and we will use the existing well on the property, again, with approval from IDWR for that. We also will agree to enter into a development agreement with the county and give our assurances to the city that when services are available and before we redevelop the property any further we will ask for annexation and go through the proper steps through the city. At this point we just want to update the existing vet clinic as it exists today. Stand for any questions. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Shawn. So, Anna -- you just need to get a motion, probably, from Council? Canning: I suppose a motion would help, just to know that you don't want me to oppose it when the transmittal comes over. I guess that's what I would be looking for at this hearing. De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I wonder, Mrs. Canning, if maybe what you could do is when it does come over and is consistent with what's been presented, then, come back to the Council saying we have got that. Now that you have it, is it consistent, now that might be the time to request -- Canning: Mr. Nary is right, of course. Nary: Well, I wouldn't say of course. but it might be the appropriate timing. Bird: Don't say that, Anna. Nary: I wouldn't say that either. Meridian Ciry Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 7 of 74 Bird: I have got to sit next to him. De Weerd: But I guess at this point you need to know if there is any concerns. Canning: Yes, ma'am. De Weerd: Council, any concern at this time? Bird: This councilman don't have any concern. Borton: None. De Weerd: Okay. It doesn't look like it. Canning: Okay. Thank you. B. Fire Department 1. Discussion of Line Item Adjustment for Installation Costs for New 700 MHZ radios in vehicles and stations: De Weerd: Okay. Item 7-B is the fire department. Chief Anderson. Anderson: Madam Mayor and Council, I'm here tonight to grovel and beg for your generosity. Bird: I'll wait to see that. Anderson: Well, maybe not quite that bad, but what I'm here tonight to ask you for is for a line item adjustment in our budget and it's a considerable dollar amount in line item adjustment and that's why I'm bringing this before you tonight. In our '06 budget we were given 19,500 dollars to use for contract services to the help us get our ALS paramedic program up and running. We did not use that money in contract services, we did all of that work ourselves, and so, therefore, we are not going to be expending those funds on contract services this year. If you will recall about a month ago I came before you and asked for a budget amendment for some grants that we had received. Those grants were for vehicle radios and for base station radios, part of that money. What I would like to do is move this 19,500 dollars in contract service money over into another line item that allows for the installation of these radios. We will be taking receipt of these radios sometime this summer and I didn't want to wait until fall to install these radios, I'd like to get them installed as soon as possible. So, with your permission we'd like to be able to move that money from the two line item accounts that you see on the form in front of you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 8 of 74 Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: If nobody has anything, I'd move that we move 19,500 dollars from the fire account number 2210-55000 to 2210-56103. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the request that is before you. Is there any discussion? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: I just -- Chief Anderson and the department, I applaud you for any efforts you take which saves otherwise allocated funds like this to work done that saves you money and in this case saves 19,500 of the city. I applaud you for those efforts and to reallocate this, I don't have any problems. This is a great way to use resources better and I appreciate you working hard to save the money. Anderson: Thank you, Councilman. De Weerd: Okay. Hearing no further comment, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. C. Parks Department 1. Discussion of an Extension of the Park Development Park Impact Fee Reimbursement and Real Property Conveyance Agreement for Champion Park with Hillview Development Corporation to September 1, 2006: De Weerd: Thank you, chief. Okay. C with the parks department, Doug Armstrong -- I mean Strong. Strong: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council. That must be some relative of mine. Armstrong. I'm here tonight to request an extension in the development agreement that we have with Hillview Development Corporation for the completion of Champion Park. With that wet spring weather that we had it delayed completion of the restroom building and the picnic shelter and, of course, the grass seeding around those particular facilities at the park. The restroom is currently being built and the walls are going up on it and it Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 9 of 74 will just need to be completed and the shelter is still in shipping status and will be here soon. So, the developer asked for a September 1st date for conveyance of title and completion of all the transfer of deed and dollars for the project. So, with that I will stand for questions. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? I think it delayed many projects, not just this one. Strong: It did. De Weerd: Okay. Council, I would need your direction on this. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I move that we approve the extension of the park development impact fee reimbursement with Hillview Development at their request until September 1st, 2006. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the request in front of you. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Strong: Thank you. D. Public Works Department 1. Discussion of AutoCAD Template to Change the Format Engineering Drawings: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Item D, Public Works. Len, are you taking this? Grady: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm going to turn it over Robin. She's been working on this project and this is her debut today, so -- De Weerd: Well, welcome, Robin. Jack: Thank you. Thank you for having me here today. I just am here to share a little information on some of the things that we have been working on in Public Works. There is going to be a change in what has been done in the past. And what we are requesting is engineering firms to deliver their autocad drawings in a specific format. In the past Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 10 of 74 • we were taking them in any format that they delivered them to us. And the reason for doing that is that it will reduce the staff time in translating the drawings into what we use for modeling purposes for the sewer and the water. It will also give us more accurate location information of where the utilities are buried. And it will also be -- provide quicker information access to the information for the city employees who need to view that information to the GIS. The disadvantages that I'm here to talk about, because you may end up hearing about them, is that by requesting that they deliver in a specific format, the engineering firms, it may require slightly more work on their part initially. Once they become accustom to what we are asking, then, it shouldn't be a significant amount of work. So, that's one of the disadvantages. And some firms may be resistant to change. And what we are requesting is that -- I don't know how detailed I should get in this, but the autocad template request, basically we are requesting that the data be delivered on specific layers and a layer within an autocad file is sort of like a transparency of information that lays across the top of something else. And so we are asking specifically layers that things be presented on, as well as specific location of information. And we are going to go with the Ada County standard for the location of information and we are thinking along the line of giving this a six month trial of working with the engineering firms in aback-and-forth working situation to try to meet their needs, as well as meet ours. So, we will give it a try and see how it works. De Weerd: Okay. Questions from Council? I guess, Robin, I would be interested -- have you talked to some of the engineering firms to get initial reaction? Jack: Yes. We have talked with a few engineering firms. Some of the engineering firms are actually -- have started along that line and some of them are delivering it in the Ada County projection. Some of them are not. And we have gotten mixed results so far in the process, but it's still quite early. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Robin, is this -- does this change -- what type of out-of-pocket expense are we talking about for engineers? I mean does this make the process twice as expensive to comply with or -- Jack: Oh, no. Borton: -- what are we talking about? Jack: No. I think what we are talking about is the drafter maybe spending half a day or less. Borton: An additional half a day? Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 11 of 74 Jack: Yeah. Borton: All right. Jack: Just the autocad drafter. That's it. De Weerd: I guess on our end of it, does it cut time off of their process? Jack: Yes. It would drastically reduce our staff time. Right now the way that the engineering drawings come in is that the information could be on any layer and some of these drawings have over 200 layers. So, we have people that sit down and sift through these layers and try to determine what layer the water lines are on, what layer the sewer lines are on and literally pick that information out and put it into a format that we can use. De Weerd: So, have you been able to show cost savings as far as time in our process? Jack: Well, Len has -- Len has written some code and if the drawings come in in this format, then, the code that he has written, it will literally be just a few taps of a button to open a few files, just a few things that will cut our time down to -- down significantly. It will just be like an import and it will go directly into our mapping information. De Weerd: Okay. I -- Jack: Did that answer your question? De Weerd: No. I guess what I'm asking is the -- on one side you have four hours of additional engineering time. On our end -- that was on the engineering side. On our end we can almost cost that back where they can get that expenditure back in the amount of time that we can save them through our initial review; is that correct? Jack: No. These would be from the record drawings that are delivered after the plans have already been reviewed and after the -- after the subdivision has been constructed. De Weerd: Oh. Okay. Jack: So, this is after it's built. It wouldn't help with the plan review. Other than it would free up a plan reviewer to spend more time working on plan review, rather than working on the autocad drawings. De Weerd: Okay. Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Madam Mayor, two questions, but one just to kind of clarify, Robin. If an engineering firm sets all their drawings up that are going to the City of Meridian to have Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 12 of 74 that specific layer with our specific request, will there be any additional time? Jack: On their end? Wardle: Yeah. Jack: Initially once -- initially learning what we are requesting will take some time. Once they have -- they figure out what it is that we are requesting, then, they will figure out ways to export it easily. There is a lot of different tools in autocad that can help them do that and that's why we want to do a six month trial period and work back and forth with them. You know, we are not going to just say this is the way it is, this is the way it has to be. There is going to be some back and forth working with them. We are not trying to make it a demanding you must have it this way right now. Wardle: And then -- Madam Mayor? In addition to that, is our version new enough to upload all of -- an older version or are we requiring it in an dix format? How is that -- that technology going to translate? Jack: We are not requesting that they deliver it in anything different than the format -- than the software version that they were already using. They don't need to change to a different software version at all. Wardle: Okay. Jack: So, it shouldn't cost them anything extra there. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Robin, these are as builts. I can't -- why would it be an extra four hours. You just plug it in if it's -- if it's a program that they have already got, it's no different than doing your regular as built, except you're asking them to do it in a different format. Jack: I was erring on the safe side, to be honest. I didn't want to tell you that it would only take them half an hour, because it could take some drafters longer than that, because -- I just would rather err on the side of -- Bird: It would take me a half a day to boot up, but I'm not a -- Grady: Madam Mayor, a couple of things I'd like to add. We have one engineer that has already adopted this and he's set up a procedure and it takes him -- it's virtually instantaneous for him to go ahead and produce those as we request. The second thing is that the engineers are all familiar with their drawings. They are better capable of extracting the information we want. I would estimate there is anywhere -- it's probably a two fold -- if it takes them four hours it probably would take us eight hours to do the Meridian City Council • • May 23, 2006 Page 13 of 74 same work. They are familiar with their drawings. So, what we are asking for them to do is make that conversion with their drawings and, then, we would go ahead and accept it in our new template. The way it is now we have to shift through their drawings. It takes John Boyd hours and hours and hours. The new process would take that down to minutes. Like Robin said, we want to be flexible over the next six months, but with your permission tonight we will proceed and, then, come back in six months with a resolution adopting these new standards. De Weerd: Thank you, Len move forward with this? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Council, feedback on feelings about giving the nod to Wardle: Certainly I agree that the savings of time on our end and simply notifying the community of -- the engineering community of our procedures sounds like a great idea. So, I would fully support that and see if we need to tweak anything in the next six months. De Weerd: So, I could take that extra position request out of our budget? Sorry. Thought I would try. Okay. Is that the sentiment of the rest of the Council? Bird: It certainly is mine. Borton: Me, too. De Weerd: Okay. There you have it. Jack: Thank you. Item 8: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: De Weerd: Thank you, Robin. I hope your debut went smoothly. Okay. There were no items removed from the Consent Agenda. Item 9: FP 06-021 -Request for Final Plat approval of 16 single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 4.99 acres in an R-4 zone for Buckeye Place Subdivision by John Fackelman -SEC of Manship Road and N. Black Cat Road: Item 10: FP 06-023 -Request for Final Plat approval of 31 single-family residential building lots and 5 common lots on 9.02 acres in an R-8 zone for Settlement Bridge Subdivision No. 5 by Capital Development, Inc. - SEC of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road: Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 14 of 74 De Weerd: So, Item No. 9 is FP 06-021 -- Anna, on all these final plats, these two on nine and ten, were staff recommendations agreed with? Canning: Yes, ma'am, they are. De Weerd: Okay. Council? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we approve Item No. 9, FP 06-021 and Item 10, FP 06-023. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Items 9 and 10. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 11: Public Hearing: VAR 06-010 Request for a Variance to allow for larger temporary structures from the maximum 500 square feet allowed per UDC 11-3E-4C1 for TNT Tents by TNT Fireworks - 1601 S. Meridian Road, 1600 Main Street, 1850 E. Fairview Avenue and 4051 E. Fairview Avenue: De Weerd: Okay. Item 11 is a Public Hearing on VAR 06-010. Mr. Nary or Anna, who goes first? Canning: I think I do, ma'am. We didn't coordinate that. I'm sorry. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the TNT Fireworks projects. It is a variance request, but there are multiple locations and we have outlined them here. You can see them and the -- we do have the address, but a little bit of -- some of them are a little bit hard to see. This one is the Rite-Aid parking lot. This is the Fred Meyers parking lot. This is the Wal-Mart parking lot and, then, this one is the property formerly known as Country Corners. The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 11-3E-4C, that restricts temporary structures for temporary uses to a maximum of 500 square feet. The variance application was submitted concurrently with temporary certificates of zoning compliance to operate temporary fireworks stands at each of the locations. So, they do have four certificate of zoning compliance applications, then, and just the one variance. The applicant proposes three 1,500 square foot temporary sales tents and, then, one 600 square foot temporary sales tent. Staff has recommended denial. We were not able to make the findings for the variance. Those being that it grants a right or special privilege that is not otherwise allowed in the district. And staff feels that this would grant a special privilege that isn't allowed for temporary uses in these districts. That the Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 15 of 74 variance relieves an undue hardship because of characteristics of the site. There are no extraordinary circumstances regarding these sites. And the variance shall not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. And staff finds that allowing a temporary structure over 500 square feet -- the finding currently says that it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and/or welfare, but I think that the fire department has presented some new information since this has -- staff report has come out and I think that once you hear that testimony that you would find that perhaps it is detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. The outstanding issues before Council -- we do have concerns that approving this variance will set a -- set a precedent for other folks that may want to come in and ask for similar variance requests. We know that Council did approve a 700 square foot allowance for a temporary sales trailer. That was to accommodate the specific dimensions of the single side trailer and you have instructed me to include that as part of my next text amendment. The last UDC text amendment has taken me awhile to get through, so I haven't submitted that second one yet. But that will be coming up. If Council is inclined to approve this variance request, we do ask that you provide us some direction on -- if you want to see the standard changed in the UDC or under what circumstances you would be inclined to grant similar variances. This will just help us in talking to other applicants for variances. With that, I -- there are outstanding fire department conditions that either Mr. Nary or Mr. Silva will speak to. We didn't coordinate an order on this, so I apologize. That's all from the Planning Department, though. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: If it please the Council, I think the fire department standards might be little a different. I think I was going to simply give the Council some guidance as to the controlling code sections here and what they need to look at in making the decision. I think Mr. Silva has got some more specific factual things, but if you wouldn't mind, there are three different controlling city code sections that are in play. The request by the applicant is for the variance in regards to the Uniform Development Code section regarding temporary use requirements and that is 11-3E-4, subsection C1 and that is a section of the city code in dealing with any types of temporary uses and the actual specific language in the code is that a maximum of one structure shall be allowed and may cover a maximum of 500 square feet. That's the specific code section that the variance is being sought. There is a more specific reference in the city code in relation to firework stands in the Uniform Development Code and that is 11-3E-5 and that is standards for fireworks stands and in there it does require that the applicant or owner shall obtain written approval of the Meridian city fire department. So, there is the fire department's approval that is necessary for any firework stand. There is a section of the city code in temporary firework stands and tents and that is Section 5-4-15 and the one that is specifically addressing the size of the tents says no stand -- and this is Subsection M. No stand, tent, shall have a floor area in excess of 750 square feet, Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 16 of 74 unless the fire department has approved such structure. So, there is some discrepancies in the size. The section on temporary firework stands and tent, as well as the temporary use requirements in the UDC, still require the approval of the fire department. The last provision is in the International Fire Code, which you did adopt by reference in the city code last fall. It's the 2003 fire code and it has more specific regulations as to the size of the tents. And so at least my legal opinion is that that's the specific controlling one. The UDC is certainly applicable for the request for the variance, but all of them still point to the fire department's standards and requirements that exist in either the city code, the state code, which doesn't have specific sizes of the tent requirements, or the International Fire Code, which has been adopted in the city code. So, with that I would turn it back over to Deputy Chief Silva, because he has the specific standards from the International Fire Code. De Weerd: Okay. Joe. Silva: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. One of our concerns is that we are specifically trying to sort out the size of the structures that should be allowed in for these uses, like -- for example, like fireworks. We want to illustrate -- the bottom here is defined as a tent in the fire code. This is a picture directly out of the commentary. The picture just above it on the right-hand side is a canopy. A canopy -- thank you. A canopy by definition does not have -- as you can see in the lower structure it has walls completely around it or a fair portion of it. A canopy cannot have walls on greater than 25 percent of the perimeter. That's an important distinction to make between the two structures. And a canopy would be allowed to go up to 400 square feet. The tent would be allowed to go only to 200 square feet. A couple of reasons why we would like to -- a more restrictive provision considered before you this evening is that with these larger structures there is such a great amount of inventory in there that the vendors don't typically unload them at night and it poses a serious concern with safety as theft can occur on the back side of the tent, because, obviously, with a pocket knife you can make entry into the back side there. When people are inside these larger tents and at 1,500 square feet, there is, obviously, a safety concern for the workers inside the tent, because of the close proximity to large quantities of fireworks. There is also a large fire concern, because just the sheer amount of inventory that's contained in that -- in that tent structure. One of the other things in some packaging configurations is that the fuses may not be properly protected, so some -- a person could conceivably go in there and, you know, have readily -- have ready access to a fuse and ignite quite a demonstration of fireworks within that and that's one of the prime concerns we have in having these larger structures considered as being approved. We have had large tents that have been erected in fields before the clearance of the weeds to bare dirt have been completed and they will erect a tent and without even consideration of mowing down the weeds prior to the erection of tents and the installation of tables for merchandise. Last year we had a tent approximately 1,500 square feet collapse in a high wind and had anybody been inside not being able to scramble quick enough, that could have collapsed on them. Those tents are very heavy. Obviously, they are very heavy canvas and that could have trapped a person inside there. So, the sheer size is a safety concern, as well as the amount of fireworks that are contained within -- within Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 17 of 74 the tents. When we consider a 1,500 square foot tent, that's, obviously, twice the size of what's currently in the city ordinance concerning stands for fireworks. So, these are very large structures. When we look at our surrounding communities, Boise does not allow any structure greater than 750 square feet for a fireworks stand and they don't -- do not allow direct contact with the product during the purchasing process. Garden City has a maximum size of 800 square feet. They do allow tents. They do not allow any direct access to product during the purchase. Caldwell fire, 750 square feet. Tents are allowed. They do allow direct access to product. Nampa fire has no size on the -- cap on the size of the structure, whether it's a tent or a hard structure, so they do allow tents and they do allow direct access. Eagle fire has no cap on the size of the stand. Tents are allowed, but they, too, do not allow direct access to the product during the purchasing. So, with that I'll stand for any questions should you have any. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, do you have any questions for staff? Bird: Not at this point. De Weerd: Okay. Is Mr. Handke here? Canning: Madam Mayor, the applicant is Mr. Bob Brown. De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Bob Brown. Okay. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Farley: Yes. Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Jerry Farley. I live in Washington state -- do you want my specific address there? De Weerd: Yes, please. Farley: 16526 Shore Drive Northeast, Lake Forest Park, Washington. 98155. De Weerd: Thank you. Farley: I'm here as a government affairs person for this company American Promotional Events, which does business in this state and across the United States as TNT. Idaho is one of the states that I personally am responsible for. I was directly involved many years ago in the writing of what is the current law in this state and I was directly involved in negotiations and assistance with the fire service in attempting to get a bill passed in the legislature this year, which we failed, and also in years past to require age 16. That also failed. And I have been involved in the development and the enactment of laws and ordinances in about 40 states, I've also been directly involved in the development of codes and standards for the construction and operation of retail fireworks facilities, including tents, permanent buildings, and mixed mercantile occupancies, like Sam's Club, Wal-Marts, Fred Meyers, in all kinds of places. The company that I represent operates in every state that is -- in which fireworks are allowed. They supply more than 15,000 in-store, inside, mixed mercantile occupancies and about the same number of Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 18 of 74 outdoor. They have about 2,500 to 3,000 tents in operation and they have used tents in this sale of fireworks in some instances for more than 40 years. Tents have been used in surrounding states for more than ten years. Earlier today I presume to take some of your chiefs -- deputy chiefs time to try and convince him to change his mind and agree with me. As you can tell I failed. You don't always win these things and I respect their caution and their concern. But, respectfully, I ask you to disagree with them tonight and agree with us. Let me just say something about the points he made, if I may. Security. This is not rocket science. This is something that in every state where security has been an issue it has been addressed in an appropriate fashion. And when the -- when this economic scale of the sales that occur in the tents is warranted, hired security have been used and other options when the sales are lower. The size of tents that are being discussed here relate mostly to the quantity of sales. So, that you have adequate space in there for the people to move around. With respect to the large quantities -- the quantities that are proposed here, quite frankly, are substantially less than are found in many indoor locations like Wal-Marts and also many tents that have been in use throughout the United States, as I said, for more than 40 years. He talked about -- very briefly about the fuses not protected. There is none of the products where the fuses are not protected and I should tell you that for more than ten years I have been involved in an issue -- an effort in many states and nationally to write codes and standard so that we can protect those fuses even more. I'll talk -- come back to it if I may. Weed coverage. Quite frankly, that's not relevant to this -- to the variances that we are requesting, because the surfaces are all paved or gravel. And the tent blew down and wind -- well, that was not our company. We use the most respected and nationwide company to erect our tents for us. We have never had that problem in more than 40 years with thousands of tents in use and the reason we have had the success is because we respect the rights and the concerns of individuals and their safety. Then, he mentioned the direct contact. I want you to understand that the purpose you have tents and the reason that you make them larger is so that people can have access to the product, they can see it, and ask questions about it in a more efficient fashion. I think it's strange that someone would say to you people should not be allowed to touch fireworks until they buy it. How does that make anything safer? I'm sorry, I think that's just a red herring. And, in fact, there was a provision that was inserted in a surreptitious fashion by representatives of fire service, not Idaho, as far as I know, but other things, other states, to place that in the International Fire Code in 2003 and Iwould -- if I had the chance I could discuss that with you. But let me just say one thing further if I may. Your code contemplates a number of requirements for tents and stands. You have a lot of inclusions in here. This document right here, which is the second version, has many many more, far in excess of anything found in your standards here, found in the International Fire Code. How do I know? Because I helped write it. And as I told your fire service representatives today, we helped write this, we are prepared to live with it, we live with it in every state. We do it voluntarily. We are prepared to do it here. Why do we support this? Because it's safer for the people who sell the fireworks. It's safer for the people who buy the fireworks. And it's, obviously, safer for the fire service. It provides greater security. It's better in every way. We wrote it by looking at the problems that had occurred and there have been relatively few problems with respect to tents you should know. Almost none. Tents are generally found to be better, because Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 19 of 74 they are safer for people, because everybody can get out easy. There is no permanent walls anywhere. You can get out quickly. But the point is is that we develop this standard in conjunction through the -- with the fire service representatives across the United States. This was a consensus code process. It had fire service representatives, it had firework representatives, it had people that had nothing to do with either, rocketry and all kinds of stuff. This is the second version. This took six years to get done. It is far more specific and far more demanding than is found in your code and we tell you if you give us this variance we can live with this and you can require us to do so as a condition of the variance. Last year, as I understand it, the tents that we are asking for were use in this city. So, we are not asking for anything new. All we are asking is to be allowed to do the same thing that we have done in the past. We think it's better, not worse, but better for everybody to have a larger tent structure. Why? Are we going to just pack it with product? No. You put the amount of product in there that relates to the amount of sales you're going to have. In fact, this code requires width of aisles and all sorts of things, none of which are found in anything to do with the International Fire Code or anything to do with anything you have enacted here. Why do we do that? So, that everybody is safe in there. That's why. So, we think -- all we are asking for is what we have done in the past and we are willing to ask -- to let you tell us to live to a higher standard, because we helped write it, along with National Fire Service representatives. I truly respect your chief and your deputy chief. I have spent a lot of time with them. I respect their anxiety and their concern. But I think they are wrong. I think they are wrong. I think we have presented a better option for you and all we are asking to do is what we have done in the past in a safe, responsible manner to a higher standard. I hope that you will consider this variance favorably and we are willing to discuss with you, your staff, the fire service, how to implement this this year. I would be happy to answer your questions. De Weerd: Council, do you have questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone of the public who would like to provide testimony on this application? Okay. Seeing none, Council? Canning: Madam Mayor, just for the purposes of having an understandable record in the future, if the gentleman that just spoke wouldn't mind reading off the title of the document he was presenting. De Weerd: Thank you. Farley: I apologize for not doing that. It's NFPA 11/24. NFPA Standards for National Fire Protection Association and it's 11/24. NFPA is 60 or 70 thousand people, the vast majority of whom are fire officials from across the United States. They develop hundreds of codes. Hundred of codes. There is probably 50 or 60 that have to do with this very room. They set up through committees, it's called a technical committee in Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 20 of 74 pyrotechnics, which has authority over this and other standards as well, including rocketry and display fireworks and this is called the code for manufacture, transportation, storing and retail sales of fireworks and pyrotechnics and this is the 2006 Edition. This was just approved by the NFPA standards council several months ago when this published. This is now available for adoption. Under the code that you have right here, the International Fire Code, the International Building Code, your fire official already has the authority to seek the guidance of this document when they grant a permit or a license for -- in this instance fireworks. The same way they do for anything else. They can look at any kind of a published model code and say that's a good idea and we want to do that, because they, like us, believe this is about public safety, the people that buy the fireworks, the people that use the fireworks, the firefighters who have to deal with the -- those rare instances when people misuse fireworks. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any additional information from staff? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: I'd like to ask Joe a question. We had -- I don't know. I thought we had put this thing to sleep about six or seven years ago, this fireworks deal, but it's jumped up again. Have we had -- have we had problems or, you know, why -- what is the difference, other than accepting a couple of our UDC and our International Fire Code, that's different from last year? And do you get -- I mean I know we got -- I know the fire department goes and inspects and are supposed to and I know they do. Have we had any where they haven't done what they have said? Silva: Madam Mayor, Councilman Bird, a couple of concerns that we have is that we did have the experience of the tent blowing down last year, which was -- which was a safety concern from the standpoint that it collapsed and it had workers in it. A couple of things that Jerry referred to was the NFPA 11/24 and those requirements that are contained within that 11/24 is less restrictive than what we currently have and I'll give you two examples very quickly is the clearance to combustibles and clearance to buildings as an example. We have had very good -- the venders have been willing to, you know, address the issues we have identified on the inspection, so to that extent we have not had a problem. I mean there are issues that we identified, but they made correction and we proceeded with the sales period. Bird: Thank you very much, Joe. De Weerd: Thank you. Anything further from Council? Any further comment? Joe? Or Anna? Okay. Mr. Borton. Borton: Madam Mayor. Joe, a question. You might be able to answer it. I hope you can answer it. Is there something unique -- again, I didn't see how this was taken care of in the past. Is there something unique about a fireworks stand that doesn't exist Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 21 of 74 when you're around 500 feet, that if you get to 1,000, 1,500 feet, any unique problems created -- I mean a 500 foot tent can blow down, as well as a 1,500. I understand that. Or it can be cut into with things stolen from it. What new problem arises in that case? Silva: Madam Mayor, Councilman Borton, just the sheer amount of inventory that's present, because they tend to use parts of it as a warehouse, quite frankly. When the tents get really large they will stock all the areas under the tables and it ends up being kind of a combination warehouse, retail outlet, and just the sheer quantity that's contained in a 1,500 square foot tent becomes large. So, if we have any ignition in there, it's going to be -- it's going to be a pretty quick, rapidly growing fire. Anderson: Madam Mayor and Council, I'd like to address this issue. Keep in mind fireworks are classified as a class C explosive and the history of fireworks is -- with the fireworks booth is they started off in small plywood sales shacks, if you will, or sheds that community groups put together and would sell the fireworks out of. The code specifically states that the consumer should not have access to the fireworks themselves, because of the danger of those fireworks being ignited and I was telling part of the city staff this morning, the fire that burned Nampa to the ground in 1907 was started by fireworks, because somebody dropped a cigar into fireworks in a store. So, the code specifically does not want the consumers themselves near the fireworks. So, the idea is -- somebody comes in, it's like cigarettes, when somebody's buying cigarettes in a store and they say I'd like to buy three of those rockets and four of those -- whatever the other fireworks are and they are handed that and the money is handed there. These tents that are being proposed now allow the consumer to go in and walk around a large tent, pick up arms full of fireworks and, then, go to the cashier and check out. The problem with that is the large inventories. When you allow a 1,500 square foot tent or we have another request after this one that's a 2,800 square foot tent, that they fill these with fireworks and it's the same type of concept. I believe it is much safer to have a smaller tent, allow the consumer to decide what they want and they sell the inventory out of a tent and they can have a secure locked facility out in back and they can go get more inventory and replenish it as the stock rotates out. That's our concern. In addition, as Joe mentioned, we are getting tents now that are -- you know, we are one of the jurisdictions in the state that are even allowing tents. A lot of them don't allow tents. We have been flexible in that, but we are getting larger and larger tents and I have polled other fire chiefs in the state to see what their position is. Nobody is addressing this issue yet or hasn't been a problem in those other cities. But the last year we had one of the tents that they set up on a bare field with weeds three feet high. We had to go out and ask them to mow that after -- after they had already set up the tent, so it was still on a very combustible surface with weeds and about a week after they set it up we had one of our famous summer thunderstorms and it came in and blew the tent down. We are darn lucky somebody wasn't injured. These tents weigh hundreds of pounds that are set up. So, we are asking for you to abide by what's in our adopted code, to not allow these large tents. They will still sell their fireworks. We just feel it would be much safer for our community. We won't have the possibility of a large firework booth going up from access from the public and the possibility of the ignition or the danger of the tent coming down. It's a pretty simple matter in my mind. Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 22 of 74 De Weerd: Okay. Any further questions from Council? Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: Just one thought I wanted the Council to consider as they deliberate -- and you might also want to consider having the applicant have an opportunity for rebuttal. But the standard that currently exists in the Uniform Fire Code is based on a standard that's been adopted through a tremendous amount of work and study and all of you are aware of that. My concern is that if the Council does want to consider a variance, is then establishing through your discussion how to establish that standard. If you -- if you want to deviate from the code, I guess what I would like you to consider is how you're going to come to a reasonable conclusion as to what's an appropriate size, because you will have a variance request from other vendors -- remember, this is for fireworks, but the UDC applies to all types of sales, temporary sales, and if you want to pick a standard out of the air, I think your concern you're going to have to articulate is how did we establish what's, then, appropriate for a vegetable stand, what's appropriate for an icecream stand, what's appropriate for something else. Because your -- if you pick a standard that doesn't have any basis in a code, you're going to have to substantiate why in relation to every other request you're going to get. If you pick 500, someone's going to think 500 works. Someone else is going to think 1,000 is more appropriate. I just want to caution you if you -- as you deliberate to make sure if you want to consider that, to also factor in how you make that standard apply equally. The applicant's testimony was how their particular operation is, but your variance, as you know, will apply to all operations, not just theirs. So, everyone else who may not necessarily be as diligent as this particular applicant, would be allowed the same standard. So, just a couple of things to think of as you deliberate. But I didn't know if Madam Mayor was going to give the applicant a rebuttal opportunity as well. De Weerd: Yes, sir. Mr. Farley, did you want to have a rebuttal or closing remarks? Farley: Thank you for the courtesy. And I would like to say a couple things. First, I have a great deal of respect for the chief and deputy chief. I just respectfully disagree with them. I think they are erring so far on the side of caution that they are being kind of anti-commercial. The tent is used, because it is a better selling mechanism. This is true for whether it's furniture or whatever. You find it all over the country. Tents were not used a lot in a lot of areas. Now they are used not just for fireworks, they have done so because it's good for sales. That's really what we are about for America. It's true that this is -- fireworks are hazardous materials and they are classified as explosives. But it is incorrect to say that if you started -- if you have a fire start in a fireworks stand or a tent, for that matter, that the rate of the progression of the fire is going to be so fast that people aren't going to get out is just wrong, because the majority of the product is cardboard, paper, and that's what constitutes -- let me just tell you also -- while it's true that some of the tent operators do store their product underneath tables, the simple fact Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 23 of 74 is that they put in a tent for the size of sales that they think they are going to do. They are not going to pack it full and then -- because they have to buy the fireworks, they have to store the fireworks, they have to find some way to do it. So, it's all a cost of doing business. They are rational individuals. They are going to have the tent and the amount of product that makes sense. Let me tell you, we have operated -- my clients have operated a tent 6,000 square feet in size for more than ten years. Just one. I know of many others. I'm sorry. Nine thousand square feet. Nine thousand square feet. No problems. Fire service comes in and inspects it regularly. It works fine. It works fine. All over the country these work fine. We have been using them for 40 years without any problems. The one that blew down was not our company and was not put up by somebody who really knew how to put up a good tent. We can work those problems out. We don't have those problems. We didn't have three feet of grass. So, I understand their anxieties, but they shouldn't be talking about us and they shouldn't be talking about a good responsible user, because they are not. They are talking about problems and they are trying to tell you that if they had this one problem, everybody should suffer. And, you know, this reminds me a little bit about kindergarten. When I went to kindergarten -- De Weerd: Sir, could you try and keep your comments short. Farley: Well, I'm just trying to say that what we should do is we should hold everybody to a standard and everybody should be held to that standard and it should be a reasonable standard. And this is one that has worked everywhere in this country, except around here, without any problems and even last year we didn't have this problem here. So, all we are asking for is something that's reasonable. We think it makes sense. We can live with reasonable controls. And we are willing to work with them on those reasonable controls. So, we'd ask you that you, please, approve the variance and make sure that they hold us to the standard you set. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Council, if you do not desire anymore testimony or comments from staff -- I think Lieutenant Stowe has a comment. Stowe: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. The police department does have some concerns. First off, I do agree that we should have standards and follow the standards and they are set forth in the UDC. Secondly, I'd like to address the direct access to the fireworks. He mentioned that people like to hold the product and should be able to look at it. Fireworks are a little bit different than a furniture store or an icecream store in that they are combustible. Not only will the person buying the fireworks be in contact and have direct access, but so will their kids and so will minor kids that go into that store or into the tent on the way home from school or school will be out, so they won't -- they will all be there. As you know, the Fourth of July and the days before it are very busy for the police department, very busy for the fire department. I anticipate that with direct access to the product we will see instances of theft from minors or juveniles, which will, then, be used probably not in the most safest and sane manner. We respond to grass fires constantly during this season, because of the improper use of the fireworks. There is no guarantee of the volume that the tents will Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 24 of 74 have. In most instances if there is some type of accidental ignition, the police department is going to be the first on the scene as far as emergency services go. If the -- if there is more volume -- I think everyone has seen what happens in a fireworks fire, that they are quite spectacular and they aren't contained in a very small area. They do tend to expand into outlying areas and create other property damage than what is just the fireworks stand. So, the police department does have some concerns over the size and I feel that bigger would create more danger and we do support the fire department in their stand. De Weerd: Thank you, Lieutenant. Okay. Council, if you have received all the information you need, I would certainly entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the Public Hearing VAR 06-010. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: I have a motion to close the Public Hearing on Item 11. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Discussion? If not, do I have a motion? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: The balancing act, I think, on Mr. Parley's comments about the commercial or anti-commercial is a delicate balancing act. I don't necessarily see these -- that the tent size regulation being anti-commercial, nor its purpose being anti-commercial and the comment I applaud Mr. Farley for making and I applaud our staff for being is overly cautious. If there is any inclination on our fire department and our police department to be overly cautious, I would hope they would be and I would applaud them for being so. I, for one, have concerns about waffling and wiggling with sizes. Rules are best applied clearly and consistently and I think anyone who is going to try and do work with the city would hope that it's going to apply rules consistently and clearly and allows them to anticipate how we are going to operate, and allows our staff to anticipate how we can safely provide services to the citizens and customers of Meridian. I don't -- for my sake, I don't see any grounds, reason, or basis to grant a variance in this particular case. Weighing the pros and cons, I don't think there is anything unique about this particular request that they are unable to provide this business in comply with the UDC. I don't think that -- in this case that a 1,500 square foot structure is necessarily in light of the Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 25 of 74 concerns. So, that's a round about way of me to say that I'm opposed to granting the variance and those are the reasons why. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Borton. Any other comments? Or do I have a motion? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Just a comment that I have and this is in relation to -- I have heard some excellent testimony this even, both from the applicant and from our staff. In my opinion, these are things that are addressed when we do revisions of the UDC. We have kicked around this -- this temporary sales area. We granted a variance that said that 500 square feet wasn't enough. Our prior code said up to 750 square feet. I think we need some clarification. And so I guess in that respect I would be willing to consider the variance in the fact that for this year to have potentially up to 1,500 square foot seems reasonable to me. I'm not willing to set a standard and adopt a new code based on that, though. I think we need additional testimony, additional consideration beyond just firework stands. What about Christmas tree stands. I mean there are -- I would assume are very different issues with those types of applications versus this. So, that's kind of where I'm at for this year and the revision of the code. But I will see if Mr. Borton has a motion first. Borton: Any discussion? Bird: I have none. Borton: Okay. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: I think Mr. Wardle's comments are well taken to the extent that it -- that we can benefit from continuing to look at these requirements and provisions, making sure they are applied consistently to go forward with different types of uses on temporary structures. Having said that, I think he's wrong in everything else he said. So, I would move we move for denial of Item 11, VAR 06-010, request for variance by TNT Fireworks. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second? Okay. Unless I have a second, I guess the motion dies. I guess I will put my two cents worth in before we entertain another motion. It's quite a drastic change going from the current 500 to 1,500, in particular in light of the concerns that were outlined by our staff. There may be some issues of what is the appropriate size, but you're tripling what we currently allow under code and we do have three findings that need to be responded to. I have no doubt that Mr. Farley feels that they can represent and be good stewards to this size, but that doesn't mean the precedence that you set determines that everyone else can be just as good at being Meridian City Council • • May 23, 2006 Page 26 of 74 stewards to the safety and the security of what they will be proposing. So, I guess since I can't break a tie, there is three people up here with the vote, I would at least suggest caution on determining a size as well and also would, on behalf of our city attorney, do say we do need to find -- respond to each of the three things that you have to show a variance is determined through and you need to set aside -- because we will have greater ones coming in front of you. With that said, Mr. Wardle, do you have a motion? Wardle: Madam Mayor, I'll open the floor for discussion. I move that we approve VAR 06-010, request for variance to allow structures up to 1,500 square feet for TNT Fireworks. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second? Okay. I guess the only one who hasn't tried a motion is Mr. Bird. Would you like to make an attempt? Bird: I would. De Weerd: Thank you. Bird: Madam Mayor, I would move we approve VAR 06-010, variance, and allow structures to 700 square feet, as per -- Nary: Actually, 750 to be consistent with -- Bird: Oh. Okay. Consistent. Let's go with 750 square feet. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve the variance to a maximum square footage of 750. Is there any discussion? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Just for additional discussion, I know staff is seeking direction on what kind of precedence this sets. I'd like to further have a revision to that UDC, but take additional comment not just based on fireworks stands, but all other potential considered temporary uses that we can think of. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would agree with Councilman Wardle. I think we need to really -- before this comes up again get something down firm and take some testimony and stuff and get it taken care of. Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 27 of 74 De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bird. Any comment, Mr. Borton? Borton: Yeah. Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Borton: Question for legal counsel, if we can or should be permitted to approve variances other than -- that are different than what's requested? If you ask for a variance for A and we say, no, but you can have B, are we within our purview to do that? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you certainly -- you certainly have the discretion to grant a variance up to whatever you think is reasonable. All I had suggested earlier is simply stating what the reason is. And if I understand Councilmember Bird and Councilmember Wardle -- and I think the prior testimony you had was that you had already granted a temporary use exception for 750 feet. There is a city code that has the same size and if I understand the discussion correctly, that's the basis of why you feel 750 feet is more appropriate temporary use size than 500 feet or the 200 that the International Fire Code has for fireworks stands. So, I -- if I'm correct, I think you're trying to simply be consistent with your prior exceptions and that's within your discretion. De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, nay. MOTION CARRIED: TWO AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT. Item 12: Public Hearing: VAR 06-011 Request for a Variance to allow for larger temporary structures from the maximum 500 square feet allowed per UDC 11-3E-4C1 for fireworks sales, Christmas tree sales, and produce sales for Fat City Fireworks by Richard Handke - 535 N. Eagle Road, 3301 W. Cherry Lane, 20 E. Fairview Avenue, 1375 E. Fairview Avenue, 97 Main Street, and for the lot at the northwest corner of Ten Mile Road and W. Franklin Road: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Item 12 has been -- needs to be reposted or they have additional sites to post? Berg: Madam Mayor, if I may, I think we opened the hearings, but we held it so the requirements for posting are met, because my understanding is they did not post all the properties that they are asking for a variance. Nary: Madam Mayor, I think our history has been we haven't opened the -- I don't think we have opened the hearings, if I'm correct, when they haven't posted. We have Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 28 of 74 continued the matter, but I don't know that we need to open the hearing itself. I mean they haven't posted all the sites. They need to comply with that. I believe part of the discussion that I was aware of is they have not held a neighborhood meeting, which is required for a variance. And so they need to hold that prior to having a public hearing. So, I don't know that it would be appropriate -- I don't think it's appropriate to open a hearing that hasn't been noticed properly. They will have to notice it properly. You can continue this matter to your meeting to make sure that they have complied. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if you would indulge me asking Mr. Nary a question. Is that okay? De Weerd: Do I have a choice? Canning: Mr. Nary, we had talked about having Council comments on the location of the neighborhood meeting. Would they need to do that in a -- with an open Public 8-iearing or can I present that information now? Nary: There is -- if I understand correctly, they still have not held a neighborhood meeting. They have posted one site. Canning: Correct. Nary: But have not held a neighborhood meeting for any of the sites. Canning: Correct. Nary: Is that correct? I guess for the limited purpose of at least advising the Council of that, not to take testimony, but simply to open it and advise them of that. The concern, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council, is because you have a meeting next week and you don't have a meeting the following week, if there is any need to cure an issue, really, tonight is your only opportunity to cure that and that's what Mrs. Canning wants you to be aware of, if there is any concerns that you have. So, for the limited purpose of at least accepting that information and if you wish to discuss it or not, you don't need to do that, you can continue the matter for that point, I think you're okay. Does that make sense? De Weerd: Well, Mr. Nary, you're suggesting to open the Public Hearing to accept that information. Nary: Correct. And if the Council wishes to discuss that, you can certainly do that or just continue the matter to the following week. I just don't want the applicant to be caught short if that is -- if what Mrs. Canning has to tell you is of concern to you, they won't be able to cure it next week and they will have to wait two weeks, which will put Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 29 of 74 them unable to actually sell their products within the time period allowed by the statute. So, I don't want them to be injured and so I think that might be the safest way to do that. De Weerd: Okay. Council, then, if there is no opposition, I will go ahead and open this Public Hearing on Item 12, VAR 06-011, and ask staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, when we were drafting the UDC, we did consider putting strings on where and when folks could conduct neighborhood meetings. We elected not to, mostly for the reason that, you know, most people use good judgment when they set up those neighborhood meetings and I had seen cases where it backfired for the city that an applicant was not able to choose a reasonable time and place for that. As any in code, it's open for abuse and I just wanted to point out that the neighborhood meeting for this project will be held in Mountain Home and wanted you to be aware of that situation. Bird: What? Nary: And, again, Madam Mayor, the reason -- the only reason I asked to open the Public Hearing to get that information and if you wish to comment, is because if you found that out next week and found that to be defective, in your opinion, the applicant could not cure it in time to be able to sell their product within the time allowed by law. If that is of a concern to you, then, you certainly have the ability to make comment about that tonight, so he has the opportunity to address it. Canning: And one of the affected property owners did send me an a-mail asking if this was a reasonable location for a neighborhood meeting. De Weerd: I don't think it's very friendly to encouraging attendance. Canning: And I was told by a staff member that that is why he held it at that location, was to not encourage attendance. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: This is one councilman that if he's going to do it in Meridian, he's going to hold his public meeting in Meridian or -- or he don't need to come before me. We are not making judgments in Mountain Home, Idaho. De Weerd: Okay. It looks like Mr. Bird just spoke for the Council. Borton: It's held in Mountain Home at his peril. That doesn't make any sense at all. Canning: I will inform him and suggest that he change location and get that notice out quickly. He won't be able, probably, to get them the required five days notice before he Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 30 of 74 conducts the hearing -- oh, sure, he -- well, it will be very close. But we will inform him of your concerns. De Weerd: Thank you. At what date does this need to be continued to? June 6th? Okay. Council, I need a motion. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we continue Item 12 to June 6th. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to continue Item 12 to June 6. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 13: Public Hearing: AZ 06-014 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 20.16 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) for Cabella Creek Subdivision by ATM Development, LLC -northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Mesa Way: Item 14: Public Hearing: PP 06-012 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 47 single family residential lots and 11 common lots on 18.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Cabella Creek Subdivision by ATM Development, LLC -northeast corner of East Victory Road and South Mesa Way: De Weerd: Okay. Items 13 and 14 are public hearings on AZ 06-014 and PP 06-012. I will open these two items with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Cabella Creek project. You formerly saw a portion of this as just an annexation request, which was denied. It contained different properties, but if you -- if the aerial looks vaguely familiar, that's why. It's north of Victory Road and east of Mesa Way and it is -- this is Locust Grove to the further east. It is an annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat request. The gross residential density is 2.49 units per acre. It includes 47 single family residential lots on 18.84 acres and it's got about 13 percent open space. There are currently three houses on the property and two of the homes will remain. One of them will continue to take access off Mesa Way. The one that currently takes access off Victory will take access from within the subdivision. There is also -- it's the Ten Mile feeder, I believe, that comes through the site and that's -- they put their open space amenity along that feeder, along with the park, as you will see there. There is a development agreement proposed with this. Our staff has recommended one. Some of the nonstandard items in that development include -- develop agreement include that the applicant will construct a ten Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 31 of 74 foot wide multi-use pathway from Victory Road to Mesa Way along the south side of Ten Mile Creek. Will come through there. That a street buffer constructed in accordance with city code be installed along Victory Road prior to occupancy of any new dwelling units. So, it would be the full length of Victory Road. That one public street access and no driveways would be allowed to Victory Road. So, these would all take internal access, as I noted before. And, then, this was added later, but it will come up in Commission discussion, but it is -- we are suggesting that mitigate potential of light from cars exiting this site from entering the windows of the neighbor's house along Mesa Way, the Binford property. The applicant has volunteered to assist the neighbor, Binfords, by widening the U of their driveway. This is the U driveway here. And providing some berming and landscaping in between the large driveway area at the developer's expense. So, the developer has committed to an off-site improvement and we have recorded that within the development agreement. The Planning Commission did recommend approval at their April 6th hearing. Eric Cronin and Aaron McGee spoke in favor of the application and Anike Binford and Matt Binford spoke in opposition and no one was commenting. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were the location of the Navaro Way and the impact to the existing house and that was the Binford house that they were referring to. And, then, the design and function of the storm drain. Somebody put -- somebody bumped up the time on my screen saver there. The design and function of the storm drain and amenity ponds that are in this central open space area. The key Commission changes to staffs initial recommendation were to amend the development agreement with those provisions that I just outlined a moment ago. To our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council. We haven't had anyone call us since the Planning and Zoning Commission that I'm aware of. And with that I will answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for staff at this time? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. And you can pull that up. Thank you. Cronin: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Eric Cronin with the Land Group, representing the applicant. I reside at -- again, the Land Group, it's 462 East Shore Drive. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to present to you this evening for application for annexation, rezone, and preliminary plat of Cabella Creek Subdivision. As Anna indicated, you had previously seen this in some sort of configuration with some of the lots that -- or some of the existing lots within Kachina Estates. Anna, do we have that color rendering in the slide show that you are aware of? Okay. Well, could I have that slide that's not as busy as this one? Thank you. Anyways, today we are back to present to you, based on the remolded subdivision that was done so with your guys' comments, Planning and Zoning, a neighborhood meeting, public testimony, as well as meeting with the planning staff. Some of the items that were brought up -- and we feel we have addressed them is that we -- and it was asked that we limit the number of direct lot access onto Mesa Way and so to do so we have restricted direct lot access to Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 32 of 74 all lots along Mesa Way, except for the existing dwelling, which currently take access onto Mesa Way. Also, to help transition from Mesa Way into the subdivision and the existing lots across the street, we are providing a 20 foot wide landscape buffer that will be bermed and vegetated and have fence screening on the backs of the lots there. Let's see here. And also what was brought up at Council meeting last time was that the density of the subdivision and to do so, to create a transition from the existing lots along Mesa Way. The dimensional standards are consistent or mirror the -- those of the R-2 zoning for the most part. And we have also provided stub streets, which -- to property east of us that seem to be in better locations than we were previously providing them. We feel that this layout meets the density requirements within the low density of the Comprehensive Plan, which states up to three units per acre. Currently we are at roughly 2.5 units per acre, as Anna had indicated, and we are providing approximately 13 percent open space and the issue of -- one of the items that was brought up at the Planning and Zoning was the treatment of storm drain and originally I had calculated my open space area with the amenity pond, et cetera, which may or may not need to store storm drain water. At this time we haven't got into the improvement plan, so we are not sure exactly how we are going to deal with that. So, I guess if you looked at the big picture, the common, you know, green space of the subdivision is approximately 22 percent, about a little over four acres. Let's see here. North of the subdivision is an existing subdivision, Salmon Rapids, and exists R-4 zoning. South of us is R-8 within Tuscany across Victory. And areas all the way around are R-4 or R-8. So, with that, I would stand for any questions you may have. De Weerd: Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Cronin: Thank you. De Weerd: I do have some people signed up to testify. If you wish to provide testimony, when I call your name you can certainly come forward. Anike Binford. Against. You will have to pull that down. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Binford: Madam Mayor, Council, my name is Anike Binford. I live at 3101 South Mesa Way. We live directly across the street from the proposed Cabella Creek. Our biggest concern with this proposed development is with the southern most access road coming onto Mesa Way. This road lines up directly with our circular drive and the headlights from the oncoming traffic turn either direction will be flashing directly into our living room window. We have done some test runs in our car and the lights really are bad. I do have a DVD if you guys want to see that. It's about 15 seconds if you need to. As was discussed in the Planning and Zoning meeting, we cannot berm and landscape the lights out, as it would require landscaping across our driveway. The developer has graciously offered to relocate our drive and provide landscaping to block the lights. If Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 33 of 74 this ends up being our only option, we would like to have on record that all costs of doing this will be the responsibility of the developer. That being said, we have spent a lot of time trying to figure out exactly where they would relocate our driveway. It really is in the most logical and convenient location now. Moving it to the north would require taking out our 35 year old maple tree, not to mention that the driveway would, then, be located directly -- right in our front yard. If they moved it to the south, it would create problems with our flood irrigation and would also put the driveway too far from our front door. We feel that there should be much consideration given to this issue. The developers are coming into an existing neighborhood make these changes. They are already threatening to disrupt the quiet lifestyle that we bought into by subdividing within our estate community. We bought on home on Mesa Way because of the quiet country setting. We moved from an R-4 subdivision to the five acre subdivision of Kachina Estates to enjoy this lifestyle and never imagined that the growth going on around us would actually invade our fully developed subdivision. The developers are proposing 47 home sites in an area that previously only had three. This certainly will increase traffic and noise on Mesa Way, both in cars and people. It is the least that the developers can do to assure us that when we are within our own homes this disruption does not continue. De Weerd: Thank you. Questions for the applicant or the testifiers? Okay. Binford: I do have some photos of our front yard and kind of where our driveway sits, if you want to -- De Weerd: Can you give those to staff? That would be great. Binford: I gave the photo CD earlier. I don't know if that would be helpful. It's kind of hard, unless you're standing in the driveway to really be able to tell. De Weerd: I didn't think the tent was yours, so -- Binford: It might be. I don't know if you're really going to be able to tell a whole lot. What you see on the right is -- you can see the boxwood hedge that we are starting right there. That is one part of the driveway. So, really, to -- okay. There is a better shot. That's taken from our front porch. So, they are talking about widening the U, which to do that is going to take the driveway so far to the left of where you're looking -- that's our front yard, So, I don't really feel like pulling our car into the front yard. That's another -- yeah. So, see, if they widened it, it would be kind of in between these two trees. And that's another shot, as if you're pulling into it. That's our big dirt pile that we have kind of put there in hopes that maybe we could have blocked the lights out, but it just doesn't even begin to block the lights. That's standing from where the road actually will be. And you can see those -- that's our living windows right there. And that's about -- I think a four foot berm that we have got started there. So, I don't know if it really even kind of shows kind of where things are and how it lays out. De Weerd: And is that the existing home across the street? Meridian City Council • May 23, 2006 Page 34 of 74 Binford: That's the existing home across the street. De Weerd: That they would be keeping? Binford: That they are keeping. u De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Anna. Thank you. Any questions, Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you. Matt Binford is also signed up against. M. Binford: Not necessarily against, but against the road. Matt Binford. 3102 Mesa Way. My wife covered it pretty well. The only other piece I'd like to cover -- if you could go back to that berm. The dirt pile. We will take our time. The Planning and Zoning had us out there until 3:00 o'clock in the morning last time, so -- De Weerd: We are much more friendly. Bird: We are not going to be here until 3:00 o'clock. M. Binford: So, while that's being pulled up, my main concern, as part of the final plat map you had Victory Road, berm, landscaping, as part of this sign off. I'm hoping we can get also on Mesa Way that fencing and berm also be part of the final plat sign off. That way any fencing will keep trash away from our subdivision and also pushed back on what they are developing. So, I'm hoping Mesa Way can also be part of that final flat sign off. I don't know what the terminology is. And the other question we have is for the construction entrance, assuming this is approved, is there any way we can limit the construction entrance to only Victory access and not through Mesa Way. That way any dirt, debris, stays basically in the new development area. So, in this berm, the main concern is it's in an established neighborhood, it's a county subdivision. It's been there for 20 years. We thought at some point maybe, yes, we would be developed, but these homes have been there -- it's a county sub. These people have come in -- I don't oppose growth, progress, what I do oppose is somebody coming in, putting a road in front of our house in an existing neighborhood. That's my two cents. I just don't think it's right. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Okay. Aaron McGee. For. Okay. And Martin Ardis. Okay. Thank you. Those were the people that were signed up. Is there any testimony on this application? Okay. Would the applicant like to come up for a final word. If you will just restate your name. Cronin: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Eric Cronin. I believe the developer would agree to do whatever it would take to alleviate the headlights that might be in -- as anuisance and I failed to bring it, but I did take a look at the aerial photo underneath Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 35 of 74 our existing site plan -- or our proposed site plan. And that roadway seems to be a little bit further north than I guess initially I thought it was. However, yes, there is going to be at some point the -- some point of the turn from the road -- or the Navaro Way, which is perpendicular to Mesa Way. At some point when you start making that turn you are going to have direct headlights onto it. As far as our location for that street there, we wanted to limit the number of accesses onto Mesa Way itself and also wanted to -- I guess have -- you know, larger size lot on Mesa Way as to be in -- within the R-2 zoning, as far as their dimensional standards go. And so snugging it up to here so that you -- I guess you would finish those lots as just common lots, giving it to this, and providing a nice amenity to these potential homeowners with the Ten Mile Creek and the ponds behind them. I'd like to say that I'm hoping that we can find a middle ground of what's acceptable for berming or vegetation, et cetera, I think that can be reached to mitigate the lights that would be shining into their driveway. And as far as construction, entrance goes, I'm not sure if it's something that Meridian Public Works tells where we can and cannot enter on a site. Do you know, Len? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I have seen you in prior instances designate a preferred construction route through a neighborhood, so -- I think it was just a condition of approval. De Weerd: Can you adjust some of the lot lines to position a house to help block that? Isn't it this curve that they are worried about or is it down here? I have it upside down. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: A couple of questions. I have -- I'll get back to the concern on the trash while the construction's going on, but is there any way you could bring that road and bring it out on Mesa Way, like down south -- come down there. You can have -- you can stub it and bring it right down and bring it out there. Is there any houses there that would be hitting it or is it too close to the -- Cronin: I believe ACHD -- I can't recall exactly what their offset distance is, but it makes more sense to push it further back up into it, so that -- so you could build it behind and, then, the roadway here itself. Bird: And getting back to the trash -- and this is -- this is definitely -- has always been a problem when you have existing places and you try to build and it seems like the wind always wants to blow directly into the existing place -- homes. I would like to see along Mesa Way atemporary -- you can use the plastic fence, but put it up not just -- you know, not throw it up, but put it up so that it's solid and that will stop 75 percent of the trash. It's not going to stop it all, but at least it's showing that you're willing to work with those neighbors and, you know, it's horrible for those people that come out into their yards and have a bunch of trash sitting there and Iwould -- I'm like the Mayor, I'd like to Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 36 of 74 see if there is any way that we could change that road, but I love the size of your lots along there, too, so -- Cronin: As far as the fencing goes during construction, there is no problem putting a temporary fence along the site and, then, for the -- for the infrastructure and, then, during -- before the -- I guess the final plat would be signed you have the needed landscape requirements with -- and there is a proposed fence along Mesa Way that would be permanent with not slats -- you now, I'm not exactly sure what exact type of fence, but more permanent and block the trash from shingles and builder materials, et cetera. Bird: And Idon't -- I don't know, I think we have -- as Mrs. Canning said, we have designated on approval and we are asking for a development agreement on this. I would like to see it be Victory Road construction entrance on and off, not Mesa. That's not areal -- you know, it's not a big wide road there, Mesa isn't. Cronin: Okay. De Weerd: I guess I just have a question as to there is not very many houses on that road. Do you need an outlet to Mesa Way right there? Can you shift that -- that other lot and just block off that connection? No one trusts me with a pointer. Cronin: Anna, could I have the preliminary plat slide? De Weerd: On that one right here, if you just close that one off and kind of wrap your lots around -- Cronin: And cul-de-sac it? De Weerd: Yeah. I don't know if ACHD requires you to have that, but there is not a whole lot of lots that that road supports that you couldn't just use Victory Road. Canning: Madam Mayor, it would exceed our cul-de-sac length requirements. De Weerd: Well -- and they'd need to seek a variance for road length. Bird: Block length. De Weerd: Block length. I don't know. It was just an uneducated guess at a solution. Cronin: I had -- this was brought up at the neighborhood meeting and I went ahead and called Lori Den Hartog at Ada County Highway District and expressed to her the concern with this and the fact that that would be an extremely long cul-de-sac coming in here and she said ACHD likes the interconnectivity of it, you know, through the subdivision, more than one access point out, especially when you have got a natural barrier of the canal itself and currently we just want to cross it at one point and that way Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 37 of 74 you're not having everything stem within the subdivision directly out to here. Now, the majority of these lots -- I would say somewhere in this vicinity, will exit or potentially exit out to Mesa Way, whereas these would continue out here, so a potential for a lot of traffic is not as if this individual would be exiting out there, so I did speak with someone at Ada County Highway District regarding that and how -- and, then, also as Anna said, there is a variance need requested and that's a pretty substantial length. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Is there any way the existing house stays -- is there any way -- how far if we -- if we move it -- yeah, a hundred feet, is that going to go -- is that going to help get the lights out of the living room? Is there enough room there at that existing house that you could drop that road down -- I know it would enlarge your lot to the north and probably take your lot to the south down a little bit, but, you know, how many feet do you have to move it? It's going to be pretty tough to move their entryway and stuff I would think. I mean it looks like their house is set for that entryway and if you change it around, then, their -- and I don't feel that -- you sound like you want to work with them. I don't feel that it's something that they should be penalized while -- for this development and I think it's something that we can work through in this development. Cronin: Yeah. And I wish I had that slide, I had printed it off that had the overlay of the subdivision on the existing aerial photo and it's further north than I really thought and another reason we -- I mean not -- if anything, I think they'd prefer to move it north and in doing so they still didn't think that the -- that moving it 30 some feet would even help it, so -- but I believe there might be a little bit of adjustment to see how far north we could get it to go and still meet the roadway requirements for Ada County Highway District. Bird: Well, the nice thing about it, the developer and the neighbors are willing to work through it. Nobody is being hardheaded about it. De Weerd: Tell me if this light shaded area, is that a flood plain? Cronin: Five hundred zone X in the FEMA designation and this blue area here, which is the Ten Mile, is the one hundred year flood plain and currently our layout shows one or two lot corners sitting there and Mr. Cole of Meridian Public Works spoke of it last time, that, one, you just slide those lot lines south so they are not in that hundred year or we would be required to get a -- to have a flood certification completed. So, once that's identified further, we are not going to be within the flood plain, so -- but this is 500 year on their designation. De Weerd: And when was the last flood? Are you okay with that, Len? Grady: Madam Mayor -- Meridian City Council • May 23, 2006 Page 38 of 74 De Weerd: It was 499 years ago. u Grady: I was briefed just before -- just before this meeting and, apparently, we have looked at it and concur with what he said, so -- De Weerd: So, what he said, uh? Grady: They either need to adjust those lines or confirm that there is no impact on the flood way. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: That will be stated on the final plat, so that all purchasers of lots and stuff don't get any surprises or don't have some real estate person telling them they are not in the flood plain. Grady: I think that's an excellent idea. Bird: Thank you. De Weerd: Did -- Len, just one more thing. Did we do test drills? What is the water situation out there? High water table? Will we have issues with water underneath the homes or anything like that? Cronin: We did contact MTI and we had them do a preliminary ground report -- or groundwater report based on what they had seen in the area and they indicated from their previous knowledge that there was instances of shallow groundwater anywheres from one to three feet and as we move forward, if we move forward, a complete geotechnical investigation would be taken forth and find out where the exact groundwater table is and I believe the City of Meridian's requirement is -- is a three foot separation from the crown within the roadway to the high water ground table water. So, at that point if we had to bring the roadways up to meet that requirement, the lot fill would be the same to alleviate having I guess crawl spaces in danger of high groundwater fluctuating. De Weerd: So, no basements. Cronin: No. Definitely not. De Weerd; Any other questions from Council? Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 39 of 74 Bird: I have none. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Cronin: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, if there is no further information needed, I would entertain a motion to close. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we close the Public Hearing on Items 13 and 14. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close on Items 13 and 14. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Any discussion or do I have a motion? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I will make a motion and try to include all the things that we have talked about. I move that we approve Item 13, AZ 06-014, to include applicant's specific comments regarding temporary fencing, direct construction -- preferred construction entrance off of Victory. The applicant's agreement to off-site improvements to adjacent property west in an effort to mitigate specific light intrusion. I think that covers most everything. And to address these in the development agreement. Bird: I will second that. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve with the changes as noted. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Item 14. Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 40 of 74 Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we approve Item 14, PP 06-002. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 14. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Gorton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 15: Public Hearing: AZ 06-005 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 58.56 acres from RR to R-4 (32.86 acres), TN-C (14.54 acres) and C-C (11.16 acres) for Knight Skv Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC - northwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Linder Road: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval Item 16: Public Hearing: PP 06-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 126 residential lots (22 townhouse lots and 102 detached single-family lots), 7 commercial lots and 26 common lots on 55.83 acres in a proposed R-4, TN-C and C-C zones for Knight Skv Estates Subdivision by Sea 2 Sea, LLC -northwest corner of Chinden Boulevard and Linder Road: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Items 15 and 16 are public hearings, AZ 06-005 and PP 06-004. I will open this with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Knight Sky Estates project. It's located on the northwest corner of Chinden and Linder Road. It is an annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat request. The project includes the annexation and zoning of 58.56 acres to =- and that's broken out into three zones. One is R-4 and that would be 32.86 acres. TNC, which is 14.54 acres. And C-C, which would be 11.16 acres. This would be the R-4 designation. The TNC designation. And the C-C designation. The preliminary plat would give approval for 126 residential building lots, seven commercial building lots, and 26 common lots on 55.83 acres. Approximately 9.1 acres or 16 percent of the site is being set aside for open space. 6.2 of that -- 6.2 percent of that open space is considered usable. The rest of the open space is either used for street buffers or drainage areas. The gross residential density is 2.26. I was going to add the residential density for the R-4 area and I -- perhaps the applicant can include that as part of his discussion. I think it was around three. The proposed commercial square footage, even though they are proposing some commercial lots and those are the kind of dark green area here, they have not provided any specific site plans at this time. It would provide about 12 acres of commercial property. The Meridian City Council • • May 23, 2006 Page 41 of 74 applicant is proposing one access to Chinden Road at the half mile. There is no need for the variance, because it is at the half mile. And it aligns with Long Lake Way in Lochsa Falls Subdivision. You can see that access point coming out here. Staff has recommended some provisions to be included within a development agreement, other than the standard ones. Those include that all future development of the TNC and the C-C zoned lots be subject to design review approval. And part of that is because all of them face a state highway, so that's required anyway. And that all TNC lots contain structures that are at least two stories tall. That prior to issuance of any building permit the subject property be subdivided. So, before any new projects go through that the -- that the plat does get completed and approved. The only one public access had no direct lot access to Chinden Boulevard would be allowed. And, then, prior to signature on the final plat at the last phase of the development by the city engineer, the applicant shall obtain a 20 foot wide sanitary sewer easement through the out parcel located in the northwest corner of the property and -- or to coordinate with the Public Works Department on an acceptable alternative plan to facilitate decommissioning the lift station when gravity sewer is available to the site. So, as you can tell from that condition they are proposing a lift station and it is a concern of the Public Works Department that that be able to come off line when gravity sewer is available. And I'll let Len speak in a moment if he has additional information on that point. The Commission recommendation was for approval at their April 6th hearing. Shawn Nickel and Brian Martin spoke in favor of the application. Allen Ward, Larry Woodard, Faud Rothani, Brad Larsen, Ken Mallea, Tom Holloway, and Lydia Agare spoke in opposition and no one commented. Key issues of discussion by the Commission were the density, traffic, sewerability, and decommissioning the proposed temporary lift station and irrigation water service to Brandt Subdivision, which is just north of this property. You can see that it's a single loaded road, kind of an in and out there, and a number of large estate lots. These are smaller estate lots in this area just south of it. Key Commission changes to the staffs initial recommendation were they deleted the requirement for a stub street to the north and that was into the five acre Almaden Subdivision. I'm sorry. This one's Brandt. This one's Almaden. And the other change was to the development agreement and it was per the applicant's offer and that was -- that offer was to construct a six foot tall solid fence along the entire boundary of the subdivision. Mr. Nickel also offered to provide irrigation water to the homeowners in Brandt Subdivision, in addition to the -- those were -- offerings were included in the development agreement. The outstanding issues for City Council, one is the need for the easement through the out parcel on the northwest corner. That parcel is part of the Spurwing development and that would tie into that subdivision. Administrative issues pertaining to United Water serving this development. As you are aware, City Council decided that the United Water would serve everything north of Chinden and this would -- this is the first application north of Chinden that the Council has considered. Clarification on how irrigation water will be provided to the Brandt Subdivision homeowners. And also the applicant did submit a revised preliminary plat, which incorporated most of the changes required by staff. However, it added three residential lots and it was -- we had asked for kind of a reconfiguration of this area of the townhouse area, so that it met the -- qualified as a MEW design, so that it could take advantage of the private streets and in doing that they -- they had to shuffle things around and to make it work you really need to add Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 42 of 74 three units, but they have shown those three units, but staff has added a specific condition of approval that they not have more than 126 building lots, because that's what the application came in. So, they'd have to come in for a future application for those additional lots. So, staff further recommends that one of the townhouse groupings that contains four dwellings be platted as one large lot. So, basically, where these are townhouses, one of those that shows four -- and they are on the end here -- needs to just be platted as one lot and, then, they can come in and re-subdivide it later. And with that I will turn it over to Mr. Grady. Grady: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I did speak briefly with the applicant this afternoon and just a couple of issues. Like Anna mentioned, the easement issue we want to make sure that we are not boxed in and have that temporary lift station for perpetuity. So, we either need to come up with that easement or lift -- move the lift station around that out parcel or whatever combination they can come up with to insure that that doesn't dead end there. In addition, we would like the homeowners association to own and operate that lift station. And, third, it is to come up with an acceptable assurance for abandonment of that lift station and the pressure sewer that goes along with that. The United Water issue, just some clarification. We don't actually have a final agreement north of Chinden. It's -- at this point we are -- we took that agreement in two steps and the second step is to finalize that agreement. So, at this point it's really more of a gentleman's agreement that they have backed off of the south and we have backed off of the north. But we don't have an actual final agreement with United Water north of Chinden, so clarification there. De Weerd: Thank you, Len. Any questions for staff? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: May I address that? I -- because I didn't think -- I didn't think we would ever set any standard with United Water. I get a real heartache. If we are going to sewer, we are going to water. Any agreement we had talked to them before -- before this area north of Chinden, any of it was put into our impact area -- was asked to be put into our impart area. I have a real problem with somebody else supplying water and us doing the sewer. Especially when it's our people or our impact area, our city limits, which they are asking for now. So, that's one councilman's viewpoint. De Weerd: Councilman Bird, I guess what Mr. Grady was talking about is when they brought the map -- pretty much the most -- most of the discussion was south of our area of impact and this was one area that was the piece that we said United Water could serve, since they were already over there. And that was just a couple months ago. That's -- when we had that discussion -- Grady: That's correct. They have facilities in that area. It was more or less a trade. They backed off of the Black Rock and all of that south area. In return, like I say, they Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 43 of 74 do have services readily available there. We didn't at that time. So, that was the trade off with United Water and we would have to -- we have discussed and are pushing forward with working with -- towards a franchise agreement with United Water. We felt it was one of those that will -- it just wasn't worth the fight on that one. And like I say, in exchange for the south area. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: If we are going to -- if you're going to make an agreement with them, let's make sure the agreement is -- that once the water gets out on North Meridian Road to Chinden that the Catholic Church goes away from them and comes to us. Grady: Interesting enough, the Catholic -- I spoke with the Catholic Church here not too long ago and they expressed interest in our sewer system and converting back over to our water system. Bird: Okay. De Weerd: Is that enough? Do you have any -- Bird: I don't agree with it, but it's enough right now. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Any other questions for staff at this point? Okay. Is the applicant here? Nickel: Thanks again, Madam Mayor and Council Members. Shawn Nickel, 839 East Winding Creek, Suite 201, in Eagle. De Weerd: Thank you. Nickel: Representing the developer of the Knight Sky Subdivision. I passed out a packet to you this evening that just shows some concepts of single family, the townhouse product, the clubhouse, and the entranceway, just for your viewing. Thank staff for providing the information in the staff report to you. They did a very thorough job. We are asking for annexation with an R-4, and TNC, and a C-C zoning to allow for this high end mixed use development. We designed this development, you can see, to transition from busy Highway 20-26 as it moves north, providing transitional with the townhouses, the office and commercial, and, then, single family detached along that transition to the larger subdivision lots that are to our north and to our east. The townhouses and -- there is a picture in there, the concept plan, if Anna wants to put that up, please. The townhouses will be attached -- the townhouses will be attached, will be alley loaded. Each of them will face common area and water features. That was one of the revisions that your staff had recommended that we came through with at -- prior to P&Z was to provide that those MEW-type concepts and in your packet I have some Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 44 of 74 examples of how those MEWs look with the attached units fronting onto them. The office and commercial will also be high quality and will be -- will attract such uses as professional offices, light retail, restaurant, and a fuel station on the corner of Linder and Chinden. Here is an example on the screen there of how the MEWs look, only our views will have -- actually have water features inside of them. But as you can see, the units will face out on that open space. The garages will be in the back, accessed through a private alleyway. The transportation system is designed with acollector -- Anna, could you put back up the site plan? I'm sorry. There you go. Thanks. The transportation system is designed to meet ITD's requirements of a backage road. This would be a collector road that would connect from Linder and out to the existing light that's at Long Lake at the half mile where Lochsa comes in on the other side of this street. The internal access has been designed based on discussions with the fire department, specifically for emergency access within that loop road system. And the cul-de-sacs are designed providing access to all those single family lots. And these are the private roads that go around the townhouse portion of the project. Again, the single family homes in the north area will be upper end quality. I did provide you with some examples in your packets. The open space is designed around this area right here. As you can see, we have pathways throughout connecting all the cul-de-sacs and focusing on this center area that has, in addition to water features, a clubhouse, park area here and here, and a swimming pool, that will be accessed by all the residents of the development. In addition, I have provided you with just an example of the water features that you will see at the intersection of the northwest corner of Linder and Chinden. We are viewing this as a gateway type of development, the gateway to Meridian, so those examples that I gave you you can see I just put a little welcome to Meridian -- De Weerd: Anna, do you want to put that on there? Nickel: A little welcome to Meridian sign on the one that is actually going to be on the southwest corner of the intersection that this developer is also doing, welcome to Meridian right there. This is just an example of what that corner will look like across street and, then, on the northwest side that we are talking about tonight, water feature with that entrance quality look to it. Borton: Shawn? Nickel: Yes, sir. Borton: Could I interrupt just a second? Nickel: Absolutely. Borton: based on that picture you just had up there, I just wanted to ask you a question about and I know it came up before. Is the applicant in agreement to provide -- I guess in this case on the northwest corner, provide that gateway consistent with the gateway committee that's -- Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 45 of 74 Nickel: Absolutely. Borton: -- deciding that issue? Nickel: Yeah. Gorton: And that's not necessarily -- is that what that's going to look like? Nickel: No. It's just to give you an example of how it could look. We will work in coordination with that committee. Absolutely. Borton: Okay. Thank. Nickel: Sorry, Anna. Can you jump back to the site plan? Regarding the transitional lots, a lot of consideration was given to the lots around the perimeter, specifically with the one acre lots in Brandt Estates and the five lots to the north of the project that are existing, what we did we tried to keep the eastern boundary at a minimum of 10,000 square foot lots and we tried to keep the ratio at about one and a half for every one lot that existed along the boundary right there to provide as much transition to those existing neighbors. On the north side -- these are five acre lots. Quite long. So, we kept the lots that are immediately adjacent to those lots at approximately a half acre in average and, then, along these open space areas in the corners we kept those and one of the requests from your Planning and Zoning Commission staff was to keep those at a minimum of 15,000 square feet. So, we lost one lot prior to Planning and Zoning and made up for them with adding those other existing lots on the boundary. We have been working with the neighbors, both the neighborhood meeting and sat down with a couple of them off and on and, then, after the ACHD meeting and the Planning and Zoning Commission meetings, just to keep trying to get their input on the development, what can we do to enhance their quality of life, because as we know they were there first, we are coming in, we are trying to be a compatible neighbor. So, issues of berming, fencing, we removed a pathway along the north boundary per the request of the neighbors to the north. Again, staff indicated to fence the entire boundary with a six foot solid fence. We have agreed to provide irrigation to the Brandt Subdivision. And, then, clarifications were made at the Planning and Zoning Commission and, then, again, after with the neighbors in the hallway about how drainage would be taken care of. And if you have any additional questions, Brian Martin from Toothman-Orton is available. He's the engineer for the project. And he can come up and address those questions. Traffic seems to be the major concern -- or one of the major concerns out in this area, as it is everywhere in the valley. A traffic study was performed by the developer -- or hired by the developer and turned into ACHD and the city. The projected levels of this development were acceptable by ACHD. I believe you have a copy of that in your staff report. We submitted a request to ITD to have aright-in, right-out only access at the quarter mile on Chinden and were rejected by that. We thought that it would be nice to have another -- at least aright-in, right-out out at that point. ITD said no. So, we removed that from our plan. Still, we feel that with the access to this existing stop light Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 46 of 74 here on Chinden and the access and the spacing that we have provided between the corner of -- or the intersection of Chinden and our entrance, that we have provided a safe traffic system for this development. In addition, we are providing the full one hundred foot right of way along our entire frontage on Chinden, as requested by ITD. We are also providing additional right of way along Linder. We are constructing a left turn lane as was requested by our highway -- or by our traffic study. In addition to other improvements along Linder, including detached sidewalk. Again -- De Weerd: Shawn? Nickel: Yes. De Weerd: Can I ask you -- did you say you're donating the right of way on 20-26? Nickel: We are providing the right of way. We are -- I guess we are donating it, because there is no -- nothing in place for them to purchase that, so we are providing with the platting of this development that hundred feet from center line along the entire frontage of -- I'm sorry. We are setting it aside for future acquisition, I guess. De Weerd: It would sure be nice if you donated it. Nickel: I think they heard you. However, we are -- assuming that that will go some day to ITD, we designed our development to exclude -- De Weerd: Well -- and the reason I'm saying that is we have pulled together a group from Meridian to Caldwell that is working to escalate this as a priority. In order for us to do that, we have to come up with certain match money, which we are working with a congressional appropriations request right now and that was one of the mechanisms to convincing Congress that this would be a worthy project, so -- and that's the only reason I'm asking. Nickel: I'm not even going to turn around and look at them -- De Weerd: Okay. Nickel: -- because I know that they will work with the city and ITD when it's appropriate to get -- so that portion gets transferred somehow. De Weerd: Thank you. You didn't get shot yet. Nickel: No. No. The concerns of your staff -- we did submit a revised preliminary plat. I think we addressed most of the concerns of the city staff, including the redesign of the townhouse areas. We did remove the stub to the north that was testified negatively by the neighbors. They did not want a stub to the north. ACRD also did not recommend that stub. So, the Planning and Zoning Commission did take that out. We also scaled back -- the staff had requested that we just keep the corner as the community Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 47 of 74 commercial zone and have the rest of it be the TNC and so we accommodated that and we will accommodate that with our rezone legal description. So, that TNC will stop right there and this will be the community commercial just on the corner. And added a stub street to the three acre out parcel that Spurwing currently owns in this area right here. We did talk to Len this afternoon and Brian Martin also talked to him and we will work with Public Works on determining the exact location of that lift station. Staff is recommending that we do a development agreement with this application and so I think that's the perfect place to put that type of language on the decommissioning of that lift station at a future date, that the developer and the city would be in agreement upon -- through that contract. And we can talk -- we can talk about that in more detail if you have any questions about that. But we will work with your Public Works Department on setting up the maintenance, setting up the decommissioning of the lift station. And, finally, the Comprehensive Plan as you know was recently changed in this area to a combination of medium density residential and mixed use, with an anticipated density of the three to eight dwelling units per acre. And, again, this development as designed is 2.26 dwelling units per acre. The comment that you had from your Planning and Zoning Commission about density was they were complimenting us on the fact that we did have a lower density than what was -- what we could have asked for based on the Comp Plan designation. I think we have got a nice development here. I think it's something that's going to do the city proud and I would request that you approve it this evening. Thank you very much. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions for the applicant? Bird: I have none. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Shawn, I think you said it, but might have missed it. Are these areas -- are those bermed areas or are those open sort of -- Nickel: These will actually be a combination of landscape and drainage areas back in the back right here. It will be open and, like I said, landscaped, but there is some drainage that will be back there as well. Borton: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Nickel: Thank you. De Weerd: I do have a number of people that have signed up. When I call your name if you'd like to provide testimony, please, come forward. Allen Ward. Signed up against. Okay. Thank you. If you will, please, state your name and address. Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 48 of 74 Ward: Allen Ward. 6598 North Barney Lane, Meridian, Idaho. De Weerd: Thank you. Ward: A couple of concerns -- well, a few concerns I have is, first off, I'd like to say that we are not -- I live in Brandt Subdivision. We are not opposed to development of the property, I'm just opposed to, basically, the density and the traffic that's going to be there. Density is when the first -- first and only meeting that I knew of that the developers met with us, they said that they were putting half acre lots in there and a 10,000 square foot lot to me isn't a half acre, but we would like to see that -- these are half, these five. These are all 10,000 feet and smaller, I guess. What we would like to see is -- all the residents would like to see at least one acre lots, minimum 40,000 square feet, backing up to the subdivisions that are there already, just because that's the real community that we have already and if you want to go -- we'd like to see the whole development in one acre lots, but if we can't do that, we would like to see at least the perimeter all one acre with a minimum of 40,000 feet and the interior as half acre lots, only nothing smaller. Traffic is a big concern, because Linder right now, as you know, is very busy. It backs up clear back to here on -- in the morning and the evenings and here passed this light in the evening, the light -- the traffic is there already and my understanding is this development will put almost 4,000 cars a day through here. The proposed big box store here is -- will put an entrance right there and they are proposing 10,000 cars there a day. This commercial here is proposing about five or -- I believe it's seven -- I don't know for sure -- here and, then, they are proposing another big box store on this corner. So, you can see the traffic is going to be a big deal and if they make this five lanes, which they are proposing, it's going to be really hard to get into our subdivision and, then, if you put all these cars into here -- and by making this bigger lots, you reduce the traffic down to less than a thousand cars that come in and out through that subdivision. I'd also like to propose that this road here be moved that comes in and it comes along here, so you put it along the residential lots that are there, so the existing homes have to deal with the noise and the lights and the -- all hours of the night and -- but that's up here out of the way and so that I'd rather have -- if this has to be -- I don't remember the zoning they have, but like a restaurant or a dentist's office, I'd rather see the back of that versus roads and pedestrians that come through here all hours of the night against our properties that have been there for awhile. These drainage ponds here, I don't understand, I guess, why they put them up against existing subdivisions. They could put those in their subdivision, so that we don't have to deal with the runoff. The -- I live right here. My well is about 15 feet off the property line there. They say that that is a safe drainage pond. I would agree with that, but there always is that possibility of failure right next to a well. And if this is going to be a gas station, all pavement mostly, any runoff is going to go there and eventually some year that's going to fail, then -- De Weerd: Sir, if you can summarize your remarks. Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 49 of 74 Ward: Oh, I'm done? Oh, I'm sorry. So, basically, larger lots to reduce traffic. Move this road to here, so it's not up here. Consolidate the drainage ponds somewhere within the subdivision over here, so that the existing people don't have to deal with the traffic, the water, and all the problems that they don't want with inside here. De Weerd: And, sir, if you could -- can you point where -- which lot is yours? Ward: Sorry. I shake too much. De Weerd: Thank you. Ward: Thank you. De Weerd: Any questions, Council? Okay. Thank you. Lydia Agare. Signed up against. Agare: Mayor de Weerd and Council Members, I live on 1895 Almaden, so I'm on the northeast corner of the subdivision that they are proposing and -- Nary: Name? Agare: -- I'm fine with development going in. Nary: Name for the record. Agare: I just -- De Weerd: I gave her name. Nary: Okay. Agare: I just think that the density issue is the only issue that I have. I would like to propose two acres along our five acre subdivision. We have livestock. We have horses. Our whole subdivision is five acres. So, to have that kind of density next to five acre lots I think is much too dense. So, what we are proposing -- what I'd like to propose is two acre lots on the perimeter and one acre lots in the center. But the rest of the subdivision I don't have a problem with. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Agare: Thank you. De Weerd: I believe it's Jane Lee or Jan Lee -- Lee: Jim Lee. Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 50 of 74 De Weerd: Jim. Sorry. I couldn't read your printing. Lee: I'm Jim Lee. I live at 1895 Almaden, which in the northeast corner on a five acre sub. De Weerd: Thank you. Lee: Good evening, Madam Mayor and City Council Members. Just a few deals here. We all knew that growth was coming and the traffic issues and all the complaints. We have all heard them all. So, I'm opposed to this project only to the density. These guys have been pretty decent guys to work with. I think they will do a good job. I just -- if you look at Chinden as you come down -- if you start at Eagle Road you have Banbury, one acre, one and a half acre. You go next to Spyglass, one and a half acres. You're headed west. Next one is Canterbury, I believe. One and a half. One acre. Then, you get to Fox Tail. Same situation. And, then, you come to this deal and that's, really, my only gripe about it is the density and they have agreed to -- up on the north corner, north borderline there, to increase the size of lots to half acre, but I'd like to see those larger. The fellow before me said you have got the box store coming in. On the northeast corner there is a new high school going on South Linder. So, just the way this thing is is probably 140 lots, so there is 300 cars a day that we are throwing into the mess of Linder and Chinden already. And so by reducing that -- you know, increasing the lot size, maybe we would reduce some of the cars. But, anyway, that's about all I have to say. Thank you for your time and consideration. De Weerd: Thank you. Lee: And, Mr. Bird, I liked your idea about the construction fence. So, I'd like to put in that here, too, because we are going to be fighting that northbound border. De Weerd: Thank you. Larry Woodard. Woodard: My name is Larry Woodard. I live at 1701 Almaden. I'm in one of the five acre lots right there on Linder. They have already talked about the density issue, so I won't cover that. But here is a broader picture that I'd like to paint and that is at the corner of Linder and Chinden now is a problem and with Eagle coming with this big box store on the northeast corner, this subdivision on the northwest and other mayor projects on the other two corners, we have just got a bottleneck and I'm just wondering if somehow the county, ITD, and the city -- the two cities can't get together and kind of work on this thing. Because we have got a problem now of backed up traffic all four directions and it's just going to get worse. So, that's my only concern. De Weerd: Thank you, Larry. Brad Larsen. Larsen: Madam Mayor, Council. Brad Larsen. 2306 Riviera. Also in the five acre subdivision to the north. My concerns have been addressed and so in the interest of time I will just say that, but I want to go on record as having the same concerns and -- of Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 51 of 74 traffic and the transition -- they made an effort to transition, but it's so out of character with everything else that's north of Chinden that it still doesn't -- doesn't really blend in with the environment that it's being placed in and so if that transition from five acre lots - - you know, you go to a half acre lot, that's a ten to one ratio right there. It just doesn't seem like it's a very smooth transition. So that's all. De Weerd: Thank you. And Evelyn Petty. No, we can bring that microphone if you can't make it up here. You do need to speak into the microphone. And if you will state your name and address for the record. Petty: Evelyn Petty. 2101 Almaden Drive. I am in the very middle of the north boundary on my five acre parcel. And my concern is the density of the whole subdivision that is being proposed. We have horses and we know that we will be developed, but not to that extent. It was mentioned the other properties along the north Chinden are acres, acre and a half, and they are nice. And we had no idea that we was going to end up with something like this in back of us. And thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Those are the names that were on the list. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony on this application? Sorry. Sorry, sir. If you would like to come and provide testimony, you're welcome to come forward. We can't get you on the record back there. Council? If you will, please, state your name and address. Martin: Madam Mayor and City Council Members, my name is Brian Martin. I'm with Toothman-Orton Engineering Company. One of the things I wanted to address -- maybe clarify more than anything. Could you put the site plan back up there? One of the things is that I did talk with Public Works this afternoon and one of the issues was this proposed sewer lift station that we are proposing up in this area. What we did early on with this development is we met with public works and looked at their overall sewer master plan and what it generally shows is the sewer system basically draining kind of in a northwest direction just somewhere up in this general area, up here for afuture -- when this future infrastructure come into the west to be able to tie into that. And so at the P&Z level we did meet and this issue came up and so we had proposed it up in this common lot area in here, which is a -- it's a storm detention swale area that would be dry, you know, most of the time, with the exception of after a storm event and those things would typically drain, you know, 24 to 48 hours afterwards. And so what we thought we could do is just within this common lot put in a sewer lift station here, but we also agreed that certainly we have enough flexibility in here we could relocate the sewer lift station and we could easily put it, you know, further back down in this direction here. So, that when this three acre piece here is developed with Spurwing, it would be an easy transition. We had proposed a stub road up in this location. We could easily put a stub road anywhere along this area here and I think we could easily incorporate into this common lot the sewer lift station. I think one of the things that that would do is, then, in the future as this stub road is extended in the future, it would be an easy connection. We would have a -- already have a stub right there. The homeowners association -- the homeowners association is developed for the subdivision. They are willing to own and Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 52 of 74 operate the system. They would just pay somebody to maintain the system and, then, I think as part of -- most likely as part of the homeowners association dues they could also put aside some funds to be able to decommission that lift station in the future. The other issue I wanted to address -- the thing that's misstated a few times -- these areas here we have provided up in these corners some retention swales, storm water retention swales. These are not pond areas. These are areas that are -- and we, actually -- you know, the reason we actually did this was to actually provide along these larger lots an actual landscape area. These things are going to be provided with trees or shrubs, grass, and these things are going to be dry most of the time. As far as the domestic wells down in this area, by all means if -- we are going to meet any horizontal separation requirements that DEQ requires, as well as any vertical separation the DEQ requires. De Weerd: Okay. Sir, can you summarize or you can be part of the closing remarks. Martin: I think that's it. I think that's pretty much it. The only other thing I'd like to address would be both Chinden and Linder are proposed for five lanes and they would - - you know, certainly as part of that they would also look specifically at all these intersections to be able to handle those specifically with turn lanes and so on. De Weerd: The only problem is it's a matter of when, so -- Martin: I believe -- I believe that Linder is on -- I think it's on ACHD's five year plan. ITD -- I know that we are currently doing a traffic study along the whole corridor, a corridor study, and I think it's going to be -- at some point they will be looking to acquire that right of way, probably in the next two or three years, I'm guessing. De Weerd: We need it yesterday. Martin: I know. De Weerd: Mr. Ward, if you have a few more remarks, certainly, you're invited forward. We usually don't do this. Okay. That's fine. If you will just state your name again for the record. Ward: Allen Ward. De Weerd: Thank you. Ward: I just I guess wanted to say that Ada County is saying that they will do this here pretty quick, within five years or so, make it five lanes and Chinden to five lanes. My concern is that when they do that, the commercial here is going to be really hard to get in and out, this street that's here, because you have got five lanes that are going to go back up into here somewhere and with this proposed store here and an entrance to that, they are going to match it up to here they say with this street here, so you will have traffic trying to go in here and in here and they have admitted that maybe there is a Meridian City Council • • May 23, 2006 Page 53 of 74 concern that these are going to be hard to sell lots, because the traffic -- you can't get in and out. So, I'm back to this street here, I guess, again, saying that a lot of the traffic's going to come here and with these being commercial all hours of the night you have lights, delivery trucks, garbage trucks, backed up against a subdivision there that there is light shining all hours of the night and stuff and, then, these -- also that these can be two story buildings up to -- I don't know how many square feet, 20,000 I think I read. So, you have these big large buildings here with lots of lights and stuff up against a residential small subdivision. That's all I wanted to add. De Weerd: Thank you. Ward: Thanks. De Weerd: Okay. Is there any further testimony? Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Anna. Do you want to provide testimony? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members -- just to comment on one of the questions that was raised. Council may not be aware of it. One of the developers that is proposing development along north of Chinden is trying to organize a group of developers to proactively get some of the road improvements done, working with ACHD to see if they can expedite some of those improvements. So, it's nothing concrete yet, but there was that concern expressed and I wanted the Mayor and Council to know that there is one developer taking the lead to try and get some of that done. De Weerd: And that goes as well to the cities along Chinden, 20-26, it's been recognized this is a problem, folks, and certainly we need to do everything we can to escalate it as a priority for ITD and I certainly know that they have a full plate and limited funds that the group from Meridian to Caldwell and all of the highway districts are banning together to see what we can do to make this a higher priority. Thank you for that notation, Anna. Okay. Would the developer like to come -- Grady: Madam Mayor, just real quick, just one clarification that I wasn't sure I heard as far as abandonment of the lift station and pressure sewer. They were considering putting that over onto the homeowners association. That might be kind of a surprise for people to have to do that. We were kind of looking for some bonding for surety for that. I think it's reasonable for the homeowners association to own and operate it, but the abandonment is -- may be unreasonable, so you may consider that. De Weerd: Thank you. Closing remarks. Nickel: Thank you, again, Madam Mayor and Council. Shawn Nickel again for the record. The concerns of the density and traffic are well known by the developer. We -- from day one in the design of this through our first neighborhood meeting we knew we Meridian City Council • • May 23, 2006 Page 54 of 74 had a challenge to transition this existing area. One thing I'd like to point out is if you know anything about the nonfarm development process in Ada County, you're starting to see some of these come back in front of you when the open space of these developments start developing. The intent of the nonfarm development when the county was approving these was to cluster the one acre lots in one location and keep the open space intact for future development at urban densities once services were available. And that's what you're seeing in this situation. And I think you're seeing it also in the southern part of your city where you're seeing some of these nonfarm open spaces come back. So, there is always kind of a struggle to try to make these lots that we are creating in this urban area be compatible with what was approved 15 years prior. I think we have done a good job of that. When we met at our neighborhood meeting this development was actually a lot more dense. There was no -- never a plan for half acre lots on this development, with the exception of the transition lots along the north boundary. So, when you look at this and understand that the majority of the density is found right here along Highway 20-26 in those townhouses, these lots from the collector road north are a minimum of 8,000 square feet and, then, they transition up again to the half acre lots along this area right here. As Brian stated, in designing the drainage in this development, we were trying to provide as much buffering and open space as we could along this boundary and that's why we incorporated our drainage. If you have the drainage areas, these are not going to be giant, open, full standing water ponds, these are small one to two foot indentations within this open space area that's spread out, it's treated, and usually is dry most of the time, except for large rain events. Up here I think the neighbors would nod their head that they are not concerned about the drainage up there, they would prefer to have that additional buffer and that's why we designed it that way. With regards to, again, working with the neighbors, again, that's why we agreed to do a six foot high solid fence to try to eliminate some of the glare and what would come with commercial uses. With regards to two story buildings, these are going to provide a nice sound buffer to a very busy state highway to the north and so development is only going to improve that quality of life when it comes to noise and detriment from Highway 20-26. With regards to the traffic, we are in a very -- I have said this a couple times already -- are in a very unique situation here where you guys -- and you guys are seeing three corners, but we are seeing all four of these corners come in relatively at the same time to develop -- at least to design the development. About two months ago the four developers met with ITD and ACRD and we talked about the four corners and the improvements that each developer would be providing. I think that needs to be taken into consideration that all four of these corners within the next year to two are going to be providing right of way, partial improvements, turn lanes within the four corners and that's going to help that traffic in this general area. As far as the traffic as it goes out and it goes north and south, it's kind of -- it's a valley concern that we all get stuck in in traffic no matter where we are at. The developers and the builders are paying impact fees. The impact fees are set up to provide for future widenings and improvements of the street system, but I think everybody is overwhelmed and I applaud the Mayor, because I know she has been working on 20-26 as kind of a pet project to get the developers -- and Iwould -- I'll get with Anna afterwards and find out who -- what developer is trying to lead the charge to get these improvements sooner. I think my Meridian City Council • May 23, 2006 Page 55 of 74 developers here would also entertain that and try to, you know, get involved with that and see what can be done. De Weerd: Either that or we are going to have the developers the crossing guards to move traffic out in the intersection. That's to save money. Nickel: Right. And that's about all I have. If you have any -- if you have any other questions, again, I think we have taken our time and we have listened to what the neighbors had to say and we have got a very nice responsible development here that I believe meets the intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Shawn, tell me up on the north what size lots those are. Nickel: On the north side? Bird: Yeah. That abut up to the five acre lots. Nickel: These three right here that back up to the open spaces are 15,000 square feet. We have got a 22,600 square foot lot here. Twenty-two thousand three here. Twenty- one thousand nine. Nineteen thousand 400. And, then, 15,000 along this. Bird: So, basically, you have got to half acres and, then, we get smaller? Nickel: Correct. Bird: Thank you very much. De Weerd: Any other questions? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: Shawn, are those -- did you say 15,000 all along that -- Nickel: Fifteen thousand -- no. Fifteen thousand here and, then, these are 11 and 10 thousand. Gorton: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions, Council? Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 56 of 74 Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Shawn, will you -- Brandt Subdivision, are those one acre lots? Is that what somebody asked? De Weerd: Thank you. Nickel: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'd like to just -- the applicant has offered to put a six foot solid fence around the whole property. With regard to trash and stuff, I'd like to see that in the development agreement as a condition before any construction is started, if that is acceptable with the applicant. That will solve a lot of heartaches and phone calls from neighbors. I think the applicant's agreeable to that. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council that is a standard requirement. If they don't have a permanent perimeter fence we require construction fencing around any phase of a final plat. Bird: Before any building's done? Canning: Any vertical construction. Bird: Okay. De Weerd: Mr. Bird, does that answer that question? Bird: Yeah, it does. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Any other comments or questions for staff? Okay. I still have an open Public Hearing. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we close the public hearings on Items 15 and 16. Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 57 of 74 Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to close the Public Hearing on Items 15 and 16. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we approve Item 15, AZ 06-005 and to enter into a development agreement per staff recommendations and to include provisions by the developer for a six foot solid fence, in addition to include all statements from Public Works. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 15. Do I have a second? Bird: I will second it. De Weerd: Okay. Any discussion? Okay. Hearing none, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Item 16. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we approve Item 16, PP 06-004, preliminary plat and to include additional staff comments with regard to the townhouse lots. Is that correct? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, the current conditions of approval do address that. Wardle: In the current conditions of approval. Thank you. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 16. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg? Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 58 of 74 MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Items 17 and 18 are public hearings on AZ 06-010 and PP 06-008. I will open these two public hearings with staff comments. Canning: Just a moment, Madam Mayor. Mr. Wardle, Iwas -- I spoke in error. Apparently, Mr. Hood had asked you to add that as a provision for the maximum 126 residential lots. I'm sorry. I had read the incorrectly. I don't -- this is on the past item. I'm not sure what you want to do. De Weerd: Mr. Nary? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, you can move to reconsider your decision, since you have just made it, and include that if you wish. De Weerd: I think someone would have to go out and get the public and applicant, so -- if Council wishes to. Bird: Yeah. That's a big change. It might not change anything in our voting, but -- De Weerd: It is what was discussed. Bird: Yeah, it was what was discussed, but it's -- De Weerd: Okay. I did open Items 17 and 18. I will set them aside while we gather the former applicants or the applicant for the former -- Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: While we do that, procedurally, I move that we reconsider our decision on PP 06-004. Bird: I would second that. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion for reconsideration of Item 16. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Item 16 is up for reconsideration by a motion from Council and a second and all ayes. I would need to open the Public Hearing on this item. No? Wardle: Madam Mayor, I don't believe so. Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 59 of 74 De Weerd: Okay. Nary: You don't need to, because all you have is a motion to do. You don't have to take testimony. Bird: Just redo the motion. De Weerd: Okay. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move that we approve Item 16, PP 06-004, and to include all staff comments specific to the townhouse lots and to restrict this preliminary plat and final plat to a maximum of 126 lots. Is that correct? Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. You heard the motion. Any discussion? Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 17: Public Hearing: AZ 06-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 11.50 acres from RUT to a R-4 zone for Cardigan Bav Subdivision by Big River, LLC - 5450 and 5500 Larkspur Way: Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 06-008 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 28 building lots and 3 common lots on 11.50 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Cardigan Bav Subdivision by Big River, LLC - 5450 and 5500 Larkspur Way: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Items 17 and 18. Public hearings. I will open with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, sorry about that last one, by the way. This is the Cardigan Bay project. It's located east of Larkspur Way. And, then, west of Locust Grove. And north of Ustick -- McMillan. It is an application for annexation and zoning and preliminary plat approval. Just to give you some reference points, there was a project approved just to the south and recently one approved to the north. This is an old preliminary plat layer. They don't seem to go away. We haven't quite figured out how to make them go away, but where it looks like the stub street doesn't connect, it does. This is Tustin Subdivision. And, then, this is the Grant Lee property. So, the Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 60 of 74 actual subdivision is shown -- hard to see the boundaries. It comes down here and across like that. Is that correct? No. It's -- yes. That's correct. Sorry. It is 11.5 acres. In their original application proposed an R-4 zoning and there will be a little bit of discussion about that. The preliminary plat approval consists of 28 single family residential lots and three common lots. And the site currently has two homes, which are proposed to remain. They have put them on separate lots. I did want to point out that the -- the real unique feature about this property is that it did have access on Larkwood Lane and when the Tustin Subdivision came through we did require a stub street to the north. Although it was of great concern to the folks in the Larkwood Subdivision, because they were concerned that this public street would connect to Larkwood Place, which is a county road, built to county road standards. So, it's not the full improvement with curb, sidewalks, gutters, and all those things. But we were able to work with the applicant and with the Ada County Highway District to continue that road through the project and to provide a pedestrian connection to Larkwood, but to not have a public street connection. So, a number of the lots -- one, two, three, four, five -- six do take direct access to Larkwood, but all the remaining properties take access within the subdivision, which will connect to the north. And I wanted to point this out, because I think this question came up last week in a project -- the Hendrickson project that you saw and I wanted to show you that it does work providing those stub streets. We can work with the applicant and with ACHD to make those effective connections over time. The Planning and Zoning Commission heard this on April 20th -- or made their recommendation for approval at that time. At the Public Hearing Shari Stiles representing the applicant spoke in favor. No one spoke in opposition and no one commented. The key issues of discussion by the Commission were to change the zone of the lots fronting Larkwood Place. As I mentioned previously, they did originally request that the entire property be zoned R-4. We have asked that the properties that faced Larkwood have an R-2 zoning, which better reflects the actual size of the proposed lots. So, it would be two different zoning categories. And, then, with that would be a required minimum living area of 15,000 square feet. To our knowledge there are no outstanding issues before Council and I would answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any questions from Council? Would the applicant like to come forward. McKay: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions, 150 East Aikens, Suite B, in Eagle. I'm representing the applicant in this particular application. I know it's late, so I will be quick and brief, as much as possible. As Anna indicated, the parcel is in this configuration. There are two existing homes. These are estate-type homes that are consistent with the other homes that are along Larkwood, which is what we call kind of rural residential feel. There is no curb, gutter, or sidewalk on Larkwood Drive. In the neighborhood meeting we held with the residents of Larkwood, it was their request that we not make any vehicular connection to their subdivision and that we not install a discontinuous section of curb, gutter, and sidewalk. They thought it would ruin that rural feel that they have had out there over the past 15 years. Ada County Highway District was in agreement with us. I would like to mention in your staff report on page -- on 1.3.1 it Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 61 of 74 talks about sidewalks shall be installed in the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision, pursuant to UDC 11-3A-17. I want to make sure that although ACRD staff report clearly states that curb, gutter, and sidewalk is waived along our frontage on Larkwood, I don't want the staff report from Meridian to mandate that I install that, because it was the desire of the residents. In order to get the interconnectivity we are connecting to Tustin. This is where we will get sewer and water. We also are making a connection to Basin Creek, which was approved this evening. The Findings were approved. We have a pedestrian pathway that will come through here east and west, so we will have some interconnection. I have two pocket parks. One here and one located in this location. In order to break up this straight street here, we did provide like a small island for calming reasons and esthetics, so you can't see all the way down the street and it's just a straight shot. We will have some play equipment here and other than that we are at like six percent open space. As far as our density, we are 2.44 dwelling units per acre. That's our gross density. Up here at Basin Creek that was 2.96. So, we are well below theirs. The density here -- these lots -- I think it's 1.23 dwelling units per acre if we just isolate these lots here. They range in size from 25,750 square feet, all the way up to 40,000 square feet. So, we wanted to make sure that the lots were large, the homes built on them would be consistent with what's in that existing neighborhood. Here these particular lots are a range between 9,800 square feet and 11,900 square feet. Or 91 -- excuse me, 9,100 square feet to 11,900. We have an average of about 9,800 square feet. It's kind of a puzzle piece that connects this particular area. We feel that -- that we did the best that -- with what we have got to work with. We have worked with the neighbors and the adjoining developments to make sure that this fits and we think that it kind of finishes off this particular area. Do you have any questions? Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: Becky, are these -- and I can't tell. Are these two entire parcels open space? Is that what you're saying? McKay: Yes, sir. Borton: Okay. McKay: Yes. We stuck those kind of in the middle to break that block up, so it would be -- this would be a common lot here and another common lot located on the other side of the street. Borton: Okay. Got you. Thanks. McKay: Oh, one other thing I did forget to mention. A fencing -- the fencing issue. This resident is here this evening. We did agree that these lots will pay association dues to the Larkwood Homeowners Association, that they will also be subject to their protective Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 62 of 74 covenants when these homes are built, so that they can -- you know, they will be consistent with the rules and regulations that currently exist within Larkwood. Fencing. We need to discuss the fencing on this lot line and this lot line. Typically we go with the urban type fencing, six foot, solid type fencing along our perimeters, but here where we have an acre lot to the south of us and, then, we have got an acre lot here to the west of us, the applicant doesn't think that that's going to fit. So, he'd like to kind of work with the neighbors, you know, maybe they want something that's more rural looking, like a pole fence or something along that line. I don't know if the Council and the staff would grant us that latitude, but I'd like that option. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, we do not require perimeter fencing. So, they can propose the different types of fencing style with their final plat. McKay: Okay. Excellent. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions from Council? Anna -- I mean, I'm sorry, Becky, the open space lots, are those also drainage lots? McKay: Yes. They would -- the storm drainage, the property slopes like this. I'm hoping we can take the drainage back this way and this way. We do not have any groundwater in this area. I think we went down 13 feet and did not hit any groundwater. So, we shouldn't have any -- if we were to go with a pond, we shouldn't have any problems with a wet bottom or we could go subsurface. We have both options here. De Weerd: So, what kind of slope are you going to have? I mean is it going to look like a borrow pit? McKay: What I have been doing in the past is -- De Weerd: I'm sorry, that was not a politically correct question, but -- McKay: Is it going to be severely depressed? De Weerd: Yes. McKay: On some of these where I -- I consider them from a planning perspective severely depressed and esthetically unpleasing and unusable, then, my recommendation to the applicant and the engineer is that we use a combination of some subsurface retention via seepage bed and, then, bring that bottom elevation up of the pond. So, instead of being like five feet deep or eight feet deep, you know, we shallow them up, so that they are more mild, like three or four. We don't have a lot of hard surface area here. All the drainage here it will be in a borrow ditch, because that's what they do on these rural residential roadways. We just have this one street to contend with. There is about I think 28,000 square feet of open space between these two lots. If a pond will be too deep and unusable, I think your ordinance does not allow us to count it as open space; is that not correct, Anna? Meridian City Council • May 23, 2006 Page 63 of 74 Canning: Correct. If it has a wet bottom or if they -- if it has slopes in excess of three to one, then, they can't count it and they need to provide it elsewhere. McKay: Correct. So, that would, then, force us to go subsurface. De Weerd: What if it's -- if I can ask this. What kind of housing product are you going to have in that -- the single street portion of it? McKay: As far as size or architecture -- De Weerd: Size and type and -- yeah, architecture. McKay: Mr. Callister may be able to address that. I think his company will be building all the homes. He wasn't ready for that. De Weerd: If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Callister: I'm Dave Callister, 2873 West Wind Drive in Eagle. De Weerd: Thank you. Callister: We are a long ways from that, so we don't have specific plans, but the nature of this subdivision way before we got here is very large estate homes. So, they are probably going to be in the vicinity of 4,000 plus square feet estate homes with current designs, but county feel, because that's the area that we have. So, we are simply going to try to lay those things in a setting that we have, consistent with the setting that we have, so that folks that want to be there will want to buy the homes, so -- beyond that I don't have any specific plans. We don't have current customers or anything like that, so -- De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Becky. Were there any questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. I do have one person signed up. Craig Brumer? Bruneel: Bruneel. De Weerd: It's what? Bruneel: Bruneel. De Weerd: Bruneel. Sorry. I saw that as a B-r-u-m-e-r. Bruneel: I'm Craig Bruneel. 6395 North Larkwood Place. De Weerd: It's just my job to mutilate everyone's name. I feel that since my name is easily mutilated -- I apologize. Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 64 of 74 Bruneel: Not to worry. I'm used to it. That's okay. I was just here to make certain that the lots were included in our homeowners subdivision and subject to our covenants. So, I don't have anything else to say. De Weerd: Well, thank you. Is there any additional testimony? Sir. If you will, please, state your name and address for the record. Battazzo: Dan Battazzo. 5306 North Larkwood. And I'm the house that you can see at the bottom of the page there adjacent to the development -- both actual new developments, the Tustin Subdivision, as well as this one. And I'll just let you know that they have worked with us to considerable level. I have been here three times now since you guys opened up the discussion on the Grant Lee property up to the north and, then, the Tustin Subdivision down to the east and south, and these guys have been the most active about making sure that they addressed all the issues that we had. We are ecstatic about not having a stinking road going through connecting to any of the subdivisions. We have been asking for that for three years and that will be very -- that goes a long way towards meeting what -- meeting the expectations that we had when we bought into the subdivision. Their addition of four lots on our street is pretty consistent with our current structure. So, we are happy with all those things and everything that we have seen so far tonight is in agreement with everything they have discussed with us. So, we appreciate it. Thanks. De Weerd: Thank you. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry, sir. Battazzo: Yeah. Wardle: There was a question of the specific fence type. Do you have a preference or - Battazzo: Well, what's there right now is -- is a three pole fence and anybody who has ever lived in that lot to my north has completely abandoned the 25 feet between myself and that fence and treated it like crap. And so it will be really pleasant to have somebody move in there that pretty much has to do something with it to make it livable. So, I don't think that fence is going to be a big issue and based on what they have done with us so far, I'll just trust that they will work with us on it. De Weerd: Thank you for your candidness. Is there any additional testimony on this application? Canning: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 65 of 74 De Weerd: Yes, Anna. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, with regard to the development along -- the improvements along Larkwood Place, I do notice that the applicant has stated in their application that they weren't going to do anything -- Mr. Hood is very careful and if he added a condition of approval saying that they would be required to do those improvements, I'm sure that's what he intended to do. So, I don't believe staff has had an opportunity to really consider that question, but I don't believe staff -- I believe staffs response to the application is that those sidewalks were required. Now, during the final plat application, because we are quoting improvement standards for the final plat -- or for the subdivision, I believe we have the opportunity to address it there. But I believe that the way the condition stands right now that it is intended to apply our code and that staff really needs to discuss this as -- if we are doing an alternative to that code and I don't have a copy of the code in front of me. It may require a variance application, but we are certainly willing to work with the applicant, especially since ACHD has, apparently, included that in their conditions of approval, but -- De Weerd: Mr. Nary, would you have any words of wisdom to add to that? Would a variance need to be sought or is this something that can be, as Anna had mentioned, dealt with at the final plat? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean I think if you want to leave that language open as part of the conditions of approval, that that will have to be determined before final plat. I think you can do it that way. We have done it -- we have left that type of condition for later review. That's okay. De Weerd: Okay. Would the applicant like to have final remarks? McKay: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Idon't -- De Weerd: Becky McKay. McKay: Becky McKay. I did discuss that issue as far as the improvements on Larkwood Way with -- or Place with the staff and on our preliminary plat we did not show any curb, gutter, or sidewalk along that corridor. We showed it just as it is currently, with just a 30 foot rural section with a borrow ditch and that was based upon, you know, the wishes of the neighbors and that's what I explained to the staff, ACHD staff and Meridian staff, that the neighbors did not want this little piece of curb, gutter, and sidewalk on their rural street. They said esthetically it will be ugly. And it won't go anywhere. If we install curb and gutter, then, we have got to do something, you know, with the drainage and they have got a borrow ditch system that currently works fine, based on density and the street section that they currently have. I just, you know, wanted to make sure that it's on the record that -- that we are not required to install that based on ACHD's requirement. And I know a lot of times in these staff reports it will say, you know, comply with all requirements of Meridian's ordinance, UDC, whatever. And that hooks us in. So, I wanted to make sure that that was clear. We also at the Meridian City Council ~ S May 23, 2006 Page 66 of 74 Planning and Zoning Commission in our comment to the staff report, Shari included a bolded statement, the Planning and Zoning Commission, stating that no curb, gutter, or sidewalk would be installed along our Larkwood frontage. So, it was also submitted in writing and responses, too, in the application. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Becky. Any questions, Council? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Canning: Madam Mayor, (just -- De Weerd: Yes. Anna. Canning: I'm concerned with striking a condition of approval without knowing the consequences of that at this time. I don't mind considering it at the final stage, but if the Council wishes to strike it before they approve the preliminary plat, I guess my recommendation would be that you hold it over for a week until I can get that amended, because if it was intended to be amended and that condition was still there, that it concerns me. I suspect that because it was specifically worded to say and along the perimeter, that that was indeed, intended as a condition of approval. But we can come back to you next week. If the applicant would prefer to do it that way, but either way I don't feel comfortable just striking the condition of approval. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I mean I guess I would concur with Mrs. Canning. I think all she's asking is that they have a little more opportunity for an analysis of that request. Again, if you leave it open they can work with the applicant, they can get this resolved before final plat. I guess I'm not hearing from Mrs. Canning or from the planning staff that they are adverse to what's being proposed, they just want some opportunity to have that discussion again. If you leave it open for final plat approval, that's not inconsistent with what we have done in the past and that would allow the project to move forward tonight and still allow the planning staff some discussion time with the applicant. De Weerd: But I think it would leave the neighbors with the concern that it potentially could still be there. Nary: True. There is certainly that discussion. But, again, they have the opportunity I guess to come again, although the final plat is not a Public Hearing. So, if the concern is that you're wanting testimony about that issue, then, maybe setting it over is the best way to do that. Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 67 of 74 De Weerd: So, you have two choices, Council, and I guess I would look for your direction. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I guess since we still have s applicant's -- whether they'd like to -- obi meeting next Tuesday, so it would be J~ Becky, would you prefer to leave it open, look at final plat I guess is my question. ~ open Public Hearing, I'd like to hear the iously, we are not -- we don't have a regular ne 6th would be the soonest we'd hear this. so we can take care of it or would you rather McKay: Madam Mayor, Councilman Wardle, I guess either way would work. You know, I want to make sure that this is resolved, so we are not hashing this at the final plat where staff says, you know, our hands are tied, the Council approved the preliminary plat with the condition of perimeter sidewalk. I guess I don't understand why staff is uncomfortable modifying that condition when they are in agreement that the -- that was acceptable on Larkwood to retain that rural residential character. I guess I'm -- I don't understand -- I mean even if you leave the condition and eliminate the word perimeter, it would be done. I guess I'm not following the concern that staff has. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm sorry, Shaun -- Mr. Wardle. Sorry. My only concern is that this may require a variance. That's really all it is. Wardle: I understand. Canning: Okay. Wardle: I guess my question, Mrs. McKay, is would you prefer we resolve this two weeks from now or would you -- is that your preference or would you like -- would you like us to set this over for two weeks and have you work with staff or -- McKay: I'd like to have this resolved as soon as possible. So, probably two weeks. And, then, we can just deal with it, instead of everybody trying to remember what we did when we bring a final plat and, then, if we have to do a variance, bring a variance onto it. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. McKay: We will be first. De Weerd: It's not 2:00 a.m., so we are doing good. We don't go that late. We don't go past 11:00. Okay. Council, what would you like to do, then? Mr. Borton, did you have something? Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 68 of 74 Borton: Well, Madam Mayor, I guess, Anna, is this -- if push comes to shove, is it a matter that staff -- some staff member or something happened that didn't get done? I mean I don't like to delay this. Two weeks -- time is money. I'm sensitive to that. So, I'm just curious is there -- is this an item that could have or should have been clarified before tonight? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, again, I suspect that this requires a variance, so it couldn't have been done tonight and won't be able to be done on the 6th either. If it does require a variance, then -- then it needs a variance. You won't be able to have any different result on June 6th. If it doesn't require a variance, then, Council could approve it if -- assuming that's the way you're going. With staff -- or applicant comments and staff comments saying that we will work toward having no street improvements along Larkspur Way, but -- I'm just concerned that that condition of approval is in there. If it were any of my staff members, other than Mr. Hood, I could assume that perhaps it was just an error, but he is quite meticulous and so I want to make sure I have an opportunity to get with him and just see what the concerns are. I understand Mrs. McKay's concerns about having hands tied before the City Council, but I think we have been good recently about bringing -- working with applicants to resolve these issues and particularly if Council leaves a little wiggle room for staff in their motion. I think we can do that. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Anna, why -- and I think we -- I think Mr. Nary said it. We have done this before with a condition of approval and not have to go to the variance. All we'd have to do is in our -- in our condition is say no sidewalk, gutter, on Larkspur as per agreement. I don't know. And I -- you know, I want to do it right, but I'm like Mr. Borton, you know, time is money to these people. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: And maybe I either misspoke or wasn't very clear. I would concur with Mrs. Canning that I think the only question that we need to be certain from staffs perspective is whether a variance is required. If it is, then, your condition would be on June 6, if you're willing to approve this project, that prior to final plat a variance will need to be requested and they will, then, have to go through that as part of the process. I would concur with Mrs. Canning that I think my initial feeling is that a variance is going to be required. That you cannot simply condition away a development requirement that's in your code by condition. You have to require that a variance be done. I think all that the developer and the neighbors are seeking is that in two weeks knowing that answer would resolve the issue of what's going to happen next with this project, rather that just making that condition tonight that if a variance is required, they will have to seek it, and, Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 69 of 74 as Madam Mayor stated, then, the neighbors aren't going to know whether or not that's going to happen or not and because the final plat is not a Public Hearing, no one's going to know until that comes forward. So, I certainly agree with the Council that time can be critical here, but the two week delay now will probably save a lot of issues with the neighbors later, as well as the unknowing from the applicant as to what's supposed to happen. If you're in favor of it and your direction is to apply for the variance, then, they will at least know that going forward and life can go on. It is a short delay and I know you don't like delays, but this is probably going to save more in the long run if you do. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Mr. Nary, you mentioned that if a variance is required. The variance proceeding would be a Public Hearing; correct? Nary: Yes. Wardle: So, I'm just -- do we need to wait two weeks to tell me that? Could we, if the Council so chooses to, approve the application with the relinquishment of those improvements and if a variance is required, require the developer to apply for that, if not, obviously, we've had testimony from both parties that they do not require that. Does that make sense to you? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, yeah, that does. I think -- I think at least if you wanted to move the project along, I guess you could condition that you could remove that requirement subject to the decision if a variance is required. If no variance is required, then, the condition can be removed by your motion. If it is required, your motion would, then, require a Public Hearing be held for it. So, that probably would suffice and it would still allow staff the opportunity to make that decision and also, again, if it does need to come back, you're right, a Public Hearing is going to be held anyway, so -- De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a motion? Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we close the public hearings on AZ 06-010 and PP 06-008. Wardle: Second. Meridian City Council ~ • May 23, 2006 Page 70 of 74 De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close Items 17 and 18. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: A question for Mr. Nary. Is that specific to the annexation? Preliminary plat? Both? Where would you like that condition? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Council Member Wardle, I think that only is necessary on the plat. I don't believe that's an annexation condition, so -- Wardle: With that, Madam Mayor, I move we approve AZ 06-010. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to approve Item 17. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: I move we approve Item 18, PP 06-008 to remove the specific condition of curb, gutter, sidewalk improvement along Larkspur -- Larkwood. Larkwood and if a variance is required to meet those findings, that the applicant, then, obtain a variance before approval of final plat. Bird: Second that. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Item 18 with the amendments as stated. Is there -- Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Anna. Meridian City Council • May 23, 2006 Page 71 of 74 Canning: Clarification. Is that approval of -- we always get in a little bit of a tricky quandary on final plats. Is that prior to submittal of the final plat to the City Council or prior to signature on the plat? I would recommend the former, I suppose. Bird: Well, yeah. Wardle: Yes. Canning: Okay. De Weerd: Yes. Wardle: Prior to submittal. Canning: Thank you, sir. Wardle: Upon staffs recommendation. De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, absent; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 19: Public Hearing: AZ 06-020 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.65 acres from RUT to a C-G zone for Williams Pipeline by Northwest Pipeline Corporation - 1301 Locust Grove Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Item 19 is Public Hearing AZ 06-020. I'll open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Williams Pipeline project. Do we have an applicant? Bird: If you do, he's invisible. De Weerd: I don't see one. Everyone just left. Canning: Okay. Bird: Unless he's outside waiting for us or something. De Weerd: Clerk, were you -- Mr. Clerk, were you aware of this having an issue that would prevent it being heard tonight? Because I wasn't. Nary: Madam Mayor? Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 72 of 74 De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I thought I remembered this one when we met this afternoon. We did receive an a-mail from Senior Deputy City Clerk Sharon Smith yesterday that said that there was no posting for the City Council and asked that it be tabled and rescheduled. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Do I have a motion? Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Do we have a date certain for that? Nary: Two weeks should be adequate for reposting. Wardle: Madam Mayor, I move that we continue Item 19 to June 6th. De Weerd: Okay. Do I have a second? Bird: Yeah. Borton: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to continue Item 19 to June 6th. By the way, I did open this Public Hearing. I did. And all those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Okay. Item 21 has been removed from our agenda, so I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Bird: Madam Mayor, before we adjourn, I need to know what are we going to do on August 1st? That's National Night Out. Are we going to do like we did last year, all get together and go out and cancel the meeting for that night or what? De Weerd: Yes. Bird: Council? De Weerd: Council? It looks like it's a go. Mr. Borton doesn't know what we talking about. National Night Out is -- Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 73 of 74 Borton: I know what it is. De Weerd: Okay. Borton: I don't know what you guys do. De Weerd: We go and tour all the parties. Bird: You go eat. De Weerd: I guess we do have one other question. On July 5th we want to make sure we would have a quorum. Council, will we have a quorum on July 5th, which is a Wednesday? Bird: July 5th? De Weerd: Yes. That follows July 4th. Nary: The city code requires that if a meeting falls on a holiday, that the City Council, then, meet the next day, unless you don't have a quorum. De Weerd: Will we have a quorum? Bird: I will be here. Borton: I will be here. Bird: If I have to. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle? Wardle: I'll inform the clerk's office. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. I would entertain a motion to adjourn. Borton: So moved. Wardle: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. De Weerd: Thank you. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:40 P.M. Meridian City Council May 23, 2006 Page 74 of 74 (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) MAYOR AMM WEERD ATTESTED: • ILLIAM G. BERG JR.~ ERK 6 ~ V / ~~WrlllEllldd \ 1d6~'~o~Ao DATE APP R\<< ~ ~ ®~`°d~ ~~ /rte/'y'/,'d~ddolf 41114`~~A```'`,4' 1-9 t94 r) G May 19, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 4 REQUEST Proclamation: American Legion Poppy Day -May 27, 2006 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 Attached Prociamatlon • • ~t• } ~ ~ ~. t 7.. "1 ~.vy ~ '~ CITY OF ~~~~ I ~~ ~ /~ a __y_ - ,~: r'~- ~~~ it 1D~1HtJ 2'~ie mice of tfie Mayor WHEREAS, the members of the American Legion Auxiliary are asking every one to wear a poppy inobservance of Memorial Day; and WHEREAS, in the battle fields of Belgium during World War 1, poppies grew wild amid the ravages of war. The overturned soils of battle enabled the poppy seeds to be covered allowing them to grow and forever serve as a r®mind®r of the bloodshed of war; and WHEREAS, the poppy honors the hospitalized and disabled veterans who make these red, handcrafted flowers providing financial and therapeutic benefits; and WHEREAS, the displaying of the poppy honors the millions of Americans who have willingly served and are currently serving our nation as well as the all too many who have made the ultimate. sacrifice; THEREFORE, I, Tammy de Weerd, Mayor of the City of Meridian, do hereby proclaim Saturday, May 27th, 2, as .,~merican legion ~a~npy may in rect~nition of the sacnfices of .our vet®rans and those serving our country today by honoring these brave men and women. Dated this 23rd day of May, Tammy a eerd, Mayor Shaun die, City Council a Joe Gorton, City Council Keith Bird, City Council Charlie Rountree, City Council • • American Legion Auxiliary Meridian Unlt #113 Kay Vallerle, President 12353 W. Meadow Wood Dr. May 3, 2006 Mayor Tammy deWeerd 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 Dear Mayor deWeerd, The nearly one million members of the American Legion Auxiliary, the world's largest patriotic service organization of women, are asking every elected and appointed official at the local, state and national level to wear a poppy m observance of Memorial Day, May 29, 2006. Poppies are enclosed and we ask that you wear it in honor of the millions of Americans who have willingly served and who are currently serving our nation, all too many who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Additionally, l am asking if you would proclaim Saturday, May 27, 2006 as American Legion Poppy Day in the city of Meridian. American Legion and American Legion Auxiliary members will distribute poppies on that date. The popppy also honors the hospitalized and disabled veterans who make these red, handcrafted flowers. The poppy continues to provide financial and therapeutic benefit to those veterans who construct them, as well as benefiting thousands of other veterans and their families by the revenues collected from poppy distributions. In the battle fields of Belgium during World War 1, poppies grew wild amid the ravages of war. The overturned soils of battle enabled the poppy seeds to be covered, allowing them to grow and forever serve as a reminder of the bloodshed of war. We still recognize the sacrifice of our veterans and those serving our country today. Please help the American Legion and American Legion Auxiliary honor the brave men and women by wearing the enclosed poppies on Memorial Day. Thank you. me~rely ° a~~~i/allerie, American Legion aul V lerie, American Legion Auxiliary Unit #113 President Post #113 First Vice Commander • • In Flanders Fields In Flanders fields the poppies blow Between the crosses, row on row That mark our place .. . '~` and in the sky The larks, still bravely singing, fly Scarce heard amid the guns below We are the Dead Short days ago We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow, Loved and were loved, and now we lie In Flanders fields. Take up our quarrel with the foe: To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high If ye break faith with us who die We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields. -Col. John McCrae The Poppy Story From the battlefields of World War I, weary soldiers brought home the memory of a barren landscape transformed by wild poppies, red as the blood that had soaked the sail. By that miracle of nature, the spirit of their lost comrades lived on. The poppy became a symbol of the sacrifice of lives in war, and represented the hope that none had died in vain. The American Legion Auxiliary Poppy has continued to bloom for the casualties of four wars, its petals of paper bound together for veterans by veterans, reminding America each year that the men and women who have served and died for their country deserve to be remembered. Poppy Day has become a familiar tradition in almost every American community. This distribution of the bright red memorial flower to the public is one of the oldest and most widely recognized programs of the American Legion Auxiliary. This poppy, as a memorial flower to the war dead, can be traced to a single individual, Miss Moina Michael. She was so moved by Col. McCrae's poem that she wrote a response: ...the blood of heroes never dies But lends a luster to the red Of the flower that blooms above the dead In Flanders' Fields. On impulse, she bought a bouquet of poppies -all that New York City's Wanamaker's Department Store had -and handed them to businessmen meeting at the New York YMCA where she worked. She asked them to wear the poppy as a tribute to the fallen. That was November 1918. World War I was over, but America's sons would rest forever `in Flanders' Fields.' Later, she would spearhead a campaign that would result in the adoption of the poppy as the national symbol of sacrifice. • American Legion Auxiliary Meridian Unit #113 Kay Vallerie, President 12353 W. Meadow Wood Dr. May 3, 2006 Mayor Tammy deWeerd 33 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 Dear Mayor deWeerd, .~~~3_~~ ~~ ~~~2~~ The nearly one million members of the American Legion Auxiliary, the world's largest patriotic service organization of women, are asking every elected and appointed official at the local, state and national level to wear a poppy in observance of Memorial Day, May 29, 2006. Poppies are enclosed and we ask that you wear it in honor of the millions of Americans who have willingly served and who are currently serving our nation, all too many who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Additionally, I am asking- rf you would proclaim Saturday, May 27, 2006 as American Legion Poppy Day in the city of Meridian. American Legion and American Legion Auxiliary members will distribute poppies on that date. The popppy also honors the hospitalized and disabled veterans who make these red, handcrafted flowers. The poppy continues to provide financial and therapeutic benefit to those veterans who construct them, as well as benefiting thousands of other veterans and their families by the revenues collected from poppy distributions. In the battle fields of Belgium during World War 1, poppies grew wild amid the ravages of war. The overturned soils of battle enabled the poppy seeds to be covered, allowing them to grow and forever serve as a reminder of the bloodshed of war. We still recognize the sacrifice of our veterans and those serving our country today. Please help the American Legion and American Legion Auxiliary honor the brave men and women by wearing the enclosed poppies on Memorial Day. Thank you. ''rely a~~lallerie, American Legion Auxiliary Unit #113 President ~-e-e-e..~.:, Paul Valerie, American legion Post #113 First Vice Commander ~~~ 1 May 19, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 6-A REQUEST Approve Minutes of April 25, 2Q06 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 pubOc meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. May 19, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 AZ 05-060 APPLICANT Ada County Highway District ITEM NO. 6-B REQUEST Findings for Approval -- Request for Annexation and Zoning of 4.92 acres from RUT to C-G zones for Ada County Highway District Ustick Road Property -- 3595 East Ustick 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: COMMENTS See Attached Findings CITY PARKS DEPT: ~!i MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: 1!' 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: /~~G~'-c~ Dates r Phone: g~'-~qg~ Emailed: ~S-S~GriS(~(~a?eS-~: ~~- Staff Initials: /,~ Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER ,,_: -_ .~,, In the Matter of Annexation and Zoning of 4.92 acres from RUT (Ada County) to C- G(General Commercial), by ACHD. Case No(s).: AZ-OS-060 ~~ For the City Council Hearing Date of: May 9, 2006 ~AY i ~ ZQ~ City of 11~~x'idi~ A. Findings of Fact City Cl~~e~ Dffic® 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 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). AZ-OS-060 - PAGE I of 3 ! ~ 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 and Development Agreement all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006 incorporated by reference. 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: The applicants request for Annexation is approved subject to the Development Agreement in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006 incorporated by reference. D. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006 r~cC By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the ~ 3 day of 2006. COUNCIL MEMBER SHAUN WARDLE VOTED_~~~~ COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED_~~~!~ VOTED ~~~~~~ VOTED__~~~~i~-- VOTED CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ-OS-060 -PAGE 2 of 3 (TIE BREAKER) William G. Berg, Jr., Copy served upon Applicant, Attorney. Works Department and City By: ,~ Q,h(~ ,~,j`(~p„~) Dated: 5.30 -Ot,p City Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ-OS-060 -PAGE 3 of 3 • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REP( STAFF REPORT Hearing Date: May 9, 2006 TO: Mayor & City Council FROM: Planning Commission & Staff: )RT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 F ..~~.. - Joe Guenther & Caleb Hood Meridian Planning Department - ____ 208-884-5533 ~`--_-~~~ SUBJECT: Ada County Highway District Annexation REVISED SAY 9 ~ ~~~ AZ-OS-060 Annexation and Zoning of 4.92 acres from RUT (Ada County ~ of Mericlia~ C-G (General Commercial). i;%Iea~I~ Of£i~~ 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Ada County Highway District, has applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ) to C- G (General Commercial) for 4.92 acres of property currently zoned RUT in Ada County. The site is located on the south side of Ustick Road, approximately 1/3 mile east of Eagle Road. This site is currently rural residential with one single-family residential building and accessory buildings. The applicant is proposing to construct a collector roadway with the remainder of the property to be sold for future commercial uses. The site will provide a public connection for future commercial cross access in the SE corner of Eagle and Ustick Roads. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION This item was previously on the March 14a', March 21~` and Mav 2°d Staff proposea collector roaaway. At;HU's (Tarn Inselman has told staffthat on April 17`" he met with 3 out of the 4 home owners, and the director of the adiacent funeral home (these are the neighbors that are directly affected by the proposed roadway location.) Mr. Inselman has indicated to staff that those in attendance at that meeting are agreeable to the ACHD constructing the roadway provided dual fences are installed between their property and the roadway. One of the fences would be a solid fence that would screen the properties from the road, and the second fence would be primarily constructed to contain livestock. On Mav 2°d City Staff met with Mr. Inselman to discuss the timing and construction responsibilities for the sewer and water lines within the proposed Alleys Wav collector street. Staff has updated the staff report below to reflect that ACHD will not be responsible for the costs of installing sewer and water within Alleys Wav. However. ACHD should coordinate the construction of the roadway with the Public Works Department so that Water and/or Sanitary Sewer Mains can be put in Alleys Wav ahead of its construction. Staff has not added a fencing provision/condition for the eastern boundary within Section 10 of the Staff Report. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard the item on February 16, 2006. At the public hearing they moved to recommend approval. a. Summary of Public Hearing: i. In favor: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions; Gary Insleman, ACHD staff ii. In opposition: None. iii. Commenting: Fitzroy A. Belcher, 2920 Duane Drive -Concerned with eliminating landscaping on the eastern property boundary. iv. Staff presenting application: Joe Guenther, Associate ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ANNEXATION - AZ-OS-060 PAGE 1 • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE •G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 v. Other staff commenting on application: Ted Baird, Attorney, Caleb Hood, Planning Manager b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. -20-foot landscape buffer on the eastern property boundary; ii. -Road alignment with Alleys Way north of Ustick; iii. -Cross access requirement to other properties south and east. c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. -Remove -Page 7 "within 18 months" from the development agreement requirements - ii. -Add- Page 3 Item I There will be no direct lot access to Ustick Road, except for the future road - iii. -Add - to development agreement, the comment: that a landscape buffer will not be required along the east side of the future collector roadway d. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. Landscaping/fencing requirements east of the collector roadway. The subject property is within the Urban Service Planning Area. Staff has provided detailed analysis and recommends that the subject be approved with all requirements for the Development Agreement (DA) (see below for DA provisions). Staff is recommending approval of the proposed Ada County Hiuhway District Annexation, submitted as AZ-OS-060 with the develo mp ent agreement and concerns as detailed in this report. 3. PROPOSED MOTION (to be considered after the public hearing) Approve After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Number AZ- OS-060 as presented in Staff Report for the hearing date of March 14, 2006 with the following modifications: (Add any proposed modifications.) Deny After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Numbers AZ- OS-060 as presented in the Staff Report for the hearing date of March 14, 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 After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Numbers AZ-OS-060 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: 3595 E. Ustick / 3N1E4 b. Owner/Applicant Ada County Highway District, LLC 3775 Adams Street Garden City, Idaho 83714 c. Representative: Becky McKay, Engineering Solutions ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ANNEXATION - AZ-OS-060 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI• EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 d. Present Zoning: RUT (Ada County) e. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Mixed Use Regional f. Description of Applicant's Request: Request for Annexation and Zoning (AZ) to C-G (General Commercial) for 4.92 acres of property currently zoned RUT in Ada County. g. Applicant's Statement/Justification: The site is located on a main arterial which has recently been upgraded as a major arterial with access to a state highway which is appropriate for commercial/office uses. 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute an annexation 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. b. Newspaper notifications published on: March 6 and February 20, 2006 c. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: February 17, 2006 d. Applicant posted notice on site by: March 1, 2006 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): There is an existing home and other outbuildings on the subject site. b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: The parcels to the south and west are either zoned commercial or proposed commercial zones. To the north is the approved Lowe's building. Perkins-Brown Subdivision, an Ada County single-family development lies east of the subject site and the proposed ACHD collector road right of way. This area is rapidly transitioning from rural to urban/commercial. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning: 1. North: Commercial, zoned C-G, Lowes 2. East: Rural residential, zoned RUT (Ada County) 3. South: Redfeather Subdivision, zoned C-G 4. West: Single-family/Commercial, zoned RUT proposed C-G d. History of Previous Actions: N/A e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities: 1. Public Works: Location of sewer: Sewer is available in Ustick Road. Location of water: Water is available in Ustick Road Issues or concerns: None. 2. Vegetation: There are some existing trees on this site that should be protected or mitigated for when this property develops. 3. Floodplain: N/A 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: All irrigation ditches, laterals and canals should be tiled when this property develops. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ANNEXATION - AZ-OS-060 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN• EPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 5. Hazards: Staff is not aware of any hazards associated with this property. 6. Proposed Zoning: C-G (General Commercial) 7. Size of Property: 4.92 acres f. Subdivision Plat Information: The applicant has not submitted a preliminary plat with the subject annexation application. Staff recommends that the City include specific concepts within a Development Agreement (DA) for developing the subject property. Please see Analysis below for recommended DA provisions. g. Landscaping: 1. Width of street buffer(s): Per City Code, a 35-foot wide landscape street buffer is required adjacent to Ustick Road, an arterial roadway (UDC 11-2A-4). 2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: N/A all properties are proposed as C-G h. Required Commercial Standards: C-G Setbacks Proposed Required Landscape (Commercial) Arterial Road (Ustick) NA 35 Collector Street (Future) NA 20 Use buffer (residentiaUcommercial)NA 25 i. Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access: As mentioned above, the applicant is not proposing to develop/plat this property at this time. There will be a future collector roadway at this site which will eventually connect Ustick Road and Fairview Road. The applicant is proposing to take the required right of way, divide the property and sell the remainder as C-G zoned property for development. There will be no direct lot access to Ustick Road except for the future road and a system of cross access points or internal streets will be established by ACHD. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On December 30, 2005, a joint agency and departments meeting was held with service providers in this area. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. These agencies were unable to comment as there was no conceptual design provided. No comments are included with this report as all uses will require at minimum a certificate of zoning compliance where the agencies will have the opportunity to condition specific uses. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated "Mixed Use Regional" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. In Chapter VII of the Comprehensive Plan, this designation is defined in part as an area that is situated in highly visible or transitioning parts of the City where innovative and flexible design opportunities are encouraged. The MU-R has no upper limit on the square footage of non- residential uses and is intended to allow a broad range of uses. Staff recommends that the Commission and Council rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the public hearing when determining the most appropriate zone for this property. Staff finds the following Comprehensive Plan policies to be applicable to this property and apply to the subject property (staff analysis in italics below policy): ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ANNEXATION - AZ-OS-060 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI~G DDEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE•G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 • 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 proposed to be annexed in the following manner: • Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriff"s Office. Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD). • The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACHD). 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 annexation. 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. • Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels. (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1) The applicant is proposing a commercial zone adjacent to proposed or established commercial districts. Staff finds that impacts to the existing residential properties to the east can be limited through design as to be compatible with the proposed development if appropriate fencing, access points, and landscaping are installed with this project and in cooperation with the future ACHD collector road. • "Permit new..commercial developments only where urban services can be reasonably provided at the time of final approval and development is contiguous to the City." (Chapter IV, pg. 26, Goal I, Obj. A, #6) Municipal water solid waste and other services exist to this area of Meridian. "Locate new community commercial areas on arterials...near residential areas in such a way as to complement with adjoining residential areas." (Chapter VII, pg. 43, Goal III, Obj. D, #3) The proposed commercial use is located at the intersection of a future collector road and an arterial roadway. A 35 foot wide street buffer will be required along Ustick Road and a 20- foot wide street buffer will be installed as a part of the western side of the collector roadway to be designed in part to mitigate potential negative impacts upon the vehicular traffic on ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ANNEXATION - AZ-OS-060 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI~DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 arterial roads and future vehicular impact on existing residential uses. There are several major commercial developments with associated mixed use residential developments occurring in the area to which the proposal will provide service. • "Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter VII, pg. 107, Goal IV, Obj. D, #2) The curb cuts and access points will be designed to be consistent with other proposals of this size and nature. However, these will be approved with the filing of a detailed development proposal and full review by ACHD. • Require street connections between subdivisions at regular intervals to enhance connectivity and better traffic flow. (Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 6) For the future collector roadway, one access road to Ustick Road with a future connection to the south through Red feather Estates. Cross access will be required east and west of the site. Staff is generally supportive of the conceptual connectivity proposal. • Review new development for appropriate opportunities to connect to local roads and collectors in adjacent developments. (Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 13) No stub streets are currently provided to the subject site. See bullet above. Staff also finds the following 2002 Comprehensive Plan text policies to be applicable to this application: "The capacity of arterial...roadways can be greatly diminished by excessive driveway connections to the roadways. The City should cooperate with Achd to minimize access points on arterial...roadways as development applications are reviewed." (Chapter VI, page 72) "Develop methods, such as cross-access agreements, frontage roads, to reduce the number of existing access points on to arterial streets." (Chapter VI, Goal II, Obj. A, #12, page 79). "Identify transitional zones to buffer commercial and residential uses, to allow uses such as offices and other low intensity uses." (Chapter VII, Goal I, Obj. B, #7, page 102) Staff finds that the proposed C-G zoning designation is generally harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. 9. ZONING ORDINANCE a. Allowed Uses in the Commercial Districts: UDC Table 11-2B-2 lists the permitted, accessory, and conditional uses in the C-G zoning district. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four Districts 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-G General Retail And Service Commercial District: The purpose of the C-G district is to provide for commercial uses which are customarily operated entirely or almost entirely within a building; to provide for a review of the impact of proposed commercial uses which are auto and service oriented and are located in close proximity to major highway or arterial streets; to fulfill the need oftravel-related services as well as retail sales for the transient and permanent motoring public. All such districts shall be connected to the municipal water and sewer systems of the city, and shall not constitute strip commercial development and encourage clustering of commercial ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ANNEXATION - AZ-OS-060 PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNIN~DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 development. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation: 1. AZ Application: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan, staff believes that the requested C-G zone is appropriate for this property. Please see Exhibit B for detailed analysis of the required facts and findings. The annexation legal description submitted with the application (stamped on November 3, 2005 by Gregory G. Carter, PLS) shows the property as contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian. Special Considerations: Development Agreement: 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 that is consistent with the comprehensive elan designation and does not ne atg ivel~pact nearby properties. Prior to the annexation ordinance approval, a Development Agreement (DA) shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, property owner (at the time of annexation ordinance adoption), and the developer. The applicant shall contact the City Attorney, Bill Nary_ , at 888-4433 to initiate this rocess. The DA shall incorporate the following: • 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. • 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. • That the applicant will be responsible for all ~s-as~e~ted-= coordinating the sewer and water se~is~ main extension with the Public Works Department. • 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. • That prior to issuance of any building permit, the subject property be subdivided in accordance with the City of Meridian Unified Development Code. • That a street buffer, constructed in accordance with City Code, be installed along Ustick Road and the future collector roadway. • That when a preliminary plat is submitted to the City, the entire 4.92 acres that are the subject property for AZ-OS-060 will be included within the boundaries of said plat (no out-parcels). ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ANNEXATION - AZ-OS-060 PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI~DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 That when a preliminary plat is submitted to the City, no direct lot access to Ustick Road will be allowed. At such time as individual uses are proposed, direct access to Ustick Road shall be prohibited. This is not intended to prohibit a public street connection to Ustick Road. That in the case of any division of the property cross access to parcels south and west of the site be granted at intervals to be determined by ACRD. That a landscape buffer will not be required along the east side of the future collector roadway. That fencine, however, will be provided by the applicant alone the eastern boundary of this site, unless the adjacent use is a commercial or institutional use and does not want fencine installed. b. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the subject property be annexed into the City with a C-G zoning designation with the aforementioned Annexation & Zoning provisions included in a Development Agreement. 11. EXHIBITS A. Legal Description B. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT ANNEXATION - AZ-OS-060 PAGE 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI~DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 A. Legal Description ~- :~~~ i >oE_urw..,~a~,,.:~:.. ^~> r'• ~ Hsu ~~1 `;I_i(tVEY G~:OUP .u. . ~ Phonc l208) F.7 b~os lii Fan (:~]HI &84-13'79 I'r,ito S t`:.. i~ .'.,il Proposed C-G Zone Ada County Highway District Annexation hJovember 4, 200,5 A parc:e' of land located in the East half of the East hall of Lot 4 m Section d, (uwnslii(~ ;North, Range 1 East, Rose Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly de:,tnb~•d ;~:. lollows Beyinning at the Northeast corner of said Lot in Section 4; Thr:nu~ South 89°35'22" West 166.19 feel to a point; Thence South 0"00'08" West 1,29Q34 feet to a point; `h,:~nce North 89'3712" East 186.19 feet to a point; (hence North 0°00'9" West 1,290.21 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING, cuntainincl 4.92 acres, more or less. Prepared by Idaho Survey Group, P.C. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNI~DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 32 S~ 1,4N., R.tE. _ E. _U;IIC_K RQAD g ~S ~; J.. ft. t E_--- ---- --- - - - - - i ~ ~ ~ ~~ Z NE CORNER GOVT. LOT MERIDL4N _ ADA COUtJiY p t 0 I 1 ~ 1 1 _ _ ~ ~ -__ 1 i 1 1 ~ 1 o ,_ m NI tli c VVV _ ~I O IS Z °I o E ~'1 z X W I -..__ i 1 1 z i ~I 1 I 2 ~ U p Q 1 + 1 1 n :J 1 I 1 COUNTY 1 1 ~ 1 1166.19 ~^ _ ~_ ~_.. MERIDLW . - - - _~ _` N , 89'32'42 -- - P ~__ -' - a. fl ~ ryu ~,, .~ ~ ;~ _..,.-~.~~..- L. .._....~..n...~s.. .~ _, __.- .. CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANN~DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~NG DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 B. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance 1. Annexation Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The applicant is proposing to zone all of the subject property to C-G. The Council finds that the proposed zoning map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; No development is proposed concurrent with the zoning map amendment. The Council finds that future development of this property should comply with the established regulations and purpose statement of the C-G zone. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; The Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. The Commission and Council rely on any oral or written testimony that may be provided when determining this finding. 4. The map amendment shall not result in an adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services within the City including, but not limited to, school districts; and, The 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. 5. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-5B-3.E). If the applicant enters into a Development Agreement (DA) with the City The Council finds that the annexation and zoning of this property to C-G would be in the best interest of the Citv. B-t • May 19, 2006 AZ 06-006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT Sea 2 Sea, LLC ITEM NO. 6-C REQUEST Findings: Request for Annexation and Zoning of 10.01 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Knighthill Center Subdivision -- southwest corner of N. Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Findings CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: ~ I (~ b1~e~1 Date: d'a' ~ Phone: 7.~~~' l~ 1Q1~C1 ~ ,~ h. ~-(~~,-}-gyp taff Initials: ~, Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. • .. ,., CITY OF MERIDIAN r FINDIN --~ ~'~ ~~ ~' ~~~ ~~ ~ l GS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF ~ ~,~ ~ , LAW AND DECISION & ORDER -- --- __ ___ - = - In the Matter of Annexation and Zoning (AZ) from RUT to C-G and Preliminary Plat (PP) approval of 4 commercial building lots and 1 common other lot on 10.01 acres for Knighthill Center Subdivision, by Sea 2 Sea, LLC. 77 Case No(s): AZ-06-006 and PP-06-005 ~CEI MAY ~ ~ 2006 For the City Council Hearing Date of: May 9, 2006 City of Meridian A. Findings of Fact City Clerk Office Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 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. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ-06-006 / PP-06-005 -PAGE 1 of 4 • C~ 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, Preliminary Plat, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 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 5, 2006 is hereby conditionally approved; 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits (as applicable) 1. 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 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ-06-006 / PP-06-005 -PAGE 2 of 4 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 may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ-06-006 / PP-06-005 -PAGE 3 of 4 • VOTED_~~~ By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 2 ~ ' day of 2006. COUNCIL MEMBER SHAUN WARDLE VOTED__~~~ COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD (TIE BREAKER) ~~ ~-"'~ a .~ Attest: William G. Berg, Jr., VOTED ~~'~'''~ VOTED--~~N~ VOTED ~- ~i' ~'L ~~ ; ,x,~ ~ ,~ ,~` ~fr~f~eoea vu~aa~e°~~~® Copy served upon Applicant, The Planning department, Public Works Department and City Attorney. By: Dated: 5-3~ "61,~ Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ-06-006 / PP-06-005 -PAGE 4 of 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANKING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR TFIE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 STAFF REPORT City Council Hearing Hearing Date: 5/9/2006 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Josh Wilson, Associate City Planner SUBJECT: Knighthill Center Subdivision • AZ-06-006 - ~ "; ,, ~' .- i~ ~ - , '~~~'~~t"~1 It1~1c= ~~ ~ . Annexation and Zoning of 10.01 acres from RUT to C-G zone • PP-06-005 Preliminary Plat of 4 commercial building lots and 1 common lot on 10.01 acres in a proposed C-G zone 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Sea 2 Sea, LLC, has applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ) of 10.01 acres from RUT (Ada County) to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) and Preliminary Plat approval of 4 commercial building lots and 1 common lot on 10.01 acres. The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan which shows retail, restaurant and financial institution uses on the property. The site is located on the southwest corner of N. Linder Road and Chinden Road (SH 20/26). 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard the item on March 2 and Apri16, 2006. At the public hearing they moved to recommend approval. a. Summary of Public Hearing: i. In favor: Shawn Nickel ii. In opposition: None. iii. Commenting: None. iv. Staff presenting application: Josh Wilson. v. Other staff commenting on application: None. b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Appearance of the rear of the proposed buildings from W. Everest Lane ii. Access to W. Everest Lane, which is a private street c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. Add a Condition which states: "The applicant shall modify the plat to include a cross access/parking easement for all lots within the subdivision." ii. Add a restriction to the Development Agreement which states: "The applicant shall provide signage which indicates that there is an exit towards W. Everest Lane." iii. Add a restriction to the Development Agreement which states: "The applicant shall provide evidence of a recorded cross access easement with the development to the west for access to W. Everest Lane, which is a private street." d. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. None. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Numbers AZ- Knighthill Center Subdivision AZ-06-006, PP-06-005 PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 06-006 and PP-06-005 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006, with the following modifications to the proposed development agreement: (add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Numbers AZ-06- 006 and PP-06-005 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006, for the following reasons: (you should state specific reasons for denial of the annexation request.) Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Numbers AZ-06-006 and PP-06-005 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: Southwest corner of N. Linder Road and Chinden Road (SH 20/26) NE '/4, NE '/4, Section 26, T4N R1 W b. Owners: Foothill Knights, LLC 757 W. Bankside Drive Eagle, Idaho 83616 c. Applicant: Sea 2 Sea, LLC 757 W. Bankside Drive Eagle, Idaho 83616 d. Representative: Shawn Nickel, SLN Planning, Inc. e. Present Zoning: RUT f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Residential g. Description of Applicant's Request: 1. Date of Preliminary Plat (attached as Exhibit A1): January 5, 2006 2. Date of Landscape Plan (attached as Exhibit A2): January 4, 2006 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute an annexation as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-SB-3, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. b. The subject application will in fact constitute a preliminary plat as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-6B-2, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. c. Newspaper notifications published on: April 17 and May 1, 2006 d. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: April 14, 2006 Knighthill Center Subdivision AZ-06-006, PP-06-005 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 e. Applicant posted notice on site by: May 1, 2006 6. LAND USE a. Existing Land Use(s): Vacant land b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: The property sits on the southwest corner of Linder Road and Chinden Road, which are both major roadways in the area and carry large amounts of vehicular traffic. To the south and west is Lochsa Falls Subdivision, which contains over 800 single family homes and vacant commercial lots along Chinden Road. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Chinden Road and vacant land, zoned RUT (Ada County). 2. East: Vacant land, zoned RUT (Ada County). 3. South: Lochsa Falls Subdivision, zoned R-4. 4. West: Lochsa Falls Subdivision, zoned R-4. d. History of Previous Actions: None. e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: There is currently sewer in W. Everest Lane and N. Gertie Place. Location of water: There are water stubs in W. Everest Land and N. Gertie Place. Issues or concerns: Water main sizing. 2. Vegetation: None. 3. Flood plain: NA 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: No major facilities. 5. Hazards: None known. 6. Proposed Zoning: C-G 7. Size of Property: 10.01 acres f. Subdivision Plat Information 1. Residential Lots: 0 2. Non-residential Lots: 4 3. Total Building Lots: 4 4. Common Lots: 1 5. Other Lots: N/A 6. Total Lots: 5 7. Open Lots: 1 g. Landscaping 1. Width of street buffer(s): 35 feet on Linder Road and Chinden Road. Knighthill Center Subdivision AZ-06-006, PP-06-005 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: 25 feet 3. Percentage of site as open space: 1.01 acres/10% 4. Other landscaping standards: h. Proposed and Required Non-Residential Setbacks: per the C-G zone C-G Standard Front 0 feet Side 0 feet Rear 0 feet Max. Building Height 65 feet Min. Lot Size None Min. Street Frontage None Summary of Proposed Streets andlor Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The access to the development will be from N. Linder Road to the east and from W. Everest Lane to the west. A private commercial drive aisle will provide traffic circulation through the site. A connection will also be made to the stub (N Gertie Place) provided from the south by Lochsa Falls Subdivision. The subject property does have frontage along Chinden Boulevard (State Highway 20-26) but is not proposing direct access to that facility. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On February 10, 2005 Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present included: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated "Medium Density Residential" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Medium density residential areas are anticipated to contain between three and eight dwellings per acre (see Page 95 of the Comprehensive Plan.) NOTE: The designation of the subject site on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map is proposed to be amended to "Mixed Use Community" with the current North Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment (NMA CPA). The NMA CPA is scheduled to be on the March 7, 2006 City Council agenda. If approved by the City Council, as recommended by the Commission, this application would comply with the new map designation. 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): • Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1 -Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands proposed to be annexed in the following manner: • Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense. Knighthill Center Subdivision AZ-06-006, PP-06-005 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~ING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriff's Off ce. Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD). • The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACHD). 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 annexation. 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 VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 6 -Require street connections between subdivisions at regular intervals to enhance connectivity and better traffic flow. The submitted preliminary plat proposes to connect to the public stub street from Lochsa Falls Subdivision to the south and the private stub street from Lochsa Falls Subdivision to the west. • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2 -Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets. The applicant has proposed one curb cut on N. Linder Road, which was approved by ACHD and is supported by staff. • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B) The proposed use does contribute to the variety of commercial uses in this area, as envisioned with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. • "Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action item 2) The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has previously submitted letters to the City stating that their policy for access to a Type IV Principal Arterial will be at intersections only, and spaced at one- halfmile intervals in urban areas. ITD allows approaches (other than intersections) in special cases and on a temporary basis. Staff finds that the proposal of no access point to Chinden Boulevard (SH 20-26) meets the location requirements of ITD. Further, staff finds that Ten Mile Road will serve as the access point to Chinden Boulevard for all the properties in this section. ITD has conditioned the subdivision for additional rights of way along Chinden Boulevard, a redesign of the proposal dated July OS, 2005 has been submitted which shows the right-of-way line at 90 feet to center line for approximately the first 500 feet east of the centerline of Ten Mile Road. Knighthill Center Subdivision AZ-06-006, PP-06-005 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 The applicant is requesting to retain Lot 30, Block 1 of the design dated January 19, 2006. This lot should be noted on the plat that it is for future right of way reservation for when ITD roadway improvements occur. The width of right of way reservations shall be as set forth by the ITD, UDC 11-3H-3C.2 Staff believes that the proposed zoning for this property is appropriate. 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. ZONING ORDINANCE a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC 11-2B-2 lists retail, restaurants, and financial institutions as a Permitted Uses in the C-G zone. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four Districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation ANNEXATION ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposed development with the Zoning Ordinance, staff believes that this is a good location for the proposed single family development. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of facts and findings. The annexation legal description submitted with the application (prepared on December 22, 2005 by Jeffery McAllister, PLS) shows the property as contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian. Prior to the annexation ordinance approval, a Development Agreement (DA) shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, properly owner (at the time of annexation ordinance adoption), and the developer. The applicant shall contact the City Attorney, Bill Nary, at 888-4433 to initiate this process within 18 months of City Council approval of the annexation re uq est. The DA shall incorporate the following: • 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. • All future development of the subject property shall be constructed in accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development. • The applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. • 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. • Prior to issuance of any building permit, the subject property shall be subdivided in accordance with the City of Meridian Unified Development Code. • A 25-foot wide commercial drive aisle, sewer, and water shall be stubbed to the property located at 6175 N. Linder Road. Knighthill Center Subdivision AZ-06-006, PP-06-005 PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 • Development of the properly shall comply substantially with the conceptual site plan shown on the preliminary plat dated January 5, 2006. • The applicant shall provide siEna~e which indicates that there is an exit towards W. Everest Lane. • The applicant shall provide evidence of a recorded cross access easement with the development to the west for access to W. Everest Lane, which is a private street. PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposed development with the Zoning Ordinance, staff believes that this is a good location for the proposed commercial development. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of facts and findings. L Right of wa~on~ Chinden: The submitted preliminary plat dated January 5, 2006 shows a 100-foot from centerline right-of--way on Chinden Road, which is consistent with the Idaho Transportation Department's requirements along Chinden Road. 2. Conifers in Street Buffer along Linder and Chinden: The submitted landscape plan shows coniferous trees located in the street buffer adjacent to Linder Road and Chinden Road. Per UDC 11-3B-SC conifers are prohibited in street buffers, unless planted in the middle of a buffer which is 20 feet wider, or wider. Please modify the landscape plan prior to submittal of final plat to show conifers placed ONLY in the middle of the required street buffer. 3. Parking Lot Landscaping; Landscape plans shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance applications for the development which comply with City Code. Specifically, the submitted conceptual site plan does not provide landscape islands and associated vegetation as required by UDC 11-3B-8C2. 4. Design Review: Per UDC 11-3A-19, the structures within the development shall be subject to administrative design review and a Design Review application shall submitted concurrently with the application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance. 5. Stub Streets: Staff is supportive of the connections to the two stub streets from the south and west from Lochsa Falls Subdivision. The preliminary plat should be revised to show a stubbed commercial drive aisle and cross access easement to the north property line of the property located to the south of the entrance off of N. Linder Road, known as 6175 N. Linder Road. 6. Pressure Irri atg ion: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. The applicant should be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1-28. Common Areas: Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Knighthill Center Business Owners' Association. Knighthill Center Subdivision AZ-06-006, PP-06-005 PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~ING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 8. Ditches, Laterals, and Canals: Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways and waterways being used as amenities, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Preliminary Plat (dated: January 4, 2006) 2. Landscape Plan (dated: January 5, 2006) 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 C. Legal Description D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance Knighthill Center Subdivision AZ-06-006, PP-06-005 PAGE 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 A. Drawings 1. Preliminary Plat (dated: January 4, 2006) _ . . _ _". i i , „ L' - 2 ~ ~ ' ' ~ : ~ - I ~ ~ . o m , ~ ~ ~ ~ " y ~ _ '~ ~ ~ n rn z ~ ' ~ - ; I ( ~• ill ~ O ~ . ~ ~ ~ _.- -- - -~ v -- .. , .,., ;.; '~ (~ n - O ~. I . _ ~,~, _~ - - ~ -- - ~. ~ ail ~ I- .. ---1 ~~ =1! _ .... ~I _ s - ! -P _ 4 ~ E __ -~ .f' F r -~ ~ h . I •` ~~ 6 14 lid ~ 11 `k 1 _ t s.. __ - I~ ~ {-'. Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~ING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 2. Landscape Plan (dated: January 5, 2005) ~~_ _ ~ ,. ,~-: • ;I. _.. I ~. ~` ~~~ ~~~ ,i~. -~Q~ '=f tip i i , ; r -= ;- - -- i ICI '~ I ~ . I ~~ !~ ~ i ~,II i' L~ '~ ; 1' <. i ~ r-i~, yy ~,~ ,i i ~ {~ r~ r I ; ~~~ i t s I ~ ' ~ ~' i ~ - '~ ~,_ ~_ - t i ,t f i ~_ I I f I jh~' 1.. il 1 ~f - IJ ~® ~ ri: kV. ~ I ' ~ ~ I - _ }; 1 t, - ~: ~ 'p ~~ r. . ' i 1 l ` ' •..1 ~ ~ '~ ~ ~~ ~C--fit. ~ ~ ~ f i ~~--~-~J ` _ ~k`'~~ % + 1 ~~ 14 Ca+~ ~ ~- t I IZ V ~ ( ~. , 1~ S y ` ~ '` t f ;i i ~, (1 ~i ~ j~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ i~ _ „ ~ L _~ _~ w 1 1 +~) I ~ i t - I ~ 1 ~f L ~ ~ ~' ~ ' +. ~ ~ ~ I I ~ p . _ i T F '~C. ~+i I ~~m It, ~ v ~'- ~ 1 I r ~ i~C" ^i l~~ ~_ti ~ a ~ . , r, .r'^ -__ _r~-1~ k I ~ ~ ~ . ~ 7:~ _ ~..~.. - - - -_- ~_ - - .. .~ _- - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ a ai -_' ~ -~ SW Corner of Linder - 1 11 ,~ ~ =: ~- I p~ 7 s' ' ~ j1C~®1~ I PREL1141NARY PLAT LANDSCAPE PLAN "r~ .. ~€ ' ' ~ r:+~Hiuw,t, ioMrio I 1~' ~' ~ Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~ING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 ANNEXATION COMMENTS Prior to the annexation ordinance approval, a Development Agreement (DA) shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, property owner (at the time of annexation ordinance adoption), and the developer. The applicant shall contact the City Attorney, Bill Nary, at 888-4433 to initiate this process within 18 months of City Council approval of the annexation re uq est The DA shall incorporate the following: • 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. • All future development of the subject property shall be constructed in accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development. • The applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. • 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. • Prior to issuance of any building permit, the subject property be subdivided in accordance with the City of Meridian Unified Development Code. • A 25-foot wide commercial drive aisle, sewer, and water shall be stubbed to the properly located at 6175 N. Linder Road. • Development of the property shall comply substantially with the conceptual site plan shown on the preliminary plat dated January 5, 2006. • The applicant shall provide signage which indicates that there is an exit towards W. Everest Lane. • The applicant shall provide evidence of a recorded cross access easement with the development to the west for access to W. Everest Lane, which is a private street. • That the applicant has offered, and shall provide, sidewalk along the landscaue buffer areas on the south side of the development and up to Everest Lane. 1.2 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT 1.2.1 The preliminary plat prepared by Toothman-Orton Engineering, dated January 4, 2006, is approved, with the conditions listed herein. All comments/conditions of the accompanying Annexation/Zoning (AZ-06-006) shall also be considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat (PP- 06-005). 1.2.2 Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Knighthill Center Subdivision Business Owner's Association. 1.2.3 The applicant shall modify the plat to include a cross access/ arkin~ easement for all lots within the subdivision. 1.2.4 The preliminary plat shall be modified to reflect the conditions contained in this report and 10 copies shall be submitted no later than 10 days prior to the City Council hearing on the applications. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA• G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 1.2.5 The landscape plan shall be modified to reflect the conditions contained in this report and the revised preliminary plat and shall be submitted with the final plat application. 1.2.6 Modify the landscape plan prior to submittal of final plat to show conifers placed ONLY in the middle of the required street buffer along Chinden Road and Linder Road. 1.2.7 Landscape plans shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance applications for the development which comply with City Code. Specifically, the submitted conceptual site plan does not provide landscape islands and associated vegetation as required by UDC 11-3B-8C2. 1.2.8 Per UDC 11-3A-19, the structures within the development shall be subject to administrative design review and a Design Review application shall submitted concurrently with the application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance. 1.2.9 The preliminary plat shall be revised to provide a stubbed 25-foot wide commercial drive aisle and cross access easement to the north property line of the property known as 6175 N. Linder Road. 1.2.10 All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11- 3A-18 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B. If the stormwater detention facility cannot be incorporated into the approved open space and still meet the standards of UDC 11-3A-18, then the applicant shall relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. It is the responsibility of the developer to comply with ACHD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at the time of final construction. 1.2.11 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. 1.2.12 Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways and waterways being used as amenities, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. 1.3 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT 1.3.1 Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to UDC 11-3A-17. 1.3.2 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1-28. 1.3.3 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. 1.3.4 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 fences Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~ING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 should taper down to 3 feet maximum within 20 feet of all right-of--way. All fencing should be installed in accordance with UDC 11-3A-7. 1.3.5 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. 1.3.6 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of the Ten Mile Stub Drain, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11- 3A-6, unless otherwise approved by Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. 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. 1.3.7 Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved annexation/conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.3.8 Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension of mains in N.Gertie Place and W. Everest Lane. The applicant shall install all mains necessary to provide service; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance with the City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in W. Everest Lane and N. Gertie Place. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. 2.3 The preliminary plat indicates all new water mains will be eight-inch. The applicant shall be required to install atwelve-inch main from the twelve-inch main in W. Everett to Linder Road, with a connection to the twelve inch main located to the south of this project in Linder Road. The shall be in lieu of running water main in the arterial frontages. 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 pressurized irrigation system is required for all subdivisions per UDC 11-3A-15. The applicant has not indicated who will own and operate the pressure irrigation system in this proposed development. If it is to be maintained as a private system, plans and specifications will be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the construction plan review. A "draft copy" of the operations and maintenance manual will be required prior to plan approval with the "final draft" being required prior to final plat signature on the last phase of this project. If it is to be owned and maintained by an Irrigation District then evidence of a license agreement shall be submitted prior to scheduling of apre-construction meeting. 2.6 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (UDC 11-3A-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 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. 2.7 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. 2.8 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. Plans shall be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, alternate plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 2.9 A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. Storm water treatment and disposal shall be designed in accordance with Department of Environmental Quality 1997 publication Catalog of Storm Water Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties and City of Meridian standards and policies. Off-site disposal into surface water is prohibited unless the jurisdiction which has authority over the receiving stream provides written authorization prior to development plan approval. The applicant is responsible for filing all necessary applications with the Idaho Department of Water Resources regarding Shallow Injection Wells. 2.10 Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base approved and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.11 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.12 All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro-paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.13 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat per Resolution 02-374. 2.14 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. 2.15 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.16 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.17 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~NG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 1. Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 2. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4'/z" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 3. All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 4. All common driveways shall be straight or have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside and shall have a clear driving surface which is 20' wide. 5. Provide a 20-foot wide Fire Lane for all internal roadways all roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D Section D103.6 Signs. 6. For all Fire Lanes, provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane". 7. Insure that all yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation. 8. Fire lanes and streets shall have a vertical clearance of 13'6". This includes mature landscaping. 9. 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. 10. Building setbacks shall be per the International Building Code for one and two story construction. 11. 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. The roadway shall be able to accommodate an imposed load of 75,000 GVW. 12. Commercial and office occupancies will require afire-flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 13. The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this installation is to be borne by the developer. 14. Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure. 15. Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy. 16. The first digit of the Apartment/Office Suite shall correspond to the floor level. 17. The applicant shall work with Planning Department staff to provide an address identification plan and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance at the required intersection(s). Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~ING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 18. All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface as measured around the perimeter of the building. 19. Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. 20. There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all Fire Department connections. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 1. The Police Department would like the proposed financial institution relocated from the northeast corner of the site to the southeast corner of the site for better police visibility and approach. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 1. The Parks Department has no concerns with the site design as submitted with the application. 6. SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY 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 ofApproval 1. Dedicate a total of 48-feet ofright-of--way from the centerline of Linder Road abutting the parcel by means of a warranty deed. The right-of--way purchase and sale agreement and deed must be completed and signed by the applicant prior to scheduling the final plat for signature by the ACRD Commission or prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of--way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be paid the fair market value of the right-of--way dedicated which is an addition to existing ACHD right-of--way. 2. Construct a 5-foot detached concrete sidewalk abutting the site on Linder Road. The sidewalk shall be located a minimum of 41-feet from the centerline of the roadway. The applicant should work with ACHD and the landowner of the out-parcel that fronts on Linder Road to extend a continuous sidewalk to the intersection of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard. 3. Construct a northbound left-turn lane on Linder Road at the site access intersection. 4. Construct a curb return full access driveway on Linder Road located at the south property line (approximately 600-feet south of Chinden Boulevard), as proposed. construct a separate left and right turn lane for the eastbound (exiting) approach. 5. Comply with the requirements of the Idaho Transportation Department for right-of--way, access, and improvements to Chinden Boulevard (iJS 20/26). 6. Connect to Gertie Place, a public stub street at the south properly line, as proposed. 7. Connect to Everest Street, a private street at the west properly line, as proposed. 8. Provide across-access easement to the 0.6-acre out-parcel to the south, as proposed. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~ING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 9. Other than the access specifically approved with this application, direct lot access is prohibited to Linder Road and shall be noted on the final plat. 10. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. Standard Conditions ofA~ rp oval 1. Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of--way. 2. Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACHD roadway or right-of--way. 3. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 4. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 5. Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy. 6. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 7. 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. 8. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 9. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 10. 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. 11. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of--way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of--way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACRD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 12. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~NG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 13. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~NG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 C. Legal Description TOOTH1tifAN-OR'TON ENGINEERING COMPANI' Ct,N9.~1"rlNG F:!':U WEFKS, SIIK :'E Y'OKS ANU YLAM+F kS _, : ~ CN,r:~R1 Pi~i ILiV,aF[) N,SNir, IUAHJ 81710.2UQ9 ]'ilij CC t: I1j 1:1 I'a;~~ 1 of ! E~HIBI'f "A" Lrutd Boundary Description :A l ,~rrr1 of land located in the NE 4a of the ?'~'E;. '/~ of Section 26, Township 4 North. }?:mfr ; ~l'est, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Ida}to, described as !allows: ('OMNI!':N('ING at a fi,und almninunt cap, !narking the comer common to See.tions ' ~. ?=;, ? ~ and ?fi, fiom which a fi~und brass cap, marking the quarter corner common to .aid tirctil_,ns '> an~i fib, hears S.I)0°54'56"~4'., 2657.54 feet; thence, along the section linr curnnton to said Sections 25 and 2G (centerline of N. Linder Road), :fit ti.tt0"54'56"W..4U.0~ feet; thence, leaving said section line. R 1 N.>;4°;8'47"W., 25A0 feet to a point on the southerly right-of-way Iine of W (-'hinden Boulevard, m:u~king the POIN"I' OF BEGINNING; thence, along said right-of-way line the fi~llowing courses: I) Northwesterly along a curve to the left, having a radius of 31.3 ~Z48 feet. an arc length of ~S.~U feet, through a cenu-al angle ofOU°U>' ;3", and a chard bearing and dist:urce of N.89" 3(i'00"W., 15.50 feet to a point of tangency; thence, ,1 N 89°'i8'47"W 650.61 feet; thence, leaving said right-of-way, 1 S.UO°21 ' 13"W., 616.84 feet; thence, -I) 5.89°U4'S9'T., 7U0.0? feet to the westerly right-of--way line of N. Linder Road; thence, along said westerly right-of--way line, ~) N.OU°54'56"E., 6?3.71 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING C'ON'I':UNING: 10.01 1 acres, more or less. Sl'R.11~:(-'"f 'I'O: All Covenants, Riglus, Rights-of-14'ay, Easements of P~ecord and any !- r.. umhr ~a~r~. ~ ~~ a 7 3 ~,6 t,~ t,~4 ~ ~~ iFII< ~..~.LI_'.L 1' Ai.D~~FI.i. Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~NG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 ~~ ~. C. - I _: i "` _ `~ I ,~ , ~` r„ Ji w, I i I _ ~ ~ `~C L'.,~~MS4 ~yLS S'J~0!N'=ION 40 ~I r~ _ S00'21'13"W 616.84' ~ - - - o,~ m.~ ~ _ ~ i'^,r-,m oy `J r D m e !r_~D n ~ (n ~! ,!~,I <»~ „ m I _ o co ~, s: b " ~. _ m ° a ~ o ;,,~~~m77j : ~ o of _~ ~~' ~ 7_ N I 11 j ~, '1 (.1 ' ~ I - i~ ,i 7,,; J 1 1 ~ ~+~ ~ - -- - - t __ _ NOD'S4 56 E -623.71'- f a' i -- -- - - ---- c"~ ~ '` t"'' ~ N. lJNDER ROAD ~ ~ ~ 0 o _. T I ~ I ~~ ~ y -- ~ ti :/ ~ , '~ p : -' ty ~J c~ y r ' z 1 ~, ~ ~\y O ~ H ~/ ~ 0 ~'~ _ ;:1 ~~ z " - ~. j i, ~ ~ ~ •i D ~, ~_ `, ~~ ~ - ~ 7 ~ ~! a] ~ ~i ~. ,~ - ~ U -> ( ! p ~ ~~ ~~. z - r*1 = I'_ [= =__ m Z m 0 ,~ a ~ - c~ _' b ~ D Z r n ~ ~ s !' oN> ~ ~~ Z' ~ ~ ~ f> ~oZ ~ !-e aZm `~ _ ~ c. N r 0 ~ ~ I.. 0 = I:~ z ~ v m i ~~ A FIJ NUF .ter _SVf2 - NAI] P] ' Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance 1. Annexation Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The applicant is proposing to zone all of the subject property to C-G. City Council finds that the proposed zoning map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; City Council finds that retail, restaurant, and financial institution uses are allowed within the requested zoning district of C-G as a Principally Permitted Use. The accompanying plat demonstrates the land will be developed with lot sizes and other dimensional requirements that conform to the proposed zoning designation. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; City Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. 4. 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, City Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-SB-3.E). City Council finds that all essential services are available or will be provided by the developer to the subject property and will not require unreasonable expenditure of public funds. The applicant is proposing to develop the land in general compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. This is a logical expansion of the City limits. In accordance with the findings listed above, City Council finds that Annexation and Zonin of this pro >l erh' to C-G would be in the best interest of the Cites 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: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; City Council finds that the proposed application is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. City Council generally supports the proposed plat layout as Exhibit D CITY OF Iv1ERIDIAN PLA~NG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 it complies with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; City Council finds that public services are available to accommodate the proposed development. (See finding Items 3 and 4 above under Annexation Findings for more details.) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their cost, City Council finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; See finding "Items 3 and 4 above under Annexation Findings above, and the Agency Comments and Conditions in Exhibit B for more detail. 5. 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 that should be brought to the Council or Commission's attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. City Council is unaware of any natural, scenic or historic features on this site. Therefore, City Council finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature(s) of major importance. Exhibit D < • • May 19, 2006 PP 06-005 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT Sea 2 Sea, LLC ITEM NO. 6-D REQUEST Findings : Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 4 commercial lots and 1 common on 10.01 a cres in a proposed C-G zone for Knighthill Center Subdivision - southwest corner of N. Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Findings 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: U S WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: p,i,,~, 11~~~ Date: ~ ~'~' d(~ Phone: G ~~• j ~1~ Emailed: ~4~i t~J(1 ~ ~,~~, On ~[-~-~~~ S Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER • ~ p., _ i .q ~ ~ ~; ;,, In the Matter of Annexation and Zoning (AZ) from RUT to C-G and Preliminary Plat (PP) approval of 4 commercial building lots and 1 common other lot on 10.01 acres for Knighthill Center Subdivision, by Sea 2 Sea, LLC. ~~i' ~j'~ Case No(s): AZ-06-006 and PP-06-005 """"'~~" • ~'-~+~ For the City Council Hearing Date of: May 9, 2006 MAY ~ ~ 2006 City. of Meridian A. Findings of Fact City Clerk Office Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 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. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ-06-006 / PP-06-005 -PAGE 1 of 4 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, Preliminary Plat, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 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 5, 2006 is hereby conditionally approved; 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits (as applicable) 1. 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 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ-06-006 / PP-06-005 -PAGE 2 of 4 ! • 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 may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ-06-006 / PP-06-005 -PAGE 3 of 4 VOTED-~~~" - By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 2~ ' day of 2006. COUNCIL MEMBER SHAUN WARDLE VOTED--~~~ COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD (TIE BREAKER) _~-® Attest: William G. Berg, Jr., VOTED ~~'P'~'~ VOTED--~~N~ VOTED ~- ~~ ~~` (~'~ sr®o p~. _ b ~, ~' ~ Clerks ~' ~ ~~ ~~;fit?iB t~jtt~41®~~5~~ Copy served upon Applicant, The Planning Lt epartment, Public Works Department and City Attorney. BY~ Dated: GJ" 3~ "(S~11 ' Clerk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ-06-006 / PP-06-005 -PAGE 4 of 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA1~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 STAFF REPORT City Council Hearing Hearing Date: 5/9/2006 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Josh Wilson, Associate City Planner SUBJECT: ICnighthill Center Subdivision • AZ-06-006 -~~ -^.' i a _yjl ~ ~ '`g~ ~ ~S~I~ .~ r .'' - '~ Annexation and Zoning of 10.01 acres from RUT to C-G zone • PP-06-005 Preliminary Plat of 4 commercial building lots and 1 common lot on 10.01 acres in a proposed C-G zone 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Sea 2 Sea, LLC, has applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ) of 10.01 acres from RUT (Ada County) to C-G (General Retail and Service Commercial) and Preliminary Plat approval of 4 commercial building lots and 1 common lot on 10.01 acres. The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan which shows retail, restaurant and fmancial institution uses on the property. The site is located on the southwest corner of N. Linder Road and Chinden Road (SH 20/26). 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard the item on March 2 and Apri16, 2006. At the public hearing they moved to recommend approval. a. Summary of Public Hearing: i. In favor: Shawn Nickel ii. In opposition: None. iii. Commenting: None. iv. Staff presenting application: Josh Wilson. v. Other staff commenting on application: None. b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. Appearance of the rear of the proposed buildings from W. Everest Lane ii. Access to W. Everest Lane, which is a private street c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. Add a Condition which states: "The applicant shall modify the plat to include a cross access/parking easement for all lots within the subdivision." ii. Add a restriction to the Development Agreement which states: "The applicant shall provide signage which indicates that there is an exit towards W. Everest Lane." iii. Add a restriction to the Development Agreement which states: "The applicant shall provide evidence of a recorded cross access easement with the development to the west for access to W. Everest Lane, which is a private street." d. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. None. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Numbers AZ- Knighthill Center Subdivision AZ-06-006, PP-06-005 PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 06-006 and PP-06-005 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006, with the following modifications to the proposed development agreement: (add any proposed modifications.) Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Numbers AZ-06- 006 and PP-06-005 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006, for the following reasons: (you should state specific reasons for denial of the annexation request.) Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Numbers AZ-06-006 and PP-06-005 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: Southwest corner of N. Linder Road and Chinden Road (SH 20/26) NE '/4, NE '/4, Section 26, T4N Rl W b. Owners: Foothill Knights, LLC 757 W. Bankside Drive Eagle, Idaho 83616 c. Applicant: Sea 2 Sea, LLC 757 W. Bankside Drive Eagle, Idaho 83616 d. Representative: Shawn Nickel, SLN Planning, Inc. e. Present Zoning: RUT f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Low Density Residential g. Description of Applicant's Request: 1. Date of Preliminary Plat (atta.ched as Exhibit A1): January 5, 2006 2. Date of Landscape Plan (attached as Exhibit A2): January 4, 2006 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute an annexation as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-SB-3, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. b. The subject application will in fact constitute a preliminary plat as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of UDC 11-6B-2, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. c. Newspaper notifications published on: April 17 and May 1, 2006 d. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: April 14, 2006 Knighthill Center Subdivision AZ-06-006, PP-06-005 PAGE 2 C[TY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 e. Applicant posted notice on site by: May 1, 2006 6. LAND USE' a. Existing Land Use(s): Vacant land b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: The property sits on the southwest corner of Linder Road and Chinden Road, which are both major roadways in the area and carry large amounts of vehicular traffic. To the south and west is Lochsa Falls Subdivision, which contains over 800 single family homes and vacant commercial lots along Chinden Road. c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Chinden Road and vacant land, zoned RUT (Ada County). 2. East: Vacant land, zoned RUT (Ada County). 3. South: Lochsa Falls Subdivision, zoned R-4. 4. West: Lochsa Falls Subdivision, zoned R-4. d. History of Previous Actions: None. e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities 1. Public Works Location of sewer: There is currently sewer in W. Everest Lane and N. Genie Place. Location of water: There are water stubs in W. Everest Land and N. Gertie Place. Issues or concerns: Water main sizing. 2. Vegetation: None. 3. Flood plain: NA 4. Canals/Ditches Irrigation: No major facilities. 5. Hazards: None known. 6. Proposed Zoning: C-G 7. Size of Property: 10.01 acres f. Subdivision Plat Information 1. Residential Lots: 0 2. Non-residential Lots: 4 3. Total Building Lots: 4 4. Common Lots: 1 5. Other Lots: N/A 6. Total Lots: 5 7. Open Lots: 1 g. Landscaping 1. Width of street buffer(s): 35 feet on Linder Road and Chinden Road. Knighthill Center Subdivision AZ-06-006, PP-06-005 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: 25 feet 3. Percentage of site as open space: 1.01 acres/10% 4. Other landscaping standards: h. Proposed and Required Non-Residential Setbacks: per the C-G zone C-G Standard Front 0 feet Side 0 feet Rear 0 feet Max. Building Height 65 feet Min. Lot Size None Min. Street Frontage None Summary of Proposed Streets andlor Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The access to the development will be from N. Linder Road to the east and from W. Everest Lane to the west. A private commercial drive aisle will provide traffic circulation through the site. A connection will also be made to the stub (N Gertie Place) provided from the south by Lochsa Falls Subdivision. The subject property does have frontage along Chinden Boulevard (State Highway 20-26) but is not proposing direct access to that facility. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On February 10, 2005 Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present included: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated "Medium Density Residential" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Medium density residential areas are anticipated to contain between three and eight dwellings per acre (see Page 95 of the Comprehensive Plan.) NOTE: The designation of the subject site on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map is proposed to be amended to "Mixed Use Community" with the current North Meridian Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment (NMA CPA). The NMA CPA is scheduled to be on the March 7, 2006 City Council agenda. If approved by the City Council, as recommended by the Commission, this application would comply with the new map designation. 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): • Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1 -Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. When the City established its Area of City Impact, property. The City of Meridian plans to provide annexed in the following manner.• it planned to provide City services to the subject municipal services to the lands proposed to be Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense. Knighthill Center Subdivision AZ-06-006, PP-06-005 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriff's Office. Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD). • The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACHD). 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 sicbject annexation. 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 VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 6 -Require street connections between subdivisions at regular intervals to enhance connectivity and better traffic flow. The submitted preliminary plat proposes to connect to the public stub street from Lochsa Falls Subdivision to the south and the private stub street from Lochsa Falls Subdivision to the west. • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action 2 -Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets. The applicant has proposed one curb cut on N. Linder Road, which was approved by ACHD and is supported by staff. • "Plan for a variety of commercial and retail opportunities within the Impact Area." (Chapter VII, Goal 1, Objective B) The proposed use does contribute to the variety of commercial uses in this area, as envisioned with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment. • "Restrict curb cuts and access points on collectors and arterial streets." (Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective D, Action item 2) The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) has previously submitted letters to the City stating that their policy for access to a Type IV Principal Arterial will be at intersections only, and spaced at one- halfmile intervals in urban areas. ITD allows approaches (other than intersections) in special cases and on a temporary basis. Staff finds that the proposal of no access point to Chinden Boulevard (SH 20-26) meets the location requirements of ITD. Further, staff finds that Ten Mile Road will serve as the access point to Chinden Boulevard for all the properties in this section. ITD has conditioned the subdivision for additional rights of way along Chinden Boulevard, a redesign of the proposal dated July OS, 2005 has been submitted which shows the right-of--way line at 90 feet to center line for approximately the first SDO feet east of the centerline of Ten Mile Road. Knighthill Center Subdivision AZ-06-006, PP-06-005 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 The applicant is requesting to retain Lot 30, Block 1 of the design dated January 19, 2006. This lot should be noted on the plat that it is for future right of way reservation for when ITD roadway improvements occur. The width of right of way reservations shall be as set forth by the ITD, UDC 11-3H-3C.2 Staff believes that the proposed zoning for this property is appropriate. 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. ZONING ORDINANCE a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC 11-2B-2 lists retail, restaurants, and financial institutions as a Permitted Uses in the C-G zone. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: The purpose of the Commercial Districts is to provide for the retail and service needs of the community in accord with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. Four Districts are designated which differ in the size and scale of commercial structures accommodated in the district, the scale and mix of allowed commercial uses, and the location of the district in proximity to streets and highways. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation ANNEXATION ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposed development with the Zoning Ordinance, staff believes that this is a good location for the proposed single family development. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of facts and findings. The annexation legal description submitted with the application (prepared on December 22, 2005 by Jeffery McAllister, PLS) shows the property as contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian. Prior to the annexation ordinance approval, a Development Agreement (DA) shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, property owner (at the time of annexation ordinance adoption), and the developer. The applicant shall contact the Ci Attorney Bill Nary at 888 4433 to initiate this process within 18 months of City Council approval of the annexation re uest The DA shall incorporate the following: • 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. • All future development of the subject property shall be constructed in accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development. • The applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. • 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. • Prior to issuance of any building permit, the subject property shall be subdivided in accordance with the City of Meridian Unified Development Code. • A 25-foot wide commercial drive aisle, sewer, and water shall be stubbed to the property located at 6175 N. Linder Road. Knighthill Center Subdivision AZ-06-006, PP-06-005 PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAI~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 • Development of the property shall comply substantially with the conceptual site plan shown on the preliminary plat dated January 5, 2006. • The applicant shall provide si~na~e which indicates that there is an exit towards W Everest Lane. • The applicant shall provide evidence of a recorded cross access easement with the development to the west for access to W Everest Lane which is a private street PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposed development with the Zoning Ordinance, staff believes that this is a good location for the proposed commercial development. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of facts and findings. 1. Right of way along Chinden• The submitted preliminary plat dated January 5, 2006 shows a 100-foot from centerline right-of--way on Chinden Road, which is consistent with the Idaho Transportation Department's requirements along Chinden Road. 2. Conifers in Street Buffer along Linder and Chinden• The submitted landscape plan shows coniferous trees located in the street buffer adjacent to Linder Road and Chinden Road. Per UDC 11-3B-SC conifers are prohibited in street buffers, unless planted in the middle of a buffer which is 20 feet wider, or wider. Please modify the landscape plan prior to submittal of final plat to show conifers placed ONLY in the middle of the required street buffer. 3. Parking Lot Landsca~ing_ Landscape plans shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance applications for the development which comply with City Code. Specifically, the submitted conceptual site plan does not provide landscape islands and associated vegetation as required by UDC 11-3B-8C2. 4. Design Review: Per UDC 11-3A-19, the structures within the development shall be subject to administrative design review and a Design Review application shall submitted concurrently with the application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance. 5. Stub Streets: Staff is supportive of the connections to the two stub streets from the south and west from Lochsa Falls Subdivision. The preliminary plat should be revised to show a stubbed commercial drive aisle and cross access easement to the north property line of the property located to the south of the entrance off of N. Linder Road, known as 6175 N. Linder Road. 6. Pressure Irrigation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. The applicant should be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1-28. Common Areas: Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Knighthill Center Business Owners' Association. Knighthill Center Subdivision AZ-06-006, PP-06-005 PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 8. Ditches, Laterals and Canals• Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways and waterways being used as amenities, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Preliminary Plat (dated: January 4, 2006) 2. Landscape Plan (dated: January 5, 2006) 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 C. Legal Description D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance Knighthill Center Subdivision AZ-06-006, PP-06-005 PAGE 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 A. Drawings 1. Preliminary Plat (dated: January 4, 2006) 0 o ~ s _Z G7 a -~ -~ ~o = m ~' o ~~ r ~~~~ m o m z ~a?-zi ~o m o '< a 7D c° ~7 0 ~ r c ?~ GD -~ v --- - < 0 z 5; f1 I} ` ~~ 1 r- `-~- .. '~~I ,, ~ ' 111 i ~ :. .F _ - - ~ ,. Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE RING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 2. Landscape Plan (dated: January 5, 2005) f 't p _ i ~,, I ~. + - :I: .~, ., I r. ~ -_ _ - f j•;' I , J ~ ~ ~; • ~ t~~ iii tai. .. "~ I~ - ( - ~ ~I' - - - , . ---- ~,~ ~ h i~ ~, .~ ~i ~Ir~l~ rr ~• y~ {;' 7 ''1f, i4 ~st`'I + f,l P',tl -, ~r~ ~.,, •~..~ j~~ I aci >,1 ~ i 1 t f ~-. I, ~. .. _ .. ' ~~ - . , ._~ _ . _ ._~; -'t 11 .t 1. I..I~.; ~~ i ~t `; 1 ' I fl• ~I . I '. I, P I , ~ ki " '~ i v is t i.l 1 .r :~ : _: ~.'. ..-i _ r'^-'! i I ~! r_ ~ ,.;. t , +i. i ~. 1 I , It -~ I e. '' I _! ~ ~. ~ I w to ,~ i i I 1. I .._ _. ~ i I '; II I l` ~~~'~ I `~ ~:: c c mt ;; ~ -- _ S~J Caner cat Ll~d~r ~ y ~ ' PRELl~11NARY PLAT LANDSCA°E PLAN ' Pi 1 y I a - ~ ~~~" .I _ I ~ 3. ~ ~ z -----~ 1 -• - -- ~.t_RL,..,;d I~ ~ ., I~ Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAI~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 ANNEXATION COMMENTS Prior to the annexation ordinance approval, a Development Agreement (DA) shall be entered into between the City of Meridian, property owner (at the time of annexation ordinance adoption), and the developer. The applicant shall contact the City Attorney Bill Nary at 888 4433 to initiate this process within 18 months of City Council approval of the annexation re nest The DA shall incorporate the following: • 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. • All future development of the subject property shall be constructed in accordance with City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time of development. • The applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. • 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. • Prior to issuance of any building permit, the subject property be subdivided in accordance with the City of Meridian Unified Development Code. • A 25-foot wide commercial drive aisle, sewer, and water shall be stubbed to the property located at 6175 N. Linder Road. • Development of the property shall comply substantially with the conceptual site plan shown on the preliminary plat dated January 5, 2006. • The applicant shall provide si~naae which indicates that there is an exit towards W Everest Lane. • The applicant shall provide evidence of a recorded cross access easement with the development to the west for access to W Everest Lane which is a private street • That the applicant has offered and shall provide sidewalk along the landscape buffer areas on the south side of the development and up to Everest Lane 1.2 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT 1.2.1 The preliminary plat prepared by Toothman-Orton Engineering, dated January 4, 2006, is approved, with the conditions listed herein. All comments/conditions of the accompanying Annexation/Zoning (AZ-06-006) shall also be considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat (PP- 06-005). 1.2.2 Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Knighthill Center Subdivision Business Owner's Association. 1.2.3 The applicant shall modify the plat to include a cross access/parking easement for all lots within the subdivision. 1.2.4 The preliminary plat shall be modified to reflect the conditions contained in this report and 10 copies shall be submitted no later than 10 days prior to the City Council hearing on the applications. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAI~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 1.2.5 The landscape plan shall be modified to reflect the conditions contained in this report and the revised preliminary plat and shall be submitted with the final plat application. 1.2.6 Modify the landscape plan prior to submittal of fmal plat to show conifers placed ONLY in the middle of the required street buffer along Chinden Road and Linder Road. 1.2.7 Landscape plans shall be submitted with the Certificate of Zoning Compliance applications for the development which comply with City Code. Specifically, the submitted conceptual site plan does not provide landscape islands and associated vegetation as required by UDC 11-3B-8C2. 1.2.8 Per UDC 11-3A-19, the structures within the development shall be subject to administrative design review and a Design Review application shall submitted concurrently with the application for Certificate of Zoning Compliance. 1.2.9 The preliminary plat shall be revised to provide a stubbed 25-foot wide commercial drive aisle and cross access easement to the north property line of the property known as 6175 N. Linder Road. 1.2.10 All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11- 3A-18 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B. 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. 1.2.11 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. 1.2.12 Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways and waterways being used as amenities, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. 1.3 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT 1.3.1 Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to UDC 11-3A-17. 1.3.2 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1-28. 1.3.3 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. 1.3.4 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 fences Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAI~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 should taper down to 3 feet maximum within 20 feet of all right-of--way. All fencing should be installed in accordance with UDC 11-3A-7. 1.3.5 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. 1.3.6 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of the Ten Mile Stub Drain, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11- 3A-6, unless otherwise approved by Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. 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. 1.3.7 Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved annexation/conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.3.8 Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension of mains in N.Gertie Place and W. Everest Lane. The applicant shall install all mains necessary to provide service; applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance with the City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.2 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in W. Everest Lane and N. Gertie Place. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. 2.3 The preliminary plat indicates all new water mains will be eight-inch. The applicant shall be required to install atwelve-inch main from the twelve-inch main in W. Everett to Linder Road, with a connection to the twelve inch main located to the south of this project in Linder Road. The shall be in lieu of running water main in the arterial frontages. 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 pressurized irrigation system is required for all subdivisions per UDC 11-3A-15. The applicant has not indicated who will own and operate the pressure irrigation system in this proposed development. If it is to be maintained as a private system, plans and specifications will be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the construction plan review. A "draft copy" of the operations and maintenance manual will be required prior to plan approval with the "final draft" being required prior to final plat signature on the last phase of this project. If it is to be owned and maintained by an Irrigation District then evidence of a license agreement shall be submitted prior to scheduling of apre-construction meeting. 2.6 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (UDC 11-3A-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANl!!!GG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE SING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 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. 2.7 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. 2.8 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. Plans shall be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, alternate plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 2.9 A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. Storm water treatment and disposal shall be designed in accordance with Department of Environmental Quality 1997 publication Catalog of Storm Water Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties and City of Meridian standards and policies. Off-site disposal into surface water is prohibited unless the jurisdiction which has authority over the receiving stream provides written authorization prior to development plan approval. The applicant is responsible for filing all necessary applications with the Idaho Department of Water Resources regarding Shallow Injection Wells. 2.10 Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base approved and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.11 A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% will be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 2.12 All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro-paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.13 Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the final plat per Resolution 02-374. 2.14 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. 2.15 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 2.16 Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 2.17 The engineer shall be required to certify that the street centerline elevations are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 1. Acceptance of the water supply for fire protection will be by the Meridian Fire Department and water quality by the Meridian Water Department for bacteria testing. 2. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %2" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 3. All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall-have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 4. All common driveways shall be straight or have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside and shall have a clear driving surface which is 20' wide. 5. Provide a 20-foot wide Fire Lane for all internal roadways all roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D Section D103.6 Signs. 6. For all Fire Lanes, provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane". 7. Insure that all yet undeveloped parcels are maintained free of combustible vegetation. 8. Fire lanes and streets shall have a vertical clearance of 13'6". This includes mature landscaping. 9. 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. 10. Building setbacks shall be per the International Building Code for one and two story construction. 11. 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. The roadway shall be able to accommodate an imposed load of 75,000 GVW. 12. Commercial and office occupancies will require a fire-flow consistent with the International Fire Code to service the proposed project. Fire hydrants shall be placed per Appendix D. 13. The fire department requests that any future signalization installed as the result of the development of this project be equipped with Opticom Sensors to ensure a safe and efficient response by fire and emergency medical service vehicles. This cost of this installation is to be borne by the developer. 14. Maintain a separation of 5' from the building to the dumpster enclosure. 15. Provide a Knox box entry system for the complex prior to occupancy. 16. The first digit of the Apartment/Office Suite shall correspond to the floor level. 17. The applicant shall work with Planning Department staff to provide an address identification plan and a sign which meets the requirements of the City of Meridian sign ordinance at the required intersection(s). Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAI~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 18. All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface as measured around the perimeter of the building. 19. Provide exterior egress lighting as required by the International Building & Fire Codes. 20. There shall be a fire hydrant within 100' of all Fire Department connections. 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 1. The Police Department would like the proposed financial institution relocated from the northeast corner of the site to the southeast corner of the site for better police visibility and approach. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 1. The Parks Department has no concerns with the site design as submitted with the application. 6. SANTTARY SERVICE COMPANY 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 ofd ry oval Dedicate a total of 48-feet ofright-of--way from the centerline of Linder Road abutting the parcel by means of a warranty deed. The right-of--way purchase and sale agreement and deed must be completed and signed by the applicant prior to scheduling the final plat for signature by the ACHD Commission or prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. Allow up to 30 business days to process the right-of--way dedication after receipt of all requested material. The owner will be paid the fair market value of the right-of--way dedicated which is an addition to existing ACHD right-of--way. 2. Construct a 5-foot detached concrete sidewalk abutting the site on Linder Road. The sidewalk shall be located a minimum of 41-feet from the centerline of the roadway. The applicant should work with ACRD and the landowner of the out-parcel that fronts on Linder Road to extend a continuous sidewalk to the intersection of Linder Road and Chinden Boulevard. 3. Construct a northbound left-turn lane on Linder Road at the site access intersection. 4. Construct a curb return full access driveway on Linder Road located at the south property line (approximately 600-feet south of Chinden Boulevard), as proposed. construct a separate left and right turn lane for the eastbound (exiting) approach. 5. Comply with the requirements of the Idaho Transportation Department for right-of--way, access, and improvements to Chinden Boulevard (iJS 20/26). 6. Connect to Gertie Place, a public stub street at the south property line, as proposed. 7. Connect to Everest Street, a private street at the west property line, as proposed. 8. Provide across-access easement to the 0.6-acre out-parcel to the south, as proposed. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAI~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 9. Other than the access specifically approved with this application, direct lot access is prohibited to Linder Road and shall be noted on the final plat. 10. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. Standard Conditions ofA pp Yoval 1. Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of--way. 2. Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACRD roadway or right-of--way. 3. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. 4. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. 5. Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy. 6. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five years old are not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 7. 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 ACRD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 8. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 9. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 10. 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. 11. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of--way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of--way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 12. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I~RING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 13. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA)~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 C. Legal Description "iOOTHh]A'~-OK'I'ON EtiGINEEK[?~G IX)hiPANI' cr.;,':I'I rl'~G P?:C~itiEFR.S. SUF:~'FYt,RA ahh YI.ANt.EkS r. a ~. IC!^J-J 8. 7I d.l~ii;' .t .n22'u. ~ .. _. {'i , ~1Ci is f ~_', l ~l 1';i::' i t,l I E\H1B17 "A" Land ftc,undar~` I)r;criptiun :\ t,;,ri cl of land !orated in the ~'I•: ';S of the 1'~ f~ ';~ of tiei.ttun ?b, I uwnsftip 4 tiorth. h.a:;~~, 1~l'rst, Iioisr Aleridian, Ada C'uurtty, Idatltu, described as follows ('O1`4R9I•:NCING at a found alurninunr cap, rnarking the corner a,nmwn to Sections .'. r. '~:, ? ~ anci 2G, horn which a finuul brass cap, m<ulcing the quarter corner cornmon ti, :.aid tirclituls 'ti and ~G, bears S.UU"i-{'>6"~V., Zfii7S4 trot; thence, al+,ng the sechi,n lin_• ~orsunon t„ ,aid Sections ?$ and ?ti (centerline of ~'- Linder Ruadj. :1 t ti.tt(1° j~tiG"~l'., 40.fii fret; thence, leacin~ said section line. fi i N.K9"ig'47"~'., ?5.00 feet to a point on the snuthr.rly right-of-way liar of W' l 'huxlen N,oulr~•ard. markins~ the I'OIN"I' OF' BL;GINNING: thence, alurrg said riEtht-ot-way line the iirlh~tvinp, courses: I j t\urth~tcsterly along a curve to the let±, having a radius c,f J~1..; ;7 -I$ '~et.:rn are length of Sj.i(i feet. through a central angle n1 U0~0>'3;", ana a chr,rd hearing and dist:uree of ti.Fs9" 36'00"~'., ji,>0 feet to a point of tutgency: thence;. ~'; \'.R9"3R'47"lb'., f,50.61 feet; drence, !ravine, acid right-of-wav, 1 5.00'., I ' ] t"l~'., 61 f,.84 feet: thence, -l! 5.89"0~]'S9"I:., 7C10.0? legit to the westerly right-of--way line of N. hinder Etoad; dtence, along said ~~'esterly right-of=~i•ay line, t N.00°54'i6"E., 6?3.71 feet to die POINT OF BEGINNING C'QN"I'A[V'IN(_=: iQ-011 acres, nture or less_ Sl I3.lEC"f "hU::~ll Cavrnaras. Rignts. Rights-of-l~tiati. 1-.asemeni; of Berard and :mti ~~dJ~ -' N ~~ a 7s~ s _.2~~~s t.,,..~ . , .:f~ ~_ .:.~~~- ~,~.,~Ft~ Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAI~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 -. - 1 - -- -_ -- ~ i .` ~ - r I ~ - iL ~~. r= : S00'21'13"W 516.84' I= ~ - - - - n c i o,' ~ ~.D , ' ~ D c, © O r~. r ~r, Z,~ ° ~ I ' ~i ~: ~ ~ Z i;~ o w ~ ~'~>~ ~ ~ ~~~ m ~ ~ r „ ~ s. b ~ I ,~ ~ ~ i ti .a m O - "_; ~ m l v ~; ~ c _u o - C n.~ ~ ~~ X41 '- ~ _ ;~~ :~ i 1. i i '' _ 1 _ _ ~/ ~ NUQ'S4 5- 6 ^G23.71'_- ~ a1~ r~ n, .. .:' t; ..- 1 N. CINDER RDAD _ . _ ct ~ r: 'p Ui y I ~ `.r ~ I r~ ~ I ~. Z ilex ~ ~ `' . _ - -_ c> '' -• ~ - '1 _ ., ~7 - - z ' ^~ ~_- i ~ 'r ~ - y ~ I t. ._ _ ~~ ' it !I z r*t = ~ ~~~ O -i _ - m Z t*1 0 ~ _: a~ gzr b~ + ~ ~~ ~ I' O N n ~ ' Cam ~ ~ z ~ L~ k' ~Nm Iie pZ= O ~ A. Z ` O D _ .~ ~ I ~~ 2 ~ ~} m ~ ' r*t - rr~, ' .YA~^_ .a. ~ a y Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE KING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance 1. Annexation Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The applicant is proposing to zone all of the subject property to C-G. City Council finds that the proposed zoning map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; City Council finds that retail, restaurant, and financial institution uses are allowed within the requested zoning district of C-G as a Principally Permitted Use. The accompanying plat demonstrates the land will be developed with lot sizes and other dimensional requirements that conform to the proposed zoning designation. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; City Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. 4. 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, City Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-5B-3.E). City Council finds that all essential services are available or will be provided by the developer to the subject property and will not require unreasonable expenditure of public funds. The applicant is proposing to develop the land in general compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. This is a logical expansion of the City limits. In accordance with the findings listed above, City Council finds that Annexation and Zoning of this property to C-G would be in the best interest of the Cites 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: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; City Council finds that the proposed application is in substantial compliance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. City Council generally supports the proposed plat layout as Exhibit D CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAI~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE RING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 it complies with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; City Council finds that public services are available to accommodate the proposed development. (See finding Items 3 and 4 above under Annexation Findings for more details.) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their cost, City Council finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; See finding "Items 3 and 4 above under Annexation Findings above, and the Agency Comments and Conditions in Exhibit B for more detail. 5. 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 that should be brought to the Council or Commission's attention. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. Ciry Council is unaware of any natural, scenic or historic features on this site. Therefore, City Council finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature(s) of major importance. Exhibit D L J • May 19, 2006 AZ O6-Ol 1 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT Pacific Landmark Development ITEM NO. 6-E REQUEST Findings for Approval : Request for annexation and zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision - 5603 N. Locust Grove Road: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: - Emailed: (~t,~l~, l,o a ~ -r~r~ Materials presented at public meetings COMMENTS See Attached Findings ~~ Date: ~~- Pone: p~i~~~~~0 Staff Initials: a become~roperty of the City of Meridian. • CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER • ,,~ ,~ ~ ~., tide ~~ In the Matter of Annexation and Zoning (AZ) from RUT to R-4 and Preliminary Plat (PP) approval of 88 building lots and 10 common/other lots on 29.69 acres, by Pacific Landmark Development ~C~~T „~.~,~ Case No(s): AZ-06-011 and PP-06-009 MAY 1 ~ 2000 For the City Council Hearing Date of: May 9, 2006 City of Meridian A. Findings of Fact City Clerk ®ffio® 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 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. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ-06-011 / PP-06-009 -PAGE 1 of 4 • 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, Preliminary Plat, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 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 13, 2006 is hereby conditionally approved; 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits (as applicable) 1. 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 may be 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 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ-06-011 / PP-06-009 - PAGE Z of 4 • 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 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 may be filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ-06-011 / PP-06-009 -PAGE 3 of 4 • ~ 3,-~e. 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 COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD Copy served upon Applicant, The Attorney. VOTED--~~'~~'~' VOTED ~~ VOTED__~~~ Public Works Department and City By: Dated: J -~ ~ C)l0 ty C erk CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ-06-011 / PP-06-009 -PAGE 4 of 4 MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD VOTED (TIE BREAKER) CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE ~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 .~ f a' STAFF REPORT City Council Hearing ~"` ' ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _~ ~"` _ ~, Hearing Date: 5/9/2006 ~'~~~~ ~"t.~~c~~ ~~ ~, r,,~,Fe~ ~ F:, TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Josh Wilson - - Associate City Planner 884-5533 SUBJECT: Basin Creek Subdivision • AZ-06-011 Annexation and Zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 zone • PP-06-009 Preliminary Plat of 88 single-family building lots and 10 common lots on 29.69 acres in a proposed R-4 zone 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Pacific Landmark Development has applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ) of 29.69 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) and Preliminary Plat approval of 88 single family residential lots and 10 common lots on 29.69 acres. The site is located west of N. Locust Grove Road and north of McMillan Road. This site currently contains a home which is proposed to remain and the site has not been previously platted. NOTE: The application materials state that there are 10 common lots included in the development, but staff believes this is incorrect and there are only 9 common lots proposed. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard the item on March 16 and Apri16, 2006. At the Apri16 public hearing they moved to recommend approval. a. Summary of Public Hearing: i. In favor: Ashley Ford, Grant Lee ii. In opposition: None. iii. Commenting: None. iv. Staff presenting application: Josh Wilson. v. Other staff commenting on application: None. b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. None. c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. None. d. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. None- the application was continued at the March 16t1i Planning and Zoning Commission meeting only because ACHD had not yet approved the application. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Numbers AZ- 06-011 and PP-06-009 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006, with the following modifications to the proposed development agreement: (add any proposed modifications.) Basin Creek Subdivision AZ-06-011, PP-06-009 PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAI~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE RING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Numbers AZ-06- O11 and PP-06-009 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006, for the following reasons: (you should state specific reasons for denial of the annexation request.) Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Numbers AZ-06-011 and PP-06-009 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: W of N. Locust Grove Road and N of McMillan Road/ 5603 N. Locust Grove Road Section 30, T4N R1E b. Owners: Grant and Joyce Lee 5603 N. Locust Grove Road Meridian, ID 83642 c. Applicant: Pacific Landmark Development 12550 SE 93`d Avenue, Suite 230 Clackamas, OR 97015 d. Representative: Ashley Ford, WRG Design e. Present Zoning: RUT (Ada County) f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential g. Description of Applicant's Request: 1. Date of Preliminary Plat (attached as Exhibit A1): January 13, 2006 2. Date of Landscape Plan (attached as Exhibit A2): January 13, 2006 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute an annexation and/or rezone as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 16, 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 12 Chapter 3, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. c. Newspaper notifications published on: April 17 and May 1, 2006 d. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: April 14, 2006 e. Applicant posted notice on site by: May 1, 2005 6. LAND USE Basin Creek Subdivision AZ-06-011, PP-06-009 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 a. Existing Land Use(s): Existing home and vacant land b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: A mix of single family residential and vacant agricultural land, much of which has been recently approved for residential developments c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Arcadia Subdivision and vacant land and residences, zoned R-4 and RUT. 2. East: Dunwoody Subdivision, zoned RUT. 3. South: LDS Church and proposed Cardigan Subdivision ,zoned R-4. 4. West: Saguaro Canyon Subdivision, zoned R-4. d. History of Previous Actions: Leeshire Subdivision (AZ-004-017, PP-04-024, CUP-04-026) e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities: 1. Public Works Location of sewer: There is currently sewer in Locust Grove Road, but the application is proposing sewer through the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision to the west. Location of water: There is a water main in Locust Grove Road and a planned water stub in Saguaro Canyon to the west. Issues or concerns: Depending on phasing of this development a pressure reducing vault may be required to be installed by the applicant. 2. Vegetation: None. 3. Flood plain: None. 4. Canals/Ditches/Irrigation: No major facilities. 5. Hazards: None. 6. Proposed Zoning: R-4 7. Size of Property: 29.69 acres f. Subdivision Plat Information 1. Residential Lots: 88 2. Non-residential Lots: 0 3. Total Building Lots: 88 4. Common Lots: 9 5. Other Lots: N/A 6. Total Lots: 97 7. Open Lots: 9 8. Residential Area: 29.69 acres 9. Gross Density: 2.96 units per acre (4.13 net density) g. Landscaping 1. Width of street buffer(s): 35 feet required on Locust Grove Road. Note: The applicant Basin Creek Subdivision AZ-06-011, PP-06-009 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE H~IEARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 has only proposed 30 feet, see discussion below. Street buffers are not required on any internal, local streets. 2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: N/A 3. Percentage of site as open space: 3.2 acres/10.80% 4. Other landscaping standards: Landscaping adjacent to micro-paths should comply with UDC 11-3B-12. Common open space lots should include at least one deciduous shade tree per 8,000 square feet (UDC 11-3G-3E2). h. Proposed and Required Non-Residential Setbacks: per the R-4 zone for detached single family Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The access to the development will be from a new street connection to N. Locust Grove Road (E. Halpin St.), from an extension of Sun Shimmer Avenue from the proposed Cardigan Bay Subdivision to the south, from an extension of E. Halpin St. from Saguaro Canyon to the west, and from an extension of Castlebury Avenue from Arcadia Subdivision to the north. The applicant has also proposed an additional stub street to the north property line. Please see ACHD report for details. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On February 24, 2006 Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated "Medium Density Residential" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Medium density residential areas are anticipated to contain single family residences at densities of three to eight dwellings per acre (see Page 95 of the Comprehensive Plan.) The proposed Preliminary Plat includes 88 single-family lots on 29.69 acres for a gross density of 2.96 dwelling units/acre. While the gross density is slightly below the range outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, staff finds that the proposed development is in general compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The following Comprehensive Plan policies apply to this application: • Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1 -Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands proposed to be annexed in the following manner: • Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense. The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriff's Office. Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD). The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACHD). This service will not change. Basin Creek Subdivision AZ-06-011, PP-06-009 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~NG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 The subject lands are currently serviced by the Meridian School District #Z. 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 annexation. 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 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 comply with the policies listed in the literature noted above. • 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. Staff is supportive of the proposed pedestrian connection to the adjacent subdivision. Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1 -Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels. The applicant is proposing a residential zone. Staff finds that the proposed residential properties to the south and north are compatible with the proposed development, and that the existing residences to the west have been buffered with appropriately sized lots. Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 10 - Support a variety of residential categories (low-, medium-, and high-density single family, multi-family, townhouses, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the purpose of providing the City with a range of affordable housing opportunities. The subject application includes a request for the R-4 zone. Staff finds that the requested zoning designation contributes to the variety of residential zoning categories in this area and is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for this site. • Require street connections between subdivisions at regular intervals to enhance connectivity and better traffic flow (Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 6) One stub street has been provided to the large, undeveloped parcel to the north which is proposed to be developed similar to the subject parcel and a connection has been proposed to the approved stub from the south from Tustin Subdivision. (See ACHD report for details). 9. ZONING ORDINANCE Basin Creek Subdivision AZ-06-011, PP-06-009 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC 11-2A-21ists single-family developments as a Permitted Use. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: 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. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation ANNEXATION ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposed development with the Zoning Ordinance, staff believes that this is a good location for the proposed single-family development and a good infill project. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of facts and findings. The annexation legal description submitted with the application (prepared on January 20, 2006 by Matthew Burrell, PLS) shows the property as contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian. That the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. 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 Ciry of Meridian. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 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. 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. PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposed development with the Zoning Ordinance, staff believes that this is a good location for the proposed single-family residential products. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of facts and findings. 1. Landscaped Open Space: The applicant is proposing to set aside 3.2 acres (10.80% of the property) for open space and staff is supportive of the design. The applicant has proposed a neighborhood park, with a picnic shelter and basketball courts, and pedestrian pathways as part of the open space design. 2. Landscape Buffer along N. Locust Grove Road: N. Locust Grove Road adjacent to the property is classified as an Entryway Corridor on the 2002 Future Land Use, and requires a 35-foot landscape buffer per UDC 11-ZA-5. The applicant has proposed a landscape buffer along Locust Grove Road that is 30 feet in width. This buffer shall be increased in width to 35 feet, in accordance with UDC 11-2A-5. Parkways: The applicant has proposed detached 4-foot sidewalks with 7.5-foot parkways and street trees on the local streets in the development. UDC 11-3A-17 requires that Basin Creek Subdivision AZ-06-011, PP-06-009 PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~ING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 parkways shall be a minimum of 8 feet in width to be planted with trees, and the parkways shall be increased in width to 8 feet in accordance with UDC 11-3A-17. Trees within 8-foot wide parkways are restricted to Class II trees. 4. No Parkin: No on-street parking shall be allowed along E. Halpin Street from N. Locust Grove Road west to the intersection with Pasa Tiempo Avenue. The street shall be signed as "No Parking" per the Meridian Fire Department's comments. 5. Minimum House Size: The R-4 zone has a minimum house of 1,400 square feet and all homes within the proposed subdivision shall meet this requirement. Pressure Irrigation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1-28. 7. Fencing: The applicant has submitted a detailed fencing plan (on the landscape plan dated January 13, 2006) with the preliminary plat application for the subdivision. Any perimeter fencing must be completed prior to issuance of building permits. All fences should taper down to 3 feet maximum within 20 feet of all right-of--way. All fencing should be installed in accordance with UDC 11-3A-7. 8. Common Areas: Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Basin Creek Home Owners' Association. 9. Ditches, Laterals, and Canals: Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways and waterways being used as amenities, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. b. Staff Recommendation: Due to the fact that the Ada County Highway District has not been able to provide staff with an analysis of the project, staff recommends continuance of AZ-06-011 and PP-06-009 for Basin Creek Subdivision until such time that ACHD approves the development proposal. 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Preliminary Plat (dated: January 13, 2006) 2. Landscape Plan (dated: January 13, 2006) B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department Basin Creek Subdivision AZ-06-011, PP-06-009 PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE ~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 4. Police Department 5. Parks Department 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Ada County Highway District C. Legal Description D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance Basin Creek Subdivision AZ-06-011, PP-06-009 PAGE 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 A. Drawings 1. Preliminary Plat (dated: January 13, 2006) @f E:£ • i; ~S '_.,_ 9 Y~ tl iq, ..~ ~H T ~'3 ~ 1 M6 ~ r ~-. '" ~ ~ ~~~_ €° ~F="-- - ~ ... _ ~* I~ ~ ~°. ,.. wig c s , i ,h. ~_~~( y~~ ~ ~ ~Y~- " I - ~ ~ ~ f ,~~~i ~''' ' I ~ I ,~ ~~~ F 9 hy~ L.J. t J ., ,, ~ ~~ t c l QUA e r. r - - - --_-~ ~ _ .. ~ i ~ ~__ li _~~k h~ ,, I )I ~I` ~~t:i r ~', i . U ~ .~I: i nI. ~.. ,~I~ ~ ~'j rI~! I ,~ = Iij . ' +~ "~ ~° ~'+ I i -I~~: I _.. ~~ Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE RING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 2. Landscape Plan (dated: January 13, 2006) ---- - --- ------- ------- -- ----------------------- s W1TGM.ME9EE SHEET u ~ _____________________ ~ ' ~ ,' m ~~ g ~i G~ \ ~ ~ ~ \ € ~ \ . ' - ----- i -------------------- ------------t LOCUST GROVE RD. -i I g~; "J; G. -~ i -C la m I V' _ ~ I,_~t P'I ~.~AI=E F~ ~7 ;TIf7~ Fd_gFJ . ~ ' ~ ~ ~~S~~J r'.~i~rr~ ri tC3D1V1~9C~% ~sf lR I. ~P IL 4.14 HF; rEVElAPF1Ftd7 !_. ' ~ .. G,..in ., y' ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ i~~7~~~ ~ ~ ~~ f T~ 7 ~ 5 a ~ z-, ~ ~5~~4 ; 2 ~0 ~ ~ q e ; s ~„ - Sp .~ ~ !!YY a ~ ~ ~ ', a 7 ~ ~~ £ ~~ ~ i ~ ~ ~S ~ tl.~ __ ;i. ,,~ ;j R .~,~L - Exhibit A ~~~ a i i~8 gt CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~ING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 - -- I ~' i r~i i~ m ~I i~ ' ~~I ~ ,t~ I4I ~I I _ it ~ -~iv~~CAPE PLAhJiw~_~ l.r,rJ ~ ati5ira ! ~~t=~: ~~ 1B~71k~~S~{~P~ _ ,~,e• •~ FV,_~,ca~ ~_F; ~ , _ . ,; ~~~~~ ~~ :~~~as e~~ ` ~~ ~~ea7gy Cbw ' ¢ Sri ,. ~, ~, ..3. ~j_~± ~ ~ R , Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 y ' jm m v ~~~#~i4$ 9: ., n F J E ~ ~ , .j~, C~ I 7 d ~ ~ ~ J `I v f ~ ~ F t ~f t- FLF'i7l yr' Pl.4rd L-A BASIN ~~RtEk: ~UE3DfVISI(~rh•.; ~ ~_ _ _ n Fr~,r-C _~,r Dta+ ~~,< LEVELO~t+E,di '. L[. . ,~,~ ~; ' I ~~~ ~ i .r-r :~.~~-n Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~ING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 ~- -- i _ - iaNA7(]4p~EStE91EETt8 ~___________________ ____________ ________________ 3 ~~ ~~ PASA TIFMPO AVE f v V I . w+rcNUr~.~E s„~ u ~ rn N (~ '~ I~ I r r m ~ ~T i ~I ~ v ° ~ ~ w _ 1 I <_. _' t I - - 1 ~ ~~; ,I~, CF?r~x :7lJBflIVl~lC~r' d ~-:o-'- !~Mf`P ~: i1EYCL4°JPP..LPV-1 t i i , n PASA T1EMP0 AVE . I a rt I `! y ~ r5~~i ~ i ; i d ~ t ~ ~ Fc' A ~ ; ~: ~ 11 ) a Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 ~n AUTC+rU~tESEE F•rEE7 t9 ~___________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o g w R ~ MAThRJNE~$EE ' T L! ~ i ~ o i I I° ~ ° -- ~~ a ~~ ~~ ~~ i ------- ~ v ; ~; a ~ -i _ ~- HLAtt:NLWE-6EE 61~Ef U ~ M _ ~ r m o f ~ ; I ^m' - ~I~~ ~~ ~ m ~,'~ r m i ~ , E9 Cc~y.ld d; ~~ _. ~ ~' d I ~ ~ ~ ! ~ - ,., I 3 , 4., <'iof i'' ~ r ~ ;,r ~ ,;rr~ i'Le,;~ p e ~t If i CPf Fr UBUIVI~I%1hj - `. 'r ~J.1 Il) Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 ,'~ -~±i ;; 9 I ~~ I~~ I ~ ~a ~ - l ~`` e ``~ ~~,~~ ~- ~ ~ ~: 9:4 ': q:: '. +.~1t~~~. Y~ S ~aV I n~ 1 ___I ~ ~~ ~ F i~ ~ ~~ ~~_.___CC~_ L_ ~ r E., ~ ~To; m _ - s im ~ ~ .~ ` ~ j rH~IfI t:;~E~~; ,~,'Ltf}pIVISI~~-I d s~~~~~ 3tt !~= ~~'sj~r? 1' _- __ ~ l__.Q_L12-_~.I . ~. R d ___ ._.~ __ _. ,,. __ Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 i1 PASA itEMPO AVE ~m -_ _- A {-~} I_vNG:CAht ~'L;+.PJTIF~,~3 PLAhJ _ - 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ L ASW CREEt~ SUBDIVISIChJ ~ r,~,aFic i~,ri~t -~: r v { ~E ELOFA,7EI-1T l_LC~ ~wFPoid,~n ~DAHC ~~ F. ;:, a'''d'~,~"~ a p~ ;.:,, ., `_?_+ ; , ~ (' AA Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 -- - ~ ~~6Ui7Cj0.gESFE BlIEE7"I,"g"~___________________ ~ NAICHUNEJEf S/IEET l3 ~ ~ _ \` ` __ ~ ~~ m . _ _ _~ AIATGRBa€AFE 6}rfff l9 PASA TIEMPO AVE ~~ N ~i s _. ~- ~, i ~~ ~ _ I ~ L4PJCiSC =.FF FLx\t~~IT°h!G FiAf'J ~_ - ~ ~ k3A51id l ~tEri ~11r31~~V~S1119',J ~ACiFIC IJ.NUP"~-~k C=•dELJPhiE PV-; :.L~. PPP ~,.cw~iwxroaNi~ f C J Kt~~~~~~{." t y$ ig'0~ 9 ~ ! d 1 9 " ... w,..,.a ~~ ~r_~.,._ Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 ~~ ~ aaaecT eourvoAav ~~ ~ I ~ ~ '' ~~ i _ ~ CASTLEBURV AVE e m ~ I e ~~ H i y~ ' 9 I ~ I < ~ I ~- - _ __ __-_ 1 _ _ -T . --_ _ ~ __ _ _. _ - _~J~ I BLOCKS ~ \ ` m I J ~~ ~ u ` I ~i \ , \ 1` I ~i 1 _\ / c ~~ ~ 4 MA1piL$~1E-fiEE fiHEET L8 ~ -_ - -. ___. .______________________________ ___________ i ~ ~MATCH.PJ&8EE &4ET L9 ~ ' ~ 7~Y ~ r- I'~ - ~- i~ ~ '~g~g~~i~~~ e. ,gym ~ ~. ~ ~ 0 9 ~ 1 ~ i ~ { ; ' S F' i 3 ! a 4 y ~ ~ ~ ~7 - _.. _.. _ 1 _.l.d r.. _.. _. _.. 5 ~.~If ~ CHtt i~ ~ UBC~hl~ It_7~'~! ~~ i i rr~,- ~r:~_~,~-~~:~~r gar. ,_ . ~i, r. ~~_~~~~ ~~ ,.. w. ....._ Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 PRQIECT BOUNDARY ,~ i i ~~ ~ ~ ~ I _ ; ,, ~ - _-T ~ N ! CASTEEBURY AyE "~ CASTLERURY AVE ~~ t ~ . Z ~j --- -- m O g __---- MAiCML1NE8EE __ u_ s. Kn r r ^ ~- `` ~ ro l o ~ i iGg: .n i t O Im ~~~~~7q~~~~ ~ ~ s~ e e~ 4 _ ~ g ., __ ,~, ,~ :P.:~ - _- _ ~ 4.. IUbL,;:Pt_ f'I 4P1T:(~IG i=~..4(^I .___ ~I R _ - ~ S d I q P,v 1FIG l ~~hdOPr L~EVE~ C7i~a,lE~lT ~ ~ r_. - _^ ! ~„r~Er.~ lo:v~n Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~NG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 ANNEXATION COMMENTS 1.1.1 The annexation legal description submitted with the application (dated January 20, 2006, stamped by Matthew Burrell, PLS) shows the property as contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian. 1.1.2 Any future subdivision, uses and construction on this property shall comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time. 1.2 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT 1.2.1 The preliminary plat labeled as Sheet C02, prepared by WRG Design, dated January 13, 2006, is approved, with the conditions listed herein. All comments/conditions of the accompanying Annexation/Zoning (AZ-06-011) shall also be considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat (PP- 06-009). l .2.2 No on-street parking shall be allowed along E. Halpin Street from N. Locust Grove Road west to the intersection with Pasa Tiempo Avenue. The street shall be signed as "No Parking" per the Meridian Fire Department's comments. 1.2.3 The landscape buffer along N. Locust Grove Road on Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 18, Block 3 shall be increased in width to 35 feet, in accordance with UDC 11-2A-5. 1.2.4 The parkways along the local streets shall be increased in width to 8 feet in accordance with UDC 11-3A-17. Trees within 8-foot wide parkways are restricted to Class II trees. 1.2.5 All homes within the subdivision shall contain at least 1,400 square feet of living area. 1.2.6 Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Basin Creek Subdivision Homeowners' Association. 1.2.7 All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11- 3A-18 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B. 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 ACHD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at the time of final construction. 1.2.8 Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways and waterways being used as amenities, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. 1.3 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT 1.3.1 Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to UDC 11-3A-17. 1.3.2 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to utilize any existing surface Exhibit B • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1-28. 1.3.3 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. 1.3.4 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 fences should taper down to 3 feet maximum within 20 feet of all right-of--way. All fencing should be installed in accordance with UDC 11-3A-7. 1.3.5 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. 1.3.6 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of the Ten Mile Stub Drain, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11- 3A-6, unless otherwise approved by Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. 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. 1.3.7 Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved annexation conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.3.8 Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension of mains installed but not yet activated in Saguaro Canyon. The City of Meridian does not guarantee sewer service in the timelines outlined the UDC. 2.2 The applicant shall install sewer mains to and through this development, including any stub streets required by the Planning Department. The applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.3 Minimum sewer slope on dead end runs is .6% per City of Meridian Public Work's Standard Specifications. 2.4 No manholes or water valves shall be allowed in the landscape islands shown in the intersections. If water mains or sewer mains are routed under the landscape islands then no trees shall be allowed in the landscape islands. 2.5 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in Saguaro Canyon Subdivision and Locust Grove Road. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA• G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 2.6 Prior to occupancy the applicant shall have two main connections. If one of the connections is to be to Locust Grove Road then the applicant shall be responsible for the installation of a pressure reducing vault, location to be coordinated with Public Works. The PRV shall communication capabilities consistent with City of Meridian's SCADA system. 2.7 The applicant has indicated in the application that the pressurized irrigation is going to be a private system, but the narrative indicates Settlers is going to own and maintain this system. If it is to be maintained as a private system, plans and specifications will be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the construction plan review. A "draft copy" of the operations and maintenance manual will be required prior to plan approval with the "final draft" being required prior to final plat signature on the last phase of this project. [fit is to be owned and maintained by an Irrigation District then evidence of a license agreement shall be submitted prior to scheduling of apre-construction meeting. 2.8 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (UDC 11-3A-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface 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. 2.9 Prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer the applicant shall vacate the Idaho Power easement shown on the preliminary plat. 2.10 The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of assessments and the actual physical hook- up of the existing house to City of Meridian sewer and water. 2.11 Additional width to the public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement along the right-of way shall be dedicated anywhere the sidewalk is located past the right-of--way. The additional width would need to be sufficient to allow for 10 feet of easement past the sidewalk. 2.12 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 maybe used for non- domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 2.13 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. Plans shall be approved by the appropriate irrigation drainage district, or lateral users association (ditch owners), with written approval or non-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, alternate plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 2.14 Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.15 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 All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro-paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.17 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 Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA ~ G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE ~AR1NG DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 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 are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.24 One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights shall be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department prior to commencing installations. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 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 feet apart. International Fire Code Appendix C. 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. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 ''/z" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 4. The phasing plan may require 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. 5. All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 6. Provide a 20-foot wide Fire Lane for all internal roadways all roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D Section D103.6 Signs. 7. For all Fire Lanes, paint the curb red and provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane". Exhibit B • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 8. 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. 9. 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. The roadway shall be able to accommodate an imposed load of 75,000 GVW. 10. The proposed 88-lot subdivision with an estimated 2.9 residents per household would have a total estimated population of 255 residents at build out. 11. All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface as measured around the perimeter of the building. 12. Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 1. Any interior fencing adjacent to common lots shall allow visibility from the street or shall not exceed four feet in height if solid fencing is used. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 1. The Parks Department has no comments related to this application. 6. SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY 1. SSC has no comments related to this application. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Site Specific Conditions ofApproval 1. The applicant's proposal is to widen North Locust Grove Road. ACHD only requires right-of- way and sidewalk no closer than 28-feet from centerline along North Locust Grove Road. If the applicant chooses to construct the proposed pavement widening, then the roadway must be constructed to ACRD standards for the 46-foot street section and the necessary 35-feet of right- of-way must be dedicated from centerline. 2. Provide an easement for the sidewalk where it meanders outside the public right-of--way. 3. Construct the entry road, East Halpin Street, to intersect Locust Grove Road 357-feet south of East Dunwoody Court, as proposed. 4. Construct the entry road as a residential collector with vertical curb, gutter, 5-foot attached sidewalk and center landscape medians within 72-feet ofright-of--way. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 5. Construct the internal street sections as 33-feet street sections (or 34-foot) with curb, gutter and 5- foot attached sidewalks within 58-feet ofright-of--way. A letter from the Meridian Fire Department, granting specific approval of the reduced street section, is required by ACHD before final approval of the plat. 6. Construct East Halpin Street to offset Woodspring Street by 110-feet, as proposed. 7. Construct two traffic circles; one at the intersection of Woodspring Street and Jericho Avenue and the other at the intersection of Elmsprings Street and Jericho Avenue. Coordinate the exact location and design of the traffic circles with District Traffic Services and Development Review Staff. 8. Construct stub streets to the surrounding properties as identified below. Install a sign at the terminus of each roadway stating, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE." o The first is proposed to the west property line located approximately 260-feet south of the northwest property line (measured property line to centerline). This stub street is anticipated to connect to a stub street in the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision located directly to the west. o The second is proposed to the north property line located approximately 168-feet east of the northwest property line (measured property line to centerline) which aligns with the Arcadia approved stub street location. This stub street will connect to a stub street in the Arcadia Subdivision located directly to the north. o The third is proposed to the north property line located approximately 800-feet east of the northwest property line. o The fourth is proposed to the south property line located approximately 920-feet west of the southeast property line (measured property line to centerline). This stub street is anticipated to serve the proposed Cardigan Subdivision located to the south. Construct three cul-de-sac turnarounds with minimum 45-foot turning radii, as proposed. 10. North Locust Grove is classified as a minor arterial roadway. Other than the access specifically approved with this application, direct lot access is prohibited to this roadway and shall be noted on the final plat. 11. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. Standard Conditions~'Approval 1. Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of--way. 2. Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACHD roadway or right-of--way. 3. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. Exhibit B • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 4. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy. 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. 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. 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. 9. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 10. 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. 11. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of--way. The applicant at no cost to ACHD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of--way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACRD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 12. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 13. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE H!JARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 C, Legal Description ~~~' -C I - --_i~. _~ Basic Creek-Annexation Description A parcel of land situated in the Northeast une-quaver (NE ll4) of Section 30, Township 4 \orth, Range I East Boise 1t4eridian Ad C , , a ounty, Idaho, being more particularly described es fi~llows: oosi I he Southeast une-quarter (SE 114) of the Southwest une-yuarter (S1'~' I /41 of the Northeast ~l I/.a~° ~ one-quarter (NE 1!4) and the South one-half (S 1/2) of the Southeast one-quarter (SE 1/4) of the Northeast one-quarter (NE I!4) ofS ti 30 ' L ` r . , - cc on , fownship 4 North, Range I East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho: Beginning a[ a 3" brass cap stamped "PLS 7880" marking the East one-quarter corner of ~~ . I~ ~i I I` Section 30, said P.astcne-quarter corner situated on the centerline of Locust Grove Road; ==,- = ' h ° l hence leaving said centerline of Lexust Grove Road, along the south line of the Northeast one- } , quarter (NE 1/4) of Section 30, North 89°54'00" West, 197L29 feet to a 5/8" imn rod with yellow plastic cap stamped "PLS 8444" , marking the southwest corner of the Southeast one- yuarter (SE 1/4) of the Southwest one-yuarter ('SW 1/4) of the Northe st ~i t -. ~~~ a one-quarter (NF-. 1/4) of Section 30; i Cam'- t~J I h _ ence along the west line thereof, North 00°32'25" Esst 664.42 feet to a ~/S" iron rod with ~ ~ ~~~ """""- "' ' }rlluw plastic cap stamped "PLS I 1 120", marking the northwest corner of the Southeast o ^ ° ne- [luartcr (SE I/4) of the Southwest one-quarter (SW t/4) of the Northeast one-quarter (NE I/4) of Sectirnt 30; i ••-- ,~, L] l hence along the north line thereof., and continuing along the north line of the South one-half (S 1!2 f h ) o t e Southeast one-quarter (SE 1 /4) of the Northeast one-quarter (NE U4 of ~,„°,:-,~~ '^~~'~«<.*~.~•~ Section ±0, South 89'53' l9" East, 1972 3l feet to the east line of said Northeast one-quarter INL•' Ih1)andthccenterlineofLoeustGroveRoad: ~[' ~`~~1l 1 Thence along the cast line thereof and said centerline of I:ocust Grove Road, Souttr otl" 37'4.+" Wcst, 664A4 feet to the Point of Beginning. ~ ~a Cr)ntains 30.07 acres, more urless. 11.'~,I IltF1\':\ RIIRREII. c .. . ~~ .+d ?° I, g ~ r,~ r i' A r'a'd:~f~?}~~i:y' c ~ ~ y',. - ' t-t ... ~.. Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 ~, r Basin Creek-Legal Description A parcel of lan.l situated in the Northeast one-yuatter (VE li4) of Section 30, Tot+,~nship 4 ^Jc•tth. P.an[•e 1 Fait. RniSe i\feridian, Ada County, kiaho, being more particularly described ai tollut~'s: ~, ~ i €~i The outhca;t one-yuarter (SE ]!4) of the Southwest one-quarter (SV~V 1/4) of the Northeast ~ = ~~~"~~ ,ntr-quarter (NI . 1!4) and the South one-half(S ]i2} of Iha Southeast one-quarter (SG 1/4j of ' ° " the ~+ortheast ixte-quarter (NG ]/4) of Section 3Q Township 4 North, Range 1 East, Boise , ' _• R i\9cridian, Ada County, Idaho, except that portion deeded to Ada County Highway District by right of way deed retiorded June 28, 1952, as Instrument No. 5227285: ~,-Ay ~ Commencing at a 3" brass cap stamped "PLS 7880" marking the East one-yuarter corner of (~,~ ~~ I•~ ~~ Section 3U, said East one-quarter corner situated on the centerline of Locust Grove Road; ^"~~ ` `°""'"" Thence leaving said centerline of Locust Grove Road, along the south line of the Northeast one-yuarter (NF I/4) of Section 30, North S9°54'00" West, 25.00 Feet to the westerly right- = ot way line of Locust Grove Road and the Point of Beginning; ft( ,~; ~ tt7i L fhencc continuing along the south lute lhereol; North 89°54'00" West, 1946?9 feet to a 5/8" i . iron rod with yellow plastic cap stamped "PLS 5444", marking the southwest comer of the ~.~, Southeast one-quarter (SE I/4) ofthe Southwest one-quarter (SW 1!4) of the Northeast one- "' ~"°°^~^ quarter (NI; 1/4) of Section 30; ~ ~. l hence along the west line thereof North QO°32'25" East 664.42 feet tb a 5/8" iron rod with ~. t' ~ .'~ ~ yellow plastic cap stamped "PLS I 1120", marking the northwest comer of the Southeast one- _-, - "J yuarter (SG I/4) of the Southwest one-quarter (SW 1/4) of the Northeast one-quarter (NE I/4) ~,,.:,,",,. of Section 30; "thence along the north line thereof, and continuing along the north line of the South one-half i ,a ~ tS I/') of the Southeast one-quarter (SE 1/4) ofthe Northeast one-quarter (NE 1/4) of Section 30, South S9'S3' l9" Gast, 1947.31 feet to a I/2" iron rod stamped "PLS 4999" on the ~~cstcrly right-of=way line. of Locust Grove Koad; ,,,,,~,,, , Thence uloug the tivesterly right-of-way line thereof, South 00°37'43" West 664.04 feet to , the Point of Beginning. t v,I:,in; X4.6'>scar. ~t.~r.•:r'r,„ ~ ; ~ ~- " ~ ¢?"~ f :~:~;~~-'~r aT r 9 a) `:~a~ Exhibit C • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 r~` r ~, ;~-; ..J F `'1 ~ r „ '~: 1 ~ _ ~ ~' ~~ I -1 `~ V ~n (mJjDn'~ I `r I _ n _ ,~ z ., D i ~ ~ ~ !, a'; - Exhibit C • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE FARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance 1. Annexation Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The applicant is proposing to zone all of the subject property to R-4. City Council finds that the proposed zoning map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; City Council finds that single-family detached residential uses are allowed within the requested zoning district of R-4 as a Principally Permitted Use. The accompanying plat demonstrates the land will be developed with lot sizes, housing types and other dimensional requirements that conform to the proposed zoning designation. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; City Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. 4. 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, City Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-SB-3.E). The R-4 zoning amendment will provide lots that are similar in nature to existing subdivisions in the near vicinity. City Council finds that all essential services are available or will be provided by the developer to the subject property and will not require unreasonable expenditure of public funds. The applicant is proposing to develop the land in general compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. This is a logical expansion of the City limits. In accordance with the findings listed above, City Council finds that Annexation and Zonin o~property to R-4 would be in the best interest of the Cites 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: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; City Council finds that the proposed application is in substantial compliance with the Exhibit D • CITY OF MERIDIAN PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HE~RING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 adopted Comprehensive Plan. Staff generally supports the proposed plat layout and proposed density as they comply with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; City Council finds that public services are available to accommodate the proposed development. (See finding Items 3 and 4 above under Annexation Findings for more details.) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their cost, staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; See finding "Items 3 and 4 above under Annexation Findings above, and the Agency Comments and Conditions in Exhibit B for more detail. 5. 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. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. City Council is unaware of any natural, scenic or historic features on this site. Therefore, City Council finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature(s) of major importance. Exhibit D May 19, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 P P 06-009 APPLICANT Pacific Landmark Development ITEM NO. 6-F REQUEST Findings for Approval: Request for Preliminary Plat Approval of 88 building lots and 10 common lots on 29.69 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Basin Creek Subdivision - 5603 N. Locust Grove Road: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See Attached Findings ~~ ~~- Date: ~~ Phone: ~~(p - ~' 3Op G~-1-~c.~ _-~®(°~--~~i.S(~A~t5lQ~1~(~' n~Staff Initials: /C.~. Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ~' a • p_' CITY OF MERIDIAN ~ " FINDINGS OFF .`-~.~ ~°~-?~ r't ~~'~~~ ~~ ACT, CONCLUSIONS OF , , ,,,;, . LAW AND DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of Annexation and Zoning (AZ) from RUT to R-4 and Preliminary Plat (PP) approval of 88 building lots and 10 common other lots on 29.69 acres, by Pacific Landmark Development Case No(s): AZ-06-011 and PP-06-009 ~~~ For the City Council Hearing Date of: May 9, 2006 MAY 9 ~ 2006 City of Meridian A. Findings of Fact City Clerk Office 1. Hearing Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006 incorporated by reference) 2. Process Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006 incorporated by reference) 3. Application and Property Facts (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006 incorporated by reference) 4. Required Findings per the Unified Development Code (see attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 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. CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ-06-011 / PP-06-009 -PAGE 1 of 4 a • 4. Due consideration has been given to the comment(s) received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction. 5. It is found public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the attached conditions of approval are imposed. 6. That the City has granted an order of approval in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning Department, the Public Works Department and any affected party requesting notice. 7. That this approval is subject to the Legal Description, Preliminary Plat, and the Conditions of Approval all in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 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 13, 2006 is hereby conditionally approved; 2. The site specific and standard conditions of approval are as shown in the attached Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006 incorporated by reference. D. Notice of Applicable Time Limits (as applicable) 1. 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 fmal plat not to exceed eighteen (18) months. Additional time extensions up to eighteen (18) months as determined and approved by the City Council may be 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 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ-06-011 / PP-06-009 -PAGE 2 of 4 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 The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, a denial of a plat or conditional use permit entitles the Owner to request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. 2. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit approval may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. F. Attached: Staff Report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006 CITY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ-06-011 / PP-06-009 -PAGE 3 of 4 ~ ~ ~ 3.-~e. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the day of 2006. COUNCIL MEMBER SHAUN WARDLE COUNCIL MEMBER JOE BORTON COUNCIL MEMBER CHARLIE ROUNTREE COUNCIL MEMBER KEITH BIRD MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD (TIE BREAKER) Attest: ,\~~,. - . •~ ,,``~ .~ ~\ VOTED--~~~~ VOTED--~2~~'~-' VOTED ~~~~- VOTED__~~~ VOTED r Weerd ~d '°; William G. Berg, Jr., C' Cle k ~' ? ~, ~, ~~~ ~~e Copy served upon Applicant, The Planrif~tegB gip ~~~, Public Works Department and City Attorney. BY~ Dated: Jc-~ • C)l0 ty C erk C[TY OF MERIDIAN FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION & ORDER CASE NO(S). AZ-06-011 / PP-06-009 -PAGE 4 of 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE FARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 STAFF REPORT TO: FROM: SUBJECT: City Council Hearing Hearing Date: 5/9/2006 Mayor and City Council Josh Wilson Associate City Planner 884-5533 Basin Creek Subdivision • AZ-06-011 Annexation and Zoning of 29.69 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 zone • PP-06-009 Preliminary Plat of 88 single-family building lots and 10 common lots on 29.69 acres in a proposed R-4 zone r 1. SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF APPLICANT'S REQUEST The applicant, Pacific Landmark Development has applied for Annexation and Zoning (AZ) of 29.69 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-4 (Medium Low-Density Residential) and Preliminary Plat approval of 88 single family residential lots and 10 common lots on 29.69 acres. The site is located west of N. Locust Grove Road and north of McMillan Road. This site currently contains a home which is proposed to remain and the site has not been previously platted. NOTE: The application materials state that there are 10 common lots included in the development, but staff believes this is incorrect and there are only 9 common lots proposed. 2. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION: The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission heard the item on March 16 and Apri16, 2006. At the April 6 public hearing they moved to recommend approval. a. Summary of Public Hearing: i. In favor: Ashley Ford, Grant Lee ii. In opposition: None. iii. Commenting: None. iv. Staff presenting application: Josh Wilson. v. Other staff commenting on application: None. b. Key Issues of Discussion by Commission: i. None. c. Key Commission Changes to Staff Recommendation: i. None. d. Outstanding Issue(s) for City Council: i. None- the application was continued at the March 16~' Planning and Zoning Commission meeting only because ACHD had not yet approved the application. 3. PROPOSED MOTIONS Approval After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to approve File Numbers AZ- 06-011 and PP-06-009 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006, with the following modifications to the proposed development agreement: (add any proposed modifications.) Basin Creek Subdivision AZ-06-011, PP-06-009 PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAI~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE ~ G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 Denial After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to deny File Numbers AZ-06- O11 and PP-06-009 as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of May 9, 2006, for the following reasons: (you should state specific reasons for denial of the annexation request.) Continuance After considering all staff, applicant and public testimony, I move to continue File Numbers AZ-06-O11 and PP-06-009 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: W of N. Locust Grove Road and N of McMillan Road/ 5603 N. Locust Grove Road Section 30, T4N R1E b. Owners: Grant and Joyce Lee 5603 N. Locust Grove Road Meridian, ID 83642 c. Applicant: Pacific Landmark Development 12550 SE 93`d Avenue, Suite 230 Clackamas, OR 97015 d. Representative: Ashley Ford, WRG Design e. Present Zoning: RUT (Ada County) f. Present Comprehensive Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential g. Description of Applicant's Request: 1. Date of Preliminary Plat (attached as Exhibit A1): January 13, 2006 2. Date of Landscape Plan (attached as Exhibit A2): January 13, 2006 5. PROCESS FACTS a. The subject application will in fact constitute an annexation and/or rezone as determined by City Ordinance. By reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code Title 11 Chapter 16, 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 12 Chapter 3, a public hearing is required before the City Council on this matter. c. Newspaper notifications published on: April 17 and May 1, 2006 d. Radius notices mailed to properties within 300 feet on: April 14, 2006 e. Applicant posted notice on site by: May 1, 2005 6. LAND USE Basin Creek Subdivision AZ-06-011, PP-06-009 PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HG DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 a. Existing Land Use(s): Existing home and vacant land b. Description of Character of Surrounding Area: A mix of single family residential and vacant agricultural land, much of which has been recently approved for residential developments c. Adjacent Land Use and Zoning 1. North: Arcadia Subdivision and vacant land and residences, zoned R-4 and RUT. 2. East: Dunwoody Subdivision, zoned RUT. 3. South: LDS Church and proposed Cardigan Subdivision ,zoned R-4. 4. West: Saguaro Canyon Subdivision, zoned R-4. d. History of Previous Actions: Leeshire Subdivision (AZ-004-017, PP-04-024, CUP-04-026) e. Existing Constraints and Opportunities: 1. Public Works Location of sewer: There is currently sewer in Locust Grove Road, but the application is proposing sewer through the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision to the west. Location of water: There is a water main in Locust Grove Road and a planned water stub in Saguaro Canyon to the west. Issues or concerns: Depending on phasing of this development a pressure reducing vault maybe required to be installed by the applicant. 2. Vegetation: None. 3. Flood plain: None. 4. Canals/Ditches/Irrigation: No major facilities. 5. Hazards: None. 6. Proposed Zoning: R-4 7. Size of Property: 29.69 acres f. Subdivision Plat Information 1. Residential Lots: 88 2. Non-residential Lots: 0 3. Total Building Lots: 88 4. Common Lots: 9 5. Other Lots: N/A 6. Total Lots: 97 7. Open Lots: 9 8. Residential Area: 29.69 acres 9. Gross Density: 2.96 units per acre (4.13 net density) g. Landscaping 1. Width of street buffer(s): 35 feet required on Locust Grove Road. Note: The applicant Basin Creek Subdivision AZ-06-011, PP-06-009 PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE FARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 has only proposed 30 feet, see discussion below. Street buffers are not required on any internal, local streets. 2. Width of buffer(s) between land uses: N/A 3. Percentage of site as open space: 3.2 acres/10.80% 4. Other landscaping standards: Landscaping adjacent to micro-paths should comply with UDC 11-3B-12. Common open space lots should include at least one deciduous shade tree per 8,000 square feet (UDC 11-3G-3E2). h. Proposed and Required Non-Residential Setbacks: per the R-4 zone for detached single family Summary of Proposed Streets and/or Access (private, public, common drive, etc.): The access to the development will be from a new street connection to N. Locust Grove Road (E. Halpin St.), from an extension of Sun Shimmer Avenue from the proposed Cardigan Bay Subdivision to the south, from an extension of E. Halpin St. from Saguaro Canyon to the west, and from an extension of Castlebury Avenue from Arcadia Subdivision to the north. The applicant has also proposed an additional stub street to the north properly line. Please see ACHD report for details. 7. COMMENTS MEETING On February 24, 2006 Planning Staff held an agency comments meeting. The agencies and departments present include: Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Parks Department, Meridian Public Works Department, and the Sanitary Services Company. Staff has included all comments and recommended actions as Conditions of Approval in the attached Exhibit B. 8. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND GOALS This property is designated "Medium Density Residential" on the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map. Medium density residential areas are anticipated to contain single family residences at densities of three to eight dwellings per acre (see Page 95 of the Comprehensive Plan.) The proposed Preliminary Plat includes 88 single-family lots on 29.69 acres for a gross density of 2.96 dwelling units/acre. While the gross density is slightly below the range outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, staff finds that the proposed development is in general compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The following Comprehensive Plan policies apply to this application: Chapter VII, Goal III, Objective A, Action 1 -Require that development projects have planned for the provision of all public services. When the City established its Area of City Impact, it planned to provide City services to the subject property. The City of Meridian plans to provide municipal services to the lands proposed to be annexed in the following manner: • Sanitary sewer and water service will be extended to the project at the developer's expense. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Meridian Rural Fire District. Once annexed the lands will be under the jurisdiction of the Meridian City Fire Department, who currently shares resource and personnel with the Meridian Rural Fire Department. • The subject lands currently lie within the jurisdiction of the Ada County Sheriff's Office. Once annexed the lands will be serviced by the Meridian Police Department (MPD). • The roadways adjacent to the subject lands are currently owned and maintained by the Ada County Highway District (ACHD). This service will not change. Basin Creek Subdivision AZ-06-011, PP-06-009 PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAI~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE FARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 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 annexation. 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 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 comply with the policies listed in the literature noted above. • 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. Staff is supportive of the proposed pedestrian connection to the adjacent subdivision. • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action 1 -Protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on adjacent parcels. The applicant is proposing a residential zone. Staff finds that the proposed residential properties to the south and north are compatible with the proposed development, and that the existing residences to the west have been buffered with appropriately sized lots. • Chapter VII, Goal IV, Objective C, Action (low-, medium-, and high-density single apartments, condominiums, etc.) for the p affordable housing opportunities. 10 - Support a variety of residential categories family, multi-family, townhouses, duplexes, upose of providing the City with a range of The subject application includes a request for the R-4 zone. Staff finds that the requested zoning designation contributes to the variety of residential zoning categories in this area and is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan designation for this site. • Require street connections between subdivisions at regular intervals to enhance connectivity and better traffic flow (Chapter VI, Goal II, Objective A, Action 6) One stub street has been provided to the large, undeveloped parcel to the north which is proposed to be developed similar to the subject parcel and a connection has been proposed to the approved stub from the south from Tustin Subdivision. (See ACHD report for details). 9. ZONING ORDINANCE Basin Creek Subdivision AZ-06-011, PP-06-009 PAGE 5 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE FG DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 a. Zoning Schedule of Use Control: UDC 11-2A-21ists single-family developments as a Permitted Use. b. Purpose Statement of Zone: 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. 10. ANALYSIS a. Analysis of Facts Leading to Staff Recommendation ANNEXATION ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposed development with the Zoning Ordinance, staff believes that this is a good location for the proposed single-family development and a good infill project. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of facts and findings. The annexation legal description submitted with the application (prepared on January 20, 2006 by Matthew Burrell, PLS) shows the property as contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian. That the applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. 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. 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. 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. PRELIMINARY PLAT ANALYSIS: Based on the policies and goals contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the general compliance of the proposed development with the Zoning Ordinance, staff believes that this is a good location for the proposed single-family residential products. Please see Exhibit D for detailed analysis of facts and findings. 1. Landscaped Onen S ace: The applicant is proposing to set aside 3.2 acres (10.80% of the property) for open space and staff is supportive of the design. The applicant has proposed a neighborhood park, with a picnic shelter and basketball courts, and pedestrian pathways as part of the open space design. 2. Landscape Buffer along N. Locust Grove Road• N. Locust Grove Road adjacent to the property is classified as an Entryway Corridor on the 2002 Future Land Use, and requires a 35-foot landscape buffer per UDC 11-2A-5. The applicant has proposed a landscape buffer along Locust Grove Road that is 30 feet in width. This buffer shall be increased in width to 35 feet, in accordance with UDC 11-2A-5. Parkways: The applicant has proposed detached 4-foot sidewalks with 7.5-foot parkways and street trees on the local streets in the development. UDC 11-3A-17 requires that Basin Creek Subdivision AZ-06-011, PP-06-009 PAGE 6 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAI~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE FARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 parkways shall be a minimum of 8 feet in width to be planted with trees, and the parkways shall be increased in width to 8 feet in accordance with UDC 11-3A-17. Trees within 8-foot wide parkways are restricted to Class II trees. 4. No Parkinu: No on-street parking shall be allowed along E. Halpin Street from N. Locust Grove Road west to the intersection with Pasa Tiempo Avenue. The street shall be signed as "No Parking" per the Meridian Fire Department's comments. 5. Minimum House Size: The R-4 zone has a minimum house of 1,400 square feet and all homes within the proposed subdivision shall meet this requirement. 6. Pressure Irrigation: The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1-28. 7. Fencing: The applicant has submitted a detailed fencing plan (on the landscape plan dated January 13, 2006) with the preliminary plat application for the subdivision. Any perimeter fencing must be completed prior to issuance of building permits. All fences should taper down to 3 feet maximum within 20 feet of all right-of--way. All fencing should be installed in accordance with UDC 11-3A-7. 8. Common Areas: Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Basin Creek Home Owners' Association. 9. Ditches, Laterals, and Canals• Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways and waterways being used as amenities, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. b. Staff Recommendation: Due to the fact that the Ada County Highway District has not been able to provide staff with an analysis of the project, staff recommends continuance of AZ-06-011 and PP-06-009 for Basin Creek Subdivision until such time that ACHD approves the development proposal. 11. EXHIBITS A. Drawings 1. Preliminary Plat (dated: January 13, 2006) 2. Landscape Plan (dated: January 13, 2006) B. Conditions of Approval 1. Planning Department 2. Public Works Department 3. Fire Department Basin Creek Subdivision AZ-06-011, PP-06-009 PAGE 7 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE H• G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 4. Police Department 5. Parks Deparhnent 6. Sanitary Service Company 7. Ada County Highway District C. Legal Description D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance Basin Creek Subdivision AZ-06-011, PP-06-009 PAGE 8 CITY OF MERIDIAN PLG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE E~RING DATE F O MAY 9, 2006 A. Drawings 1. Preliminary Plat (dated: January 13, 2006) .-''`.`cf ..t- I ~' I I ~~ ~ ;~ II C . j= °~ ~I ~) ~ .I:1" FI ~; ~ ~ ~~, i ~~~~ -ji~1'~ . ~ N Exhibit A :f F.f CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAI~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE FARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 2. Landscape Plan (dated: January 13, 2006) ------ auAtGM1A1E.SEe SHEET Li .,~___________________ ____ ________ _________ 3 i ~ _ n D 7 0~ m ~ ID mi R;~ ~ 3 .~ , ~ U ~ ~ o ~ ~~ ~i G~ ~~ I 1 1__._____________ LOCUST GROVE RD. e~ 4~ I ~; ~! -~ i A~ V~® II~ _~ 1"~ _ i~ >1 J + C.iF .~Gr~a ~~ F~ ^F~n,~~r_i1 i ; :~99t ~ ; Eg kC ~ = 6 ~ C s4 ~ ~ i F Zit = ~ S 4 q N ^J ~ C: R Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE FARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 i~ ~~1 i `SEE~~ (~ ____ _ ____ _C _ __________ ____04ATCMU~E'. i m Ci j~3;p- pit ~;~~ ~~r g y ~j~ _t~ ~ \~ '' r~ ~ ' '~ ~ j I '~ -- ~>~' ~~~• .~ ; 1, • r i ;~ F ' fi~2 3~s' i ~ 9 --- ,. ' ----- __..._ LOCUST GROVE RD. i ~~ I I ~ N !`a• ~ r r j r ____~ ~• Q m + e 7i co a j _i~?~i ~~f3 1 I _ 4 j.:~tj> r i ~ ~ ~,~ ~ ~ , r,., ~ _ . - - Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAI~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE FARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 • r. ~ ! ~ ~ i .. .;.it 1' ;'r r ~ ~\ ~ t-rtE-r & - --_ - - Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAT~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE H~G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 wN.4T ~ VAlr~.l urk '-'!-t GJ -'='~u I~ 4 , ~ m + ' '3~,~ { ~_~ ~ ~ _ E ~ ~. w Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HEARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 e wT;,nwtLSEE SrEEr Lq a _____.______w________ 1 ------ ~ MATCMJhEaiEE :liEE•f Li ~ 9 i 1 1 _ _ ____ _ __._ . _. _. I _ n .-_ _ -_ ..__ _ y /i ~~ ~ . ~ m ~1 ~~ ~' i° e O Z - -- -- C I --_-.____.J i ~ o u ~ I ~~ ~; a , ~_-__.______, ~~~ ; ~ ~ u ~ m~ )~ _ 71AATCFA.RIE-SEE SFffEi U ~ ~ w y ~ r m - -- ~T r v T m ~, ., ... ~LLGF~p '_rv~ ~~~~ ~ ~~I~~~~a'-~~ , ~$ 4 _z~~ 4 ;i # e :~ r 1 i j _.. a ., Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE fG DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 ~' / :) \' ` i~ '~ h,A ,, ~~'~ ;~ n .,~~ ` ~ ~ i N P ril\ _ ~ _ ~._~~ ~ ~ •~ ~ 'a ~t~ :~ Qn ,~ ~_ r, ~$. C,r ~ Z I 'I ~ ~ ~ i ~ _-____---_ - ~, ~ f`f; ~1 S ! 3~. .Ntp ----- -- -- J i f' S "~ Fp ti''p ~~~? ~a } ~_ .tl n 4 , ~~ t ! s ( ~:.rS~ IC' g I i ~ 1 I ~ I G N 9 p 4 . ~ ;~.. -~ .. ;_ t ~ :1 f -1 `- _rs..c..:_.(~AIATC MDaF-BEE 3i~ET l3 ~ I j rt r ~ ~~ m m ± of rn m ~- r ~ ~ ~ V I i .~, ~ c _. _ _ ~ ~~~$~~c~~~~ Sf~~~$ 4x~,~ s '_ i__ . a Exhibit A I CITY OF MERIDIAN PLG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE RING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 ~. wTa+urf-"sue s~ ~n : ------------------------------------° I I I '~ _ '!_ ~,. tt ~ 7 1 "t~' A _ ', ~ ~ h1~51r! R~ r til_IBC~I`Ifo!C^, ~ ~ ___ ___ ;. 1 Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE fG DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 a rMT~ii;p~.~y~Ej ~g `___________________ a~++~'_'~ • d• I i4 'Fry@Aqr; 'I? ~: ~~ i -; ~ $~ '~ ~~ ~~ ~~ I r-:! s .' e ~ f I I -- - - - . +MAtCrff1NE-9EE S+fcET L4 + ---------- ~~ ~~o ~- _., r.. _. ]7 m V t ~ ~iiblt ~ i-1rr r 1U~UI~,~ISi~ '''' ~.~ ..iL~ ..~~CL JPniE _,' r ~.. „ Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 >~ ~ f I PflO,IEGT BQI,T~OARY I ~' ~ ~ I o • ~ 1 i I I w ~~ ~ ? ~~ ~ - _ 1 ff '/- CASTLEBIlRY AVE _ __ ' \ ~ ~~ D m I a ~ ~ ~ - i _.__ __~ ~--- ~ ecocKS I 1, a ~ ~ u i ~ t, a 41 S I ~i I 7A14fCxa~iE-;fp 6HFEi td c ~ --__ ef~ ___ _________________~___ - - -J j ~ __ _ I - 71MiW1L.E-6EE ~kET La ~ ~ r I r ' I ~ I ~ i ~t~;~ m ~ ^' ~~ ~~ S~~1' f ~~~ I - - ~ ~~ ~ ~ d i I ~'~+ ~: i Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAI~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 ~ ~~ ~ '~ ~' "' ~ I ~ ~ I i ~~, Z '~ ka fir,.` I iiiq ~ 1 l7 .i J: " m I GlSTL,EBURY AVF_ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~; _. n Vl I~~" ~, ¢ ~ r r- ~ ~ o H~ W J - , ~ _.. ... _ _ .~,ty 11PdG -,. 1 .. _, , u -~ _- PRWEGT BOUNOAAY ~~ Im y COm Z O D D ~W_ ~i i s ~; :; Exhibit A CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 B. Conditions of Approval 1. PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1.1 ANNEXATION COMMENTS 1.1.1 The annexation legal description submitted with the application (dated January 20, 2006, stamped by Matthew Burrell, PLS) shows the property as contiguous to the existing corporate boundary of the City of Meridian. 1.1.2 Any future subdivision, uses and construction on this property shall comply with the City of Meridian ordinances in effect at the time. 1.2 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT 1.2.1 The preliminary plat labeled as Sheet C02, prepared by WRG Design, dated January 13, 2006, is approved, with the conditions listed herein. All comments/conditions of the accompanying Annexation/Zoning (AZ-06-011) shall also be considered conditions of the Preliminary Plat (PP- 06-009). 1.2.2 No on-street parking shall be allowed along E. Halpin Street from N. Locust Grove Road west to the intersection with Pasa Tiempo Avenue. The street shall be signed as "No Parking" per the Meridian Fire Department's comments. 1.2.3 The landscape buffer along N. Locust Grove Road on Lot 1, Block 1 and Lot 18, Block 3 shall be increased in width to 35 feet, in accordance with UDC 11-2A-5. 1.2.4 The parkways along the local streets shall be increased in width to 8 feet in accordance with UDC 11-3A-17. Trees within 8-foot wide parkways are restricted to Class II trees. 1.2.5 All homes within the subdivision shall contain at least 1,400 square feet of living area. 1.2.6 Maintenance of all common areas shall be the responsibility of the Basin Creek Subdivision Homeowners' Association. 1.2.7 All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11- 3A-18 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-vegetated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B. 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 ACHD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at the time of final construction. 1.2.8 Per UDC 11-3A-6 all irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways and waterways being used as amenities, that intersect, cross or lie within the area being subdivided shall be covered. 1.3 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS-PRELIMINARY PLAT 1.3.1 Sidewalks shall be installed within the subdivision and on the perimeter of the subdivision pursuant to UDC 11-3A-17. 1.3.2 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (MCC 12-13-8.3). The applicant should be required to utilize any existing surface Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HG DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 or well water for the primary source. If a surface or well source is not available, asingle-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer will be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. An underground, pressurized irrigation system should be installed to all landscape areas per the approved specifications and in accordance with UDC 11-3A-15 and MCC 9-1-28. 1.3.3 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. 1.3.4 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 fences should taper down to 3 feet maximum within 20 feet of all right-of--way. All fencing should be installed in accordance with UDC 11-3A-7. 1.3.5 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. 1.3.6 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of the Ten Mile Stub Drain, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11- 3A-6, unless otherwise approved by Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. 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. 1.3.7 Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved annexation conditional use does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. 1.3.8 Preliminary plat approval shall be subject to the expiration provisions set forth in UDC 11-6B-7. 2. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 2.1 Sanitary sewer service to this development is being proposed via extension of mains installed but not yet activated in Saguaro Canyon. The City of Meridian does not guarantee sewer service in the timelines outlined the UDC. 2.2 The applicant shall install sewer mains to and through this development, including any stub streets required by the Planning Department. The applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department, and execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Minimum cover over sewer mains is three feet, if cover from top of pipe to sub-grade is less than three feet than alternate materials shall be used in conformance of City of Meridian Public Works Departments Standard Specifications. 2.3 Minimum sewer slope on dead end runs is .6% per City of Meridian Public Work's Standard Specifications. 2.4 No manholes or water valves shall be allowed in the landscape islands shown in the intersections. If water mains or sewer mains are routed under the landscape islands then no trees shall be allowed in the landscape islands. 2.5 Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in Saguaro Canyon Subdivision and Locust Grove Road. The applicant shall be responsible to install water mains to and through this development, coordinate main size and routing with Public Works. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAG DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE ~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 2.6 Prior to occupancy the applicant shall have two main connections. If one of the connections is to be to Locust Grove Road then the applicant shall be responsible for the installation of a pressure reducing vault, location to be coordinated with Public Works. The PRV shall communication capabilities consistent with City of Meridian's SCADA system. 2.7 The applicant has indicated in the application that the pressurized irrigation is going to be a private system, but the narrative indicates Settlers is going to own and maintain this system. If it is to be maintained as a private system, plans and specifications will be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the construction plan review. A "draft copy" of the operations and maintenance manual will be required prior to plan approval with the "final draft" being required prior to final plat signature on the last phase of this project. If it is to be owned and maintained by an Irrigation District then evidence of a license agreement shall be submitted prior to scheduling of apre-construction meeting. 2.8 The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water (UDC 11-3A-6). The applicant should be required to use any existing surface 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. 2.9 Prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer the applicant shall vacate the Idaho Power easement shown on the preliminary plat. 2.10 The applicant shall be responsible for the payment of assessments and the actual physical hook- up of the existing house to City of Meridian sewer and water. 2.11 Additional width to the public utilities, drainage and irrigation easement along the right-of way shall be dedicated anywhere the sidewalk is located past the right-of--way. The additional width would need to be sufficient to allow for 10 feet of easement past the sidewalk. 2.12 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. 2.13 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 ornon-approval submitted to the Public Works Department. If lateral users association approval can't be obtained, alternate plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 2.14 Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base approved by the Ada County Highway District and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 2.15 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 All development improvements, including but not limited to sewer, fencing, micro-paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 2.17 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 Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 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 are set a minimum of 3-feet above the highest established peak groundwater elevation. This is to ensure that the bottom elevation of the crawl spaces of homes is at least 1-foot above. 2.24 One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights shall be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department prior to commencing installations. 3. FIRE DEPARTMENT 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 feet apart. International Fire Code Appendix C. 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. Final Approval of the fire hydrant locations shall be by the Meridian Fire Department. a. Fire Hydrants shall have the 4 %" outlet face the main street or parking lot aisle. b. The Fire hydrant shall not face a street which does not have addresses on it. c. Fire hydrant markers shall be provided per Public Works specifications. d. Fire Hydrants shall be placed on corners when spacing permits. e. Fire hydrants shall not have any vertical obstructions to outlets within 10'. f. Fire hydrants shall be place 18" above finish grade. g. Fire hydrants shall be provided to meet the requirements of the IFC Section 509.5. h. Show all proposed or existing hydrants for all new construction or additions to existing buildings within 1,000 feet of the project. 4. The phasing plan may require 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. 5. All entrance and internal roads and alleys shall have a turning radius of 28' inside and 48' outside radius. 6. Provide a 20-foot wide Fire Lane for all internal roadways all roadways shall be marked in accordance with Appendix D Section D103.6 Signs. 7. For all Fire Lanes, paint the curb red and provide signage "No Parking Fire Lane". Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE H~RING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 8. 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. 9. 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. The roadway shall be able to accommodate an imposed load of 75,000 GVW. 10. The proposed 88-lot subdivision with an estimated 2.9 residents per household would have a total estimated population of 255 residents at build out. 11. All portions of the buildings located on this project must be within 150' of a paved surface as measured around the perimeter of the building. 12. Where a portion of the facility or building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction is more than 400 feet (122 m) from a hydrant on a fire apparatus access road, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the facility or building, on-site fire hydrants and mains shall be provided where required by the code official. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183). a. For Group R-3 and Group U occupancies, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). b. For buildings equipped throughout with an approved automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2, the distance requirement shall be 600 feet (183 m). 4. POLICE DEPARTMENT 1. Any interior fencing adjacent to common lots shall allow visibility from the street or shall not exceed four feet in height if solid fencing is used. 5. PARKS DEPARTMENT 1. The Parks Department has no comments related to this application. 6. SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY 1. SSC has no comments related to this application. 7. ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT Site Specific Conditions of Approval The applicant's proposal is to widen North Locust Grove Road. ACHD only requires right-of- way and sidewalk no closer than 28-feet from centerline along North Locust Grove Road. If the applicant chooses to construct the proposed pavement widening, then the roadway must be constructed to ACRD standards for the 46-foot street section and the necessary 35-feet of right- of-way must be dedicated from centerline. 2. Provide an easement for the sidewalk where it meanders outside the public right-of--way. Construct the entry road, East Halpin Street, to intersect Locust Grove Road 357-feet south of East Dunwoody Court, as proposed. 4. Construct the entry road as a residential collector with vertical curb, gutter, 5-foot attached sidewalk and center landscape medians within 72-feet ofright-of--way. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLA~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE ~ARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 5. Construct the internal street sections as 33-feet street sections (or 34-foot) with curb, gutter and 5- foot attached sidewalks within 58-feet ofright-of--way. A letter from the Meridian Fire Department, granting specific approval of the reduced street section, is required by ACHD before final approval of the plat. 6. Construct East Halpin Street to offset Woodspring Street by 110-feet, as proposed. Construct two traffic circles; one at the intersection of Woodspring Street and Jericho Avenue and the other at the intersection of Elmsprings Street and Jericho Avenue. Coordinate the exact location and design of the traffic circles with District Traffic Services and Development Review Staff. 8. Construct stub streets to the surrounding properties as identified below. Install a sign at the terminus of each roadway stating, "THIS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED IN THE FUTURE." o The first is proposed to the west property line located approximately 260-feet south of the northwest property line (measured property line to centerline). This stub street is anticipated to connect to a stub street in the Saguaro Canyon Subdivision located directly to the west. o The second is proposed to the north property line located approximately 168-feet east of the northwest property line (measured property line to centerline) which aligns with the Arcadia approved stub street location. This stub street will connect to a stub street in the Arcadia Subdivision located directly to the north. o The third is proposed to the north property line located approximately 800-feet east of the northwest property line. o The fourth is proposed to the south property line located approximately 920-feet west of the southeast property line (measured property line to centerline). This stub street is anticipated to serve the proposed Cardigan Subdivision located to the south. 9. Construct three cul-de-sac turnarounds with minimum 45-foot turning radii, as proposed. 10. North Locust Grove is classified as a minor arterial roadway. Other than the access specifically approved with this application, direct lot access is prohibited to this roadway and shall be noted on the final plat. 11. Comply with all Standard Conditions of Approval. Standard Conditions o~p Yoval Any existing irrigation facilities shall be relocated outside of the right-of--way. 2. Private sewer or water systems are prohibited from being located within any ACHD roadway or right-of--way. All utility relocation costs associated with improving street frontages abutting the site shall be borne by the developer. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAI~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE . G DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 4. Replace any existing damaged curb, gutter and sidewalk and any that may be damaged during the construction of the proposed development. Contact Construction Services at 387-6280 (with file number) for details. Comply with the District's Tree Planter Width Interim Policy. 6. Utility street cuts in pavement less than five yeazs old aze not allowed unless approved in writing by the District. Contact the District's Utility Coordinator at 387-6258 (with file numbers) for details. 7. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 8. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 9. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 10. 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. 11. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of--way. The applicant at no cost to ACRD shall repair existing utilities damaged by the applicant. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE (1-800-342-1585) at least two full business days prior to breaking ground within ACHD right-of--way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations 387-6190 in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 12. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 13. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. Exhibit B CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAI~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE HARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 C. Legal Description . ~ -= ; f3usiu Creek-Anne~atiun Description :1 {~ rrcel ~ f land ;iuratzd in the Nonheaa o ne-yuartcr (NG 1; f j of Secthrn 30, To~utship a `~~,rih. Range 1 E•a:at, Ci~uce Itteridian qda C ' , , ount} , Idaho, being more particularly described 4 ~: '~~, I` °' `° ~ I h~ Sexrtheast~~e-quarter (SI/ I1=1) of the tic,uth«rst one-yuartcr (S11' I;:f) of the Northeast ra,c•-yuarter(NI I~4)andthcSnuthone-half(S 1/2j f h - '~ o t e Southeast one-quarter (SG 1/q)c,}' th:~ id,,rtheast one-quarter (Nt•: U41 nt Section ;(1 "I • ,. ~ , od~ nship -t North, Range I Fast, Raise ~Veri<lian. Ada t'ount~', ldahu: r_ ___ ~ I l;e*~inning at a 3" brass cap stamped °F'LS 7SS0"marking the East one- ti i ~ ~, ~ r~ ~ I eet quarter a,mer of nn 30, said I?ast one-quarter corner ituatrd on dtc ccnterlinc of Locust Gnn'e Road; ..< - ' ; !hence icaving said centerline of Locust Cinrve Road, along the south line of the Northeast one- quarter (NF. 1(4) of Section :i0 North S9"i ' " , , •, , <I UO GVest, 197L~9 feet to a S1S" iron and Fvith }'ellntiv plastic cap stamped "PLS S=1•#4", marking the southwest c ~ , FA orner of the Southeast onc- quartcr (SG 1/-I) of the Soutlnvest one-quarter {5\lf I/-1) of the Northeast one-quarter fNI: I/AI t,f tiectitvr ill; , . ~ tf F_ `'"' #7ten~r along the w•e;t line thereof, North 0O",i3'25'= Gust GGq.~#? '• - } cl#"rv plastic cap stamped "PLS 11 I2U" l ` ~'°"" ' ' "' , marking the northwest corner of I e .S'outtt ast oue- +.iuartcr { tiG I/a) of the Southwest one-quarter (SR= 11=#) of the Northe r(' t , as Section 3U; one-quarter (NF: I/4) r l ~ I ~~_'4°-'-) I hence along the north line tltereol; and continuing along the north line of the South one-half r S 1 r?) of the Southeast one L~NUL tr. :°' "'_' -quarter (SE I /~#) of the Northe. - _, ~. ~L~tiun itl, South S9'~i'lg'> gast• 1972.31 fret to the east line of said N 1 ! / *~-'' o tNL• 1 zast one quarter •1)andthccentc:rlineofLocustUrovcltoad: ~~~~~~ ~~~, I hence along the cast Iine thereof and said centerline of Locus( Grove Road, South otl 37 ~# ;" «-r.;t, 6fi4.0~J feet to the Point of Be~inninti. ,,,. ~ C+mtains 30.07 acres, more ur Iess. '~ I Ii## 11~ -~ Cit'RR-EI f % ) J ..t=.... G.~;: 1 k ~ ,; ~ ~ J'~~ i `-s , Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAI~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE • G DATE OF MAY 9 2006 Basin Cree6-Legal I)ecripiiun F,arrr' ,rf I:ina :itn~ted in the iti'nrthca,t cote-yu:ur_r ItiE l:'-I i i,f Section i0. Tottinship 4 '~~~~-aih. k:an:,~e !Past. Rome tieridian Ada l l i , uunq. . ahv. bein ~ mare pariictdarl}' described a~ ti,lluxs: ~- z6; ~; . ;„, ' 1 hr ~;outhra:>t unc-yuartcr fSE 1/-1) of the Southwest one-quarter (S~4' I%y) ,?f the Northeast +,nc-yuartcr (N P. I %d) and the S th ~~'~"" ou one-half(S lit) of ti+e Southeast one-quarter ('SL- 1/4) of the .`~orthea,t urte-yuartcr (Nli 1/-lj ofSrcti 3 - ~, on 0, Township ~ North. Rangy 1 East, }3vise ,,\kridi:+n. Ada County. Idaho rxre t th t i . p a pnrl on drrdrd to Ada County }iighway District by right of way deed re,;ordcd June 2S 1952 , , as Instrument No. 522725>; ~" ;~ A :: '~ ~+- ! F`a~ , Commencing at a ±" hrass cap stamped "I'LS 7580" marking thr East our-quarter corner of Section air ,aid t` ast ne ~:-._._ , , o -quarter comer situated on thr centerline of Locust Cirove Road; 'R"N;', Thence leaving said centerline of Locust Grove FZuad, along the south line of the Northea ou t s r-yuartcr (Nli 1/-t) of Section 30, North 59°>4'ft0" West, 2j.1}D feet to the westerly right- of=vvay line of Locust Ci `~~~~~ rovc Ruad and the Point oPBeginning; • I: E_a`.~~I~ t henry. c,ntGnuing along the; south line thereof; North 59"5<' ~ , t 00" ~S est, 19.16...9 feet to a ~/S" ir„n cud with yellow lasti `' , p c cap siampeJ PLS S4~1d", marking the southwest corner of the Suurheasi one•yuarter (SF. I/4) of the Southwest our- ' ' + "". yuartcr (S W I!d) nt the Northeast rnte- quarter (N(•: IJ4) of Section 3t): r ~ I I hrncr along, thr west line thereof; North 00~32'2i" Fast fiGd.=l2 feet lb a ~/5" iron rod with yellow plastic cap stamped "PLS I 1120" f. '~~ , marking the uorihwest corner ofthc Southeast one- yu:vter (SF. 1!4) of the Southw est one-quarter {SW I/-'i) of the Northeast ono-ynarter (NE I/4) ir° "I honer along the north line thereof, and continuing afung the north line of the South our-half i ti I!.'.) of the Southeast nnc-duarirr (SE 1 /4) f th ~ i }~, I o r Northeast one-quarter (NF; 1/4) of >e~ ri,m ~U, tiouth S9"~;' 19" Mast, ! 947.3) feet to a I12"i " __ i ron rod stamped PLS :}999" uu thr +trstrrly right-of-way lint o1 Locust Grove Koad; „~ ~, Thence tduug the westerly right-oi-way line thereof Sotnh UQ°?7'43" @Vest, 6tid.dd feet to t1,r I'nint ntltcgiuning ~ F , Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAN~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE FARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 `i ~, ~~ .~ ~ i n '• v `r ~. _ CO ~ r- ` m m z ~ O _ ~~ z D I Q ~ ,'~ - ~ Exhibit C CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAI~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE FARING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 D. Required Findings from Zoning Ordinance 1. Annexation Findings: Upon recommendation from the Commission, the Council shall make a full investigation and shall, at the public hearing, review the application. In order to grant an annexation and/or rezone, the Council shall make the following findings: 1. The map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan; The applicant is proposing to zone all of the subject property to R-4. City Council fords that the proposed zoning map amendment complies with the applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report. 2. The map amendment complies with the regulations outlined for the proposed district, specifically the purpose statement; City Council finds that single-family detached residential uses are allowed within the requested zoning district of R-4 as a Principally Permitted Use. The accompanying plat demonstrates the land will be developed with lot sizes, housing types and other dimensional requirements that conform to the proposed zoning designation. 3. The map amendment shall not be materially detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare; City Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare. 4. 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, City Council finds that the proposed zoning amendment will not result in any adverse impact upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing services to this site. 5. The annexation is in the best of interest of the City (UDC 11-SB-3.E). The R-4 zoning amendment will provide lots that are similar in nature to existing subdivisions in the near vicinity. City Council finds that all essential services are available or will be provided by the developer to the subject property and will not require unreasonable expenditure of public funds. The applicant is proposing to develop the land in general compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. This is a logical expansion of the City limits. In accordance with the findings listed above, City Council fords that Annexation and Zoning of this rp O e~rty to R-4 would be in the best interest of the Citv 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: 1. The plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan; City Council finds that the proposed application is in substantial compliance with the Exhibit D CITY OF MERIDIAN PLAI~G DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT FOR THE I~RING DATE OF MAY 9, 2006 adopted Comprehensive Plan. Staff generally supports the proposed plat layout and proposed density as they comply with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. Please see Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals, Section 8, of the Staff Report. 2. Public services are available or can be made available and are adequate to accommodate the proposed development; City Council finds that public services are available to accommodate the proposed development. (See finding Items 3 and 4 above under Annexation Findings for more details.) 3. The plat is in conformance with scheduled public improvements in accord with the City's capital improvement program; Because the developer is installing sewer, water, and utilities for the development at their cost, staff finds that the subdivision will not require the expenditure of capital improvement funds. 4. There is public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development; See finding "Items 3 and 4 above under Annexation Findings above, and the Agency Comments and Conditions in Exhibit B for more detail. 5. 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. ACHD considers road safety issues in their analysis. 6. The development preserves significant natural, scenic or historic features. City Council is unaware of any natural, scenic or historic features on this site. Therefore, City Council finds that the proposed development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of any natural, scenic or historic feature(s) of major importance. Exhibit D • May 19, 2006 AZ 06-012 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT Kingsbridge Subdivision, LLC ITEM NO. 6-G REQUEST Findings for Denial: Annexation and Zoning of 9.43 acres from RUT to R-2 for Hendrickson Subdivision -- 4240 E. Bott Lane: 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 Aftached Draft Minutes See Aftached Findings for Denial GPI' I ~ Contacted:, Date: ~-~- Phone: ~38--~~~ Emailed: ~-j0('Gl.pn ~ ~ U j5 (Orr['-t <S~'~ St Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. . ~ Page 1 of 1 Sharon Smith From: Michelle Albertson Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 1:03 PM To: Sharon Smith; Will Berg; Tara Green Subject: Hendrickson Denial Attachments: Hendrickson Denial PP.doc; Hendrickson Denial AZ.doc Will, Tara and Shnron -attached are the FFCL for the Denials for Hendrickson. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Thanks, Michelle 5/ 17/2006 i i BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL C/C 05/16/06 IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 9.43 ACRES TO R-2 FOR HENDRICKSON SUBDIVISION Case No. AZ 06-012 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF KINGSBRIDGE PROPERTIES, LLC APPLICANT DENIAL The above entitled annexation and zoning application having come on for public hearing on May 16, 2006, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m., Anna Canning, City Planning and Zoning Administrator for the Planning and Zoning Department, Ken Elliott of Vision First, LLC on behalf of Kingsbridge Properties, LLC appeared and testified, and the City Council having duly considered the evidence and the record in this matter therefore make the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT The notice of public hearing on the application for annexation and zoning was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to said public hearings scheduled for May 16, 2006, before the City Council, the first publication appearing and written notice having been mailed to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred (300') feet of the external boundaries of the property under consideration more than fifteen (15) days prior to said hearings and with the notice of public hearings having been posted upon the property under consideration more than one week before said hearing; and that copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations as public service announcements; and the matter having been duly considered by FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL HENDRICKSON SUBDIVISION; CASE NO. AZ-06-012 PAGE I OF 4 CJ the City Council on May 16, 2006, public hearing; and the applicant, affected property owners, and government subdivisions provided services within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian, having been given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence. 2. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Idaho Code §§67-6509 and 67-6511, and §§11-2-416E and 11-2-417A, Municipal Code of the City of Meridian. 3. The City Council takes judicial notice of its zoning, subdivisions and development ordinances codified at Title 11, Municipal Code of the City of Meridian, and all current zoning maps thereof, and the Amended Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted August 6, 2002, Resolution No. 02-382, and maps and the ordinance Establishing the Impact Area Boundary. 4. The property is approximately 9.43 acres in size and is generally located on the south side of Victory Road and on the east side of Selatir Way, approximately 1,500 feet east of Locust Grove Road, Meridian, Idaho, within a portion of the SW'/a of the SW '/4 of the NE '/4 of Section 28, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. 5. Donald G. Hendrickson, whose address is 4240 Bott Lane, Meridian, Idaho 83642, and Kingsbridge Properties, LLC, whose address is 661 Rivershore Lane, Ste 120, Eagle, ID 83616 are the current property owners. 6. Applicant is Gordon Bates, Vision First - Kingsbridge Properties, LLC, 661 Rivershore Lane, Ste 120, Eagle, ID 83616. 7. The subject property is currently zoned RUT (Ada County). FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL HENDRICKSON SUBDIVISION; CASE NO. AZ-06-012 PAGE 2 OF 4 • 8. The Applicant requests the property be zoned R-2 (Low Density Residential). The property which is the subject of this application is within the Area of Impact of the City of Meridian. 9. The entire parcel of property is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 10. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following manner: Low Density Residential 11. The Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map designates the subject property as Low Density Residential. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The City of Meridian has discretionary authority to annex real property upon written request for annexation and the real property being contiguous or adjacent to city boundaries and that said property lies within the area of city impact as provided by Idaho Code §50-222. The Municipal Code of the City of Meridian § 11-2-417 provides the City may annex real property that is within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as set forth in the City's Comprehensive Plan. 2. The provisions of Idaho Code §50-222 govern the conditions upon which the City may exercise its authority to annex territory, but the exercise of that authority is discretionary as determined by the City Council. DECISION AND ORDER NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, the City Council does hereby order and this does order: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL HENDRICKSON SUBDIVISION; CASE NO. AZ-06-012 PAGE 3 OF 4 • That the application for annexation and zoning is denied for the following reasons: The proposed development is not in the best interest of the City of Meridian. r~ By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 2~ day of May, 2006. ROLL CALL: COUNCILMAN SHAUN WARDLE COUNCILMAN JOE BORTON COUNCILMAN CHARLIE ROUNTREE COUNCILMAN KEITH BIRD VOTED -~~ VOTED _~~~ VOTED /~d~,.~ VOTED -~~~- MAYOR TAMMY de WEERD (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DATED: S ~ 3 ~~ ~ MOTION: APPROVED: ~_ DISAPPROVED: `~~,,,1°'Ms4I~',QR T de WEERD \\`\oo~ ~ s's~~~°s '~ ATTEST: ~\ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~' ~ /~ i , ~ CITY CLERK ~~, ~, ~ a~ • ~°~'' Qe908 98 88 988 Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works Department, and City Attorney. By. Dated: ~ ?~~ Q City Clerk's Office FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL HENDRICKSON SUBDIVISION; CASE NO. AZ-06-012 PAGE 4 OF 4 Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 22 of 56 ®~~ Nary: This is just approving the variance as recommended. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, abstain; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. Item 17: Public Hearing: AZ 06-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.43 acres from RUT to R-2 for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Subdivision, LLC - 4240 East Bott Lane: Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 06-010 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval for 18 single-family residential lots and 4 common lots on 9.43 acres in a proposed R-2 zone for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Properties, LLC - 4240 East Bott Lane: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for bearing with us through this process. Okay. Items 17 and 18. I will open these public hearings on AZ 06-012 and PP 06-010. Start with Anna's comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Hendrickson project. It is located just east of Kingsbridge Subdivision and it's west of Selatir and east of Eagle, south of Victory, which is just up the -- would be up at the top of the slide there and north of Amity, which is right down here on the bottom of the slide. It's getting toward the edge of our area of city impact. Actually, this dotted line is our current area of city impact. This is within Boise's area of city impact. The applications include annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat. The gross residential density is 1.9 units per acre. It includes 18 single family lots on 9.43 acres in a proposed R-2 zone. Most of the lots in this area range from 12,000 and, then, they are a little larger on the perimeter. I do want to point out some awkward lots that -- we have a flag lot here that's a 30 foot flag and a house here. We have the existing house on a large lot back here that would also have a 30 foot flag coming out and they currently take access to Bott Lane, which is in this location at the southeast corner of the property. The open space for the project has a flag coming off this street, opens up briefly back here, and another flag going that way. The staff has recommended a development agreement. Some of those provisions that are unusual or site specific include that the applicant shall install and maintain the proposed off-site vegetation shown in the strip along the eastern property line. What we have is -- you can just see it here. Selatir is a public street. It ends and, then, you have Selatir as a private lane extending from there. There is a small strip of land between Selatir Lane held in separate ownership and between this property. And I'm -- they have agreed to an off-site commitment to landscape that piece of property. The other development agreement condition is this -- that a maximum of 18 single family building lots will be platted on the property and, then, the applicant has proposed that all the homes in Block 2 would be single story and the Commission added a development Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 23 of 56 agreement condition that stated that the homes in Block 3 would be similarly restricted. The Commission recommended approval at their April 4th hearing. In favor of the application were Ken Elliott, Gordon Bates, Don Hendrickson, and Christine Hendrickson. In opposition were David LaVigne and Leonard Vanskoy. And commenting were Tim Petchy, Shelly Robertson, Lisa Becker, Jerry Larsen, Virginia Welkerstein and Susan Brender. And I apologize for any mispronunciations on any of those names. Key issues of the discussion by the Commission were access to Bott Lane as I noted down here. Design of the open space as I called out. It's kind of double L shaped, I suppose. Or double flagged. Limiting the height to single stories on some of the lots. And, then, the stub street to the north. The key Commission changes to staff recommendations were that they -- and I noted before, they did restrict the building heights on Lot 3 to be similar to what was proposed on Lot 2. So, if the applicant wanted to allow two story homes on Lot 2, then, lot -- or Block 2, then, Block 3 would not be limited either. And they also decided -- the Commission has recommended that the existing home be allowed to continue to access Bott Lane until Hendrickson Avenue, which is the street on the east end of the property, until it is extended as a public street to the southeast. I wanted to show you where Bott Lane goes. I believe this is the current path of Bott Lane and, then, it cuts across here to Cloverdale and then -- it's not showing, but it does eventually connect to Cloverdale, I believe. And the applicant may have a comment about that, but it does make its way there eventually. The outstanding issues before Council -- I have referenced the applicant's letter that you have received on your desk today and I did go through all of the other concerns. The first concern that they note is the Planning and Zoning Commission's restriction on height for Block 3. I think I have explained all the issues there, that, apparently, at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing they also -- the applicant did offer to set the homes on Block 3 25 feet from the back of property line to provide some additional buffer to those homes that are on Selatir. The zone only requires 15 feet. The applicant has also raised the question about fencing on the south boundary. They may need to explain this one further. I wasn't sure exactly where they were going. It's -- there are two general conditions in the landscape provisions that call out required fencing for the perimeter of the subdivision. I believe their concern is if they are accessing Bott Lane that they don't want to put a fence over it and, clearly, we allow breaks in those fences to accommodate access routes. The applicant also raised questions about the Ten Mile feeder improvements. That comment is not referencing an actual condition of approval, it's just in the analysis and the Findings. So, there is no need to address that on Council's part. There is a -- the applicant notes that there is some contradiction between staff analysis and Section 10 in the conditions of approval. This is not uncommon. Staff writes their analysis, they develop the conditions of approval. If the Commission decides to change those conditions of approval, we just go and change the conditions of approval, we don't go back and change the analysis. The analysis is still left as it was for the planning -- original staff report for the Planning and Zoning Commission. So, that covers a lot of the items in that. One -- number one on their -- on their list under those is, yes, the preliminary plat revisions now address the issues discussed in Section 10, but we don't typically remove that analysis from the report. Item number two. Yes, those conditions have been met, but regarding a redesign of the site, staff had proposed a redesign. The applicant took another route to address those concerns and that's the one Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 24 of 56 you see before you tonight, so -- but those references are still there, but they have redesigned the site. Condition 1.1.4, as noted, was removed, because it was inconsistent with the Commission's decision, but it's noted in the key changes. So, there is really no action needed on that one either. Item number four, the applicant -- the Commission has recommended that the applicant be allowed to continue to use Bott Lane until Hendrickson Road extends to the southeast. I noted that before. They are asking you to address language in the -- again, in the analysis section stating that access to Bott Lane be fenced off. So, it doesn't reference a condition of approval. There is no condition of approval that says Bott Lane has to be fenced. But I did want to take this opportunity to point out that staff is still very concerned about allowing this property to maintain access off of Bott Lane. This is our one chance and our only chance, basically, to get this current property owner to abdicate their rights to that access and as we have seen on Wingate Lane, it's crucial that the furthest in -- and this is the property furthest in on Bott Lane, that they -- that we sequentially abandon those rights. Now, in this case it may not affect the City of Meridian much, given that it's close to the boundary, but it may prevent the logical extension of Hendrickson Avenue if it's contending with Bott Lane access before it gets out to Cloverdale and that east-west connection through the section does become important, even if it is Boise city property it becomes important. Comment number five on their response, again, it references the analysis section. It's not necessary to address that one at this time. Finally, the applicant has requested that the Council remove the condition for the stub street and instead allow the applicant to have an emergency access to Selatir Place, the private lane just to the east. ACRD has provided comment for you. They sent an a-mail over immediately stating that it is a condition of their approval and they do want to see that stub street go in. If the applicant wants to provide an emergency access to Selatir in addition to that, they are free to do that, but they want to have that stub street and they will address the issue of whether it should connect at a later time. This does not provide a connection to Selatir at this time and they will address that later, but they are pretty adamant that they want that stub street to remain. So, the issues that need to be addressed from my notes are the stub street, access to Bott Lane, and the height for Block 2, and Block 3 and, then, the redesign that staff had proposed basically removed these flag lots from being so secluded and also made the open space more open. Again, the Commission has recommended this one to you. Staff still has concerns about these private -- these residences on these flag lots. Code does allow it. It's up to I suppose Council to decide whether it's in the best interest of the city to have these flag lots tucked way behind these other lots. And with that I will answer any questions that you may have. De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff at this time? Bird: I have none. Rountree: Mr. Mayor? De Weerd. Yes, Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Council • • May 16, 2006 Page 25 of 56 Rountree: Anna, I can't read the number on this parcel. It's either three or five. Is that part of the flag lot access or is that -- can it be a common lot or what's going on there? Is that part of this lot here? Canning: It is the common lot. It comes down here, kind of shaped like a -- Rountree: Okay. Okay. Canning: -- flag with a pendent that connects. De Weerd: Okay. Anything else, Council? Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will state your name and address for the record. Elliott: Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council. My name is Ken Elliott, I'm with Vision First, LLC. Our address is 661 South River Shore Lane, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. De Weerd: Thank you. Elliott: Gordon Bates, who is our project manager, will be dealing with two of the points that Anna raised. I'd like to talk -- or I had planned to talk just about the height restriction on Block 3, but I first want to clarify one point on the Bott Lane access that I think may not have been stated clearly and that is that it's only the existing Hendrickson house on Lot 10 of Block 2 that will maintain its historic access to Bott Lane. The rest of the project will have that stub street blocked by a barricade and we will not seek or have any access to Bott Lane. Just the one house. And the Planning and Zoning Commission agreed with that compromise and, again, it will not interfere with the future extension of our southern stub to the south or the east, because the condition further says that once that public street connection is made, then, the Hendricksons will use that instead and will relinquish the existing access to Bott Lane. With that said, I'd like to go on to the -- the single story restrictions on Block 3. And interpreting the Planning and Zoning Commission's reasoning, I think it was primarily based on the fact that as a matter of contract when we bought the Hendrickson's land, we agreed that those interior lots that back up against the Hendrickson's backyard will be restricted to single story. Planning and Zoning seemed to think that if we did it voluntarily as a matter of the land purchase, that we should, then, go ahead and restrict those that adjoin Selatir. As you can see, the Hendrickson's house is oriented -- the backyard is to the northeast and that's the primary view from this area is of the Boise foothills, Bogus Basin, those lots if -- on the interior, if they were two story, would directly block the Hendrickson's existing view to the northeast and that's why we agreed to that concession. Along the eastern boundary, Block 3, we did make several compromises with the Selatir neighbors and we thought that we had reached a census that did not include limiting those houses to single stories. As Anna mentioned, we have voluntarily agreed to a 24 foot rear yard setback. We are putting a three foot berm at the property line with a six foot privacy fence on top of it. There is an existing 16 foot wide strip to the west of that private lane, that's the area that we will be improving with landscaping and, then, maintaining through the Meridian City Council • • May 16, 2006 Page 26 of 56 homeowners association. Then we have a 50 foot right of way and, then, we have the front yards on the houses ranging anywhere from 50 and up, 50 feet and up. We eliminated one of the lots there. We originally had six lots. We reduced that to five, so that we have the largest lots in the subdivision adjoining Selatir. All of them are well in excess of 15,000 square feet. One is over 16. Each lot lines up with the existing lots on Selatir. So, we have ahouse -- a house on Selatir, a house on Hendrickson and, then, the fifth one at the south end adjoins an open space tract that's being held under the farm use covenant. So, we, basically, have four new lots aligned with four existing houses. These are the largest lots in the subdivision and with the primary view as it is to the Hendricksons, the primary view for the folks on Selatir is to the northeast and we think that the agreements that we reached voluntarily are adequate to buffer their front yard view from any two story houses that are built on our eastern block. I would note that Selatir is not restricted. One of the four houses has an existing two story house. The other three houses that adjoin us could add a second story at any time. There is no such restriction on their property rights. We are asking that the Council reconsider the Planning and Zoning's recommendation. You may recall as part of the Kingsbridge Subdivision approval that we voluntarily -- or through a negotiated settlement with the neighbors, limited the height on several of our preliminary lots to single stories along Zaldia Lane, along Dartmoor, the subdivision. Just to make this more than a hypothetical exercise, I want to let you know that we have signed lot reservation agreements on all of phase one in Kingsbridge from 18 builders who want to be part of the project. We had that on all the lots, except those that are restricted to single story. We expect that they will eventually sell, but it shows that there is a very real drag on the marketability of those lots when they are restricted to single story. So, we would ask that these five lots not be so restricted. And I'd invite Gordon Bates now, project manager, to address the other two points that Anna raised. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Elliott: Unless there are questions that -- Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question. De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: You indicated that the 16 foot strip over here -- Elliott: Yes. Rountree: -- would be landscaped and maintained by the homeowners? Elliott: Correct. Rountree: Is that a piece of property that your company owns or is that owned by the neighboring homeowners? Meridian City Council • • May 16, 2006 Page 27 of 56 Elliott: Madam Mayor, Councilor Rountree, it's owned by the -- either one or two of the residents of Selatir Place and so it will be an off-site obligation that we are taking on as a matter of deed restriction and covenants that will affect our subdivision. Rountree: And is that something that you could do? I mean have you negotiated that at this point or is that just wishful thinking? Elliott: That's part of our agreement that we have reached with the Selatir neighbors, that they want us to improve and landscape and, then, maintain that strip. Rountree: Thank you. Elliott: Thank you. Bates: Good evening. Gordon Bates. I work for Vision First. My business address is 661 South River Shore Lane, Suite 120, Eagle, Idaho. I very quickly will go through the presentation we have this evening. I want to thank all of you and Madam Mayor and the Council members for your time. We agree with most of the Exhibit B conditions of approval. I think the clarification letter that I sent speaks for itself there. There is a few items that we will discuss here in just a few moments. The neighbors that are here I believe will mostly speak to their concerns regarding the stub street and they will also voice their opinion on the height restrictions. I would like to note that this project does comply with the R-2 zoning, including the five percent open space, 15,000 square foot minimum lot size, 80 foot frontage. There are actually 15 foot flag lots and that's per the UDC and that was based upon redesign comments from Joe Guenther and I believe also Caleb Hood on that. They do have a shared driveway, which is the hatched area. There is a shared driveway here. There is another shared driveway right here. We do believe that these flag lots meet the UDC code. Amenities. If you could switch to the next handout there, Anna. The green. Thank you. A little bit of a zoom out, please. The green space highlighted is the common area. This is a detention area and common area here with trees and landscaping. The park originally came down a very narrow flag lot and flared out in this area. There was no access to Hendrickson Avenue here. This has been redesigned based primarily on Lieutenant Stowe's comments from the city police department to provide a flare visibility from the street here into the park to provide visibility and access into the park here, so that we meet his primary concerns about anybody, a police officer or otherwise, would have visibility back into this park. We also feel like this is a very centrally located park, it provides access by the new lots, it also provides access from the existing home. It provides a path area for younger children to play in it away from the street. We looked at separating the major recreational activity from the street traffic. We feel like that is very save. And as per staff comments, we will have non-trespass light to provide very low level lighting to discourage activity after dark, but, yet, will also provide these neighbors with very limited visibility into that. This light will not splash out into those lots and creating a type of nuisance. It will most likely be three foot high bollards of light, shielded lighting on top. And we feel that P&Z has -- as they have approved this as noted in Exhibit B, item 4.1. We have had numerous meetings with the neighbors. Three of them to be exact. Lots of communication. There Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 28 of 56 is concerns with the stub street going north to Mr. Dan Johnson's parcel. This area here that I did not highlight, because it's off site, is our 15 foot landscape strip, and the neighboring association has agreed verbally, we have not developed a written agreement yet, that would allow us to not only construct these improvements, but maintain them by the Hendrickson homeowners association. It will include a three foot berm and a six foot privacy fence centered on our easterly boundary and their westerly boundary. Ken went through the other concessions. I won't repeat those. I would note that we have the 25 foot yard -- rear yard setback and that's on note 15 of the preliminary plat. Fifteen foot wide buffer strip, a 50 foot wide right of way and, then, we start getting into their front and side yards over here. Staff notes -- also note that we comply with the Comprehensive Plan, low density residential future use. We also have provided reasonable transition lots and voluntary concessions that exceed the city requirements. Regarding the access -- Anna, if you could go to the next handout, please, with the fence. Existing Lot 10 of Block 2 is a portion that the Hendricksons are retaining ownership of. Their existing house is here. Their existing driveway comes down and comes into the Ten Mile feeder canal right of way and continues down to Bott Lane. We are not -- we are proposing to provide dual access for this lot. They will have a gate here with a paved shared driveway for city code, access to Hendrickson Avenue to Kingsbridge Drive and westerly. We are requesting that their existing legal and historic access to Bott Lane to the south remain and be allowed to continue until Hendrickson Avenue is extended to the south. Mr. Hendrickson is not here this evening. He'd point out that many of their friends and most of the community that they have relationships with are along Bott Lane and they would just like to continue that access for their sole purpose for this lot only. They would secure this gate and not let public access come onto their private property. They would not allow public access to come to Bott Lane. It would be solely for their use only and not the remaining subdivision or any adjoining streets. Fencingwise. There is some comments regarding fencing the south boundary against the canal located here. We are providing fencing from this point to here along the south boundary to the gate. These are all fenced -- either proposed fence or open fence around the common area. It connects to the fencing proposed for Kingsbridge Subdivision to the west. We are asking for a formal waiver from this point to the southwest corner of Lot 10, Block 2, to the gate at the westerly terminus of the shared driveway. Mr. Hendrickson's pointed out that they enjoy the canal there, it's part of the amenities of their property, even though it is not part of their property, it's on a separate parcel and is requested not to have to fence this, since we are providing fencing boundary in other areas of the subdivision and we would ask for a formal waiver noting that portion. Regarding the stub street, the developer, ourselves, and the neighbors along Selatir Lane would dearly love to see that stub street go away. Mr. Dan Johnson, the owner of this parcel here, speaks for himself on that matter. The staff report indicates that this stub street connects to Selatir Lane and up to Victory. To date I'm not aware of Mr. Johnson having a formal application to do that. I feel like this stub street may go nowhere. It really depends on Mr. Johnson's development plans and I'll let him speak for himself. Selatir is a county road. It has no sidewalks. We feel that future connectivity is much better served down Hendrickson Avenue to a full urban street with sidewalks and connection over towards development off of Cloverdale Road. We would offer -- if we could have that next slide, please, Anna. I would note that this is Meridian City Council • • May 16, 2006 Page 29 of 56 purposefully a hand sketch change. This is just a proposal. It's not gone to ACRD, etc. But if ACHD agrees to eliminate the stub street here, we would offer to substitute that with the gravel and gated emergency vehicle only access lane to provide enhanced vehicle access to the Hendrickson and the easterly side of Kingsbridge Drive. De Weerd: Sir, if you could, please, summarize. Bates: You bet. In closing, we meet the zoning requirements, Comprehensive Plan designation. We are providing the city with larger lots south of the freeway, in comparison to the relatively denser subdivisions elsewhere. We ask that the city would reconsider the height restriction on Block 3. We ask that you could concur with the Planning and Zoning allowance for the continued legal use of the access of Lot 10, Block 2, to Bott Lane. We ask that you would grant a fence waiver on the southerly portion of Lot 10, Block 2. We ask that you would allow for -- subject to ACHD approval, the removal of the stub street to be replaced by an emergency vehicle access, again, contingent upon ACRD approval at a later date. This would allow for staff level approvals of those changes of preliminary plat, rather than a new public hearing before you. We also would -- De Weerd: Sir? Bates: Yeah. De Weerd: Your time is over. Bates: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I have a question. De Weerd: Okay. Bates: Yes. Rountree: What is this feature? Bates: That is an existing canal. It will be piped around the perimeter of the property. That's the McDonald Lateral. And we have worked that out with the Boise Project Board of Control. They feel like the hydraulics there are reasonable such that a piping will work just fine through there. It's got several checks providing lots of fall that we can pipe on the perimeter. Meridian City Council • • May 16, 2006 Page 30 of 56 Rountree: So, it will be on the southern perimeter? Southerly and westerly perimeter, yes, sir. Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. Bates: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. I have a number of people signed up here. When I read your name I will also read how you have checked the form. If you wish to provide testimony when I read your name, please, come forward. If not, we will at least record your name and opinion for the record. Lisa Becker. Against. Becker: Good evening. My name is Lisa Becker. 3421 South Selatir Place in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Becker: I live one lot north of the proposed development. Both Vision First and the homeowners testified at Planning and Zoning Commission. All opposed the northern stub street, so we wanted to explain why we oppose it. Our street Selatir is a very narrow street. It was designed as a dead end cul-de-sac to access six estate lots. I wrote you a letter, but the picture didn't turn out very good, so I wanted to show you the width of the road. You can see if two -- if two cars are on that road, basically, there is no room for another car to get by. The road is, actually, 23.5 feet wide and we have irrigation runoff on both sides of the barrow pits. A lot of times the irrigation runoff it's basically from side to side. So, it's a very narrow road. ACHD in their letter dated March 21st indicated that that northern stub street was placed there in anticipation of a future connection to Selatir Place. We feel this creates a safety risk. It would allow dumping urban density residential from Kingsbridge and Hendrickson onto this very narrow rural lane. ACRD also indicated that the stub street was there for future development to the north. However, we don't feel that's necessary. Our restrictive covenants only permit up to one acre lots. They are currently all five acre estate lots and our restrictive covenants only allow future development to one acre lots. Those one acres could be accessed easily off of Selatir. There is no need for the stub to access future development. We want to indicate that we do support the vision for connectivity between neighborhoods. That's why we have proposed a compromise of the fire lane, which would allow bike and pedestrian access between the neighborhoods without dumping urban density traffic onto this rural road. So, we just ask -- I'd ask in summary that you either remove the stub street -- we have talked with Commissioner Huber from the ACHD and she's indicated that on some occasions you have been willing to remove stub streets. Or we ask that you refer it back to the ACHD for a public hearing. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council • • May 16, 2006 Page 31 of 56 Becker: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Jeff Welkerstein. And I really apologize if I just messed up your name. Welkerstein: That's okay. De Weerd: And, please, state your name and address for the record. Welkerstein: Jeff Welkerstein. 3702 South Selatir Place. De Weerd: Thank you. Welkerstein: I live down about the cul-de-sac, second house from the end. I just want to concur with the previous testimony from my neighbor concerning allowing the stub street to connect into Selatir Place. I just want to reiterate it's a rural narrow road with barrow pits and no sidewalks. On the ACHD report they estimated that the Hendrickson Subdivision would add about 170 vehicle trips per day. I don't believe there was any mention of the additional traffic that would be added from the adjacent Kingsbridge Subdivision to the west that would want to shortcut through there as well. Also, we were unaware of any ten day appeal process to the ACHD report. The letter was dated March 21st and I did not receive a copy of the a-mail until after the ten day appeal period. So, also would appreciate City Council recommending removal of the stub street or sending it back to ACHD for review. Another point I want to make is originally we were opposed to the density as it currently stands. I would be happier if the lot sizes mirrored the size of the Kingsbridge lots abutting the Dartmoor Subdivision, which was a half acre to one acre transition on some of the perimeters and some height restrictions as well. In talking with Vision First, we told them we would be more amenable to the proposed site, which are about third acre lots, assuming the house and the out buildings adjacent to Selatir Place are limited to one story and maintained a 25 foot setback. And so that's what Planning and Zoning recommended and we support restricting those and I think it's Lot 3 to one story. Then, finally, I also believe there is confusion about whether or not the Hendrickson property is included in this -- in the 9.43 acres. If it's not, I mean I'm confused, if they still want access to Bott Lane, if they are not part of the subdivision, then, including them in the 9.3 acres, the density is too great for R-2 zoning. So, in summary, concerns about the stub street. Hopefully, we can send it back to ACRD for review. And concerns about the density and/or the height restrictions. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Jenny Welkerstein. Welkerstein. Also against. Okay. Thank you. David LaVigne. Exactly. I always appreciate coaching, though. Okay. If you would like to step forward and just say your name and address for the record. LaVigne: I didn't want to use my minutes up yet, so I was just waiting -- De Weerd: We won't start it until she's ready. LaVigne: Okay. Meridian City Council • • May 16, 2006 Page 32 of 56 Nary: Please summarize. LaVigne: Wait a minute. My name is David LaVigne. I live at 3317 South Selatir Place, which is just a little north of the proposed subdivision. And so what I wanted to do is just kind of talk -- walk you through some of the points. One of our primary concerns -- you want to flip to the next slide -- is -- we are requesting denial of the proposed plat map primarily because of the concern for the stub street to the north property for future. Primary concern is just the stub street. If you could go to the next slide. And as you saw, this is the stub street that we were talking about we would like to see removed. And if you want to go to the next slide. The Selatir Place, as referred, is a rural road, it's 22.3 feet wide with no sidewalks, barrow pits, and as you can see on the right-hand side over here, this is water that fiUls up with the irrigation water on the side. Cars in the middle here and you want -- I have got -- I have got two kids -- I have got three kids. Two three year old twins and -- forget how many I have. I don't get a lot of sleep. Rountree: How many is that? LaVigne: I don't know. It's a blur. But they -- you know, they, actually, go down and visit Jeffs kids down at the end of the street, which they have to run all the way down here at the end of the street and it's a one mile road. So, if you want to go to the next slide. So, as you can kind of see the way that the road is, it's along -- long narrow road, barrow pits on each side, and it's 1.75 -- one to 1.75 acres and if you open this thing up to -- to what's coming over on Selatir from Kingsbridge and from the Hendrickson Subdivision, it's going to be like a speedway and a question to you guys is where are our kids supposed to walk and go down and visit their friends when you have -- when you potentially have 500 cars per day coming down this road when you open it up to Hendrickson Subdivision, as well as portion -- back portion of Kingsbridge. So, the next slide. To give you a flavor of what's on the street, if you haven't been down there before, just to kind of give you an idea of some of the homes, the estate homes that are on here. There is anywhere between one and five acre lots and it's right on the edge of the Meridian city limits, if you have seen it. If you want to go to the next slide. These are just some more five acre estate lots in Selatir Place. Just to kind of give you a flavor, the homes are setback, they are big acreages, and nobody's -- I mean it's just a -- it's a great rural environment that's still within -- you know, it's close to the City of Meridian, which we are getting fewer and fewer homes that are -- developments that are still out here like this. If you want to go to the next slide. So, what we'd like to -- the primary concern is the public safety is the primary concern regarding the potential connection to Selatir Place via the stub street on the Hendrickson Subdivision. And as you have kind of heard, what we'd like to kind of propose is some options -- layout some options for you. If you want to go to the next slide. And the Selatir homeowners, as well as Vision First, we were, first, unaware of the 10 day appeal period that must be filed to contest ACHD recommendations. That had actually lapsed, almost, by the time we had gotten to talk to the Planning and -- to Planning and Zoning. And what we'd like to recommend is the City Council -- one of the options is to -- the City Council not act on the report and -- Meridian City Council • • May 16, 2006 Page 33 of 56 De Weerd: If you will, please, summarize. LaVigne: Okay. This is -- if you want to go to the next slide. That was one option. And the next option. Bottom line is -- you have heard a lot of the options and you also heard about the proposed stub street. Removing the stub street and that piece of strip, spite strip that we have been talking about, is granting access across, is -- that's in lieu of -- we would grant access to something like that, because it's, actually, a part of the homeowners association. The group has purchased it under the homeowners association, that spite strip, and we would, actually, like to encourage some connectivity, but we don't want to encourage the connectivity to have all of the traffic coming down, but we do agree with the connectivity of neighborhoods. We would like to have connectivity between Kingsbridge, as well as Selatir as well. So, we would be more than happy to offer that up in lieu of removing the stub street regarding any future connectivity to that whole piece as well as you see right there. And one other last option, a quick summary, and I'm out of here, is that -- is that on putting a restriction on the stub street, which I had talked to Sherry Huber, ACHD commissioner about, she said that you could actually put a restriction on this stub street that it could not be used for -- for vehicle access, only emergency access or pedestrian access, if the stub street still had to stay there. So, that's an additional option for you to consider. So, I appreciate your time. Thanks a lot. De Weerd: Thank you. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Sir, we have a question for you. Wardle: Okay. Mr. LaVigne -- and I'm referencing your mention of increased traffic and those sorts of things. And maybe I'm not understanding the plat right. Does this stub street connect to your lane or does it just -- LaVigne: It does not. It is the future -- I mean we are -- it's -- the next step would be -- the person -- if you want to put up a slide of where it stubs out, the person or the property to the north is considering right now subdividing that -- that parcel and putting additional homes on it. ACRD has -- Lori Den Hartog, in her report, had mentioned that she would be willing to -- or she likes the idea of the connectivity and would like -- the whole -- there is nothing in the back here and there is a stub street right here right now in Kingsbridge, which is already here. There is already one over here. So, one additional stub street here and, then, you have one down here. One going here out to this road. If Dan Johnson subdivides and brings that -- or approves -- you know, ACRD says they would like to connect, bottom line is and the concern is once -- once Dan Johnson decides to subdivide, which he's planning on doing and we don't know what the plat map looks like, because he hasn't filed it, but the next step would be to -- you know, the connectivity would go out to -- ACHD would like that connectivity out there. So, that's kind of where -- we are trying to be a step ahead of it. We have been talking Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 34 of 56 • about this for two years now as Kingsbridge was going through all this and wanting to connect over to this way, over to Selatir as well. So, we are trying to be a step ahead of it, because we know the next step is just going to be a continuous -- I mean that's kind of what the end result's going to be. We are trying to prevent that. Does that help? That's your question? Wardle: That clarifies it. Thank you. LaVigne: Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: It raised a question. Maybe it confused me. LaVigne: Sure. Borton: So, the concern that -- if there is a stub street here and there is connectivity here, it's not going to increase traffic on the street in front of these properties. LaVigne: It would not. Borton: Okay. Your concern is for properties up here? LaVigne: My concern is for properties up there that go all the way up. There is probably a quarter mile roadway from here all the way up here and my kids go walk down here right now to catch the bus, as well as other kids down here walk from here down the street to catch the bus at the end at Victory. Borton: Your photographs were of these properties, not -- or of the street up here, not of the street down here? LaVigne: Correct. These are all -- there is two more -- that's my property right there. There is two more properties here and there is more over here, but -- Borton: Okay. Thank you. LaVigne: Does that help? All right. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Susan Brender signed up against. Brender: I'm Susan Brender. I live at 3568 South Selatir Place, which is the second one acre lot on the east side of Selatir, not exactly adjacent, but my south property line would be the same as the north property line for the Hendrickson Subdivision. Meridian City Council ~ O May 16, 2006 Page 35 of 56 De Weerd: Thank you. Brender: I agree with everything that's been said so far. I just want to add two things. One is in regards to the safety along Selatir if the stub street were put in there and future access for all of Kingsbridge traffic were to dump out on Selatir -- right now the street is one of those where it's been blacktopped a couple of times and so on the sides there is probably a five inch dropoff in someplaces to the gravel. I'm sure the kids riding their bicycles down there, if they were trying to avoid a car, it could be serious and there are a lot of children on that street. The other issue that Ihave -- that I want to emphasize -- it's already been mentioned -- is the height restriction on the east lots or Block 3. Contrary to the statement that everyone's view is to the northeast, which is true, but we also have a terrific view to the southwest. We can see the Owyhees. We won't be able to see them with two story houses. But the major thing is that single story restriction of Block 3 would be compatible with the house across the street. Those are my concerns. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Jerry Larsen signed up against. Larsen: Jerry Larsen. 3536 South Selatir Place. De Weerd: Thank you. Larsen: Ditto all my neighbors on the -- especially on the stub street. We have pretty much run that one. A couple of comments on the single story development. It is wrong for the area. It's a very open area. I agree they have made a big point about the view to the northeast -- primarily east northeast. We also do have a fantastic view out the west. I have some amazing pictures of the setting sun that a nine foot fence would not occlude those two story skulking homes from ruining. So, I would ask they be restricted to single story. Also, I'd note that if you look at the scale on Kingsbridge would like to talk about how far away the houses are across the road and across our front yards. If you scale that, they -- those one story homes, hopefully, would be about the same distance away as the one story homes surrounding Mr. Hendrickson. So, it's the same distance. The other point I'd like to make is -- as explained on P&Z meeting when we were here before, the norm is that when somebody joins the city, they give up access to the county. I would ask that that be enforced here. Mr. Hendrickson seems to -- or Mr. Hendrickson needs to decide whether he wants to be in the city or in the county and either get in or get out, rather than cherry pick to his own exclusive advantage. The -- you know, if he wants to have his dogs play in the ditch and have access to the ditch, then, stay in the county, don't develop. He can make that choice. But if he wants to be in the city, I think he needs to be in the city, so -- and if he is -- you know, if he is allowed access and out, then, let's take his property out of the density calculation, you know, not have it both ways. That's my comments. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Rick Anderson signed up against. Okay. Thank you. Delphia Anderson. Or Delpha. Thank you. Dan Johnson. Neutral. Meridian City Council • O May 16, 2006 Page 36 of 56 Johnson: My name is Dan Johnson. I live at 3501 South Selatir Place. Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council Members. I don't know if neutral is really the right way I feel right now, because I mean I have had some conversations about maybe doing something at some point with my property. I have been out there since '91. Built the house, enjoyed it. I'm seeing things change. But I agree with all my neighbors and also with Vision First that that stub street is not needed, not wanted, and doesn't belong there. You have seen what sort of area we live in. If I ever do split lots off, it will not be to move Hendrickson and Kingsbridge traffic down Selatir. I know from my two neighbors -- and we are all three irrigators, we fill those borrow pits full of water about twice or three times a month and it's not safe. Victory Lane is only -- or Victory Road is only two lanes with no turn -- center turn and there is no way you can stack maybe a third of a mile of cars in commuter time up and down our road. So, everybody's right, if I ever do split my lots, I don't need that stub street and I'm going to fight it with the rest of my neighbors. I know the Council here can make that decision. It's back to ACHD. But think, from what I understand, the Planning and Zoning Commission understood what we were all saying is that that emergency access is really a gift from the neighborhood to allow something to happen while the dynamics of development and connectivity and things like that happen. My understanding is that it's going to be about 14 to 18 months before the sewer and water and the absorption rate of Kingsbridge and Hendrickson come our way. In that amount of time it's hard to say what could happen to the other parcels and ACHD needs to understand that, Council, and everybody else. So, I'm standing with my neighbors. I don't want the stub street. I will not connect to it if it stays. And so that's where I am. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Okay. Tim Petchy signed up against. Hasn't changed yet, uh? Petchy: Not yet. My name is Tim Petchy. I live at 3726 South Selatir and that's actually -- I, actually own these two lots at the end of the road here. And I'm with my neighbors on stopping the stub street connecting out to Victory Road in the future. That's just -- there is no place for that on our street. It's a small rural road. But another concern of mine is that the restriction on Block 3, we do enjoy a view out to the west. Actually, the way this lays out, we would have three of those lots would actually be abutting my property and we do enjoy our sunsets, our views out to the west. If I'm out -- our house actually views out to the northwest from the front of our house, so that directly affects our views and I kind of thought we had P&Z on our side protecting that. We did make some concessions on the size of those lots, so I don't feel that third acre lots are really a transition to the five and one acre pieces we have out there. So, I thought that was maybe a concession that we could work with with Vision First and that's my comments. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Lisa Petchy is also against. Thank you. And Bob Becker. Against. B.Becker: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council Members. I really don't have much more to add. I think my wife did an excellent job. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 37 of 56 Nary: Name and address. Name and address, sir. De Weerd: Oh, yes. B.Becker: I'm sorry. Bob Becker, 3421 South Selatir Place. She stole all my notes, so she, essentially, did my work for me. The only thing I would like to add is you, essentially, have everyone here opposing the stub street. You have the developer opposing the stub street. You have the adjacent landowner Dan Johnson opposing the stub street. You have all of the other neighbors opposing the stub street. And we would ask that you send this back to ACHD, so that they can study it and hold a hearing and we have a chance to maybe get the stub street removed. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there any additional testimony on this? Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Canning: I forgot to address one knew issue that the applicant had raised in their letter and I just feel it's important to at least note it on the record, so that we have a clear record for the future. They have asked that Mr. Hendrickson be allowed to continue having livestock on the property, the larger lot that's being proposed. In the past the city has allowed livestock to continue on larger properties fora limited time as a nonconforming use. If the Council does wish to grant that request as part of the development agreement, the applicant would need to document what animals they have and what animals they continue to have -- will continue to have and when that use will end, because they are not allowed in the city. So, they did raise that issue in their letter. It was not discussed previously, so -- typically we see that that -- well, the last time you did it, the ability to have horses was limited to the current property owner only and I think we limited it to exactly the number she had on the property at that time, which was three. Actually, I think we limited it to those three horses that were on the property, so -- De Weerd: And we lost them through attrition. Canning: Yeah. De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further public testimony, I would ask the developer if they would like to have -- yes. I'm sorry. Before we call you up -- Wardle: Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Meridian City Council ~ O May 16, 2006 Page 38 of 56 Wardle: If Mr. Inselman could ask -- or could answer a question that's been raised by the neighbors and that would be the process to -- is there a process to appeal ACHD's decision on this stub street? Inselman: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Gary Inselman representing ACHD. 3775 North Adams. This was acted on in March. There is a ten day appeal period. The developer certainly knew. It was attached to our staff report that went to them. If the Council approved a plat that differed from the one we did, there would have to be a reconciliation of. If they denied this plat and the applicant resubmitted, certainly we would review the new plat and hold public hearings now we are aware of all of the interest in the neighborhood. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: While we have got the other black cat up here, I'm confused by your letter. And the letter starts off about -- you didn't require a stub street to the east, because of the strip of property and so you proposed a stub street to the north and required that. Your letter ends with this statement: The district is supportive of the neighbors' proposal to allow an emergency access from Selatir Place across the strip of property now owned by the homeowners association. So, they kind of got ahead of this -- or in the middle of this. Does that mean that if that were provided you would still take their -- or ACHD would still take the strong position for a stub street? Inselman: The lane to the east is private, so a public stub to a private road would not serve a lot of benefit to the public and, then, there is that spite strip that would need to be crossed at some point. The only reason for the stub to the north is to preserve the opportunity for the connectivity. There is no guarantee that there will ever be a connection to Selatir if Johnson, I believe that's his name, developed his properly in a manner that it does not require connection to this subdivision or does not require a connection to Selatir, perhaps it would never happen. I can't say until that parcel comes in. It's only to preserve options for the future. That stub could be moved west of where it's at, anywhere along that north boundary would provide a little more circuitous route in the future if it ever did connect. It may never connect if Mr. Johnson doesn't develop. If it ever did, we certainly look at the condition of the existing street. We are very concerned about a place for pedestrians. We have to tackle these issues, unfortunately, far too regularly in the county, where older narrower streets are developed at the end and more traffic is put down them and as best we can we require off-site improvements to widen that road to provide aplace -- safe place for the pedestrians. It's difficult to require the developer of a small parcel like Mr. Johnson's to improve a quarter mile of road with curb, gutter, and sidewalk, but we will certainly make what provisions we can for the safety of the pedestrians in the future. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if I could follow up on that. I have been involved with at least one project that was similar to this where what we ended up Meridian City Council ~ O May 16, 2006 Page 39 of 56 doing is taking the stub up, run it over, and, then, run it up again and some of the houses would have faced what is Selatir on this one. So, there are ways of getting public street connections in there without having a direct access to Selatir at this time. And so it's -- this one is -- everyone's assuming that the next one will just end -- you know, pull that public street right to that cul-de-sac and my experience has been that ACHD commission does listen and that they try and meet those concerns that Mr. Inselman has pointed out. De Weerd: Yeah. But, Anna, I guess there is this problem of institutional memory, too, if Mr. Johnson sells and the next person comes and does it, you know, they can do it a little bit differently and we have seen the dangers of urban densities connecting to some of these private roads or rural roads that are really there to serve just more of that rural level development and it is -- we are seeing that all around and this is the first time I have seen it really be asked to stub into it. Canning: Madam Mayor, we -- I have had hits on probably half of those five acre lots, people looking to buy them, assemble them, and redevelop them. De Weerd: Well, that is sad. I really like the pictures I saw. Tell them there is other places and land. Thanks, Gary. Okay. If the developer would like to come up with wrapping up remarks. You have five minutes. Elliott: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Again, for the record I'm Ken Elliott for Vision First, 661 South River Shore Lane, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. We have -- think looking at this map, it is helpful to recall that the Kingsbridge Subdivision does have two stub streets to the north, one near the northwest corner, one near the northeast corner, then, we have our primary access out to Eagle Road, plus a secondary access through Dartmoor. So, by adding 17 houses to that 125 unit subdivision, we are being asked to, essentially, add two additional stub streets. We think one is warranted. We think an emergency access is warranted through Selatir, but what we think is going to happen, what the scuttlebutt is, is that that large rectangle to the south of the R-1 abutting Cloverdale, which is split by the Meridian and Boise areas of impact, is likely to develop and that with some cooperation from our neighbors to the south on the large ten acre tracts that we could loop the Hendrickson Avenue connection over to that large rectangle and go out to Cloverdale Road. That's been our hope and plan all along. That's what we told the Council and the Planning and Zoning with Kingsbridge, that we were hoping to acquire Hendrickson, so that we could get access out either by Bott Lane and, again, although it's not shown, the part that's within the Portland -- or the -- Portland. Boise. I'm slipping back to a past life. The Boise area of impact, that is all a public street all the way to the point where it gets to the canal, which is the diagonal road. In response to the one gentleman that would take away Hendrickson's access through Bott Lane, it seems a little counter productive if you're going to add one more house that has no way to get out when we are trying to maintain an access that goes back about 80 years. The canal was sold to the New York Canal Company at a time when that ten acre lot owner was a shareholder of the canal company and so to just take that access away because they are a remnant parcel and Meridian Ciry Council • May 16, 2006 Page 40 of 56 now part of the Hendrickson subdivision, that was certainly never our understanding as a developer, it was never the Hendrickson's contemplation that they would give up their access to a county road, the only stretch that's private, I think they have got a good argument for the title company, if it has to be made, that they have an established legal access to the point where they connect to Bott Lane. So, we urge you to give them that -- to allow them to maintain that historic access. Again, it's only for them. We have got a fence and barricades preventing any of the other future residents of the subdivision from accessing Bott Lane. We will go out on the public streets through the city. I would also like the Council's consideration of -- to allow them the personal right, as long as they own the property, to maintain the number of horses or llamas that they have on the land, not limited to lives in being -- as to the livestock, but allow the Hendrickson to enjoy the right that they have historically had and to allow them, as one of the animals die, they could replace it, they wouldn't have any more in number than they have now, but they wouldn't lose their rights slowly as the old critters fall away. Thank you very much. De Weerd: I guess I do have a question for you and it's something that hasn't come up through testimony. Can you show the plat, Anna? I am curious. You mentioned the open space and it's very accessible and in a good location. I don't see what's good about it. It's behind people's houses, it's tucked behind, and it is out of the vision of the public. So, it is concern of the safety aspect. It looks like it's more beneficial to only a couple of people, rather than the entire development in terms of the esthetic value. And, then, you also count your drainage lot as -- in your open space calculations. There is not too much play that goes on in a retention area, but I would like to hear your comments regarding open space. Elliott: Madam Mayor, we meet the code requirement for open space. We redesigned the park at the express -- with advice of the police department. It was a narrow strip coming in from the east-west street to the north. We flared that open, adding that Lot 5 to the park, so they have complete visibility into it. It's quite clearly a pocket park and I think there are lots of those in -- in other subdivisions. We think by adding the opening to Hendrickson Avenue to the east, that we create a nice loop, we create a safe area for young kids to play, but the people who are cutting through the neighborhood on bicycles can also readily good through the park. De Weerd: Well, I guess I will politely disagree. I sometimes think that we are creating attractive nuisances behind -- and hiding them from the public eyes keep them safer. And so I guess there is just a difference of opinion. And, yes, you did meet our minimum requirements. You know, nothing more and nothing less. But I guess in -- well, it just seems like it's -- it's pretty minimal and there is not too much benefit to the homes that are in and around there. But that's, again, my perception of it. Elliott: I guess in response, Madam Mayor, I would just say, again, that we -- we got some pretty strong criticism from the police department and redesigned it in a way that they approved and that Planning and Zoning Commission approved. And we think there are benefits to having the main -- the main play area removed from the street for safety Meridian City Council r O May 16, 2006 Page 41 of 56 and so you get a little peace and quiet, rather than just being right out on the street front. De Weerd: Well, again, I guess in what I have observed through community design is the more eyes on open space you can get the safer it, really, truly is. So, again, just a difference of opinion. Elliott: We do have six or eight households with their backyards up to that park, so think there will be a lot of -- a lot of eyes on it. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Elliott: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any further information from the applicant or staff? If not, I would entertain a motion to close this Public Hearing. Or to continue it for reconsideration back to ACHD regarding the stub street. Bill, would that take a continuation to have it go back to ACRD or what is the process for that? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if I understood Mr. Inselman correctly, I guess there wasn't -- there isn't a mechanism to remand this back to ACHD. If the Council approved a plat that was different than what they approved, or did not allow a plat, they would, then, have an opportunity to revisit it. But there isn't a mechanism to just simply remand it. De Weerd: So, we have no appeal of their decision either, then? Nary: No. De Weerd: Okay. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: So, the only -- the only avenue is to turn this down and make them go through the whole process all over again? Nary: Well, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, certainly that's an option and that would certainly be one process. If the Council was of a mind to recommend a different plat configuration without a stub street or with the stub street in a different location or with the other connection -- again, I think it was -- if I understood Mr. Inselman correctly, if this Council recommended something different than what they have seen, they would, then, have to revisit it and I think there has been some proposed alternatives. So, you wouldn't necessarily have to reject it just to have it reviewed. Madam Mayor, if you wouldn't mind, the only thing I guess additionally I would like the Council to consider and maybe we have all become a little more heightenly aware of these types of concerns. You have a consentual annexation, but it appears that a lot of the testimony from the Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 42 of 56 applicant is disagreeing with the conditions either placed on this by ACHD or staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission and I guess just for your consideration in making your deliberations, you may want to consider whether there is truly a consentual annexation request in front of you or whether their conditions are such that it no longer is conceptual and that may not be something the city wishes to annex at this time. The conditions regarding the animals on the property, although may be small, is a significant change from what you have done in the recent past. The conditions regarding access to the public street is a significant change from what's been required in the past. The conditions regarding the house sizes and limitations was fully discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commission and that was their recommendation. It just appears, Iguess -- and Ijust wanted to just make all of you aware and maybe you already are, that, you know, normally a consentual annexation doesn't always place quite so many conditions upon their consent and if their consent is so conditioned, I guess I just wanted to make the Council aware that you may want to factor that into your deliberation and give that some due consideration as well. De Weerd: Okay. Questions from Council? What direction -- I would look for a motion as to what direction you would like to go on this. Rountree: Is the Public Hearing still open? De Weerd: Yes, it is. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: If there is no further information or public testimony, I move we close the Public Hearing on Items 17 and 18. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the public hearings on 17 and 18. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Rountree: No. De Weerd: Okay. Three ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. De Weerd: Discussion? Rountree: Madam Mayor, the reason I'm opposed to closing the hearing is because I think it's still valid to get some more input. We don't have -- and I don't know that Anna Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 43 of 56 has the road situation for the adjacent subdivision to the west and where those stub streets may or may not come into this parcel. Canning: To the west, sir? Rountree: Yeah. Canning: To the east? Rountree: Kingsbridge. Canning: Kingsbridge? The only -- Rountree: That's the only one? Canning: That's the only stub on their eastern property line, I believe. Yes. Rountree: I thought I heard somebody indicate that there was one -- Canning: I believe they have two to the north. Rountree: Further north? Bird: On the north. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Council, any comments? I guess I'll give my -- I don't have a vote, unless you tie, so I will start discussion. You know, I appreciate larger size lots. We don't have a whole lot in our city. But at what cost? You know, just because they are bigger lots doesn't mean they are really a true amenity to add to our community. I'm concerned about the open space. I think it will be nice for a couple of houses to have that open space, but the safety of our kids -- I mean we looked at park design, we don't like to tuck things behind things. It's better to have it open to the vision of all and it's even that self- policing, thinking a car can drive by and -- and it's another set of eyes. It's another set of eyes for that safety. I know I'm a big advocate for connectivity. I appreciate the concession to bring this stub out and have it pedestrian. I can't imagine that those neighbors are going to be walking -- their kids will be walking to the elementary school that's going to be down the road and they will be walking through those subdivisions. So, it's a good access to have. I get concerned about the ability to connect vehicles to those more rural natured roads that don't have curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Again, it is a safety factor. So, the open space and the stub street are certainly concerns of mine, but when a property subdivides, sells it off and subdivides, they lose some of their rights. I mean the right to develop urban and they also want to stay agricultural. They need to make up their mind and, again, that's only my opinion, but there is a real contradiction on this that has some areas of concern and I guess it's going back to a phrase that has Meridian City Council ~ O May 16, 2006 Page 44 of 56 been used -- we are in no hurry to add more land to our city limits, that these kind of concerns should be answered before they get here. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: You have heard me say those words before. De Weerd: I quote my favorite people. Rountree: And I think you made something -- you made a statement that really rang true to me is that this is a confused venture, in my opinion. It's a property owner who wants the best of all worlds and at some consideration, but not total consideration of what the world that they are going to create around them is going to be. I very much support the idea of internal circulation and I think that it needs to be accommodated. If that's the best location in the world, I would be surprised. I think there are other combinations that could be done. It's somewhat limited by the fact that out of this parcel somebody wants to run a hobby farm in the city. It's either city or it's a ranchette. It can't be both. I'm really concerned about our experience with lanes. We have fought lanes for the last ten years and I got to tell you, they are nightmarish and nobody comes out winners. We have been to court. People have been to court. Nobody wins. The City's come out all right, but there is issues with those things created. As far as restricting heights, et cetera, in this particular subdivision, the sale is I assume pending or done based on the conditions of height restrictions on some lots and to me that's between the contract holder and seller and on that point I guess I don't have any strong feeling. I think that the lots are big enough and the spaces are spaced enough that that really is not an issue, from my perspective. It's proposed as a city subdivision, yet we have ordinances that require a subdivision to be fenced, yet they don't want to do that as an entire subdivision. It's really hard for me to say that I can't support this particular application, because I have been pushing for larger lots and Anna's going to growl at, because -- De Weerd: Me, too. Rountree: -- we like small lots from a planning perspective. Canning: It's the density, not the design. It's design, not density. Sorry. I got that backwards. Rountree: It is design. It is about design. And, I don't know, I could go either way, but I think that there is nothing that don't work for me with this particular project that now is the time to say they didn't work. For me. I don't know what the rest of the Council wants to do. I'd probably -- unless I hear a really good argument, not support this particular annexation at this point in time. I would be willing, however, to reopen the Public Hearing and look at some additional design details or changes that the applicant might want to make to save them the aggravation of trying to do this over. Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 45 of 56 Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Councilman Rountree reopened it and what you want to bring back, the problem is one of your biggest holdups was the existing hobby farm and I'm in the same boat you are. We both love the larger lots and everything, but I -- I mean, evidently, we are not talking about a couple of horses or one or two llamas, they want to go on and keep it the deal. They don't want their south end fenced, when everybody else's is fenced. I think if you're going to be annexed in, you live under the same rules and regulations as everybody else in the subdivision. That's my personal opinion on that. I'm quite shocked. I wouldn't want -- I wouldn't want a way over to there, because if they got water standing like that, (certainly -- beside the fence, I certainly don't want my kids walking -- or grandkids walking down it. That was a pretty good volume of water going down there. In fact, I'm shocked that we didn't see a bunch of mosquitoes -- De Weerd: I did. Bird: -- with animals and stuff around there. I'm kind of like Councilman Rountree, I could go with a new design to a degree, but lalso -- the owner of the property that sold the property is -- in my book, has to live within the same regulations. I have no problem with if he's got two or three animals on there now, he can have them, but once they decease or he sells them, he don't replace them. And pretty soon he's not a hobby ranchette. So, I can -- I could support opening it up again if he felt -- I don't know what kind of redesign they are going to do, unless they do a complete redesign. I do like -- I really do like the size of their lots, though. De Weerd: Okay. Any further comments? We would look for your direction. I guess, Mr. Nary, some of the options would be to remand back to Planning and Zoning to address some of the issues that Councilman Rountree and Councilman Bird have discussed or what are the options? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think you probably have -- have two primary options. I mean you can -- you can certainly -- well, I guess three. You can approve the project as presented. You can make amendments as you have done. You can reject the project as presented. You can remand it. There is a number of issues that you have raised and I guess I'll concede to Mrs. Canning, I mean at a certain point the staff time that's necessary to re-analyze a redesign when you have raised -- I mean I just made a very quick note as you have been speaking of six primary issues that there are some significant concerns about. To the lane, to whether the -- the private lane. The animals on the property. The height restriction. The stub street to the north. The access to Bott Lane. In addition to the access to the canal. And the fencing surrounding the property. And the relationship with the other county subdivision that's adjacent. Those are quite a bit of -- of redesign to one project, but, again, like I said, it's been my experience from the staffs perspective at planning, you know, the remands work fairly Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 46 of 56 well when it's fairly small and lot sizes -- or parks. I'm sorry. The open space is another issue you had raised. When it's simply a redesign of a minor thing or just a park redesign or streets or one thing, but you get a number of them, the staff time gets eaten up pretty heavily and realistically a re-application is just as -- just as easy on the staff as it is to try to remand it and redesign it that way. But I don't know if Mrs. Canning has a different opinion. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if I might add to that. In the past when you have remanded things, even if they were large redesigns, it was generally when staff was unaware of a City Council concern and was not able to guide the applicant through the review process to address some of those concerns. We have worked with the applicant on all these issues. We have made suggestions that were not followed. We have told them that the access lane was an issue in the pre-application conference. And we have really struggled to get to this point today. And so I would ask that -- I would certainly prefer a new application. De Weerd: Okay. Council, you have heard some of the choices that you can make in the form of a motion. I would entertain a motion or further discussion. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Ijust -- just a comment as far as my preference to -- and I understand staffs concern with continuing to work with the applicant. I recall this same applicant on the application next door, as I recall we denied one of those and they brought back a new project and, really, in my mind addressed the concerns we had at the meeting and so I don't think that we necessarily need to deny this and send it back, we can probably work through some of these issues. But that's just my opinion. De Weerd: Well, I look forward to whatever the motion is going to be. Rountree: You guys on that end do it tonight. Borton: I can chime in my list as well. They have been said. I have got similar concerns. In no particular order. The Bott Lane access. The single story, double story side. I made a list like Mr. Nary did. Sixteen foot landscape buffer on the east. Fence on the south. Stub street. The livestock. And the open space parks. And I agree with the Mayor. Those are -- that's the start of my list and if it's easier and more appropriate from staffs perspective to redo this, I'd defer to their experience and expertise in it. And with that I'd move to deny Item 17, AZ 06-012, request for annexation and zoning. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny Item 17. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg, you will call roll. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 47 of 56 Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. De Weerd: Okay. Item 18. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we deny Item 18, PP 06-010, request for preliminary plat. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny on Item 18. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 19: Public Hearing: VAR 06-009 Request for a Variance to allow for a patio structure in the required rear yard for 5278 N. Cougar Flat Place by Dana & Rhonda Patterson - 5278 N. Cougar Flat Place: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Item 19 is a Public Hearing on VAR 06-009. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a variance application for 5278 North Cougar Flat Place by Dana and Rhonda Patterson and you can see the outline of the property. It is at the end of the cul-de-sac, right near the entrance to Lochsa Falls. And so Lochsa Falls is between Linder Road and McMillan as you know. This is a picture of the patio that has been constructed. And I'm going to -- I forgot to put the site plan in the presentation, so I will have to put in up just to ask her. These two posts -- the setback -- the required setback is 15 feet. This post is at ten feet six inches. This post is at nine feet nine inches. And you can see the additional posts as you go down the property. The structure itself, this portion of -- the living portion of the building, is outside the setback area. It's just they extended the roof to cover their patio and that's where they got in trouble. Staff has recommended denial. We were not able to make the findings for approval of the variance -- or two of the three findings for the approval of the variance. It's a pretty straight forward application. I'll go ahead and switch to the overhead, so that you can see the site plan. As I note, I believe this -- this dotted line shows the 15 foot setback and, then, they have marked the location of each post and its distance to the rear yard fence -- rear yard property line. With that I will answer any questions Council may have. • • May 19, 2006 PP 06-010 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT Kingsbridge Subdivision, LLC ITEM NO. 6-I-~ REQUEST Findings for Denial: Request for Preliminary Plat approval for 18 single family residential lots and 4 common lots on 9.43 acres in a proposed R-2 zone for Hendrickson Subdivision -- 4240 E. Bott Lane 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 Draft Minutes See Attached Findings for Denial Contacted:. Date: d' uQ Phone: ~ ~ ~ ~ `t (g rj ~ Emailed: (' ~ ~ 0 Staff Initials: o~ Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL C/C 05/16/06 IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR APPROVAL FOR 18 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND 4 COMMON LOTS ON 9.43 ACRES FOR HENDRICKSON SUBDIVISION Case No. PP 06-010 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL KINGSBRIDGE PROPERTIES, LLC APPLICANT The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing before the City Council on May 16, 2006, at the hour of 7:00 o'clock p.m. at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho, and the City Council takes judicial notice of its action of the denial of the application for annexation and zoning in Case No. AZ-06-012, and the hearing was opened on the preliminary plat application and Anna Canning, City Planning and Zoning Administrator for the Planning and Zoning Department, Ken Elliott of Vision First, LLC on behalf of Kingsbridge Properties, LLC appeared and testified, and the City Council based upon its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order in Case No. AZ-06-012 does hereby deny the application for preliminary plat approval. FINDINGS OF FACT It is found that the Recommendation to City Council of the Planning and Zoning Commission is not reasonable nor appropriate for the conditions of approval of the preliminary plat due to the denial of the annexation and zoning in Case No. AZ-06-012. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HENDRICKSON SUBDIVISION; CASE NO. PP-06-010 PAGE 1 OF 3 s DECISION AND ORDER Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code Section 12-3-5 and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND THIS DOES ORDER, that based upon the denial of the annexation and zoning in Case No. AZ-06-012 the Council does hereby deny the application for preliminary plat approval. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAKINGS ANALYSIS The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code §67-8003, the Owner may request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code §67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which maybe adversely affected by this decision may, within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order, seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HENDRICKSON SUBDIVISION; CASE NO. PP-06-010 PAGE 2 OF 3 • By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 23 -day of May, 2006. R ~, ~~~` ATTEST: ;~ ~ ®® ` ~' ''r y ~~ d %~ n g R ~ 'ii''i Y~~ t #Rr(' awe'. ~6 ~,~~i~JJJ/J/JO@0@40@@@~d~ b~~~`~`` de WEERD CITY CLERK Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works Department, and City Attorney. By: Dated:rj • ~Q-Q~, ity Clerk's Office FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF DENIAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HENDRICKSON SUBDIVISION; CASE NO. PP-06-010 PAGE 3 OF 3 ~ Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 22 of 56 ~~~~ Nary: This is just approving the variance as recommended. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. If there is no further discussion, Mr. Berg, will you call roll. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, abstain; Wardle, yea; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSTAIN. Item 17: Public Hearing: AZ 06-012 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 9.43 acres from RUT to R-2 for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Subdivision, LLC - 4240 East Bott Lane: Item 18: Public Hearing: PP 06-010 Request for a Preliminary Plat approval for 18 single-family residential lots and 4 common lots on 9.43 acres in a proposed R-2 zone for Hendrickson Subdivision by Kingsbridge Properties, LLC - 4240 East Bott Lane: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Thank you for bearing with us through this process. Okay. Items 17 and 18. I will open these public hearings on AZ 06-012 and PP 06-010. Start with Anna's comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is the Hendrickson project. It is located just east of Kingsbridge Subdivision and it's west of Selatir and east of Eagle, south of Victory, which is just up the -- would be up at the top of the slide there and north of Amity, which is right down here on the bottom of the slide. It's getting toward the edge of our area of city impact. Actually, this dotted line is our current area of city impact. This is within Boise's area of city impact. The applications include annexation, zoning, and preliminary plat. The gross residential density is 1.9 units per acre. It includes 18 single family lots on 9.43 acres in a proposed R-2 zone. Most of the lots in this area range from 12,000 and, then, they are a little larger on the perimeter. I do want to point out some awkward lots that -- we have a flag lot here that's a 30 foot flag and a house here. We have the existing house on a large lot back here that would also have a 30 foot flag coming out and they currently take access to Bott Lane, which is in this location at the southeast corner of the property. The open space for the project has a flag coming off this street, opens up briefly back here, and another flag going that way. The staff has recommended a development agreement. Some of those provisions that are unusual or site specific include that the applicant shall install and maintain the proposed off-site vegetation shown in the strip along the eastern property line. What we have is -- you can just see it here. Selatir is a public street. It ends and, then, you have Selatir as a private lane extending from there. There is a small strip of land between Selatir Lane held in separate ownership and between this property. And I'm -- they have agreed to an off-site commitment to landscape that piece of property. The other development agreement condition is this -- that a maximum of 18 single family building lots will be platted on the property and, then, the applicant has proposed that all the homes in Block 2 would be single story and the Commission added a development Meridian City Council ~ • May 16, 2006 Page 23 of 56 agreement condition that stated that the homes in Block 3 would be similarly restricted. The Commission recommended approval at their April 4th hearing. In favor of the application were Ken Elliott, Gordon Bates, Don Hendrickson, and Christine Hendrickson. In opposition were David LaVigne and Leonard Vanskoy. And commenting were Tim Petchy, Shelly Robertson, Lisa Becker, Jerry Larsen, Virginia Welkerstein and Susan Brender. And I apologize for any mispronunciations on any of those names. Key issues of the discussion by the Commission were access to Bott Lane as I noted down here. Design of the open space as I called out. It's kind of double L shaped, I suppose. Or double flagged. Limiting the height to single stories on some of the lots. And, then, the stub street to the north. The key Commission changes to staff recommendations were that they -- and I noted before, they did restrict the building heights on Lot 3 to be similar to what was proposed on Lot 2. So, if the applicant wanted to allow two story homes on Lot 2, then, lot -- or Block 2, then, Block 3 would not be limited either. And they also decided -- the Commission has recommended that the existing home be allowed to continue to access Bott Lane until Hendrickson Avenue, which is the street on the east end of the property, until it is extended as a public street to the southeast. I wanted to show you where Bott Lane goes. I believe this is the current path of Bott Lane and, then, it cuts across here to Cloverdale and then -- it's not showing, but it does eventually connect to Cloverdale, I believe. And the applicant may have a comment about that, but it does make its way there eventually. The outstanding issues before Council -- I have referenced the applicant's letter that you have received on your desk today and I dud go through all of the other concerns. The first concern that they note is the Planning and Zoning Commission's restriction on height for Block 3. I think I have explained all the issues there, that, apparently, at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing they also -- the applicant did offer to set the homes on Block 3 25 feet from the back of property line to provide some additional buffer to those homes that are on Selatir. The zone only requires 15 feet. The applicant has also raised the question about fencing on the south boundary. They may need to explain this one further. I wasn't sure exactly where they were going. It's -- there are two general conditions in the landscape provisions that call out required fencing for the perimeter of the subdivision. I believe their concern is if they are accessing Bott Lane that they don't want to put a fence over it and, clearly, we allow breaks in those fences to accommodate access routes. The applicant also raised questions about the Ten Mile feeder improvements. That comment is not referencing an actual condition of approval, it's just in the analysis and the Findings. So, there is no need to address that on Council's part. There is a -- the applicant notes that there is some contradiction between staff analysis and Section 10 in the conditions of approval. This is not uncommon. Staff writes their analysis, they develop the conditions of approval. If the Commission decides to change those conditions of approval, we just go and change the conditions of approval, we don't go back and change the analysis. The analysis is still left as it was for the planning -- original staff report for the Planning and Zoning Commission. So, that covers a lot of the items in that. One -- number one on their -- on their list under those is, yes, the preliminary plat revisions now address the issues discussed in Section 10, but we don't typically remove that analysis from the report. Item number two. Yes, those conditions have been met, but regarding a redesign of the site, staff had proposed a redesign. The applicant took another route to address those concerns and that's the one Meridian City Council ~ • May 16, 2006 Page 24 of 56 you see before you tonight, so -- but those references are still there, but they have redesigned the site. Condition 1.1.4, as noted, was removed, because it was inconsistent with the Commission's decision, but it's noted in the key changes. So, there is really no action needed on that one either. Item number four, the applicant -- the Commission has recommended that the applicant be allowed to continue to use Bott Lane until Hendrickson Road extends to the southeast. I noted that before. They are asking you to address language in the -- again, in the analysis section stating that access to Bott Lane be fenced off. So, it doesn't reference a condition of approval. There is no condition of approval that says Bott Lane has to be fenced. But I did want to take this opportunity to point out that staff is still very concerned about allowing this property to maintain access off of Bott Lane. This is our one chance and our only chance, basically, to get this current property owner to abdicate their rights to that access and as we have seen on Wingate Lane, it's crucial that the furthest in -- and this is the property furthest in on Bott Lane, that they -- that we sequentially abandon those rights. Now, in this case it may not affect the City of Meridian much, given that it's close to the boundary, but it may prevent the logical extension of Hendrickson Avenue if it's contending with Bott Lane access before it gets out to Cloverdale and that east-west connection through the section does become important, even if it is Boise city property it becomes important. Comment number five on their response, again, it references the analysis section. It's not necessary to address that one at this time. Finally, the applicant has requested that the Council remove the condition for the stub street and instead allow the applicant to have an emergency access to Selatir Place, the private lane just to the east. ACRD has provided comment for you. They sent an a-mail over immediately stating that it is a condition of their approval and they do want to see that stub street go in. If the applicant wants to provide an emergency access to Selatir in addition to that, they are free to do that, but they want to have that stub street and they will address the issue of whether it should connect at a later time. This does not provide a connection to Selatir at this time and they will address that later, but they are pretty adamant that they want that stub street to remain. So, the issues that need to be addressed from my notes are the stub street, access to Bott Lane, and the height for Block 2, and Block 3 and, then, the redesign that staff had proposed basically removed these flag lots from being so secluded and also made the open space more open. Again, the Commission has recommended this one to you. Staff still has concerns about these private -- these residences on these flag lots. Code does allow it. It's up to I suppose Council to decide whether it's in the best interest of the city to have these flag lots tucked way behind these other lots. And with that I will answer any questions that you may have. De Weerd: Council, any questions for staff at this time? Bird: I have none. Rountree: Mr. Mayor? De Weerd. Yes, Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Council • • May 16, 2006 Page 25 of 56 Rountree: Anna, I can't read the number on this parcel. It's either three or five. Is that part of the flag lot access or is that -- can it be a common lot or what's going on there? Is that part of this lot here? Canning: It is the common lot. It comes down here, kind of shaped like a -- Rountree: Okay. Okay. Canning: --flag with a pendent that connects. De Weerd: Okay. Anything else, Council? Okay. Is the applicant here? If you will state your name and address for the record. Elliott: Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor and Members of the Council. My name is Ken Elliott, I'm with Vision First, LLC. Our address is 661 South River Shore Lane, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. De Weerd: Thank you. Elliott: Gordon Bates, who is our project manager, will be dealing with two of the points that Anna raised. I'd like to talk -- or I had planned to talk just about the height restriction on Block 3, but I first want to clarify one point on the Bott Lane access that I think may not have been stated clearly and that is that it's only the existing Hendrickson house on Lot 10 of Block 2 that will maintain its historic access to Bott Lane. The rest of the project will have that stub street blocked by a barricade and we will not seek or have any access to Bott Lane. Just the one house. And the Planning and Zoning Commission agreed with that compromise and, again, it will not interfere with the future extension of our southern stub to the south or the east, because the condition further says that once that public street connection is made, then, the Hendricksons will use that instead and will relinquish the existing access to Bott Lane. With that said, I'd like to go on to the -- the single story restrictions on Block 3. And interpreting the Planning and Zoning Commission's reasoning, I think it was primarily based on the fact that as a matter of contract when we bought the Hendrickson's land, we agreed that those interior lots that back up against the Hendrickson's backyard will be restricted to single story. Planning and Zoning seemed to think that if we did it voluntarily as a matter of the land purchase, that we should, then, go ahead and restrict those that adjoin Selatir. As you can see, the Hendrickson's house is oriented -- the backyard is to the northeast and that's the primary view from this area is of the Boise foothills, Bogus Basin, those lots if -- on the interior, if they were two story, would directly block the Hendrickson's existing view to the northeast and that's why we agreed to that concession. Along the eastern boundary, Block 3, we did make several compromises with the Selatir neighbors and we thought that we had reached a census that did not include limiting those houses to single stories. As Anna mentioned, we have voluntarily agreed to a 24 foot rear yard setback. We are putting a three foot berm at the property line with a six foot privacy fence on top of it. There is an existing 16 foot wide strip to the west of that private lane, that's the area that we will be improving with landscaping and, then, maintaining through the Meridian City Council • • May 16, 2006 Page 26 of 56 homeowners association. Then we have a 50 foot right of way and, then, we have the front yards on the houses ranging anywhere from 50 and up, 50 feet and up. We eliminated one of the lots there. We originally had six lots. We reduced that to five, so that we have the largest lots in the subdivision adjoining Selatir. All of them are well in excess of 15,000 square feet. One is over 16. Each lot lines up with the existing lots on Selatir. So, we have ahouse -- a house on Selatir, a house on Hendrickson and, then, the fifth one at the south end adjoins an open space tract that's being held under the farm use covenant. So, we, basically, have four new lots aligned with four existing houses. These are the largest lots in the subdivision and with the primary view as it is to the Hendricksons, the primary view for the folks on Selatir is to the northeast and we think that the agreements that we reached voluntarily are adequate to buffer their front yard view from any two story houses that are built on our eastern block. I would note that Selatir is not restricted. One of the four houses has an existing two story house. The other three houses that adjoin us could add a second story at any time. There is no such restriction on their property rights. We are asking that the Council reconsider the Planning and Zoning's recommendation. You may recall as part of the Kingsbridge Subdivision approval that we voluntarily -- or through a negotiated settlement with the neighbors, limited the height on several of our preliminary lots to single stories along Zaldia Lane, along Dartmoor, the subdivision. Just to make this more than a hypothetical exercise, I want to let you know that we have signed lot reservation agreements on all of phase one in Kingsbridge from 18 builders who want to be part of the project. We had that on all the lots, except those that are restricted to single story. We expect that they will eventually sell, but it shows that there is a very real drag on the marketability of those lots when they are restricted to single story. So, we would ask that these five lots not be so restricted. And I'd invite Gordon Bates now, project manager, to address the other two points that Anna raised. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Elliott: Unless there are questions that -- Rountree: Madam Mayor, I have a question. De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: You indicated that the 16 foot strip over here -- Elliott: Yes. Rountree: -- would be landscaped and maintained by the homeowners? Elliott: Correct. Rountree: Is that a piece of property that your company owns or is that owned by the neighboring homeowners? Meridian City Council • • May 16, 2006 Page 27 of 56 Elliott: Madam Mayor, Councilor Rountree, it's owned by the -- either one or two of the residents of Selatir Place and so it will be an off-site obligation that we are taking on as a matter of deed restriction and covenants that will affect our subdivision. Rountree: And is that something that you could do? I mean have you negotiated that at this point or is that just wishful thinking? Elliott: That's part of our agreement that we have reached with the Selatir neighbors, that they want us to improve and landscape and, then, maintain that strip. Rountree: Thank you. Elliott: Thank you. Bates: Good evening. Gordon Bates. I work for Vision First. My business address is 661 South River Shore Lane, Suite 120, Eagle, Idaho. I very quickly will go through the presentation we have this evening. I want to thank all of you and Madam Mayor and the Council members for your time. We agree with most of the Exhibit B conditions of approval. I think the clarification letter that I sent speaks for itself there. There is a few items that we will discuss here in just a few moments. The neighbors that are here I believe will mostly speak to their concerns regarding the stub street and they will also voice their opinion on the height restrictions. I would like to note that this project does comply with the R-2 zoning, including the five percent open space, 15,000 square foot minimum lot size, 80 foot frontage. There are actually 15 foot flag lots and that's per the UDC and that was based upon redesign comments from Joe Guenther and I believe also Caleb Hood on that. They do have a shared driveway, which is the hatched area. There is a shared driveway here. There is another shared driveway right here. We do believe that these flag lots meet the UDC code. Amenities. If you could switch to the next handout there, Anna. The green. Thank you. A little bit of a zoom out, please. The green space highlighted is the common area. This is a detention area and common area here with trees and landscaping. The park originally came down a very narrow flag lot and flared out in this area. There was no access to Hendrickson Avenue here. This has been redesigned based primarily on Lieutenant Stowe's comments from the city police department to provide a flare visibility from the street here into the park to provide visibility and access into the park here, so that we meet his primary concerns about anybody, a police officer or otherwise, would have visibility back into this park. We also feel like this is a very centrally located park, it provides access by the new lots, it also provides access from the existing home. It provides a path area for younger children to play in it away from the street. We looked at separating the major recreational activity from the street traffic. We feel like that is very save. And as per staff comments, we will have non-trespass light to provide very low level lighting to discourage activity after dark, but, yet, will also provide these neighbors with very limited visibility into that. This light will not splash out into those lots and creating a type of nuisance. It will most likely be three foot high bollards of light, shielded lighting on top. And we feel that P&Z has -- as they have approved this as noted in Exhibit B, item 4.1. We have had numerous meetings with the neighbors. Three of them to be exact. Lots of communication. There Meridian City Council • • May 16, 2006 Page 28 of 56 is concerns with the stub street going north to Mr. Dan Johnson's parcel. This area here that I did not highlight, because it's off site, is our 15 foot landscape strip, and the neighboring association has agreed verbally, we have not developed a written agreement yet, that would allow us to not only construct these improvements, but maintain them by the Hendrickson homeowners association. It will include a three foot berm and a six foot privacy fence centered on our easterly boundary and their westerly boundary. Ken went through the other concessions. I won't repeat those. I would note that we have the 25 foot yard -- rear yard setback and that's on note 15 of the preliminary plat. Fifteen foot wide buffer strip, a 50 foot wide right of way and, then, we start getting into their front and side yards over here. Staff notes -- also note that we comply with the Comprehensive Plan, low density residential future use. We also have provided reasonable transition lots and voluntary concessions that exceed the city requirements. Regarding the access -- Anna, if you could go to the next handout, please, with the fence. Existing Lot 10 of Block 2 is a portion that the Hendricksons are retaining ownership of. Their existing house is here. Their existing driveway comes down and comes into the Ten Mile feeder canal right of way and continues down to Bott Lane. We are not -- we are proposing to provide dual access for this lot. They will have a gate here with a paved shared driveway for city code, access to Hendrickson Avenue to Kingsbridge Drive and westerly. We are requesting that their existing legal and historic access to Bott Lane to the south remain and be allowed to continue until Hendrickson Avenue is extended to the south. Mr. Hendrickson is not here this evening. He'd point out that many of their friends and most of the community that they have relationships with are along Bott Lane and they would just like to continue that access for their sole purpose for this lot only. They would secure this gate and not let public access come onto their private property. They would not allow public access to come to Bott Lane. It would be solely for their use only and not the remaining subdivision or any adjoining streets. Fencingwise. There is some comments regarding fencing the south boundary against the canal located here. We are providing fencing from this point to here along the south boundary to the gate. These are all fenced -- either proposed fence or open fence around the common area. It connects to the fencing proposed for Kingsbridge Subdivision to the west. We are asking for a formal waiver from this point to the southwest corner of Lot 10, Block 2, to the gate at the westerly terminus of the shared driveway. Mr. Hendrickson's pointed out that they enjoy the canal there, it's part of the amenities of their property, even though it is not part of their property, it's on a separate parcel and is requested not to have to fence this, since we are providing fencing boundary in other areas of the subdivision and we would ask for a formal waiver noting that portion. Regarding the stub street, the developer, ourselves, and the neighbors along Selatir Lane would dearly love to see that stub street go away. Mr. Dan Johnson, the owner of this parcel here, speaks for himself on that matter. The staff report indicates that this stub street connects to Selatir Lane and up to Victory. To date I'm not aware of Mr. Johnson having a formal application to do that. I feel like this stub street may go nowhere. It really depends on Mr. Johnson's development plans and I'll let him speak for himself. Selatir is a county road. It has no sidewalks. We feel that future connectivity is much better served down Hendrickson Avenue to a full urban street with sidewalks and connection over towards development off of Cloverdale Road. We would offer -- if we could have that next slide, please, Anna. I would note that this is Meridian City Council • • May 16, 2006 Page 29 of 56 purposefully a hand sketch change. This is just a proposal. It's not gone to ACRD, etc. But if ACRD agrees to eliminate the stub street here, we would offer to substitute that with the gravel and gated emergency vehicle only access lane to provide enhanced vehicle access to the Hendrickson and the easterly side of Kingsbridge Drive. De Weerd: Sir, if you could, please, summarize. Bates: You bet. In closing, we meet the zoning requirements, Comprehensive Plan designation. We are providing the city with larger lots south of the freeway, in comparison to the relatively denser subdivisions elsewhere. We ask that the city would reconsider the height restriction on Block 3. We ask that you could concur with the Planning and Zoning allowance for the continued legal use of the access of Lot 10, Block 2, to Bott Lane. We ask that you would grant a fence waiver on the southerly portion of Lot 10, Block 2. We ask that you would allow for -- subject to ACHD approval, the removal of the stub street to be replaced by an emergency vehicle access, again, contingent upon ACRD approval at a later date. This would allow for staff level approvals of those changes of preliminary plat, rather than a new public hearing before you. We also would -- De Weerd: Sir? Bates: Yeah. De Weerd: Your time is over. Bates: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I have a question. De Weerd: Okay. Bates: Yes. Rountree: What is this feature? Bates: That is an existing canal. It will be piped around the perimeter of the property. That's the McDonald Lateral. And we have worked that out with the Boise Project Board of Control. They feel like the hydraulics there are reasonable such that a piping will work just fine through there. It's got several checks providing lots of fall that we can pipe on the perimeter. Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 30 of 56 Rountree: So, it will be on the southern perimeter? Southerly and westerly perimeter, yes, sir. Rountree: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant at this time? Okay. Bates: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. I have a number of people signed up here. When I read your name I will also read how you have checked the form. If you wish to provide testimony when I read your name, please, come forward. If not, we will at least record your name and opinion for the record. Lisa Becker. Against. Becker: Good evening. My name is Lisa Becker. 3421 South Selatir Place in Meridian. De Weerd: Thank you. Becker: I live one lot north of the proposed development. Both Vision First and the homeowners testified at Planning and Zoning Commission. All opposed the northern stub street, so we wanted to explain why we oppose it. Our street Selatir is a very narrow street. It was designed as a dead end cul-de-sac to access six estate lots. wrote you a letter, but the picture didn't turn out very good, so I wanted to show you the width of the road. You can see if two -- if two cars are on that road, basically, there is no room for another car to get by. The road is, actually, 23.5 feet wide and we have irrigation runoff on both sides of the barrow pits. A lot of times the irrigation runoff it's basically from side to side. So, it's a very narrow road. ACHD in their letter dated March 21st indicated that that northern stub street was placed there in anticipation of a future connection to Selatir Place. We feel this creates a safety risk. It would allow dumping urban density residential from Kingsbridge and Hendrickson onto this very narrow rural lane. ACHD also indicated that the stub street was there for future development to the north. However, we don't feel that's necessary. Our restrictive covenants only permit up to one acre lots. They are currently all five acre estate lots and our restrictive covenants only allow future development to one acre lots. Those one acres could be accessed easily off of Selatir. There is no need for the stub to access future development. We want to indicate that we do support the vision for connectivity between neighborhoods. That's why we have proposed a compromise of the fire lane, which would allow bike and pedestrian access between the neighborhoods without dumping urban density traffic onto this rural road. So, we just ask -- I'd ask in summary that you either remove the stub street -- we have talked with Commissioner Huber from the ACRD and she's indicated that on some occasions you have been willing to remove stub streets. Or we ask that you refer it back to the ACHD for a public hearing. De Weerd: Thank you. Meridian City Council • • May 16, 2006 Page 31 of 56 Becker: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Jeff Welkerstein. And I really apologize if I just messed up your name. Welkerstein: That's okay. De Weerd: And, please, state your name and address for the record. Welkerstein: Jeff Welkerstein. 3702 South Selatir Place. De Weerd: Thank you. Welkerstein: I live down about the cul-de-sac, second house from the end. I just want to concur with the previous testimony from my neighbor concerning allowing the stub street to connect into Selatir Place. I just want to reiterate it's a rural narrow road with barrow pits and no sidewalks. On the ACRD report they estimated that the Hendrickson Subdivision would add about 170 vehicle trips per day. I don't believe there was any mention of the additional traffic that would be added from the adjacent Kingsbridge Subdivision to the west that would want to shortcut through there as well. Also, we were unaware of any ten day appeal process to the ACHD report. The letter was dated March 21st and I did not receive a copy of the a-mail until after the ten day appeal period. So, I also would appreciate City Council recommending removal of the stub street or sending it back to ACRD for review. Another point I want to make is originally we were opposed to the density as it currently stands. I would be happier if the lot sizes mirrored the size of the Kingsbridge lots abutting the Dartmoor Subdivision, which was a half acre to one acre transition on some of the perimeters and some height restrictions as well. In talking with Vision First, we told them we would be more amenable to the proposed site, which are about third acre lots, assuming the house and the out buildings adjacent to Selatir Place are limited to one story and maintained a 25 foot setback. And so that's what Planning and Zoning recommended and we support restricting those and I think it's Lot 3 to one story. Then, finally, I also believe there is confusion about whether or not the Hendrickson property is included in this -- in the 9.43 acres. If it's not, I mean I'm confused, if they still want access to Bott Lane, if they are not part of the subdivision, then, including them in the 9.3 acres, the density is too great for R-2 zoning. So, in summary, concerns about the stub street. Hopefully, we can send it back to ACHD for review. And concerns about the density and/or the height restrictions. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Jenny Welkerstein. Welkerstein. Also against. Okay. Thank you. David LaVigne. Exactly. I always appreciate coaching, though. Okay. If you would like to step forward and just say your name and address for the record. LaVigne: I didn't want to use my minutes up yet, so I was just waiting -- De Weerd: We won't start it until she's ready. LaVigne: Okay. Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 32 of 56 Nary: Please summarize. LaVigne: Wait a minute. My name is David LaVigne. I live at 3317 South Selatir Place, which is just a little north of the proposed subdivision. And so what I wanted to do is just kind of talk -- walk you through some of the points. One of our primary concerns -- you want to flip to the next slide -- is -- we are requesting denial of the proposed plat map primarily because of the concern for the stub street to the north property for future. Primary concern is just the stub street. If you could go to the next slide. And as you saw, this is the stub street that we were talking about we would like to see removed. And if you want to go to the next slide. The Selatir Place, as referred, is a rural road, it's 22.3 feet wide with no sidewalks, barrow pits, and as you can see on the right-hand side over here, this is water that fills up with the irrigation water on the side. Cars in the middle here and you want -- I have got -- I have got two kids -- I have got three kids. Two three year old twins and -- forget how many I have. I don't get a lot of sleep. Rountree: How many is that? LaVigne: I don't know. It's a blur. But they -- you know, they, actually, go down and visit Jeffs kids down at the end of the street, which they have to run all the way down here at the end of the street and it's a one mile road. So, if you want to go to the next slide. So, as you can kind of see the way that the road is, it's along -- long narrow road, barrow pits on each side, and it's 1.75 -- one to 1.75 acres and if you open this thing up to -- to what's coming over on Selatir from Kingsbridge and from the Hendrickson Subdivision, it's going to be like a speedway and a question to you guys is where are our kids supposed to walk and go down and visit their friends when you have -- when you potentially have 500 cars per day coming down this road when you open it up to Hendrickson Subdivision, as well as portion -- back portion of Kingsbridge. So, the next slide. To give you a flavor of what's on the street, if you haven't been down there before, just to kind of give you an idea of some of the homes, the estate homes that are on here. There is anywhere between one and five acre lots and it's right on the edge of the Meridian city limits, if you have seen it. If you want to go to the next slide. These are just some more five acre estate lots in Selatir Place. Just to kind of give you a flavor, the homes are setback, they are big acreages, and nobody's -- I mean it's just a -- it's a great rural environment that's still within -- you know, it's close to the City of Meridian, which we are getting fewer and fewer homes that are -- developments that are still out here like this. If you want to go to the next slide. So, what we'd like to -- the primary concern is the public safety is the primary concern regarding the potential connection to Selatir Place via the stub street on the Hendrickson Subdivision. And as you have kind of heard, what we'd like to kind of propose is some options -- layout some options for you. If you want to go to the next slide. And the Selatir homeowners, as well as Vision First, we were, first, unaware of the 10 day appeal period that must be filed to contest ACRD recommendations. That had actually lapsed, almost, by the time we had gotten to talk to the Planning and -- to Planning and Zoning. And what we'd like to recommend is the City Council -- one of the options is to -- the City Council not act on the report and -- Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 33 of 56 De Weerd: If you will, please, summarize. LaVigne: Okay. This is -- if you want to go to the next slide. That was one option. And the next option. Bottom line is -- you have heard a lot of the options and you also heard about the proposed stub street. Removing the stub street and that piece of strip, spite strip that we have been talking about, is granting access across, is -- that's in lieu of -- we would grant access to something like that, because it's, actually, a part of the homeowners association. The group has purchased it under the homeowners association, that spite strip, and we would, actually, like to encourage some connectivity, but we don't want to encourage the connectivity to have all of the traffic coming down, but we do agree with the connectivity of neighborhoods. We would like to have connectivity between Kingsbridge, as well as Selatir as well. So, we would be more than happy to offer that up in lieu of removing the stub street regarding any future connectivity to that whole piece as well as you see right there. And one other last option, a quick summary, and I'm out of here, is that -- is that on putting a restriction on the stub street, which I had talked to Sherry Huber, ACHD commissioner about, she said that you could actually put a restriction on this stub street that it could not be used for -- for vehicle access, only emergency access or pedestrian access, if the stub street still had to stay there. So, that's an additional option for you to consider. So, I appreciate your time. Thanks a lot. De Weerd: Thank you. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Sir, we have a question for you. Wardle: Okay. Mr. LaVigne -- and I'm referencing your mention of increased traffic and those sorts of things. And maybe I'm not understanding the plat right. Does this stub street connect to your lane or does it just -- LaVigne: It does not. It is the future -- I mean we are -- it's -- the next step would be -- the person -- if you want to put up a slide of where it stubs out, the person or the property to the north is considering right now subdividing that -- that parcel and putting additional homes on it. ACHD has -- Lori Den Hartog, in her report, had mentioned that she would be willing to -- or she likes the idea of the connectivity and would like -- the whole -- there is nothing in the back here and there is a stub street right here right now in Kingsbridge, which is already here. There is already one over here. So, one additional stub street here and, then, you have one down here. One going here out to this road. If Dan Johnson subdivides and brings that -- or approves -- you know, ACRD says they would like to connect, bottom line is and the concern is once -- once Dan Johnson decides to subdivide, which he's planning on doing and we don't know what the plat map looks like, because he hasn't filed it, but the next step would be to -- you know, the connectivity would go out to -- ACRD would like that connectivity out there. So, that's kind of where -- we are trying to be a step ahead of it. We have been talking Meridian City Council • • May 16, 2006 Page 34 of 56 about this for two years now as Kingsbridge was going through all this and wanting to connect over to this way, over to Selatir as well. So, we are trying to be a step ahead of it, because we know the next step is just going to be a continuous -- I mean that's kind of what the end result's going to be. We are trying to prevent that. Does that help? That's your question? Wardle: That clarifies it. Thank you. LaVigne: Okay. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: It raised a question. Maybe it confused me. LaVigne: Sure. Borton: So, the concern that -- if there is a stub street here and there is connectivity here, it's not going to increase traffic on the street in front of these properties. LaVigne: It would not. Borton: Okay. Your concern is for properties up here? LaVigne: My concern is for properties up there that go all the way up. There is probably a quarter mile roadway from here all the way up here and my kids go walk down here right now to catch the bus, as well as other kids down here walk from here down the street to catch the bus at the end at Victory. Borton: Your photographs were of these properties, not -- or of the street up here, not of the street down here? LaVigne: Correct. These are all -- there is two more -- that's my property right there. There is two more properties here and there is more over here, but -- Borton: Okay. Thank you. LaVigne: Does that help? All right. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Susan Brender signed up against. Brender: I'm Susan Brender. I live at 3568 South Selatir Place, which is the second one acre lot on the east side of Selatir, not exactly adjacent, but my south property line would be the same as the north property line for the Hendrickson Subdivision. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 35 of 56 De Weerd: Thank you Brender: I agree with everything that's been said so far. I just want to add two things. One is in regards to the safety along Selatir if the stub street were put in there and future access for all of Kingsbridge traffic were to dump out on Selatir -- right now the street is one of those where it's been blacktopped a couple of times and so on the sides there is probably a five inch dropoff in someplaces to the gravel. I'm sure the kids riding their bicycles down there, if they were trying to avoid a car, it could be serious and there are a lot of children on that street. The other issue that Ihave -- that I want to emphasize -- it's already been mentioned -- is the height restriction on the east lots or Block 3. Contrary to the statement that everyone's view is to the northeast, which is true, but we also have a terrific view to the southwest. We can see the Owyhees. We won't be able to see them with two story houses. But the major thing is that single story restriction of Block 3 would be compatible with the house across the street. Those are my concerns. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Jerry Larsen signed up against. Larsen: Jerry Larsen. 3536 South Selatir Place. De Weerd: Thank you. Larsen: Ditto all my neighbors on the -- especially on the stub street. We have pretty much run that one. A couple of comments on the single story development. It is wrong for the area. It's a very open area. I agree they have made a big point about the view to the northeast -- primarily east northeast. We also do have a fantastic view out the west. I have some amazing pictures of the setting sun that a nine foot fence would not occlude those two story skulking homes from ruining. So, I would ask they be restricted to single story. Also, I'd note that if you look at the scale on Kingsbridge would like to talk about how far away the houses are across the road and across our front yards. If you scale that, they -- those one story homes, hopefully, would be about the same distance away as the one story homes surrounding Mr. Hendrickson. So, it's the same distance. The other point I'd like to make is -- as explained on P&Z meeting when we were here before, the norm is that when somebody joins the city, they give up access to the county. I would ask that that be enforced here. Mr. Hendrickson seems to -- or Mr. Hendrickson needs to decide whether he wants to be in the city or in the county and either get in or get out, rather than cherry pick to his own exclusive advantage. The -- you know, if he wants to have his dogs play in the ditch and have access to the ditch, then, stay in the county, don't develop. He can make that choice. But if he wants to be in the city, I think he needs to be in the city, so -- and if he is -- you know, if he is allowed access and out, then, let's take his property out of the density calculation, you know, not have it both ways. That's my comments. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Rick Anderson signed up against. Okay. Thank you. Delphic Anderson. Or Delpha. Thank you. Dan Johnson. Neutral. Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 36 of 56 Johnson: My name is Dan Johnson. I live at 3501 South Selatir Place. Good evening, Madam Mayor and Council Members. I don't know if neutral is really the right way I feel right now, because I mean I have had some conversations about maybe doing something at some point with my properly. I have been out there since '91. Built the house, enjoyed it. I'm seeing things change. But I agree with all my neighbors and also with Vision First that that stub street is not needed, not wanted, and doesn't belong there. You have seen what sort of area we live in. If I ever do split lots off, it will not be to move Hendrickson and Kingsbridge traffic down Selatir. I know from my two neighbors -- and we are all three irrigators, we fill those borrow pits full of water about twice or three times a month and it's not safe. Victory Lane is only -- or Victory Road is only two lanes with no turn -- center turn and there is no way you can stack maybe a third of a mile of cars in commuter time up and down our road. So, everybody's right, if I ever do split my lots, I don't need that stub street and I'm going to fight it with the rest of my neighbors. I know the Council here can make that decision. It's back to ACHD. But I think, from what I understand, the Planning and Zoning Commission understood what we were all saying is that that emergency access is really a gift from the neighborhood to allow something to happen while the dynamics of development and connectivity and things like that happen. My understanding is that it's going to be about 14 to 18 months before the sewer and water and the absorption rate of Kingsbridge and Hendrickson come our way. In that amount of time it's hard to say what could happen to the other parcels and ACRD needs to understand that, Council, and everybody else. So, I'm standing with my neighbors. I don't want the stub street. I will not connect to it if it stays. And so that's where I am. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Okay. Tim Petchy signed up against. Hasn't changed yet, uh? Petchy: Not yet. My name is Tim Petchy. I live at 3726 South Selatir and that's actually -- I, actually own these two lots at the end of the road here. And I'm with my neighbors on stopping the stub street connecting out to Victory Road in the future. That's just -- there is no place for that on our street. It's a small rural road. But another concern of mine is that the restriction on Block 3, we do enjoy a view out to the west. Actually, the way this lays out, we would have three of those lots would actually be abutting my property and we do enjoy our sunsets, our views out to the west. If I'm out -- our house actually views out to the northwest from the front of our house, so that directly affects our views and I kind of thought we had P&Z on our side protecting that. We did make some concessions on the size of those lots, so I don't feel that third acre lots are really a transition to the five and one acre pieces we have out there. So, I thought that was maybe a concession that we could work with with Vision First and that's my comments. De Weerd: Thank you, sir. Lisa Petchy is also against. Thank you. And Bob Becker. Against. B.Becker: Good evening, Madam Mayor, Council Members. I really don't have much more to add. I think my wife did an excellent job. Meridian City Council ~ • May 16, 2006 Page 37 of 56 Nary: Name and address. Name and address, sir. De Weerd: Oh, yes. B.Becker: I'm sorry. Bob Becker, 3421 South Selatir Place. She stole all my notes, so she, essentially, did my work for me. The only thing I would like to add is you, essentially, have everyone here opposing the stub street. You have the developer opposing the stub street. You have the adjacent landowner Dan Johnson opposing the stub street. You have all of the other neighbors opposing the stub street. And we would ask that you send this back to ACHD, so that they can study it and hold a hearing and we have a chance to maybe get the stub street removed. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Is there any additional testimony on this? Canning: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes. Canning: I forgot to address one knew issue that the applicant had raised in their letter and I just feel it's important to at least note it on the record, so that we have a clear record for the future. They have asked that Mr. Hendrickson be allowed to continue having livestock on the property, the larger lot that's being proposed. In the past the city has allowed livestock to continue on larger properties fora limited time as a nonconforming use. If the Council does wish to grant that request as part of the development agreement, the applicant would need to document what animals they have and what animals they continue to have -- will continue to have and when that use will end, because they are not allowed in the city. So, they did raise that issue in their letter. It was not discussed previously, so -- typically we see that that -- well, the last time you did it, the ability to have horses was limited to the current properly owner only and I think we limited it to exactly the number she had on the property at that time, which was three. Actually, I think we limited it to those three horses that were on the property, so -- De Weerd: And we lost them through attrition. Canning: Yeah. De Weerd: Okay. If there is no further public testimony, I would ask the developer if they would like to have -- yes. I'm sorry. Before we call you up -- Wardle: Madam Mayor. De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 38 of 56 Wardle: If Mr. Inselman could ask -- or could answer a question that's been raised by the neighbors and that would be the process to -- is there a process to appeal ACHD's decision on this stub street? Inselman: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, Gary Inselman representing ACHD. 3775 North Adams. This was acted on in March. There is a ten day appeal period. The developer certainly knew. It was attached to our staff report that went to them. If the Council approved a plat that differed from the one we did, there would have to be a reconciliation of. If they denied this plat and the applicant resubmitted, certainly we would review the new plat and hold public hearings now we are aware of all of the interest in the neighborhood. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: While we have got the other black cat up here, I:m confused by your letter. And the letter starts off about -- you didn't require a stub street to the east, because of the strip of property and so you proposed a stub street to the north and required that. Your letter ends with this statement: The district is supportive of the neighbors' proposal to allow an emergency access from Selatir Place across the strip of property now owned by the homeowners association. So, they kind of got ahead of this -- or in the middle of this. Does that mean that if that were provided you would still take their -- or ACRD would still take the strong position for a stub street? Inselman: The lane to the east is private, so a public stub to a private road would not serve a lot of benefit to the public and, then, there is that spite strip that would need to be crossed at some point. The only reason for the stub to the north is to preserve the opportunity for the connectivity. There is no guarantee that there will ever be a connection to Selatir if Johnson, I believe that's his name, developed his property in a manner that it does not require connection to this subdivision or does not require a connection to Selatir, perhaps it would never happen. I can't say until that parcel comes in. It's only to preserve options for the future. That stub could be moved west of where it's at, anywhere along that north boundary would provide a little more circuitous route in the future if it ever did connect. It may never connect if Mr. Johnson doesn't develop. If it ever did, we certainly look at the condition of the existing street. We are very concerned about a place for pedestrians. We have to tackle these issues, unfortunately, far too regularly in the county, where older narrower streets are developed at the end and more traffic is put down them and as best we can we require off-site improvements to widen that road to provide aplace -- safe place for the pedestrians. It's difficult to require the developer of a small parcel like Mr. Johnson's to improve a quarter mile of road with curb, gutter, and sidewalk, but we will certainly make what provisions we can for the safety of the pedestrians in the future. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if I could follow up on that. I have been involved with at least one project that was similar to this where what we ended up Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 39 of 56 doing is taking the stub up, run it over, and, then, run it up again and some of the houses would have faced what is Selatir on this one. So, there are ways of getting public street connections in there without having a direct access to Selatir at this time. And so it's -- this one is -- everyone's assuming that the next one will just end -- you know, pull that public street right to that cul-de-sac and my experience has been that ACHD commission does listen and that they try and meet those concerns that Mr. Inselman has pointed out. De Weerd: Yeah. But, Anna, I guess there is this problem of institutional memory, too, if Mr. Johnson sells and the next person comes and does it, you know, they can do it a little bit differently and we have seen the dangers of urban densities connecting to some of these private roads or rural roads that are really there to serve just more of that rural level development and it is -- we are seeing that all around and this is the first time I have seen it really be asked to stub into it. Canning: Madam Mayor, we -- I have had hits on probably half of those five acre lots, people looking to buy them, assemble them, and redevelop them. De Weerd: Well, that is sad. I really like the pictures I saw. Tell them there is other places and land. Thanks, Gary. Okay. If the developer would like to come up with wrapping up remarks. You have five minutes. Elliott: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Again, for the record I'm Ken Elliott for Vision First, 661 South River Shore Lane, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. We have -- I think looking at this map, it is helpful to recall that the Kingsbridge Subdivision does have two stub streets to the north, one near the northwest corner, one near the northeast corner, then, we have our primary access out to Eagle Road, plus a secondary access through Dartmoor. So, by adding 17 houses to that 125 unit subdivision, we are being asked to, essentially, add two additional stub streets. We think one is warranted. We think an emergency access is warranted through Selatir, but what we think is going to happen, what the scuttlebutt is, is that that large rectangle to the south of the R-1 abutting Cloverdale, which is split by the Meridian and Boise areas of impact, is likely to develop and that with some cooperation from our neighbors to the south on the large ten acre tracts that we could loop the Hendrickson Avenue connection over to that large rectangle and go out to Cloverdale Road. That's been our hope and plan all along. That's what we told the Council and the Planning and Zoning with Kingsbridge, that we were hoping to acquire Hendrickson, so that we could get access out either by Bott Lane and, again, although it's not shown, the part that's within the Portland -- or the -- Portland. Boise. I'm slipping back to a past life. The Boise area of impact, that is all a public street all the way to the point where it gets to the canal, which is the diagonal road. In response to the one gentleman that would take away Hendrickson's access through Bott Lane, it seems a little counter productive if you're going to add one more house that has no way to get out when we are trying to maintain an access that goes back about 80 years. The canal was sold to the New York Canal Company at a time when that ten acre lot owner was a shareholder of the canal company and so to just take that access away because they are a remnant parcel and Meridian City Council ~ • May 16, 2006 Page 40 of 56 now part of the Hendrickson subdivision, that was certainly never our understanding as a developer, it was never the Hendrickson's contemplation that they would give up their access to a county road, the only stretch that's private, I think they have got a good argument for the title company, if it has to be made, that they have an established legal access to the point where they connect to Bott Lane. So, we urge you to give them that -- to allow them to maintain that historic access. Again, it's only for them. We have got a fence and barricades preventing any of the other future residents of the subdivision from accessing Bott Lane. We will go out on the public streets through the city. I would also like the Council's consideration of -- to allow them the personal right, as long as they own the property, to maintain the number of horses or llamas that they have on the land, not limited to lives in being -- as to the livestock, but allow the Hendrickson to enjoy the right that they have historically had and to allow them, as one of the animals die, they could replace it, they wouldn't have any more in number than they have now, but they wouldn't lose their rights slowly as the old critters fall away. Thank you very much. De Weerd: I guess I do have a question for you and it's something that hasn't come up through testimony. Can you show the plat, Anna? I am curious. You mentioned the open space and it's very accessible and in a good location. I don't see what's good about it. It's behind people°s houses, it's tucked behind, and it is out of the vision of the public. So, it is concern of the safety aspect. It looks like it's more beneficial to only a couple of people, rather than the entire development in terms of the esthetic value. And, then, you also count your drainage lot as -- in your open space calculations. There is not too much play that goes on in a retention area, but I would like to hear your comments regarding open space. Elliott: Madam Mayor, we meet the code requirement for open space. We redesigned the park at the express -- with advice of the police department. It was a narrow strip coming in from the east-west street to the north. We flared that open, adding that Lot 5 to the park, so they have complete visibility into it. It's quite clearly a pocket park and I think there are lots of those in -- in other subdivisions. We think by adding the opening to Hendrickson Avenue to the east, that we create a nice loop, we create a safe area for young kids to play, but the people who are cutting through the neighborhood on bicycles can also readily good through the park. De Weerd: Well, I guess I will politely disagree. I sometimes think that we are creating attractive nuisances behind -- and hiding them from the public eyes keep them safer. And so I guess there is just a difference of opinion. And, yes, you did meet our minimum requirements. You know, nothing more and nothing less. But I guess in -- well, it just seems like it's -- it's pretty minimal and there is not too much benefit to the homes that are in and around there. But that's, again, my perception of it. Elliott: I guess in response, Madam Mayor, I would just say, again, that we -- we got some pretty strong criticism from the police department and redesigned it in a way that they approved and that Planning and Zoning Commission approved. And we think there are benefits to having the main -- the main play area removed from the street for safety Meridian City Council ~ • May 16, 2006 Page 41 of 56 and so you get a little peace and quiet, rather than just being right out on the street front. De Weerd: Well, again, I guess in what I have observed through community design is the more eyes on open space you can get the safer it, really, truly is. So, again, just a difference of opinion. Elliott: We do have six or eight households with their backyards up to that park, so I think there will be a lot of -- a lot of eyes on it. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Elliott: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any further information from the applicant or staff? If not, I would entertain a motion to close this Public Hearing. Or to continue it for reconsideration back to ACHD regarding the stub street. Bill, would that take a continuation to have it go back to ACHD or what is the process for that? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if I understood Mr. Inselman correctly, I guess there wasn't -- there isn't a mechanism to remand this back to ACHD. If the Council approved a plat that was different than what they approved, or did not allow a plat, they would, then, have an opportunity to revisit it. But there isn't a mechanism to just simply remand it. De Weerd: So, we have no appeal of their decision either, then? Nary: No. De Weerd: Okay. Nary: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: So, the only -- the only avenue is to turn this down and make them go through the whole process all over again? Nary: Well, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, certainly that's an option and that would certainly be one process. If the Council was of a mind to recommend a different plat configuration without a stub street or with the stub street in a different location or with the other connection -- again, I think it was -- if I understood Mr. Inselman correctly, if this Council recommended something different than what they have seen, they would, then, have to revisit it and I think there has been some proposed alternatives. So, you wouldn't necessarily have to reject it just to have it reviewed. Madam Mayor, if you wouldn't mind, the only thing I guess additionally I would like the Council to consider and maybe we have all become a little more heightenly aware of these types of concerns. You have a consentual annexation, but it appears that a lot of the testimony from the Meridian City Council May 16, 2006 Page 42 of 56 applicant is disagreeing with the conditions either placed on this by ACRD or staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission and I guess just for your consideration in making your deliberations, you may want to consider whether there is truly a consentual annexation request in front of you or whether their conditions are such that it no longer is conceptual and that may not be something the city wishes to annex at this time. The conditions regarding the animals on the property, although may be small, is a significant change from what you have done in the recent past. The conditions regarding access to the public street is a significant change from what's been required in the past. The conditions regarding the house sizes and limitations was fully discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commission and that was their recommendation. It just appears, Iguess -- and Ijust wanted to just make all of you aware and maybe you already are, that, you know, normally a consentual annexation doesn't always place quite so many conditions upon their consent and if their consent is so conditioned, I guess I just wanted to make the Council aware that you may want to factor that into your deliberation and give that some due consideration as well. De Weerd: Okay. Questions from Council? What direction -- I would look for a motion as to what direction you would like to go on this. Rountree: Is the Public Hearing still open? De Weerd: Yes, it is. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Borton. Borton: If there is no further information or public testimony, I move we close the Public Hearing on Items 17 and 18. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to close the public hearings on 17 and 18. All those in favor say aye. Any opposed? Rountree: No. De Weerd: Okay. Three ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. De Weerd: Discussion? Rountree: Madam Mayor, the reason I'm opposed to closing the hearing is because I think it's still valid to get some more input. We don't have -- and I don't know that Anna Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 43 of 56 has the road situation for the adjacent subdivision to the west and where those stub streets may or may not come into this parcel. Canning: To the west, sir? Rountree: Yeah. Canning: To the east? Rountree: Kingsbridge. Canning: Kingsbridge? The only -- Rountree: That's the only one? Canning: That's the only stub on their eastern property line, I believe. Yes. Rountree: I thought I heard somebody indicate that there was one -- Canning: (believe they have two to the north. Rountree: Further north? Bird: On the north. Rountree: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: Council, any comments? I guess I'll give my -- I don't have a vote, unless you tie, so I will start discussion. You know, I appreciate larger size lots. We don't have a whole lot in our city. But at what cost? You know, just because they are bigger lots doesn't mean they are really a true amenity to add to our community. I'm concerned about the open space. I think it will be nice for a couple of houses to have that open space, but the safety of our kids -- I mean we looked at park design, we don't like to tuck things behind things. It's better to have it open to the vision of all and it's even that self- policing, thinking a car can drive by and -- and it's another set of eyes. It's another set of eyes for that safety. I know I'm a big advocate for connectivity. I appreciate the concession to bring this stub out and have it pedestrian. I can't imagine that those neighbors are going to be walking -- their kids will be walking to the elementary school that's going to be down the road and they will be walking through those subdivisions. So, it's a good access to have. I get concerned about the ability to connect vehicles to those more rural natured roads that don't have curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Again, it is a safety factor. So, the open space and the stub street are certainly concerns of mine, but when a property subdivides, sells it off and subdivides, they lose some of their rights. I mean the right to develop urban and they also want to stay agricultural. They need to make up their mind and, again, that's only my opinion, but there is a real contradiction on this that has some areas of concern and I guess it's going back to a phrase that has Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 44 of 56 been used -- we are in no hurry to add more land to our city limits, that these kind of concerns should be answered before they get here. Rountree: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: You have heard me say those words before. De Weerd: I quote my favorite people. Rountree: And I think you made something -- you made a statement that really rang true to me is that this is a confused venture, in my opinion. It's a property owner who wants the best of all worlds and at some consideration, but not total consideration of what the world that they are going to create around them is going to be. I very much support the idea of internal circulation and I think that it needs to be accommodated. If that's the best location in the world, I would be surprised. I think there are other combinations that could be done. It's somewhat limited by the fact that out of this parcel somebody wants to run a hobby farm in the city. It's either city or it's a ranchette. It can't be both. I'm really concerned about our experience with lanes. We have fought lanes for the last ten years and I got to tell you, they are nightmarish and nobody comes out winners. We have been to court. People have been to court. Nobody wins. The City's come out all right, but there is issues with those things created. As far as restricting heights, et cetera, in this particular subdivision, the sale is I assume pending or done based on the conditions of height restrictions on some lots and to me that's between the contract holder and seller and on that point I guess I don't have any strong feeling. I think that the lots are big enough and the spaces are spaced enough that that really is not an issue, from my perspective. It's proposed as a city subdivision, yet we have ordinances that require a subdivision to be fenced, yet they don't want to do that as an entire subdivision. It's really hard for me to say that I can't support this particular application, because I have been pushing for larger lots and Anna's going to growl at, because -- De Weerd: Me, too. Rountree: -- we like small lots from a planning perspective. Canning: It's the density, not the design. It's design, not density. Sorry. I got that backwards. Rountree: It is design. It is about design. And, I don't know, I could go either way, but I think that there is nothing that don't work for me with this particular project that now is the time to say they didn't work. For me. I don't know what the rest of the Council wants to do. I'd probably -- unless I hear a really good argument, not support this particular annexation at this point in time. I would be willing, however, to reopen the Public Hearing and look at some additional design details or changes that the applicant might want to make to save them the aggravation of trying to do this over. Meridian City Council ~ • May 16, 2006 Page 45 of 56 Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Councilman Rountree reopened it and what you want to bring back, the problem is one of your biggest holdups was the existing hobby farm and I'm in the same boat you are. We both love the larger lots and everything, but I -- I mean, evidently, we are not talking about a couple of horses or one or two llamas, they want to go on and keep it the deal. They don't want their south end fenced, when everybody else's is fenced. I think if you're going to be annexed in, you live under the same rules and regulations as everybody else in the subdivision. That's my personal opinion on that. I'm quite shocked. I wouldn't want -- I wouldn't want a way over to there, because if they got water standing like that, (certainly -- beside the fence, I certainly don't want my kids walking -- or grandkids walking down it. That was a pretty good volume of water going down there. In fact, I'm shocked that we didn't see a bunch of mosquitoes -- De Weerd: I did. Bird: -- with animals and stuff around there. I'm kind of like Councilman Rountree, I could go with a new design to a degree, but lalso -- the owner of the property that sold the properly is -- in my book, has to live within the same regulations. I have no problem with if he's got two or three animals on there now, he can have them, but once they decease or he sells them, he don't replace them. And pretty soon he's not a hobby ranchette. So, I can -- I could support opening it up again if he felt -- I don't know what kind of redesign they are going to do, unless they do a complete redesign. I do like -- I really do like the size of their lots, though. De Weerd: Okay. Any further comments? We would look for your direction. I guess, Mr. Nary, some of the options would be to remand back to Planning and Zoning to address some of the issues that Councilman Rountree and Councilman Bird have discussed or what are the options? Nary: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, I think you probably have -- have two primary options. I mean you can -- you can certainly -- well, I guess three. You can approve the project as presented. You can make amendments as you have done. You can reject the project as presented. You can remand it. There is a number of issues that you have raised and I guess I'll concede to Mrs. Canning, I mean at a certain point the staff time that's necessary to re-analyze a redesign when you have raised -- I mean I just made a very quick note as you have been speaking of six primary issues that there are some significant concerns about. To the lane, to whether the -- the private lane. The animals on the property. The height restriction. The stub street to the north. The access to Bott Lane. In addition to the access to the canal. And the fencing surrounding the property. And the relationship with the other county subdivision that's adjacent. Those are quite a bit of -- of redesign to one project, but, again, like I said, it's been my experience from the staffs perspective at planning, you know, the remands work fairly Meridian City Council • May 16, 2006 Page 46 of 56 well when it's fairly small and lot sizes -- or parks. I'm sorry. The open space is another issue you had raised. When it's simply a redesign of a minor thing or just a park redesign or streets or one thing, but you get a number of them, the staff time gets eaten up pretty heavily and realistically a re-application is just as -- just as easy on the staff as it is to try to remand it and redesign it that way. But I don't know if Mrs. Canning has a different opinion. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, if I might add to that. In the past when you have remanded things, even if they were large redesigns, it was generally when staff was unaware of a City Council concern and was not able to guide the applicant through the review process to address some of those concerns. We have worked with the applicant on all these issues. We have made suggestions that were not followed. We have told them that the access lane was an issue in the pre-application conference. And we have really struggled to get to this point today. And so I would ask that -- I would certainly prefer a new application. De Weerd: Okay. Council, you have heard some of the choices that you can make in the form of a motion. I would entertain a motion or further discussion. Wardle: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Wardle. Wardle: Ijust -- just a comment as far as my preference to -- and I understand staffs concern with continuing to work with the applicant. I recall this same applicant on the application next door, as I recall we denied one of those and they brought back a new project and, really, in my mind addressed the concerns we had at the meeting and so I don't think that we necessarily need to deny this and send it back, we can probably work through some of these issues. But that's just my opinion. De Weerd: Well, I look forward to whatever the motion is going to be. Rountree: You guys on that end do it tonight. Borton: I can chime in my list as well. They have been said. I have got similar concerns. In no particular order. The Bott Lane access. The single story, double story side. I made a list like Mr. Nary did. Sixteen foot landscape buffer on the east. Fence on the south. Stub street. The livestock. And the open space parks. And I agree with the Mayor. Those are -- that's the start of my list and if it's easier and more appropriate from staffs perspective to redo this, I'd defer to their experience and expertise in it. And with that I'd move to deny Item 17, AZ 06-012, request for annexation and zoning. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny Item 17. Is there any discussion? Mr. Berg, you will call roll. Meridian City Council ~ • May 16, 2006 Page 47 of 56 Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Borton, yea MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. De Weerd: Okay. Item 18. Borton: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Borton. Borton: I move we deny Item 18, PP 06-010, request for preliminary plat. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. I have a motion to deny on Item 18. If there is no discussion, Mr. Berg. Roll-Call: Bird, yea; Rountree, yea; Wardle, nay; Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. Item 19: Public Hearing: VAR 06-009 Request for a Variance to allow for a patio structure in the required rear yard for 5278 N. Cougar Flat Place by Dana & Rhonda Patterson - 5278 N. Cougar Flat Place: De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Item 19 is a Public Hearing on VAR 06-009. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this is a variance application for 5278 North Cougar Flat Place by Dana and Rhonda Patterson and you can see the outline of the property. It is at the end of the cul-de-sac, right near the entrance to Lochsa Falls. And so Lochsa Falls is between Linder Road and McMillan as you know. This is a picture of the patio that has been constructed. And I'm going to -- I forgot to put the site plan in the presentation, so I will have to put in up just to ask her. These two posts -- the setback -- the required setback is 15 feet. This post is at ten feet six inches. This post is at nine feet nine inches. And you can see the additional posts as you go down the property. The structure itself, this portion of -- the living portion of the building, is outside the setback area. It's just they extended the roof to cover their patio and that's where they got in trouble. Staff has recommended denial. We were not able to make the findings for approval of the variance -- or two of the three findings for the approval of the variance. It's a pretty straight forward application. I'll go ahead and switch to the overhead, so that you can see the site plan. As I note, I believe this -- this dotted line shows the 15 foot setback and, then, they have marked the location of each post and its distance to the rear yard fence -- rear yard property line. With that I will answer any questions Council may have. • • May 19, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 6-~ REQUEST Approve Permanent and Temporary Easement Contract for the Black Cat Phase 2 Sewer Project: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See Attached Memo /Easement Date: Phone: _ Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Memo C~ MAY ' ~ 2006 To: William Berg, Jr.; Tara Green From: Clint Dolsby, Staff Engineer CC: Len Grady, City Engineer City of Meridian City Clerk Offic® Date: 5/18/2006 Re: Proposed Agenda Item for May 23, 2006 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following items be placed on the May 23 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration. 1. Permanent and Temporary Easement Contract for the Black Cat Phase 2 Sewer Proiect. A mod cation to the permanent and temporary easement contract for ~----. Janacek Properties LLC that was approved by City Council on July 27, 2004 has been signed by Janacek Properties LLC for the construction of the sanitary sewer on their property south of Franklin Road and west of Ten Mile Road for this project. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves the modified permanent and temporary easement contract for the construction of the Black Cat Phase 2 Sewer on the property south of Franklin Road and west of Ten Mile Road for the landowner Janacek Properties LLC and authorize the Mayor to sign it. 2. Biosolids Improvement Proiect Review. Jim Cox has agreed to a professional services contract for the review of the Biosolids Improvement Project. The work will be completed for $4,500. This is an extension of Section III of the purchasing policy for the City of Meridian that was approved by City Council on the 18~' of April, 2006. This project provides professional services for the review of the Biosolids Improvement Project. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves the contract for the professional services to review the Biosolids Improvement Project with Jim Cox for $4,500 and authorize the Mayor to sign it. • Page 1 • Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding any of these items. • Page 2 DA t r ~ ~ ~ , City of Meridian ® 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, ID~642 PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY EASEMENT CONTRACT Project # and Description: #1 fl873 Black Cat Sewer Project Parcel # and 0~> ~~ S 131760 Janicek Properties LLC Date of Offer: `~`+ `~ Y THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY CONTRACT, made this day of 2004, between the City of Meridian, acting by its Mayor and Council, herein called "CITY" and Janicek Properties LLC, herein called "GRANTOR". WHEREAS, subject to the terms outlined below, GRANTOR agrees to deliver to the CITY a Permanent Sanitary Sewer Easement and Temporary Construction Easement included herewith as Exhibit "A": NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. A. CITY shall pay GRANTOR and the lien holder, if any, such sums of money and/or benefits as aze set out below: ITEM DESCRIPTION AREA GROSS VALUE VALUATION EASEMENT VALUE Ftz $/Ft2 FACTOR Permanent Easement 48,346 $1.74 Temporary Easement 124,918 50 % $42,000 $1.74 10 % x 50 % $11,000 TOTAL EASEMENT CASH SETTLEMENT AMOUNT 53 000 B. The CITY further agrees to ensure that the rocky material removed from the construction excavation will be kept separate from the soil outside the easement azea and be replaced back to its removal azea . Additionally, the CITY agrees to provide the GRANTOR with two appropriately sized block-outs (10 to 12 inches) strategically placed along the main line with accompanying manholes. 2. As set forth in the City of Meridian's Easement Acquisition Policy, the Grantor may choose from two options for just compensation for both the permanent and temporazy easements as determined by a certified real estate appraiser: ash Payment* in the amount of _ ~ ~, ~~ ~ Donation value of the easement *Grantor will receive payment for the permanent easement within four weeks following the recording of the easement and payment for the temporary construction easement at the expiration of the construction contract. 3. This Contract shall not be binding unless and until executed by the Mayor and/or their authorized representatives. The parties have herein set out the whole of their agreement, the performance of which constitutes the entire consideration for the granting of said easement and shall relieve the CITY of all further claims or obligations on that account or on account of the location, grade, construction and maintenance of the proposed sanitary sewer line. 4. The term of the temporary easement shall expire when the construction contract terminates. 5. The parties whose names appear below as Grantors, covenant and warrant that they aze the OWNERS of the property to which this document applies, are fully authorized to execute this document and forever bind themselves, their successors and assigns and the subject property to the terms set forth herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this contract the day and year first above written. CITY OF MERIDIAN By Tammy de Weerd, Mayor Date: ATTEST: William Berg, Jr., City Clerk GRANTORS Date: ~P 19 Date approved by Council: 4/16/2004 • ~ °' ~ • ~ EXHIBIT A SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT THUS INDENTURE, effective this q~da o Y f,1~„ 2004, by the undersigned Brad Janicek, who maintains a mailing address of 4325 West Chinden, Meridian, ID 83642 and LouAnn Janicek, who maintains a mailing address of 1284 South Gosling, Eagle, ID 83616, hereafter referred to as "GRANTORS" for the benefit of the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho that maintains a mailing address of 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho 83642, hereafter referred to as "CITY°. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantors desire to provide a sanitary sewerright-of-way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer is to be provided for through an underground pipeline to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said pipeline from time to time by the CITY; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the Grantors, and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantors do hereby give, grant and convey unto the CITY the right-of-way for the permanent and temporary construction easements for the construction, operation and maintenance of a sanitary sewer line over and across the following described property: (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS) The permanent easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of a sanitary sewer line and allied facilities, together with maintenance, repair and replacement at the convenience of the CITY, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. The temporary construction easement is for the purpose of construction of a sanitary sewer line and related incidental work. The temporary construction easement shall expire when the construction contract terminates at which time payment for the temporary construction easement will be sent by certified mail to the GRANTOR by the CITY. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said permanent easement and right-of-way unto the said CITY, its successors and assigns forever. 1. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that the CITY, in constructing and in making future repairs, will expediently replace and restore the premises to a condition comparable to that existent prior to undertaking such construction, repairs and replacement. However, the CITY will not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring any permanent g p structures, lar a trees or brush laced within the area described_in__ - --- ___ SANETARIF SEWER EAS€MEIVfi Page 10~~-------- --------- _--- ------ -- ,„ i this easement. • THE GRANTORS do hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, large trees or brush within the area described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. THE GRANTORS do hereby covenant with the CITY that they are lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that they have a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that they will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. NITARYrSEWEF~ EASEIVIEIVT, image ~ o~~-_-- --- -- _ . `- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and yeaz first hereinabove written. ~~~...u...p~• .• •, '•~,~~••• l •~~ GRANTOR Brad Janice , ember, Janicek Properties LLC STATL:~JF~,pAb~l~y~~ . ~, . a ,,~~ ~ •••••Y ~ -`4 COUnty t10Tq~ ~ - * +.,. ~ 70 GRANTOR ON THIS ~ day of ~ ~ in eye o befo me, a Notary Public in and for said Sta ,personally appeared and known to me to be the manag or a member of the limited liability company that executed the instrument or the person who executed the instrument on behalf of said limited liability company and acknowledged to me that such limited liability company executed same. ,. '••.• ~ p,: ENRr. •.,~ - NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO G~ j•• '• f,~~ ~ y Commission Expires on $'~ N~~AUB LiC ` '• 9 a •••~ a .~ ~''~~rr.~•~'D~1H0) ss County of Ada ) Member, Janicek Properties LLC ON THIS ~ day of in a yeaz o before me, a Notary Public in and for said S e, personally appeaze ~ and known to me to be the manager r a member of the limited liability company that executed the instrument or the person who executed the instrument on behalf of said limited liability company and acknowledged to me that such limited liability company executed t~e;same. C/._-/ ~ ~ NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Commission Expires on BENEFICIARY: CITY OF MERIDIAN By Tammy de Weerd, Mayor ATTEST: William Berg, Jr., City Clerk Date approved by Council: __- -_- _ -- q~--~,q~ SEAR ~SEIVIENT, Page 3 of 3 Engineers Surveyors Planners Project: 11873 Grantor: Janacek Properties LLC Parcel: 3 Date: December 15, 2003 EASEMENT DESCRIPTION That portion of the South %i of the Northeast'/a of Section 15, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as shown on the attached exhibit, and more particularly described as follows: A permanent easement lying 12.00 feet to the right and 20.00 feet to the left of the following described line: Commencing at the North'/a corner of Section 15, marked by a brass cap; thence along the Westerly boundary of the Northeast'/a of said section, South (~°20'36" West, 1,337.89 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 27°02'04" East, 212.59 feet; thence South 61 °30'16° East, 400.00 feet; thence South 61 ° 15'08° East, 400.00 feet; thence South 60° 56'07" East, 400.00 feet; thence South 61 °2645° East, 400.00 feet; thence South 60° 55'36° East, 400.00 feet; thence South 60° 31'50° East, 270:00 feet; thence South 61 ° 54'4'1 ° East, 135..59 feet to the POINT OF TERMINUS. The sidelines of this easement are to be lengthened or shortened to the parcel boundaries to form a closed figure. Containing 1.926 acres (83,889 square feet), more or less. TOGETHER WITH: A temporary easement 50.00 feet in width lying Southwesterly from and contiguously with the Southwesterly limits of the above-described permanent easement. Containing 2.867 acres (124,918 square feet), more or less. END OF DESCRIPTION Prepared by: J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. Ronald M. Hodge, P.L.S. RMHlmrc:lhc _ _ _ - __ - - ----- ---- - _ - _ - ---- -~-- F:1ProjectManagers\PHK111873-Black Cat\11873-Sur\Desaiptlons\ESMT3.doc e ~ ~.. ~ - • City of Meridian a 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, ID 83"642 PERMANENT ANII TEMPORARY EASEMENT CONTRACT Project # and Description: #11873 Black Cat Sewer Project Parcel # and or: S 12151 1760 Janicek Properties LLC Date of Offer: .~cL,7 ~~.ZOO By THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY CONTRACT, made this day of 2004, between the City of Meridian, acting by its Mayor and Council, herein called "CITY" and Janicek Properties LLC, herein called "GRANTOR". WHEREAS, subject to the terms outlined below, GRANTOR agrees to deliver to the CITY a Permanent Sanitary Sewer Easement and Temporary Construction Easement included herewith as Exhibit "A": NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. A. CITY shall pay GRANTOR and the lien holder, if any, such sums of money and/or benefits as are set out below: ITEM DESCRIPTION AREA GROSS VALUE VALUATION EASEMENT VALUE Ftz $/Ftz FACTOR $ Permanent Easement 48,346 $1.74 50 Temporary Easement 124 918 ~2'~ $1.74 10 % x 50 % $11,000 TOTAL EASEMENT CASH SETTLEMENT AMOUNT 53 000 B. The CITY further agrees to ensure that the rocky material removed from the construction excavation will be kept separate from the soil outside the easement area and be replaced back to its removal area . Additionally, the CITY agrees to provide the GRANTOR with two appropriately sized block-outs (10 to 12 inches) strategically placed along the main line with accompanying manholes. 2. As set forth in the City of Meridian's Easement Acquisition Policy, the Grantor may choose from two options for just compensation for both the permanent and temporary easements as determined by a certified real estate appraiser: ash Payment* in the amount of ~ ~, ~~ ^ Donation value of the easement *Grantor will receive payment for the permanent easement within four weeks following the recording of the easement and payment for the temporary construction easement at the expiration of the construction contract. 3. This Contract shall not be binding unless and until executed by the Mayor and/or their authorized representatives. The parties have herein set out the whole of their agreement, the performance of which constitutes the entire consideration for the granting of said easement and shall relieve the CITY of all further claims or obligations on that account or on account of the location, grade, construction and maintenance of the proposed sanitary sewer line. 4. The term of the temporary easement shall expire when the construction contract terminates. 5. The parties whose names appear below as Grantors, covenant and warrant that they are the OWNERS of the property to which this document applies, are fully authorized to execute this document and forever bind themselves, their successors and assigns and the subject property to the terms set forth herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this contract the day and year first above written. CITY OF MERIDIAN Tammy de Weerd, Mayor Date: ATTEST: William Berg, Jr., City Clerk GRANTORS Date: ~v 1~ Date approved by Council: 4/16/2004 EXHIBIT A SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, effective this q~da o Y f.l~~ 2004, by the undersigned Brad Janicek, who maintains a mailing address of 4325 West Chinden, Meridian, ID 83642 and LouAnn Janicek, who maintains a mailing address of 1284 South Gosling, Eagle, ID 83616, hereafter referred to as "GRANTORS" for the benefit of the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation of the State of Idaho that maintains a mailing address of 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho 83642, hereafter referred to as "CITY". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantors desire to provide a sanitary sewer right-of-way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer is to be provided for through an underground pipeline to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain and service said pipeline from time to time by the CITY; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the Grantors, and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantors do hereby give, grant and convey unto the CITY the right-of-way for the permanent and temporary construction easements for the construction, operation and maintenance of a sanitary sewer line over and across the following described properly: (SEE ATTACHED LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS) The permanent easement hereby granted is for the purpose of construction and operation of a sanitary sewer line and allied facilities, together with maintenance, repair and replacement at the convenience of the CITY, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. The tem~orarv construction easement is for the purpose of construction of a sanitary sewer line and related incidental work. The temporary construction easement shall expire when the construction contract terminates at which time payment for the temporary construction easement will be sent by certified mail to the GRANTOR by the CITY. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the said permanent easement and right-of-way unto the said CITY, its successors and assigns forever. 1. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that the CITY, in constructing and in making future repairs, will expediently replace and restore the premises to a condition comparable to that existent prior to undertaking such construction, repairs and replacement. However, the CITY will not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring any permanent structures, large trees or brush placed within the area descrif~ed in - - --_--- - - SANI-TARIF SEWER fAiEMENfi ga a -fi o~3--------- -- --- ---------- • this easement. THE GRANTORS do hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, large trees or brush within the area described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herein. THE GRANTORS do hereby covenant with the CITY that they are lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that they have a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that they will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. -- --- ARY-EEVNER-EASEMENT, f~age ~ of ~----- - -- - _-- - _- - `. ~ ~ • 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and yeaz first hereinabove written. ~~/.../u~~i • •~•.•'~~~;G~~•'~1,~''•., GRANTOR ~: ~. . ~ ; ~,oT~~r s~~a * ~ ~~~ _ ~ STATL=.~JF~~HIB~~~ Brad Janice , ember, Janicek Properties LLC •, •• 0 ,; ~,t~~ •••• i',`o County of•AK~B p~ 19 ••••• ~q~gp~~p ON THIS ~ day of Public in and for said Sta a ersonall a m e Ye o befor me, a Notary P Y Ppeazed and known to me to be the manag or a member of the limited liability company that executed the instrument or the person who executed the instrument on behalf of said limited liability company and acknowledged to me that such limited liability company executed same, .. •,,///// /1/f/~~, . ,~••.•{~ ~~«R! ~r ~~y - NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO •• ~,~.• l y Commission Expires on $`' i ~.gOTq~ '~~ * ~•.~ ~ ~° GRANTOR N p~B L1C /~l~HO) Lo nn Ja k, Member, Janicek Properties LLC ss County of Ada ) ON THIS ~ day of in a yeaz o before me, a No Public in and for said S e, personally appeaze ~ known to me to be the manager r a member of the limited liability company that executed the instrument or the behalf of said limited liability company and acknowledged to me that such limitelnd bility n company executed tJie-,same. (/~/ - 1oTOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Commission Expires on /` BENEFICIARY: CITY OF MERIDIAN By Tammy de Weerd, Mayor ATTEST: William Berg, Jr., City Clerk Date approved by Council: - __ - - -_ _- SANtTARY SEWER-EASEMENT, Page 3 of 3 -- ----- - ---- - ----- ---- - ------- ..t !~ + • • ' ~~ J I~ B ~ .-~' Engineers Surveyors Planners Project: 11873 Grantor: Janacek Properties LLC Parcel: 3 Date: December 15, 2003 EASEMENT DESCRIPTION That portion of the South %z of the Northeast'/a of Section 15, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, as shown on the attached exhibit, and more particularly described as follows: A permanent easement lying 12.00 feet to the right and 20.E feet to the left of the following described line: Commeneing at the North'/a comer of Section 15, marked by a brass cap; thence along the Westerly boundary of the Northeast'/a of said section, Soutft lm°20'36° West, 1,337.89 feet to the POINT OF BEGtNNtNG; thence South 27°02'04° East, 212.59 feet; thence South 61 °30'16° East, 400.00 feet; thence South 61 ° 15'08° East, 400.00 feet; thence South 60° 56'07" East, 400.00 feet; thence South 61 ° 26'45° East, 400.00 feet; thence South 60° 55'36° East, 400.00-feet; thence South 60°31'50° East, 270:Q0 feet; thence South 61 ° 54'41" East, 135..59 feet to the POINT OF TERMINUS. The sidelines of this easement are to be lengthened or shortened to the parcel boundaries to form a closed figure. Containing 1.926 acres (83,889 square feet), more or less. TOGETHER WITH: A temporary easement 50.00 feet in width lying Southwesterly from and contiguously with the Southwesterly limits of the above-described permanent easement. Containing 2.867 acres (124,918 square feet), more or less. END OF DESCRIPTION r"7 ' ~:- - Prepared by: J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. Ronald M. Hodge, P.L.S. - RMH1mrc~lh~-- ----- ._ _-- - -- - - - _ -_ - - -- F:\ProjectlUanagers\PHK111873-Black Cat\11873-SurlDescriptionslESMT3.doc 857 ~Z"~s •a ~ ~ I OcZ// a~ 1 1 / I ~9 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 1 1-~-,J7 ~ '9~ 1 ~ q I ~ ~ I 1 ~ 1 1 ~/ I 1 / , 1 1 / r ~ ' 1 / ~ ~ ~- 1 I / WW 1 I / ~~Z I o ~ ~ZO ~ ~ / ~ o ~~~~~~ , ~ I / ~~a~orn 1 1 / ``' ° ~i~~b"~ I 1 / ~ a~zv~im 1 ~ / / o ~ iI I ~- , ~ 1 / ~ I ~ i o ~~~ ~, ~~ ,/ ~ e I I 1 I ~I / 2 i ^V~~ ~~ I ~ z' ~~e °- •~S 1 ~W Z < a~ ~ // ~~ ~ a , o ~ / .z, ,~ / ~ 1 // 1 ~ ~ 1 /~ ~ ' / I ~ e , / I / ~ o~ / ~~~ 1 / I I I 1 ,~ ,,~ / ~ 1 f~' 1 -- 1 ,68'L££L M,9£,OZ.OOS 91NN1938 ~0 1NIOd ~, May 19, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 6-.I REQUEST Approve Contract for Professional Services with Jim Cox for the Biosolids Improvement Project Review: 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 Memo /Contract Oy l " ~ Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • Ci ty of Mer idi an P ubl ic Wor ks D ept. Memo RECEI~i~E1~ MAY 1 ~ ZO~~ To: William Berg, Jr.; Tara Green From: Clint Dolsby, Staff Engineer CC: Len Grady, City Engineer Date: 5/18/2006 City of Meridian City Clerk Office Re: Proposed Agenda Item for May 23, 2006 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following items be placed on the May 23 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration. 1. Permanent a_nd Temporary Easement Contract for the Black Cat Phase 2 Sewer Project. A mod~catton to the permanent and temporary easement contract for Janicek Properties LLC that was approved by City Council on July 27, 2004 has been signed by Janicek Properties LLC for the construction of the sanitary sewer on their property south of Franklin Road and west of Ten Mile Road for this project. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves the modified permanent and temporary easement contract for the construction of the Black Cat Phase 2 Sewer on the property south of Franklin Road and west of Ten Mile Road for the landowner Janacek Properties LLC and authorize the Mayor to sign it. 2. Biosolids Improvement Project Review Jim Cox has agreed to a professional ~~., services contract for the review of the Biosolids Improvement Project. The work will be completed for $4,500. This is an extension of Section III of the purchasing policy for the City of Meridian that was approved by City Council on the 18"' of April, 2006. This project provides professional services for the review of the Biosolids Improvement Project. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves the contract for the professional services to review the Biosolids Improvement Project with Jim Cox for $4,500 and authorize the Mayor to sign lt. • Page 1 • • Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding any of these items. • Page 2 • ~ WORK CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Work Contract is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, hereinafter referred to as the "CITY", and the below named individual, hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR," Contractor Name Jim Cox Address 1305 E. Columbia Road City, State & Zip Code MERIDIAN, ID 83642 PURPOSE. This Work Contract sets forth the terms and conditions for occasional engineering consulting work to be performed by the CONTRACTOR, as directed by the CITY. SCOPE OF WORK. The CONTRACTOR will provide services and otherwise do all things necessary for or incidental to the performance of work, as set forth below: Complete a review of the Biosolids Improvement Project. The CITY will provide the current design documents for this project and other in, formation as necessary to complete the analysis. . PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE. Subject to other contract provisions, the period of performance under this Work Contract will be from 5/25/06 through 8/1/2006. COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT. CITY shall pay an amount not to exceed Four Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($4,500.00) for the performance of all things necessary for, or incidental to, the performance of work as set forth in the Scope of Work. CONTRACTOR'S compensation for services rendered shall be based on time and materials that will be billed to the City. CITY will pay CONTRACTOR upon receipt of properly completed invoices which shall be submitted to the CITY not more often than monthly. The invoices shall describe and document to the CITY'S satisfaction the amount and description of the work performed, the progress of the project, and fees. Payment shall be considered timely if made by the CITY within thirty (30) days after receipt of properly completed invoices. Payment shall be sent to the address designated by the CONTRACTOR. The CITY may, in its sole discretion, terminate the Work Contract or withhold payments claimed by the CONTRACTOR for services rendered if the CONTRACTOR fails to satisfactorily comply with any term or condition of this Work Contract. CITY shall make no payments in advance or in anticipation of services to be provided under this Work Contract. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: CONTRACTOR shall be deemed to be an independent contractor as a contracted consultant. CONTRACTOR shall not have mandatory duties except those imposed by this Agreement. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be regarded as creating any relationship (employer/employee, joint venture, partnership, or shareholder) between the parties other than the independent contractor relationship as set forth herein. ~ • CONTRACTOR is, and shall be treated by CITY as, an independent contractor (statutory non- employee) and not an employee for state, tax and for all other purposes. He will not be treated as an employee with respect to the services performed by his for federal tax purposes. CONTRACTOR hereby acknowledges that He has been advised by CITY that as an independent contractor (non-employee) affiliated with CITY. He is responsible for the payment of all his own federal income taxes and his own self-employment taxes (FICA), together with any and all corresponding state, county and local taxes, if any, and he hereby agrees to comply with those responsibilities. CONTRACTOR hereby waives any claims he has or may have against CITY now or in the future respecting such taxes or the right of CITY not to withhold, not to pay or not to contribute to such taxes on his behalf. CONTRACT MANAGEMENT. The Work Contract Manager for each of the parties shall be the contact person for all communications and billings regarding the performance of this Work Contract. Work Contract Manager for CONTRACTOR is: Work Contract Manager for CITY is: Contractor Jim Cox CLINT DOLSBY, P.E. Name: City Name: Address: 1305 E Columbia Road Address: 660 WATERTOWER PL City, State, MERIDIAN, ID 83642 City, State, MERIDIAN, ID 83642 Zip: Zip: ASSURANCES. CITY and the CONTRACTOR agree that all activity pursuant to this Work Contract will be in accordance with all the applicable current federal, state and local laws, rules, and regulations. ENTIIBE AGREEMENT. This Work Contract represents all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. No other understandings or representations, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Work Contract shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties hereto. APPROVAL. This Work Contract may be altered, amended, or waived only by a written amendment executed by both parties. This Work Contract is executed by the persons signing below, who warrant that they have the authority to execute the Work Contract. JIM COX TAMMY DE WEERD [CONTRACTOR] [CITY] Signature Signature MAYOR Title Date Title Date May 19, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. G-K REQUEST Approve Supplement Agreement with Civil Survey Consultants for Acquisition of Sewer Easements for ACHD Overland Road, Linder to Meridian Project: 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 properly of the City of Meridian. COMMENTS See AtFached Memo /Agreement Memo To: Will Berg; Tara Green From: Kyle Radek, P.E., Staff Engineer /~ CC: File R,ECEPir MAY 1 ~ 200b City of Meridian City Clerk ®ffice Date: May 18, 2006 Re: Proposed Agenda Item for May 23, 2005 City Council Meeting The Public Works Deparment respectfully requests the following item be placed on the May 23 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: Supplemental Aareement with Civil Survey Consultants Inc for Acquisition of Sewer Easements: This agreement covers the additional work necessary to perform surveys, title reports, properly owner negotiations, and document preparation to secure sewer easements which are needed for selecting a sewer design altemaWe for the sewer improvements associated with ACHD Overland Road, Linder to Meridian project. The estimated cost for these additional services is $7,745. Recommended Council Action: The Public WVorks Department recommends that City Council approves a Supplemental Agreement with Civil Survey Consultants, Inc. for Acquisition of Sewer Easements needed for selecting a design alternative for sewer improvements associated with ACHD Overland Road, Linder to Meridian project at a cost not to exceed $7,745 and authorizes the Mayor to sign it. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding any of these items. ~ Page 1 r~ U Glenn K. Bennett, P.L.S. President Timothy A. Burgess, P.E. Vice President n L~ Civil Survey Consultants, Inc. 100 South Adkins Way (208)88g-~312 Fax 888-0323 Suite 101 Meridian, Idaho 83642 May 15, 2006 Len Grrady, P.E. City Engineer City of Meridian 660 E. Watertower ,Ste. 200 Meridian, ID 83642 Re: Overland Road -Water and Sewer Improvements In Conjunction With ACRD Project -Additional Design Services Dear Len: As you requested, we have prepared a supplemental request to prepare and obtain easements for a future sewer main to be constructed across four private parcels along the south boundary of Interstate 84 east. The future sewer main will run from Linder Road to Stoddard Road. Civil Survey Consultants will perform field surveys anal obtain title reports as needed to prepare easement descriptions and exhibits. The City of Meridian will provide the width and location of the Easement. We will mail a copy of the easement description and exhibit to each properly owner, along with any required easement forms for execution. We will assume that this project is for the benefit of the property owner and as such the necessary easements will be granted for no cost. If a property owner requests payment for an easement we will forward that request to the City for approval. We propose to provide the additional Design Services as outlined above on a time and materials basis with a not to exceed amount of $7,745.00 without prior approval of the City of Meridian. Sincerely, C1VIL SURVEY CONSULTANTS, INC. Gr v Corey Peacock, P.E. • • May 19, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 6-L REQUEST Approve Reimbursement Agreement with Tuscany Development, Inc., for construction of oversized sewer through Tuscany Lakes, Tuscany Village, Glacier Springs, Messina Village and Messina Hills subdivisions: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: See Attached Memo /Agreement Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • ~ RECEIVED MA'x` 3 1 2D~i+~ City Of Meridiayn City Clerk Office Memo To: Will Berg; Tara Green From: Kyle Radek, P.E., Staff Engineer ~~C C~: File Date: 5/31/06 Re: Reimbursement Agreement with Tuscany Development Attached is the original above referenced document for your files. w Page 1 • AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT made this ~ day of ,/CIA-y ,20 G(p , by and between the CITY OF MERIDIAN, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called CITY, and Tuscany Development, Inc., hereinafter called DEVELOPER.: WITN,~SSETH: WHEREAS, DEVELOPERowns land inside the corporate limits o£ the City of Meridian.and has constructed a sanitary sewer system to their serve them projects as shown on Exhibit "A" and .has requested reimbursement for certain portions of the sanitary sewer system; WHEREAS, upon recommendation of the Public Works Department, the Council of CITY accepted and approved the proposal ofDEVELOPER subject to all conditions hereinafter provided by this Agreement. NOV6~ THETtEFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, it is agreed: A. Preparation of Plans. DEVELOPER has prepared plans and specifications, drawings, utstructions, bid proposal and all other contract documents for the construction and in. al]aticm of sanitary sewer system,. shown onExhibit "A", includingrights-of way,. grades and elevation, and materials used in the construction and installation of said trunk sanitary sewer lines. B. Construgtion of Sanitgry Sewer Truialc Lines. (1) DEVELOPER has installed and constructed the sanitary sewer system and appurtenances as shown on Exhibit "A", subject to the conditions hereinafter provided. (2} DEVELOPER has provided all engineering, surveying, contract administration, permanent and temporary construction easements for the construction of the sanitary sewer system described on Exhibit "A". (3) DEVELOPER has provided all testing, sampling and other normally conducted quality controUquality insurance of installed systems. {3) CITY has provided inspection services for the construction of the sanitary sewer system described on Exhibit "A". C. Lettin~Bids. DEVELOPER has solicited bids and published requests for bid proposals for construction of the sanitary sewer system from at ]east three {3) properly licensed public work contractors. DEVELOPER awarded the constnrction.to the lowest responsible bidder after obtaining concurrence from CITY of low bidder. Page 1 of S • D. DEVELOPER and CT~Y Responsibylitty for Costs. Because the DEVELOPER has constructed additional sanitary sewer improvements, as shown on Exhibit "A", at the request of the CITY, it is mutually agreed that the cost of those sanitary sewer improvements will be shared as contained in Exhibit `B." It shall be the responsibility of the DEVELOPER to provide L00% o£the financing of the project with reimbursement from the CITY in accordance with Section E of this agreement "Reimbursement to DEVELOPER." E. REIlI~BURSEMENT to DEVELOPER. Because the DEVELOPER has installed, constXUCted and erected sanitary sewer system as shown on Exhibit "A", the CIT`X sha11 reunburse to the DEVELOPER that portion of the cost attributable to other development, which is 89 4 by refunding $ 604 of the assessment fee collected by City in accordance with the City Ordinances 9-1-13 and 9- 4-19 in effect at the tune of this agreement. The CITY will make an audit of this agreement on a quarterly basis, beginning on the date of this agreement, and reimburse the DEVELOPER in accordance with this agreement from. the assessment fees collected during. the audit period for the DEVELOPERS projects as shown on Exhibit "A". F. Term off' Agreement. Payments shall continue under this agreement until DEVELOPER is fully reimbursed or for a period not to exceed ten (10) year from the date of execution of this agreement by CITY. G. S ~ Sewer Lines on DEVELOPER'S Property. As a condition for CITY entering this Agreement, DEVELOPER has or will: Submit to inspection by either the Public Works Department or the Building Department of CITY whenever a building is to be connected to the sanitary sewer system constructed and installed on and within. its property. H. Cost of Sanitary Sewer Line on DEVELOPER'S Property. A11 costs and expenses, including the construction, engineering, advertising, clerical and legal and all licenses and permits which may be required for the construction and installation of the sanitary sewer system upon and within DEVELOPER'S property, shall be at DEVELOPER'S sole expense. This condition specifically excludes the CTTY'S share of the sanitary sewer system on Exhibit "A". I. Compliance with Laws. (1) In constructing and installing the saaitary sewer. systemwithin_its. propertyt DEVELOPER, at its sole expense, shall comply with laws, orders and regulations of Federal, State and Municipal authorities and at its sole expense shall obtain all licenses or permits which maybe required for the performance of this Agreement. Page 2 of $ o • (2) Upon connection to the sanitary sewer system, DEVELOPER agrees to abide by all applicable City laws, rules and regulations pertaining to sanitary sewer systems. J. Indemiufication and Insurance. DEVELOPER shall indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY from and far any and all losses, claims, actions, judgments for damages, or injury to persons or property and losses and expenses caused or incurred by DEVELOPER, its"servants, agents, employees, guest, and business invitees, and nat caused by or arising out of tortuous conduct of CITY ar its employees. K. Na Assignment. DEVELOPER shall not assign any portion of this Agreement or any privilege here under, either voluntarily or involuntarily, without the prior written consent of the CITY, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. L. Definition of DEVELOPER'S Prolrerty. The tern "DEVELOPER'S PROPERTY" in the Agreement shall mean the pazcels described on Exhibit "A°' attached hereto. and more specifically as all lots within Messina Village, Messina Hills, Tuscany Lakes, Tuscany Village, Glacier Springs, and the future Messina Meadows subdivisions. M. Binding_Effect. An executed copy of this document shall be recorded in the office of the Ada County Recorders and is an Encumbrance which shall be binding upon all of DEVELOPER'S assigns, ar successors in interest to said property. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties shall cause this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers the day anvil yeaz first above written. Page 3 of 8 • STATE OF TDAHQ ) ss County of Ada ) On this / ~ day of /'Y? Q eat 0 a before me: the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, ersonally appeared ~e '~ 1+~ sow- and ,known or identified to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that they executed the same. IN ~VIT`NESS WI~EREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first shoves written. _ ~ ~~ •~w~~urq~~r N Fublic For Idaho -'.~`~~1ti4"r..•~~ ~~ ~`','•. Residing at: X14° r i ~ ~ G •~ ~~U . ~',• .{'~ . Commission ]Sxpires: ~ ~~ Q ~ • . • ti ~ ± ~ +•s p a a o* ~f~S~'j''1G ~ O d° ~ 1.` - MAYO `~~~, : <<: i ~ i : r r, ~ t,,,. _• ~ij~v B~r~l ~i C'/,~ j C¢~%+~c~ ``fit ATTEST: ~ T~,~ _= _ ~~ w ,. CITY CLERK ~ -~ ,~Ca STATE OF IDAHO ) ~,,,, ~ '~`~'" ~.~ ) ss .,r ~` t~ ~ ~ ~ ,• ~„~ ,'~ County of Ada ) ~~'~~,, ~ gy>'' ~~ r,rrirrr~rc s:ac4~aaati. On dais day of (~,(,~ ~ ,before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally a TAMMY DE WEERD and WILLIAM G. BERG, JR, known to me to be The Mayor and City Clerk of the City of ]Meridian, Idaho, who executed the within ins~vment and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHER1rOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixeM my official seal the day and year first above written. (SEA ~~ ~~~~ Notary Public For Idaho Residing at: d'~"lk.~,.~(ra_, ~ _ Commissiont Expires: 7 D "'%S-1 I' __ Page 4 of 8 ~319Y3 i Q ~~ (n J ~ J ~5 ... ~ I:i..l ~ U.~ _ ,c[ CC . , . ~+. '- J 4. i ~ ~ yi i in :. N Z Q H ~ (/? ~ ~ W (1'~ J ~ ~ W ~ ~ •ct ~ ~ (%j ~ LJ ~ ~. L~.1 ~ ~ CY_ ~ F-- tt_ W e, .. .. ~ N U Y ~ , ~~ ~ ~ ~' ~ 3na~p ,~srr~o7 ~ a ., L_!_.I Z ! ~ E~~;<t B TUSCANY DEVELCIPMENT OVERSIZED SEWER ANALYSES Oversized Sewer Through Tuscan~st Lakes #1, Tuscany Villas®. and Glacier Sarinas Depth Unit Reimburse Reimburse Item an a Quantity ice Total % $ 27" Sewer 28' -'24' 60 $83.00 $4,980.00 72.3 $3,600.54 27" Sewer 24' - 20' 628 $76.00 $47,728.00 70.1 $33,457.33 2T' Sewer 20' -16' 3139 $83.00 $197,757.00 68.5 $135,463.55 24" Sewer 20' -16' 920 $52.00 $47,840.00 63.5 $30,378.40 15" Sewer 28'-24' 45 $52.00 $2,340.00 60.3 $1,411.02 15" Sewer 24' - 20' 40 $46.00 $1,840.00 55.8 $1,026.72 15" Sewer 20' -18' 644 $38.00 $24,472.00 52.1 $12,749.91 15" Sewer 16' -12' 1067 $32.00 $34,144.00 42.5 $14,511.20 15" Sewer 16' -12' 396 $32.00 $12,672.00 42.5 $5,385.60 15" Sewer 12' - 8' 290 $25.00 $7,250.00 39.5 $2,863.75 10" Sewer 20` -16' 432 $31.00 $13,392.00 36.1 $4,834.51 60" Manhole 28' - 24' 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 72.3 $2,675.10 60" Manhole 24' - 20` 2 $3,300.00 $6,600.00 63.5 $4,191.00 60" Manhole 20' -16' 19 $2,800.00 $53,200.00 68.5 $36,442.00 36" Casing 20' -16' 60 $130.00 $7,800.00 63.5 $4,953.00 Subtotal 7661 LF $465,715.00 $293,943.63 Oversized Sower Through M ins ViIIR~_e_#2._Messina Hills #2. Messina Hills #3. and T. L. #2 15" Sewer 24' - 20' 1640 $46.00 $75,440.00 55.8 $42,095.52 15" Sewer 20' -16' 2631 $38.00 $99,978.00 52.1 $52,088.54 60" Manhole 24' - 20' 9 $3,300.00 $29,700.00 55.8 $16,572.60 60" Manhole 20' -16' 14 $2,800.00 $39,200.00 52.1 $20,423.20 24" Casing 20' -16' 120 $124.00 $14,880.00 52.1 $7,752.48 Subtotal 4271 LF $259,198.00 $138,932.34 Oversized Se wer T rough Me ssina Village #1 15" Sewer 20' -16' 351 $38.00 $13,338.00 52.1 $6,949.10 15" Sewer 16' -12' 492 $32.00 $15,744.00 42.5 $6,691.20 60" Manhole 20' -16' 1 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 52.1 $1,458.80 Subtotal 843 LF $31,882.00 $15,099.10 Page 6 of 8 Exhibit $, continued TUSCANY DEVELOPMENT OVERST~ED SEWER ANALYSES ersized Sewer Through. Tuscany Lakes #3 24" Sewer 20' -18' 343.7 $62.25 $21,395.33 64.6 $13,821.38 24" Sewer 22' - 20' 419.6 $62.25 $26,120.10 65.7 $17,160.99 60" Manhole 20' -18' 2 $3,645.00 $7,290.00 64.6 $4,709.34 60" Manhole 22' - 20' 2 $3,645.00 $7,290.00 65.7 $4,789.53 Cleanout 22' - 20' 1 $1,573.00 $1,573.00 65.7 $1,033.46 Subtotal 763.3 LF $63,668.43 $41,514.62 TOTAL 13,538 LF $820,463.43 $488,489.6$ Prepared By: NFattttewSchulta, P.E. Date: 2!9/2006 Page 7 of 8 EXhibxt "C" Reimbursement Payment Schedule SUBDMSION Released for Permit Release Date Lod Pre 1/1/05 1/1/05 to 5/1/06 Permits to be issued after 5/1/06 Bellin ham #1 not read et 52 0 0 52 Bellin ham #2 not read et 35 0 0 35 Chatsworth 12/15/2005 72 0 38 34 Glacier S rin s 4/26/2005 51 0 49 2 Kin sbrid a not read et 53 0 0 53 Kin sbrid a not read et 50 0 0 50 Messina Meadows not read et 310 0 0 310 Messina (Hills #1 9/13/2003 80 58 0 0 Messina Bills #2 3/1/2005 88 0 83 3 Messina Qiilis #3 10/21/2005 91 0 76 15 Messina Vill a #1 6/24/2004 52 51 1 0 Messina ~Ila a #2 6/24/2004 49 41 7 1 Pisa Place not read et 16 0 0 16 Rose/eaf #1 1/24/2005 54 0 53 1 Roseleaf #2 9/29/2005 40 0 32 8 Sa eland 2/4/2005 41 0 38 3 Tuscan Lakes #1 2/2/20 54 27 26 1 Tuscan Lakes #2 1/4!2006 42 0 35 7 Tuscan Lakes #3 not read et 30 0 0 30 Tuscan Villa a #1 9/17/2004 86 20 48 0 Tuscan Vflla #2 8/9/2005 70 0 68 2 Totals: 1374 197 552 823 Available portion of sewer assessment fee for reimbursement: $477,00 $804.00 'Total Eligibl® far Reimbursement: $283,304 $378,292 Tuscanv Dev.. Inc. Proiects Only Messina, et al 648 150 187 329 Tuscany, et al ~, ~ 262 47 175 40 Total Lots: 910 197 342 369 $163,134 $222, 876 Total Reimbursement 5489,480 Immediate Reimbursement 5263,304 Portion from Tusc. Dev. Inc. projects: $163,134 Amount from "outer" projects: ;rr100,170 5/1 /06 Balance to be Reimbursed (quarterly evaluation): $226,186 * Figure shown indicates total amount of all projected assessment fees available for reimbursement to applicable sewer projects. Figure does not represent total reimbursement due to only Tuscany Development, inc. Page 8 of 8 i Memo To: Will Berg; Tara Green From: Kyle Radek, P.E., Staff Engineer ~l~ CC: File C~ ~C~ MAY 1 ~ 200b City of 11Reridiant City Clem Offie® Date: May 18, 2006 Re: Proposed Agenda Item for May 23, 2005 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following item be placed on the May 23 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: Reimbursement Agreement between the City of Meridian and Tuscanv Development Inc. This agreement reimburses the Tuscany Lakes, Inc. for construction of oversized sewer through Tuscany Lakes, Tuscany ~Ilage, Glacier Springs, Messina ~Ilage, and Messina Hills subdivisions. The total reimbursement is $489,490. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves the Reimbursement Agreement between the City of Meridian and Tuscany Development, Inc for a total reimbursement of $489,490 and authorizes the Mayor to sign it. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding any of these items. • Page 1 AGREEMENT ~~ THIS AGREEMENT made this day of ,20 , by and between the CITY OF MERIDIAN, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called CITY, and Tuscany Development, Inc., hereinafter called DEVELOPER: WITNESSETH: ~, DE.VEL!QPER owns land inside. the corporate limits. of the City of Meridian. and has constructed a sanitary sewer system to their serve their projects as shown on Exhibit "A" and has requested reimbursement for certain portions of the sanitary sewer system; WHEREAS, upon recommendation of the Public Works Department, the Council of CITY accepted and approved the proposal of DEVELOPER subject to all conditions hereinafter provided by this Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, it is agreed: A. Preparation of Plans. DEVELOPER has prepared plans and specifications, drawings, instructions, bid proposal and all other contract documents for the construction and installation_of sanitary sewer system,..shown.onrExhihit "A", in .1»c~ina ris~ht_c-of ~ray> grades and elevation, and materials used in the construction and installation of sand trunk sanitary sewer lines. B. Construction of Sanitary Sewer Trunk Lines. (1) DEVELOPER has installed and constructed. the sanitary sewer system and appurtenances as shown on Exhibit "A", subject to the conditions hereinafter provided. (2) DEVELOPER has provided all engineering, surveying, contract administration, permanent and temporary construction easements for the construction of the sanitary sewer system described on Exhibit "A". (3) DEVELOPER has provided all testing, sampling and other normally conducted quality controUquality inciman~e of installed systems. (3) CITY has provided inspection services for the construction of the sanitary sewer system described. on Exhibit "A". C. Lettin.g_Bids. DEVELOPER has solicited bids and published requests for bid proposals for construction of the sanitary sewer system from at least three (3) properly licensed public work contractors. DEVELOPER_ awarded the construction. to the lowest responsible bidder after obtaining concurrence from CTTY of low bidder. Page 1 of S • D. DEVELOPER arnl CITY Resuonsibility for Costs. Because the DEVELOPER has constructed additional sanitary sewer improvements, as shown on Exhibit "A", at the request of the CITY, it is mutually agreed that the cost of those sanitary sewer improvements will be shared as contained in Exhibit `B." It shall be the responsibility of the DEVELOPER. to provide L00°la of tb,e fin n "ins of the. praj~ect with. reimbursement from the CITY in accordance with Section E of this agreement "Reimbursement to DEVELOPER" E. REIMBURSEMENT to DEVELOPER. Because the DEVELOPER has installed, constructed and erected sanitary sewer system as shown on Exhibit "A", the CITY shall reimburse to the DEVELOPER that portion of the cost attn'butable to other development, which is 489 490 by iefimding $ 604 of the assessment fee collected by City in accordance with the City Ordinances 9-1-13 and 9- 4-19 in effect at the time of this agreement. The CITY will make an audit of this agreement on a quarterly basis, beginning on the date of this agreement, and reimburse the DEVELOPER in accordance with this agreement. fI'~Illthe accPCCment fee.S Collected duringthe audit period for the DEVELOPERS projects as shown on Exhibit "A". F. Term of Agreement. Payments shall continue under this agreement until DEVELOPER is fully reimbursed or for a period not to exceed ten (10) year from the date of execution of this agreement by CITY. G. Sanitary Sewer Lines on DEVELOPER'S Pro~rty. As a condition for CITY entering this Agreemen, DEVELOPER has or will: Submit to inspection_by either the Public Works Department or the Bni1~ Department of CITY whenever a building is to be connected to the sanitary sewer system constructed and installed on and within. its property. H. Cost of Sanitary Sewer Line on DEVELOPER' S Pro~ertX. All costs and expenses, including the construction; engineering, advertising, clerical and legal and all licenses and permits which may be required for the construction and installation of the sanitary sewer system upon and within DEVELOPER'S property, shall be at DEVELOPER'S sole expense. This condition specifically excludes the CITY'S share of the sanitary sewer system on Exhibit "A". I. Co~liance with Laws. (1) In. constructing and v~ the sanitary sewer system.. within. its. pmpexty, DEVELOPER, at its sole expense, shall comply with laws, orders and regulations of Federal, State and Municipal authorities and at its sole expense shall obtain all licenses or permits which may be required for the performance of this Agreement. Page 2 of 8 • (2} Upon connection to the sau-itary sewer system, IEVELOPER agrees to abide by all applicable City laws, rules and regulations pertaining to sanitary sewer systems. J. Indemn;fisatinn and Insurance. DEVELOPER shall indemnify and save and hold harmless CITY from and for any and all losses, claims, actions, judgments for damages, or injury to persons or property and losses and expenses caused or incanted by DEVELOPER, its servants, agents, employees, guest, and business invitees, and not caused by or arising out of tortuous conduct of CITY or its employees. K. No Assi ent. DEVELOPER shall not assign any portion of this Agreement or any priv~ege here under, either voIuntar~Ty or involuntary, without the prior written consent of the CITY, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld. L. Definition of DEVELOPER'S Prouerty. The term "DEVELOPER'S PROPERTY" in the Agreement shall mean the parcels described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto. and more specifically as all lots wit]un Messina Village, Messina Hills, Tuscany Lakes, Tuscany Village, Glacier Springs, and the firiure Messina lO~Ieadows subdivisions. M. Binding Effect. An executed copy of this document shall be recorded in the affi.ce of the Ada. County Recorders and is an Encumbrance which shall be binding upon all of DEVELOPER'S assigns, or successors in interest to said property. IN WTFATES~ W~IEREOF, the parties shall cause this Agreement to be executed by their duly authorized officers the day a~i yeaz first above written. Page 3 of 8 STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada ) On this / ~ day of /1~ ~•. ~, before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, ersonally appeared ;- r-e~ ?O ~, *, s®„ .and ,known or identified to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that they executed. the same. IN WITNESS ~VI~EREOF, I have hereunto set my head and affixed my o€fieial seal the day and year first above written. 'a ,~' a"~ OT AR I' ~~ p • ~ ~! i ~ 0(5~~,~1G . m ~.aa s m °® ,~ ®®® ®ese~a'~o ®®° ®~ .?' •®awso ~- pmo E OF ° No Public For Idaho Residing at: Y~'1 ~ r. ~. i a •. ~ Commission Expires: ~~ ~ MAYOR ATTEST: STATE OF IDAHO ) ss County of Ada ) CITY CLERK On this day of , before me the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared TAMMY DE WEERD and ~WII,LIAM G. BERG, JR, known to me to be The Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Idaho, who executed the within instrument and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN FITNESS THEREOF, I have hereuata set my hand and armed m3' official seal the day aad yeas first above written. Notary Public For Idaho Residing at: Commission Expires:- (SEAL) Page 4 of 8 3'i9V3 ----- - -- ' _ ~ •• P V / ~ o ---- I Q w ~ ~ Q w ' i ~ Q J ~ ~ ~ ~ ' w -I Q W .~, , ~ ~ Q \ -~- w z ~. ' ~ ~- ^ ~. Q ~ ~ ~•. ~ J ~ w z W w = ~ ' ~ ~ .. ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ `- ~ W ~ T _L '~ ~• N ~ ~ ~ z W ~ ~w Q ~ ~ U ~ ~• ~ / ~ V J N .~.TiiS. i~iiiSTiii'. ~ • 3noao lsr~~ ~ , N ~ . ~, O ^^ /~ ~ w ` r r^^ ~ V w I Q z U - ~ : - ~ - ~ Q I- J LL r^ v ~ N ~ iA ~- ~ ~ .~ ~ k ~• __ - - - Ezhibit B TUSCANY DEVELOPMENT OVERSIZED SEWER ANALYSIS Oversized Sewer Through Tuscany Lakes #1. Tuscany Village. and Glacier Springs Depth Unit Reimburse Reimburse Item Ran a Quanti Price Total % ~ 27" Sewer 28' - 24' 60 $83.00 $4,980.00 72.3 $3,600.54 27" Sewer 24' - 20' 628 $76.00 $47,728.00 70.1 $33,457.33 27" Sewer 20' -16' 3139 $63.00 $197,757.00 68.5 $135,463.55 24" Sewer 20' -16' 920 $52.00 $47,840.00 63.5 $30;378.40 15" Sewer 28` - 24' 45 $52.00 $2,340.00 60.3 $1,411.02 15" Sewer 24' - 20' 40 $46.00 $1,840.00 55.8 $1,026.72 15" Sewer 20' -16' 644 $38.00 $24,472.00 52.1 $12,749.91 15" Sewer 16' -12' 1067 $32.00 $34,144.00 42.5 $14,511.20 15" Sewer 16' -12' .396 $32.00 $12,672A0 42.5 $5,385.60 15" Sewer 12' - 8' 290 $25.00 $7,250.00 39.5 $2,863.75 10" Sewer ZO' -16' 432 $31.00 $13,392.00 36.1 $4,834.51 60" Manhole 28' - 24' 1 $3,700.00 $3,700.00 72.3 $2,675.10 60" Manhale 24'-20' 2 $3,300.00 $6,600.00 63.5 $4,191.00 60" Manhole 20' -16' 19 $2,800.00 $53,200.00 68.5 $36,442.00 36" Casing 20' -16' 60 $130.00 $7,800.00 63.5 $4,953.00 Subtotal 7661 LF $465,715.00- $293,943.63 Oversized Sewer Through Messina Vllage #2. Messina Hills #2. Messina Hills #3. and T. L. #2 15" Sewer 24' - 20' 1640 $46.00 $75,440.00 55.8 $42,095.52 15" Sewer 20' -16' 2631 $38.00 $99,978.00 52.1 $52,088.54 60" Manhole 24' - 20' 9 $3,300.00 $29,700.00 55.8 $16,572.60 60" Manhole 20' -16' 14 $2,800.00 $39,200.00 52.1 $20,423.20 24" Casing 20' -16' 120 $124.00 $14,880.00 52.1 $7,752.48 Subtotal 4271 LF $259,198.00 Oversized Sewer Through Messina Village #1 15" Sewer 20' -16' 351 $38.00 $13,338.00 52.1 15" Sewec 16' -12' 492 $32.00 $15,744.00 42.5 60" Manhole 20' -16' 1 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 52.1 $138,932.34 $6,949.10 $6,691.20 $1,458.80 Subtotal 843 LF $31,882.00 $15,099.10 Page 6 of 8 • • Ezhibi# B, continued TUSCANY DEVELOPMENT OVERSIZED SEWER ,ANALYSIS Oversized Sewer Through Tuscany Lakes #3 24" Sewer 20' -18' 343.7 $62.25 $21,395.33 64.6 $13,821.38 24" Sewer 22' - 20' 419.6 $62.25 $26,120.10 65.7 $17,160.91 60" Manhole 20' -18' 2 $3,645.00 $7,290.00 64.6 $4,709.34 60" Manhole 22' - 20' 2 $3,645.00 $7,290.00 65.7 $4,789.53 Cleanout 22' - 20' 1 $1,573.00 $1,573.00 65.7 $1,033.46 Subtotal 763.3 LF $63,668.43 $41,514.62 TOTAL 13,53$ LF $820,463.43 $4$9,4$9.68 PreRarert By: Matttrew Schultz, R.E. Date: 2/9/2006 Page 7 of 8 • Exhibit "C" Reimbursement Payment Schedule SUBDMSIOId Released for Permit Release Date Lots Pre 111/05 1/1/05 to 5/1/08 Permits to be issued after 5/1/06 Bel(in ham #1 not read et 52 0 0 52 Bellin ham #2 not read et 35 0 0 35 Chatsworth 12/15/2005 72 0 38 34 Glacier S rin s 4/26/2005 51 0 49 2 Kn sbrid a not read et 53 0 0 53 Kin sbrid a not read et 50 0 0 50 Messina Meadows not read et 310 0 0 310 Messina Hills #1 9/13/2003 60 58 0 0 Messina Hills #2 3/1/2005 86 0 83 3 Messina Hills #3 10/21/2005 91 0 76 15 Messina villa a #1 6/24/2004 52 51 1 0 Messina Villa a #2 6/24/2004 49 41 7 1 Pisa Place not read et 16 0 0 16 Roseleaf #1 1/24/2005 54 0 53 1 Roseleaf #2 9/29/2005 40 0 32 8 Sa eland 2/4/2005 41 0 38 3 uscan Lakes #1 2/2/2004 54 27 26 1 Tuscan Lakes #2 1/4/2006 42 0 35 7 Tuscan Lakes #3 not read et 30 0 0 30 Tuscan -Villa a #1 9/17/2004 66 20 46 0 Tuscan Villa a #2 6/9!2005 70 0 68 2 I otals: 1374 197 552 623 Available portion of sewer assessment fee for reimbursement: $4.77.00 $604.00 *Total Eligible for Reimbursement $263,304 $376,292 Tuscany Dev.. Inc. Projects Only Messina, et al 648 150 167 329 Tuscany, et al 262 47 175 40 Total Lots: 910 197 342 369 - $163,134 $222,876 Total Reimbursement: $489,480 Immediate Reimbursement $263,304 Portion from Tusc. Devi. Inc. projects: $183,134 Amount froFn "other" pr-ojects: $1 OQ, 470 5/1/06 Balance to be Reimbursed (quarterly evaluation): $226,186 * Figure shown indicates total amount of all projected assessment fees available for reimbursement to applicable sewer projects. Figure does not represent total reimbursement due to only Tuscany Development, Inc. Page 8 of ff r: May 19, 2006 CJ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 6-M REQUEST Approve Contract with A.M.E. Electronics, Inc. for Power and Radio Installation at three PRV Sites: 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: COMMENTS See Attached dVlemo /Contract ~O ~ Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • Memo To: Will Berg; Tara Green From: Kyle Radek, P.E., Staff Engineer CC: File Date: May 18, 2006 Re: Proposed Agenda Item for May 23, 2005 City Council Meeting RECEIVER ~IAY ~ 8 200b City of Meridian City Clerk Office The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following item be placed on the February 7 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: Power and Radio Installation at 3 PRV Sites: Three contractors evaluated construction plans for this project. Only one bid (attached) was received from A.M.E. Electric, Inc. for $25,817.61. Public Works believes that the bid is a reasonable price for this work. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves a contract with A.M.E. Electric, Inc. for Power and Radio Installation at 3 PRV Sites for a cost of $25,517.61 and authorizes the Mayor to sign it Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding any of these items. • Page 1 • Russell Steadman A.M.E. ELECTRIC, INC. Commercial-Industrial PfO~ nna"a~r~ern~o~ 3621 ARTHUR ST. Municipal-Residential CALDWELL, IDAHO 83605-6058 (208) 459-8959 FAX (208) 459-2243 May 16, 2006 PUBLIC WORKS LICENSE # 11544-B-4 (16000) IDAHO CONTRACTOR LICENSE #C2854 KYLE RADEK CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC WORKS MERIDIAN, ID. 83642 Ref: Power installation at three PRV sites and radio at one site per the plans A.M.E. ELECTRIC PROPOSAL #606-106 A.M.E. Electric, Inc. is pleased to present this proposal for your review and consideration. INCLUDED• 5~` and Jamaica • Trenching installation of conduit and wire from PRV vault to j-box located next to Idaho Power j-box. • New j-box, inline fusing, Rockwell 1606-XLPSOE power supply • Backfill and repaving • Landscape and sprinkler repair • Removal of existing solaz panels and batteries to be returned to the City of Meridian • ACHD permits • Electrical permit INCLUDED: Franklin and Tonchmark Boring of conduit and wire from Median to new j-box located by Idaho Power J-box if conditions allow • Terminate existing conduits in J-boxes + Provide wire, inline fusing, Rockwell 1606-XLPSOE power supply, ELPRO 905U-2 Radio, YAGI YU6/900 antenna, cabling and polyphaser lightning arrestor. • Installation of all material _ , • ~ Landscape and sprinkler repair • ACRD Permits • Electrical permit INCLUDEDa Arrowwood and Ustiok • Intercepting and installing j-box in existing conduit • New j-box, inline fusing, Rockwell 1606-XLPSOE power supply • Landscape and sprinkler repair • Removal of existing solar panels and batteries to be returned to the City of Meridian • Electrical permit NOT INCLUDED AT ANY SITE: • Idaho Power Fees • Programming of ELPRO radio or SCADA TOTAL -PRICE AS DETAILED ..................:.........................$25,817.61 A.M.E. Electric, Inc. appreciates this opportunity and we strive to earn your future business. Should you have any questions, or require any additional information please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, Russell Steadman Estimator May 19, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT Parks Department ITEM NO. 6-N REQUEST Approve Bid Award for Adventure Island Splash Pad to Recreation Idaho, Inc.: 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 Attached Memo /Letter r~ ~~ {'4 ~ ~ ~, 7 ~ y v' ~ ° ~~_ti~~ i.~' :~ %~ 4 h . ~ t R r~ ~ , re 1. ~.~; Memo EC~~v~~ MAY 1 B 2066 City of Meridian To: Mayor and City Council City Clem ®ffice CC: Will Berg From: Doug Strong /V Date: Ma 18 2006 ~ Y Re: Adventure Island Splash Pad: Equipment Purchase Bids The Parks and Recreation Department respectfully requests the following item to be placed on the May 23, 2006 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: Adventure Island Splash Pad: Equipment Purchase three bids were received for this equipment as summarized below. • Great Western Park & Playground -Wellsville, UT .............$97,779.00 • Play Space Designs Inc. -Salt Lake City, UT .................. $113,631.00 • Recreation Idaho Inc. -Meridian, ID ............................. $135,475.00 The equipment consists of water play components, activator(s), controller, manifold, valve box, re-circulation system, and drains. After evaluating the three products we have found that they differ from the project bid documents in several areas. Attached is the break down from the Land Group of the three products and their compliance to the actual project bid documents. Upon completion of the evaluation Recreation Idaho, Inc. Water Odyssey was the only one compliant with what the project bid documents required. Recommended Council Action: The Parks and Recreation Deparhnent recommends that the City Council approve the Adventure Island Splash Pad equipment purchase bid from Recreation Idaho, Inc for $135,475.0, and the Mayor to sign it. Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding any of these items. • May 17, 2~6 Doug Strong Parks and Recreation Director Re: Adventure Island Splash Pad: Equipment Purchase Dear Doug, Our office has reviewed the three bids which were received for the Adventure Island Splash Pad: Equipment Purchase Bid. We have evaluated the three products and have found that they differ from the project Bid Documents in the following areas: Great Western: RainDrop 1. Water play components are made of fiber glass. Water components shall be made of stainless steel per Appendix'A'. Fiber glass is not an approved equal to stainless steel. Z. Vendor did not provide warranty information as required per Addendum No. 1, Item 1.01. 3. Water play components were not themed to match the theme as indicated in Appendix `A'. The vendor has components in the catalog that would match the theme that were not specified in the bid provided. 4. Vendor is unable to provide wireless communication for the activators and controllers per Appendix `A'. Vendor is specifying hard wire connection. PSI y~ace Design: Vorte~c 5, Vortex controllers are warranted for (2) years per the bid submittal received. Bid Documents require (3) year warranty for controllers. 6. Water play components were not themed to match the theme as indicated in Appendix 'A'. The vendor has components in the catalog that would match the theme that were not specified in the bid provided. 7. Vendor is unable to provide wireless communication for the activators and controllers per Appendix'A'. Vendor is specifying hard wire connection. Recreation Idaho: Water Odyssey 8. Compliant It is our professional opinion that the Vortex product is equal if they will negotiate to be compliant to items 5 and 6 above. Your office should review the bid submissions to determine which product meets your needs and to make a final decision. Please contact our office with any questions. Thank you, Matthew T. Adams, ASLA ~ ~ o Nv ' D m o , ~` ~ ~ 3 ~~ a ~ ~ a ~n ~ ~ ~~ o a f ~ ~ . ~ . _;. ~. 3 ~. ao ~°- a ? ~ m U~ O c. ~ ~ 3 ~ z -v m ~ - c ~° m ~ mZ,-n,,~ c ~ ~Z ~~ ~ t ~ ~~ . °* ~ 3 . ao ~ ~ ~ m ~ '~ 'O ~ o C c ~ ~ '0 ~ _ ~~A ~' ~ . ~ - ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~O tt0 ~I ld ~IIIII~E May 19, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 6-O REQUEST Approve Access Easement between the City of Meridian and ACHD on Lot 21 of the Amended Plat of Block 1 of the Townsite of Meridian (55 East Broadway) requsted as a condition of the Creamery Alley Vacation AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed~ COMMENTS See Previous Item Packet /Easement See Attached Email Date: Phone: • ~iuii uuncaw. Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. . • Page 1 of 1 Sharon Smith From: Ted Baird Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 11:23 AM To: Will Berg; Sharon Smith Subject: The ACRD Easement for Consent Agenda Did you get the word that the ACHD easement for access through the City parking lot is back on consent for next week? ACRD has approved it, so we need to get council approval. Let me know if you need another copy. Thanks. 5/19/2006 ADA COUNTY RECORDER J. DAVID NAVARRO AMOUNT .00 BOISE IDAHO OF~26/06 01:~ PM RECORDED nREQUEST I g ~I I I' ~I ~~ ~'~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ Ada County Highway Dlst 106083740 PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT THIS PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT (the "Easement"), is made and entered into this ~ day of , 2006, by and between The City of Meridian, an Idaho Municipal Corporation, reinafter referred to as "Grantor," and the ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT, a body politic and corporate of the State of Idaho, hereinafter referred to as "ACRD." WITNESSETH: FOR GOOD AND SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION, IT IS AGREED: SECTION 1. Recitals. 1.1 Grantor owns the real property located in Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as Lots 20 and 21 of the Amended Plat of Block No. 1 of the townsite of Meridian located in the SW '/ of Section 7, T3N, R1 E, Ada County, Idaho; Tax Parcel Number 85672000140; commonly referred to as the public parking lot located at 55 E. Broadway Avenue and depicted on Exhibits "A-1" and "A-2" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein (hereinafter "Servient Estate"). 1.2 ACRD has jurisdiction over the public rights-of--way and highways in Ada County, Idaho, and those which adjoin and are adjacent to the Servient Estate (hereinafter the "Dominant Estate"). 1.3 ACHD is vacating a portion of the alley in Block No. 1 of the Meridian townsite, specifically the portion(s) in or adjacent to Lots 1 through 9, depicted on Exhibit "A-1" as "Parcel 1" and "Parcel 2" (hereinafter refen'ed to as the "Creamery Alley Vacation"). The portion of the alley located in or adjacent to Lots 10 through 15 shall remain open to the public. 1.4 The Servient Estate is a developed public parking lot and is adjacent to the terminus of the portion of the alley to remain open to the public. 1.5 As a condition of approving the Creamery Alley Vacation, ACRD desires to obtain an easement and public right-of--way on, over and across the Servient Estate to provide access, connectivity, and circulation between the terminus of the alley and E. Broadway avenue, and for the purposes hereinafter described, and, for the consideration and on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, Grantor is willing to grant such easement and public right-of--way to ACHD. Right-of-Way Easement, page 1 SECTION 2. Grant and Authorized Use; Non-exclusive Easement: Relocation. 2.1 Grantor hereby grants to ACRD anon-exclusive easement for a public right-of--way on, over, under and across the Servient Estate for use by ACRD and the public, including but not limited to, members of the public driving vehicles, those who are pedestrians (as defined in Idaho Code, section 49-117) and those who are bicyclists, and for ingress and egress for utilities to exercise their statutory rights to use the public right-of--way, if any. 2.2 The easement is being granted as a blanket easement on the Servient Estate and is not intended to interfere with the public parking uses thereon. The parties anticipate that the public right-of--way uses will take place in the drive aisle in the middle of the Servient Estate. 2.3 Because the parcels to the East and West of the Servient Estate are expected to undergo redevelopment in the near future which may affect the configuration of the public parking on the Servient Estate, Grantor hereby reserves the right to relocate the Easement upon the Grantor's property upon thirty days' prior written notice to ACRD. The parties then agree to execute, deliver and record an amendment to this document to evidence the relocation. SECTION 3. Improvements; Repair and Maintenance. 3.1 ACHD acknowledges that the improvements on the Servient are sufficient for the purposes of this non-exclusive easement and that no additional construction shall be required by Grantor. 3.2 Grantor agrees to maintain and repair the improvements at its sole cost and expense. SECTION 4. Indemnification. Subject to the provisions of, and limits of liability set forth in, the Idaho Tort Claims Act, ACHD shall indemnify and hold harmless Grantor from and against all claims, actions or judgments and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by Grantor in defense thereof) for damages, injury or death caused by or arising out of the public's use of the Servient Estate for the purposes set forth in this Easement. Right-of--Way Easement, page 2 Subject to the provisions of, and limits of liability set forth in, the Idaho Tort Claims Act, Grantor shall indemnify and hold harmless ACRD from and against all claims, actions or judgments and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by Grantor in defense thereof) for damages, injury or death caused by or arising out of the public's use of the Servient Estate for the purposes of a public parking lot. SECTION 5. Attomeys Fees and Costs. In any suit, action or appeal therefrom to enforce or interpret this Easement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs incur-ed therein, including reasonable attomeys' fees. SECTION 6. Term: Extinguishment. The term of this Easement is perpetual, unless amended or terminated by mutual agreement of the parties. However, this Easement shall automatically terminate in the event that the remaining alley in Block 1 of the Meridian townsite is ever vacated, because the essential purpose of this Easement shall no longer exist. SECTION 7. Covenants Run with the Land . Throughout the term of this Easement, it shall be a burden upon the Servient Estate and shall be appurtenant to and for the benefit of the Dominant Estate, and shall run with the land. SECTION 8. Exhibits. All exhibits attached hereto and the recitals contained herein are incorporated as if set forth in full herein. SECTION 9. Notices. All notices given pursuant to this Easement shall be in writing and shall be given by personal delivery, by United States Mail Certified, Retum Receipt Requested, or other established express delivery service (such as Federal Express), postage or delivery charge prepaid, addressed to the appropriate party at the address set forth below. Grantor: City of Meridian, Attention City Clerk 22 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 ACHD: Ada County Highway District 3775 Adams Street Garden City, Idaho 83714-6499 SECTION 10. Recordation. This Easement shall be recorded in the Official Real Property Records of Ada County, Idaho. Grantor covenants to ACHD that ACRD shall enjoy the quiet and peaceful possession of the Servient Estate for the non-exclusive purposes granted herein; and, Right-of--Way Easement, page 3 • (b) Grantor warrants to the ACHD that Grantor is lawfully seized and possessed of the Servient Estate and has the right and authority to grant this Easement to ACHD. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Easement to be executed the day, month and year first set forth above. Grantor CITY OF MERIDIAN EXHIBIT LIST ~~~,,,,1, ~ 1.1111,,,,,, Y 9, '~. Tammy de rd, Mayor ~~a'~o ~ =_ Attest, City Clerk .y ?~, ~~~Q ~" ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT William J. S weitzer, D' ector Exhibit "A" -Page 1 -Depiction of Servient Estate on Amended Plat Exhibit "A" -Page 2 -Aerial depiction of Servient Estate. Right-of--Way Easement, page 4 ~ ! State of Idaho ) ss. County of Ada ) this ~ day of in the year 2006, before me, I0`r0. cY1. Greer a Notary Public in and for the State of Idaho, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and William Berg, know or identified to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Idaho, the persons who respectively executed and attested this instrument on behalf of said municipal corporation, and acknowledged to me that such municipal corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. .• ~t,A M. G, •. ', .4 ~, • Notary Public for the State of Idaho . . . . Residing at (' Cl1C l~t~.l ,Idaho ,~~, ~,,,o~~ ; My Commission expires 1~-1 1- I ~ .••pF •~p,~, State of Idaho ) ss. County of Ada ) On thi ~~ day of h.0.-, in the year 20~~, before me, s l4 a Notary Public in and for the State of Idaho, personally appeare William J. Schweitzer, know or identified to me to be the Director of the Ada County Highway District, the person who executed this instrument on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. ••••...~~......,, C c~.•~ •' ""••• '~~'• Notary Public for the State of Idaho ~`'s' ~pTAR p ~~~P Residing at ~a-~o;~,~. ,Idaho • - My Commission expires 4 --~ - Z 6'D `1 -•- •~: .*. ~ PUgL~G S•• S ; . ,; ~p ~~ T • '' •,•~~~ 1,E OF l9A ~~ Right-of--Way Easement, page 5 Exhibit "A" - Pacte 1 Depiction of Servient Estate on Amended Plat JJE' AYE /7 . J ~/~ '- ry 3's JJJ n• a ! BROADWAY A a£M/( area _ __ _ `_ _ -~ _ _ _~ _ ~` uiu• ~ ~ ro I g ~~ i I `~ I ~I 1 8 I 8 - -_. _ _ _ ~, _ cx ac-vn~,vc r naAas w~xw PALigY' RAt aoAo f~11'1 -~~'_ Ii by I` IL ~' ~~ r I I Ii f~ i~ I ~ I mw ~ __ -I Right-of-Way Easement, page 6 Exhibit "A" -Page 2 Aerial depiction of Servient Estate Right-of--Way Easement, page 7 Meridian City Council May 9, 2006 Page 10 of 53 ~ ~ to happen, so just to see if - if that language is - if the Council is comfortable with that language and we can discuss that in the future. Item 7: Items Moved from Consent Agenda: K. Approve Access Easement Between the Citv of Meridian (Grantorl and ACHD (Grantee) on Lot 21 of the Amended Plat of Block 1 of the Townsite of Meridian (55 East Broadway) requested as a Condition of the Creamery Alley Vacation: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. There were two items removed from the Consent Agenda. We will consider Item K on approve access easement between the City of Meridian and ACHD. Mr. Nary. Nary: Thank you, Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. Item 7-K is an access easement agreement between the city and ACHD regarding the vacated alley that currently now runs from Main Street to Meridian Road between the former Shell properly by the creamery properly and the Zamzow's property on the block just south of where we are. We had hoped to have a final version in front of you, that's why we had placed it on a Consent Agenda in anticipation of ACHD completing their review. They haven't completed their review. We hope to have that completed by this week. There are some questions that we would like some direction on or for you to consider before your approval, if we could have it back in front of you next week. Primarily, when this - when this alley was vacated at the request of the current property owner of the -what's commonly called the creamery site, originally the ACHD commission had recommended a tumaround in that alley. Subsequent to that discussion the staff was concerned about having a tumaround. They don't like to vacate half an alley, basically, and they don't like to have turnarounds in a narrow alley and so they requested that they provide an easement through what's currently the City of Meridian parking lot, again, south of this building and across Broadway. That's what this easement agreement is for is to allow that and it has some specific conditions that do protect the city's interest for future use of the parking lot, future use of the other parcels around this alley. There are some other considerations you may want to consider in whether or not they can create either a one way type of access to this property, so we aren't dealing with two way traffic through a parking lot, any other direction you may have, but our anticipation is to have this back in front of you either next week or the week after, if we can work out some of these side issues with ACRD. Is there other information I guess you want me to carry back to ACHD to see if we can get this issue back both in front of theircommission - I think the 17th was their next commission hearing that they wanted to -hopefully to have some resolution to as well. Q. Approve Beer and Liauor License Aoalications for William R. Kosterman for The Busted Shovel at 704 N. Main Street: • • PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT THIS PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT (the "Easement"), is made and entered into this ~ day of , 2006, by and between The City of Meridian, an Idaho Municipal Corporation, reinafter referred to as "Grantor," and the ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT, a body politic and corporate of the State of Idaho, hereinafter referred to as "ACHD." WITNESSETH: FOR GOOD AND SUFFICIENT CONSIDERATION, IT IS AGREED: SECTION 1. Recitals. 1.1 Grantor owns the real property located in Ada County, Idaho more particularly described as Lots 20 and 21 of the Amended Plat of Block No. 1 of the townsite of Meridian located in the SW '/ of Section 7, T3N, R1 E, Ada County, Idaho; Tax Parcel Number 85672000140; commonly referred to as the public parking lot located at 55 E. Broadway Avenue and depicted on Exhibits "A-1" and "A-2" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein (hereinafter "Servient Estate"). 1.2 ACRD has jurisdiction over the public rights-of--way and highways in Ada County, Idaho, and those which adjoin and are adjacent to the Servient Estate (hereinafter the "Dominant Estate"). 1.3 ACHD is vacating a portion of the alley in Block No. 1 of the Meridian townsite, specifically the portion(s) in or adjacent to Lots 1 through 9, depicted on Exhibit "A-1" as "Parcel 1" and "Parcel 2" (hereinafter referred to as the "Creamery Alley Vacation"). The portion of the alley located in or adjacent to Lots 10 through 15 shall remain open to the public. 1.4 The Servient Estate is a developed public parking lot and is adjacent to the terminus of the portion of the alley to remain open to the public. 1.5 As a condition of approving the Creamery Alley Vacation, ACHD desires to obtain an easement and public right-of--way on, over and across the Servient Estate to provide access, connectivity, and circulation between the terminus of the alley and E. Broadway avenue, and for the purposes hereinafter described, and, for the consideration and on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth, Grantor is willing to grant such easement and public right-of--way to ACRD. Right-of-Way Easement, page 1 SECTION 2. Grant and Authorized Use• Non-exclusive Easement• Relocation. 2.1 Grantor hereby grants to ACHD anon-exclusive easement for a public right-of-way on, over, under and across the Servient Estate for use by ACRD and the public, including but not limited to, members of the public driving vehicles, those who are pedestrians (as defined in Idaho Code, section 49-117) and those who are bicyclists, and for ingress and egress for utilities to exercise their statutory rights to use the public right-of--way, if any. 2.2 The easement is being granted as a blanket easement on the Servient Estate and is not intended to intertere with the public parking uses thereon. The parties anticipate that the public right-of--way uses will take place in the drive aisle in the middle of the Servient Estate. 2.3 Because the parcels to the East and West of the Servient Estate are expected to undergo redevelopment in the near future which may affect the configuration of the public parking on the Servient Estate, Grantor hereby reserves the right to relocate the Easement upon the Grantor's property upon thirty days' prior written notice to ACRD. The parties then agree to execute, deliver and record an amendment to this document to evidence the relocation. SECTION 3. Improvements: Repair and Maintenance 3.1 ACHD acknowledges that the improvements on the Servient are sufficient for the purposes of this non-exclusive easement and that no additional construction shall be required by Grantor. 3.2 Grantor agrees to maintain and repair the improvements at its sole cost and expense. SECTION 4. Indemnification. Subject to the provisions of, and limits of liability set forth in, the Idaho Tort Claims Act, ACHD shall indemnify and hold harmless Grantor from and against all claims, actions or judgments and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by Grantor in defense thereof) for damages, injury or death caused by or arising out of the public's use of the Servient Estate for the purposes set forth in this Easement. Right-of--Way Easement, page 2 • Subject to the provisions of, and limits of liability set forth in, the Idaho Tort Claims Act, Grantor shall indemnify and hold harmless ACHD from and against all claims, actions or judgments and expenses (including, without limitation, reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by Grantor in defense thereof) for damages, injury or death caused by or arising out of the public's use of the Servient Estate for the purposes of a public parking lot. SECTION 5. Attomevs Fees and Costs In any suit, action or appeal therefrom to enforce or interpret this Easement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its costs incurred therein, including reasonable attomeys' fees. SECTION 6. Term: Extinguishment The term of this Easement is perpetual, unless amended or terminated by mutual agreement of the parties. However, this Easement shall automatically terminate in the event that the remaining alley in Block 1 of the Meridian townsite is ever vacated, because the essential purpose of this Easement shall no longer exist. SECTION 7. Covenants Run with the Land . Throughout the term of this Easement, it shall be a burden upon the Servient Estate and shall be appurtenant to and for the benefit of the Dominant Estate, and shall run with the land. SECTION 8. Exhibits. All exhibits attached hereto and the recitals contained herein are incorporated as if set forth in full herein. SECTION 9. Notices. All notices given pursuant to this Easement shall be in writing and shall be given by personal delivery, by United States Mail Certified, Retum Receipt Requested, or other established express delivery service (such as Federal Express), postage or delivery charge prepaid, addressed to the appropriate party at the address set forth below. Grantor: City of Meridian, Attention City Clerk 22 East Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 ACHD: Ada County Highway District 3775 Adams Street Garden City, Idaho 83714-6499 SECTION 10. Recordation. This Easement shall be recorded in the Official Real Property Records of Ada County, Idaho. Grantor covenants to ACRD that ACHD shall enjoy the quiet and peaceful possession of the Servient Estate for the non-exclusive purposes granted herein; and, Right-of-Way Easement, page 3 i ~ (b) Grantor warrants to the ACRD that Grantor is lawfully seized and possessed of the Servient Estate and has the right and authority to grant this Easement to ACHD. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Easement to be executed the day, month and year first set forth above. Grantor CITY OF MERIDIAN ~~A~®6,~~tiiti111111it1/II~s~~~fi by ~ .., Tammy de rd, Mayor ''r ~~~ -.. ~f~. ~~ Attest, City Clerk ~7 / / _ ~ ~ .r 'y1 // e fj~B, > \Sia`` f~~~/ti @1iD44}r1/~ ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT by William J. Schweitzer, Director EXHIBIT LIST Exhibit "A" -Page 1 -Depiction of Servient Estate on Amended Plat Exhibit "A" -Page 2 -Aerial depiction of Servient Estate. Right-of--Way Easement, page 4 • i State of Idaho ) ss. County of Ada ) On this day of in the year 2006, before me, a Notary Public in and for the State of Idaho, personally appeared Tammy de Weerd and William Berg, know or identified to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Idaho, the persons who respectively executed and attested this instrument on behalf of said municipal corporation, and acknowledged to me that such municipal corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. Notary Public for the State of Idaho Residing at My Commission expires Idaho State of Idaho ) ss. County of Ada ) On this day of in the year 20_, before me, Idaho, personally appeared William J. Schweitzerakn wu olr identified ffor me to beethe Director of the Ada County Highway District, the person who executed this instrument on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. Notary Public for the State of Idaho Residing at Idaho My Commission expires Right-of-Way Easement, page 5 ! ~ Exhibit "A" - Paae 1 Depiction of Servient Estate on Amended Plat IY£ AY£ J7 7 r/r 7 , ~ ~ v~ s .utm• E. BRDAOWitY A4£NUE I 1 J~ V fi (i = I V~ 6~ 2 r .rir a xs.r r» .s• POOVT lY BEpIlNI/~!G II ~. s ewn r ``[ M' 1 11111 8 I ~ ~ a S ' w ~w ~L It g~gJ 5r l i ~; f ,~ i I ~~ 1 ~f ~~ _~ 8 i - -`- _ __ _ ,~` _ Ct NL-PAk771 r nPAa~s fAMgV PAdF1C ~ ROM Right-of-Way Easement, page 6 ~ i Exhibit "A" - Paae 2 Aerial depiction of Servient Estate Right-of--Way Easement, page 7 f t MAYOR ~ a ~ u City Attomey/HR Tammy de Weerd ~i`,~~i ~k 3'" ~ Department csT~ of - ~-,,~~~ ~ -•- 703 N. Main Street CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ~~ .~~~~ `--- ~ ~' ~~ ~h.~ 8~8-5506/Fax 884-8723 Keith Bird 1 .-~ ~+, Joseph W. Borton \4~ William L.M. Nary Shaun Wardle IDA3-t® ~ City Attomey/HR Director Charles M. Rountree ~ ~~ Ted W. Baird c eN~R° ~ TRCn<, ~aF.vr~~~.,.__ Deputy City Attomey To: Mayor and City Council ~~ ~ ~ I From: Ted Baird, Deputy City Attorney MAY 0.6 2006 Re: Right of Way Easement as Condition of ACRD Creamery Alley Va ~tio~t Date: May 8, 2006 C'' y C erkeOffice Please null this item from the May 9, 2006 consent item and add it as item 6(C)(2) under the Legal Department Report. The attached draft easement is being required by ACRD as a condition of the Creamery Alley Vacation. ACHD does not favor vacating part of an alley unless circulation and connectivity are provided. The easement allows the public to use the drive aisle of the City parking lot to provide access between the end of the public alley and Broadway Avenue. Here are the key provisions of the easement: 1. The easement is non-exclusive and is not intended to interfere with the parking uses that currently take place on the City's property. 2. A relocation provision has been reserved in the event that the future development of the properties on the block (or the proposed land trade) necessitates moving the easement. 3. The City is not required to make any additional improvements to the parking lot, and the City agrees to continue its obligation to maintain and repair the surface of the lot. 4. Indemnification is mutual, based on ACHD's right-of--way use and the City's parking lot use. 5. The easement automatically terminates in the event that the balance of the alley is vacated. This draft is currently being reviewed by ACHD's legal department. We intend to have the final document on the Meridian City Council consent agenda at the May 16, 2006 meeting on order to meet ACHD's May 17 deadline for presentation of findings to the ACHD commission. • • May 19, 2006 Department Reports MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT Planning Department ITEM NO. 7-A-1 REQUEST Discussion with Shawn Nickel on the proposed expansion of the Treasure Valley Veterinary Hospital by Theresa Shackleford: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Memo 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. • . Page 1 of 2 Sharon Smith From: Anna Canning j,~~'!'~L~n71G;'('~ Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 11:25 AM iiVW..ill..~~~~ii1i Vr L~.i11~J To: Will Berg; Tara Green; Sharon Smith Subject: FW: Shackleford Property MAY 16 100b Cits of Meridian City Clerk ®ffice Will, Please add a Planning Department Report on May 23~d to discuss the proposed expansion of the Treasure Valley Veterinary Hospital. Thank you, Anna Anna Borchers Canning, AICP City of Meridian Planning Director From: Shawn Nickel [mailto:shawn@landconsultants.net] Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 10:40 AM To: Anna Canning Subject: Shackleford Property Hi Anna, Would you please put Theresa Shackleford on the May 23~ City Council Agenda under Department reports, as suggested by the Mayor. We would like to get the Council's thoughts on going through Ada County for a CUP to redevelop just the Vet clinic at the properly on Meridian Road. It is agreed upon by the Shackleford's that once City services are more readily available, that they would request annexation and preliminary plat with the City when they decide to continue any further development of their property. It is also understood that based upon conversations with Central District Health, they can use or upgrade their existing septic system for the Vet clinic use only, and the County CUP approval would be subject to a condition regarding CDH approval. We will enter into an agreement (probably through the Ada Co. Development Agreement) that the CUP and Vet Clinic will be designed to meet the current Meridian City design standards for landscaping, parking, setbacks, etc. We will also put into that agreement any language regarding future annexation, services, into the City. Please let me know if you can accommodate this request so that I may notify Theresa. Thanks for your help. Provided below is a map for your use. SHA`i'N L. NICKEL SLN PLANNING, INC. 839 E. WINDING CREEK DR. STE 201 EAGLE, ID 83616 PH. 208-938-3812 EMAIL. SHAWN@LANDCONSULTANTS.NET 5/17/2006 Page 2 of 2 5/17/2006 L~ May 19, 2006 Department Reports MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT Fire Department ITEM NO. 7-B-1 REQUEST Discussion of Line Item Adjustment for Installation Costs for New 700 MHZ radios in vehicles and stations: 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: COMMENTS See Attached Memo `~ ~9~~_ Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • • Page 1 of 1 Sharon Smith From: Ron Anderson Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 10:09 AM To: Sharon Smith; Will Berg Cc: Keith Bird Subject: RE: DRAFT agenda for May 23, 2006 City Council Attachments: Fire Reallocation Med Review Funds.xls Will & Sharon Could I get you to put me down on the Council Agenda under Department Reports for requesting aline-item adjustment in our budget for Installation costs for installing new 700 mhz radios in vehicles and stations. I have attached the line-item adjustment form for their review prior to the meeting. Ron L Anderson Fire Chief Meridian Fire Department (208) 888-1234 From: Sharon Smith Sent: Wednesday, May 17, 2006 8:54 AM To: Will Berg; Tammy de Weerd; Shaun Wardle; Keith Bird; Charlie Rountree; Joe Borton; Anna Canning; Doug Strong; Brad Watson; Len Grady; Karie Glenn; Barbara Shiffer; Diane Stewart; C. Caleb Hood; Joe Silva; Ron Anderson; Bill Musser; Bill Nary; Michelle Albertson; Rick Clinton; John Shawcroft; Stacy Kilchenmann; Jaycee Holman; Peggy Gardner; Bruce Freckleton Subject: DRAFT agenda for May 23, 2006 City Council Additions /Changes /Comments /Recommendations? Packet deadline is tomorrow at 5 p.m. -Thank you! Sharon Smith Deputy City Clerk Meridian City C}erks Office Phone 208.888.4433 5/ 17/2006 • . N U. a N ~ LL. ~ h m 7 O' m C Z '«~ Q O ~_ ~ W E ~ m y.. m O ~ J O _~ , V C9 a~ t m ~ o O m O Z O N ~ O '~'o m ~ '~' ro .E ~ t*o O o o m n ~ ea O . ~ N C ~ N ~ N m ~ ~ ~ ~ C R • (a~ C C ~ C L ~ ~ ~~ w ~ C9 Cn C C ~ m 0 C . ~ ~ ~ O ~ • tQ C p- ~ ~ C C ~ Q p v LL ~ v~ to ~ m ~ O U ~ 3 ~ p O U ~ C O~ .~. !1 L L N O +-~ ~ N +, t6 m '$ ~ O ~ ~ ~ N 'oO Q ~ ~ ~ > O. L O ~' N N ~ ~ Q 3 ~ N ~ C c + ~ c ~ a~i a~ ~ t t 0 ~ '~ `•~ E v ~ c~ C ~ o ® ~ ~ pp~ ~U ~ ~ N H N 7 p ~ LL O Y U N N l6 ~~ c Q CO " C N ~ O C O C ~ } ~ t6 C ~ fn ~ L y ~i ~ L (~' O ~ ~ D ~ ~ O O ~ y ~ r ~ ~ ~ EA v G O D ~ ~ O ar O ~ LL~ ~ ~ ~ w 'O 3 m ~ W M O J O ` ~ ~ O H Q N 0 ~ °o g~w 0 0 ~° 0 u~ LL V V Q N N 0 0 C7 O O N 0 [~: 7 m m t C.1 m 0 uti g W m F- ro ~ ~ O U ~ C f0 W ~ Z am L W ~ ~~ }d} ~ a W ~ U d Vtio~ O ~ y ~+ ..'C. ~ . 'O "' 07 N C ~. C N C r 'O ~~ O N C 7 N ~ l9 N N l0 ~ ~ p ~ to ~ w ~ ~ O ~° C C f0 W N 'O ~ ~ O ~ O C U O' f6 V1 O ar f0 N 7 ""' O tll y Y ~ °~3 m ~ d ° ~' ° ~ c o m o,z ~ ° m m ~ v m ~, ~ ° ate= m ~ o ~.o r ~ ay m ~.c ~~+ c 3 f0 ~ N C C C O) N C T p ~ f0 j 0) V 3 'pp~ ~ N~ .L+ .. fp O C O 'O N ~f0 ''' '~j N' C C N t' O. w acia19ic~8E°.o~~E ~ v>a°iE' ~ ~°°'E~0 v o `~ o~ w a~ ~ O c ~,~ d > ~ a~ m v 'c ~N.~~oy"'mL°o ° ~o°m ° .°ca~d3 ~•~ m ~ ~~ m cY cLirv °' m ~ m° c a 3.c ~~ h ro o ~ c m.~:~v ~ ° ro~ c m m y rnro m H g. ~°~ o E o ° E °~ y ~ ~ m= ~o ~ ~ ~L c~ ° ~, m o o ~~ my m °,a_~i vii E °' ~mv ~ m Eu. ro w ~U `o ~p O= ° E~° a~ a>i c~~ c`a E > > c ~ E ~ o~ ~ o ~ d ,~ ~ N Y D y 0 %1 '~ ~ O N a ~ E~ ~ y N N ~ ~j c0 N .'S '.~ rn ~~~wrc.c°O'C ~ E:oa~o ~m ~Eaio ~;o C 7 N _ 4 V '~ C Of N O C '~ E U~ y (0 N O N d N N C O j f~ 3 ~ y O y~ Qj ~~ N p~ O .~+ ~ N ~° .'-~C N N Y 7 E O ~ y ~~ NO .C O U -4kl O ,~ C LL O W ~_A ~p ~O ~ N v f0 ~ fQ m~ N ~'= 3 O N t ~ H N ~7 -gyp N~ ~ C ~j 'C > N p~ N E N f0 ~ v7 '~ .., (v~l ~ O O y C ~ O ,f~-p_. N~ G. N~ N~ C E 41 ~ E a~ 7 C N N y 3 ~ tp m vviajcm m a~~ y'~ v E m rn C U ~ ~ ~ N O N 3 ¢ O O ~ Q ~ ~ 'w7 ~ N O. ~ fA C ~ ~ C ro ~ ca f°~ o o.Cp ~ 3 ~ °-0 3-~ ~ m row. n ro~ d m N 3 E "O T c ~' Y g. ~ '~ N ~~ O N g. `~ Q ~ ~ N O~ ~ O o~,E aciEc,~v>y°af0i~~' °' v-m~°~ axiw a~°w~ aa~ Op 0~ E c~ ~ 0 0'~~'e N: y m rn~ m m ya o° ~ d° o d o ma~i~ c~vN~oy~o>o o~ rn";c~ ra~ oa~o ~> a~ ro N~ N~ w "i ~ 'C ~~ ~ C ~. O N O ~ C~ f0 Q N !E N C y N Qpw ~'m,L~Em~v>v~,E~y J~ c"~>~ sN ~ y._m a~~ ~1~ :c m o E E cv u~v yp = o ov.c ~ pcO .c o, pcp~ ° O W r .C I- L~ N N ._ ._ Q f0 f6 ~ O. N '3 J 3 l0 w C7 U I- N U l0 ~ ~ N 0~ a+ ~v+i C O ~ O °a a O O cO9 ~ ~ ~ ~ LSO I~ ~ (~ O N ~ CMD ~ aM0 ~ a e a~ W B c~ O O O N v .. °~ a~ c ~° 'C v jy v ~ C F' o g l0 o = o ~ a ~ ~ 1 € a w ro ~ m ~ ca ~ j O ~ ~ U ti Z ~ ~ 0 0 0 ~ ++ C O Qi C7 M N M OW CZ g `~ C 'd' _ d' mot' 'c!' . J a ~ a a ~ !I_I I I LI J I I I I I I I €~ kl ~I ~I I I I;I! a ro d LL a~ Y .c .. m m ~ ° o ~ ~~ ~ c C C4N ~ L m co a c ~ d N N C O O d a~ ~ `m N .~ N l0 • c C c $- ~ o a 5.:~ dO ~ II O O r 0 a ~"~ C N U C fQ L aci co °o N N tW d cn a 0 ~ D p A ~ ~ O $ ~ O p r' ~ ogo N ~ z o w °° o 0 ~ ~~ ~, ° o 0 ~' = ~ 7 ~ ~ 3 C n 7 p p~ ' Q • ~ N 0 n j t~D N ~ -,. ~ -n O; p fD a1 U1 A R - O N fD y ~ N TI ~ ~ d p ~ n C fD n 7 ~D "C L '~ ~ "Q .~ n ~ fD ~ .~i. t~D ~ o m 3 v c m ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ O ~'- ~ ~ ' w o c .., > > a O to ~ ~- ~ o d g N 'N„ 3 ~ ~ t0 7 C ~ (/~ Q ~ ~ ~ to ~ "I~ N - G ~ ~ ' ? ~ 1 ~ Vey ~ ~ N = °a `° fD ~ N p a~~ V ( G ~ ~ ~~ ~ . ~ ~ r W ~ _ ~ ~ 3 ~o ~ Q~ ~ I o ~ w ~ ~ ~ o ?i ~ en ~ ~' ~ ai i ~ v u w o 3 ~ ' c _ ~ v < o oa ~ ~ D ~- Q- rn rn ~ ~'~', ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ Z ~ a°~ O o ~, c -i .« O O r ~ .,~ O °m ~~ ~v ~n ~. z 0 ~~ ~~ '~ o m O • • May 19, 2006 Department Reports MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT Parks Department ITEM NO. 7-C-1 REQUEST Discussion of an Extension of the Park Development, Park Impact Fee Reimburse- ment and Real Property Conveyance Agreement for Champion Park with Hillview Develop- ment Corporation to September 1, 2006: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: See Attached Memo Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the Clty of Meridian. Date: Phone: • . ~ ^~ ~ .~ Memo To: Mayor! City Council ~CE Cc. Will Berg From: Doug Strong ~ MAY ~ ~ ~~p~ Date: May 18, 2006 ~ C tyc eN~i~xi~i~~ Y Q fic~ Re: Champion Park Extension The Parks Staff is requesting approval of an extension for Hillview Development Corporation of the park development, park impact fee reimbursement and real properly conveyance agreement until September 1, 2006 for the park located in Champion Subdivision. Per the Park Development, Park Impact Fee Reimbursement, and Real Property Conveyance Agreement between the Ciiy of Meridian and Hillview Development Corporation, Developer of Champion Subdivision Park dated July 26, 2005 states the developer shall receive reimbursement from the City of Meridian for the costs associated with the construction of the park and system improvements at the closing originally scheduled for June 1, 2006. Staff is requesting this extension be granted as completion of the restroom, installation of the playground equipment and the picnic shelter are remaining. The landscaping, exterior fencing, parking lot, pump station, irrigation system, baskethall courts and paths are all completed. This is due to a wet spring which delayed construction completion. The ~ is now maintaining that landscape for the park Staff is requesting this item be placed on the City Council agenda under Department Reports for May 23, 2006. Total Impact Fee Reimbursement is $212,550. at closing. • • Hand Delivery May 18, 2006 City of Meridian 11 W. Bower Meridian, Idaho 83642 Attn: Mr. Doug Strong Re: Champion Pazk City Park Extension Hillview Development Corporation hereby requests an extension of the "Pazk Development, Pazk Impact Fee Reimbursement, and Real Property Conveyance Agreement" until September 1, 2006 for the City Park we constructed in Champion Pazk Subdivison. The remaining items are the completion of the restroom, installation of the play equipment to be provided by the city and assembly of the gazebo. The landscaping, exterior fencing, parking lot, pump station and irrigation system and basketball courts and paths aze completed. The city is now maintaining the landscape for the pazk. ~'i Don u ~~ Vice President Hillview Development Corp Approved by: _..,~. ,~ ~r / `~ Ililillllllt/ ! City of Meridi Date .~`~ ~~ ''>, ~ ~` °r \/l i ~j0~rov~ 6 ~ ~~~ ~oc~nc~ 5=23-06 ~ V ~"~~ :, -~ '`r ~"' 1 ~'1f`~fr"t~Idtila~OlA~~~~yS`e~~A Meridian City Council • April 4, 2006 Page 67 of 78 Bird: On the south and east or just the south? Rountree: Just the south. Bird: I would agree with that, Councilman Rountree. And I know that -- I'm sure that Becky can work out with Mr. Thompson or -- what we need there and I surely think we need to have something done that way. I would second a motion, if you want to make it, to reopen this and let's let them have a shot and we can set a parameter of what we want for a minimum. De Weerd: Okay. So, do I have a motion to reopen the Public Hearing? Rountree: Madam Mayor, I move that we reopen the public hearings for Items 20, 21 and 22 and continue those hearings with the direction to the applicant that the Council would like to see a redesign of the southern portion of the preliminary plat to indicate a minimum 17,000 square foot per lot, again, on the south side and on the north side that the applicant would work with Mr. Johnson to reduce back to a minimum of five lots that border that homeowner and that property owner's ten acres and to reschedule the hearing for the 18th or 25th? 25th? April 25th. April 25th. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Just remember you guys are doing it to yourself. Okay. So, I do have a motion to continue this to 4/25. Any -- no. No discussion. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, just to make an obvious point even more clear, though, so that is -- the applicant is not to include a stub street on the northern property, is -- Rountree: Correct. Canning: Okay. Item 23: Public Hearing: VAC 06-003 Request for a Vacation of a drainage easement between Lots 2 and 3, Block 18, Champion Park Subdivision No. 3 by Creekside, Inc. - 2484 East Garber Drive: De Weerd: No. Okay. Okay. Item 23 is Public Hearing VAC 06-003. I will open this Public Hearing with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council -- as soon as my PowerPoint catches up with my page down. This is a vacation request for Champion Park Subdivision No. 3. It's Lots 2 and 3, Block 18. They had to do a property boundary adjustment to Meridian City Council • April 4, 2006 Page 68 of 78 accommodate some -- some -- it's getting late. Here we go. Sorry. Had to do a property boundary adjustment to accommodate a couple houses and, then, they need to now shift the side yard easement that was underneath the former lot line. Staff is recommending approval of the vacation, with the understanding that a new easement needs to be recorded in its place. And with that I will answer any questions. De Weerd: Council, do you have any questions? Bird: I have none, Mayor. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? Is Becky the applicant? Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, there is only one condition of approval and that condition being that they record a new side yard easement. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Did Gary Smith name these streets? De Weerd: No. Bird: That's Borah coaches. De Weerd: Don Hutt did and he is a graduate from Borah High. Bird: I knew who did. Rountree: No applicant, no testimony? Bird: I guess everything -- is she --? De Weerd: Okay. Canning: By Creekside, Inc. I don't know who that is. I suspect the applicant was probably a builder. Bird: There is no issues, is there, Anna? Canning: No. And there is only one condition and that's -- Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: You have asked for public testimony and nobody is -- I move we close AZ -- or VAC 06-003. Meridian City Council April 4, 2006 Page 69 of 78 Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve Item 23. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Bird: Madam Mayor? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we approve VAC 06-003 with staff report. Rountree: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Motion to approve Item 23. If there is no further discussion, roll call vote. Roll-Call: Bird, yea: Rountree, yea: Wardle, absent: Borton, yea. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE ABSENT. Item 27: Public Hearing: AZ 06-002 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 0.43 acres from RUT to L-O (Limited Office District) for Strada Bellissima Subdivision Outaarcel by Strada Bellissima, LLC - 3015 South Meridian Road: De Weerd: Okay. Items 24 through 26 were moved to the beginning of our agenda, so I will open the Public Hearing on Item 27, AZ 06-002, with staff comments. Canning: Madam Mayor, Members of the Council, this project is called Strada Bellissima Subdivision Outparcel. Kind of hard to see the blue outline next to the purple, but that's -- the property in question is this one right here. It is located at 3015 South Meridian Road and this is just an annexation and zoning request. The site is surrounded on three sides by land zoned L-O as part of the Strada Bellissima application. And when this came through we asked the applicant specifically when they came through with the lot design and how the buildings would be placed in this southern property, we asked them specifically to accommodate this outparcel in their design. They did do that. It was probably about a year ago. And so we are confident this outparcel will be completely integrated into the Strada Bellissima project. I was thankful that the applicants at Pinnacle and Pinnacle were -- worked with us on this outparcel and it's very satisfying. This one little piece of property is very satisfying to see it come in and know that we have planned for it and that it will be completely integrated into the fabric of Strada Bellissima. The Commission did recommend approval. They heard the item on March 2nd, 2006. Chris Hobbs spoke in favor of the application. No one NOTICE OF AWARD TO Recreation Idaho PMB #234, 104 E. Fairview Avenue Meridian, Id 83642 DATE: May 29, 2006 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Adventure Island Splash Pad: Equipment Purchase The OWNER has considered the Bid submitted by you and for the above described Work in response to its Advertisement for Bids and Information for Bidders. You are hereby notified that your Bid has been accepted for (description): PURCHASE AND DELIVER SPLASH PAD EQUIPMENT PER DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS In the amount of: One hundred thirty five thousand four hundred seventy five dollars Dollars ($135,475.001. You are required to full execute the Agreement and furnish the required Contractor's Performance bond, Payment Bond and Certificates of Insurance within five (5) calendar days from the date of the notice to you, that is by June 2, 2006. . If you fail to execute said Agreement and to furnish said bonds and certificates of insurance within five (5) calendar days from the date of this Notice, said OWNER will be entitled to consider all your rights arising out of the OWNER's acceptance of your Bid as abandoned and as a forfeiture of your bid Bond. The OWNER will be entitled to such other rights as maybe granted by law. You are required to return the attached ACCEPTANCE OF NOTICE OF AWARD to the OWNER. OWNER: ATTEST: CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO ~.~` ,~~ °°,, o/ y' ~°~ Y~ Name: TAMMY WEERD - e = WILLIAM BERG Title: MAYOR = ~~ T tle: = CITY CLERK Approved by City Council: -Z -8r6 ~ ,~ g "` .=` ~~> ,~~ ~~°°f,~lr!!Rl8fP0 101i1\1~,~\`i\\\\ Adventure Island Splash Pad: Equipment Purchase May 2006 n LJ Revised 5-22-06 M. Approve Contract with A.M.E. Electronics. Inc., for Power and Radio Installation at three PRV Sites: Approve N. Approve Bid Award for Adventure Island Sulash Pad to Recreation Idaho, Inc.: Approve for $135,475.00 O. Approve Access Easement Between the City of Meridian (Grantor) and ACRD (Grantee) on Lot 21 of the Amended Plat of Block 1 of the Townsite of Meridian (55 East Broadway) requested as a Condition of the Creamery Alley Vacation: Approve 7. Department Reports: A. Planning Department 1. Discussion with Shawn Nickel on the proposed expansion of the Treasure Valley Veterinary Hospital by Theresa Shackleford: Agreed B. Fire Department 1. Discussion of Line Item Adjustment for Installation Costs for New 700 MHZ radios in vehicles and stations: Approve for $19,500 C. Parks Department 1. Discussion of an Extension of the Park Development Park Impact Fee Reimbursement and Real Property Conveyance Agreement for Champion Park with Hillview Development Corporation to September 1, 2006: Approve D. Public Works Department 1. Discussion of AutoCAD Template to Change the Format for Engineering Drawings: Agreed 8. Items Moved from Consent Agenda: 9. FP 06-021 -Request for Final Plat approval of 16single-family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 4.99 acres in an R-4 zone for Buckeye Place Subdivision by John Fackelman -SEC of Manship Road and N. Black Cat Road: Approve Meridian City Council Agenda -May 23, 2006 Page 3 of 5 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. • • ACCEPTANCE OF NOTICE OF AWARD Receipt of the NOTICE OF AWARD is hereby acknowledged by: Recreation Idaho., this day of , 2006. CONTRACTOR By: Name: Title: Adventure Island Splash Pad: Equipment Purchase May 2006 NOTICE TO PROCEED TO: Recreation Idaho DATE: May 29, 2006 PMB #234, 104 E. Fairview Avenue Meridian, Id 83642 PROJECT: Adventure Island Splash Pad: Equipment Purchase DESCRIPTION: PURCHASE AND DELIVER SPLASH PAD EQUIPMENT PER DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS You are hereby notified that the Contract Time for the construction of the above project will commence to run on the 29`" day of May, 2006. OWNER: ATTEST: CITY OF MERIDIAN By: Name: Tammy De Weerd Title: MAYOR By: Name: WILLIAM BERG Title: CITY CLERK Adventure Island Splash Pad: Equipment Purchase May 2006 • May 19, 2006 Department Reports MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT Public Works Department ITEM NO. 7-D- REQUEST Discussion of AUtoCad Template AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: See Attached Memo OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. RECEIVER MAY 2 2 2006 Memo To: William Berg, Jr.; Tara Green From: Robin Jack, GIS Techniaan CC: Len Grady, P.E., City Engineer Date: 5/18/06 City ®f ~/Ieridian City Clerk Vice Re: Proposed Department Report Item for May 23, 2006 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following item be placed on the May 23rd City Council agenda, under Departrnent Report, for Council's consideration: Department Report on AutoCAD template This project would change the format engineering drawings are delivered to the Public Works Department. • The location of the public works utilities would be more accurate. • The information would ~ easier to access. • It will reduce staff time in the translating the drawings. • The information would be available sooner. Thank you for your consideration. Please corrtact me if you have any questions regarding any of these items. • Page 1 May 19, 2006 FP 06-021 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT John Fackelman ITEM NO. 9 REQUEST Request for Final Plat approval of 16 single family residential building lots and 3 common lots on 4.99 acres in an R-4 zone for Buckeye Place Subdivision -SEC of Manship Road and N. Black Cat Road: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Afioached Comments CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: No Comment CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: See Afl~oched Comments NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: See Attached Applicant Response Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL C/C May 23, 2006 IN THE MATTER OF THE ) APPLICATION OF JOHN ) FACKELMAN FOR FINAL PLAT ) APPROVAL OF 16 SINGLE- ) FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ) LOTS AND 3 COMMON LOTS ON ) 4.99 ACRES IN AN R-4 ZONE ) LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST ) CORNER OF MANSHIP ROAD ) AND N. BLACK CAT ROAD IN A ) PORTION OF THE NW 1/a OF ) SECTION 10, T. 3N., R. 1W. ) CASE NO. FP-06-021 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT This matter coming before the City Council for Final Plat approval pursuant to Unified Development Code 11-6B-3 on May 23, 2006, and the Council finding that the Administrative Review is complete from Sonya Wafters, Assistant City Planner for the Planning and Zoning Department, and Michael Cole, Development Services Coordinator for the Public Works Department, dated: Hearing Date: May 23, 2006, to the Mayor and Council, and the Council having considered the requirements of the preliminary plat the Council takes the following action: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: The Final Plat of "PLAT SHOWING BUCKEYE PLACE SUBDIVISION IN A PORTION OF THE NW I/ OF SECTION 10, T. 3N., R. 1 W., BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2006; HANDWRITTEN DATE: 03/23/06, ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR BUCKEYE PLACE SUBDIVISION / (FP-06-021) Page 1 of 4 • SHEET 1 OF 3, BRIGGS ENGINEERING, INC.", BUCKEYE PLACE, LLC, Developer, is Conditionally Approved subject to those conditions of Staffcomments as set forth in the Memorandum to the Mayor and City Council from Sonya Wafters, Assistant City Planner for the Planning and Zoning Department and Michael Cole, Development Services Coordinator for the Public Works Department, dated: Hearing Date: May 23, 2006, listing 17 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS/FINALPLRT and 14 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A", and consisting of 4 pages, and by this reference incorporated herein, and the response letter from Briggs Engineering, Inc., a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "B" and consisting of 1 page, and by this reference incorporated herein, and the additional requirements from the action of the Council taken at their May 23, 2006 meeting as follows, to-wit: 1.1 Adopt the Recommendation of the Central District Health Department as follows: The Central District Health requires after written approval from the appropriate entities are submitted, they can approve this proposal for central sewage and central water; that plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality for central sewage and central water; that run-offis not to create a mosquito breeding problem; and it is suggested that the stormwater be pretreated through a grassy Swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface water quality; that engineers and architects should obtain current best management practices for stormwater disposal and design a stormwater management system that is preventing groundwater and surface water degradation. Manuals for guidance: ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR BUCKEYE PLACE SUBDIVISION / (FP-06-021) Page 2 of 4 • State of Idaho Catalog of Stormwater Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties. Prepared by the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, July 1997. 2. Stormwater Best Management Practices Guidebook. Prepared by City of Boise Public Works Department, May 2000. 2. The final plat upon which there is contained the Certification and signature of the City Clerk and the City Engineer verifying that the plat meets the City's requirements shall be signed only at such time as: 1. The Plat dimensions are approved by the City Engineer; and 2. The City Engineer has verified that all off-site improvements are completed and/or the appropriate letter of credit or cash has been issued guaranteeing the completion of off-site and required on-site improvements. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAIGNGS ANALYSIS The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, the Owner may request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not morethantwenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by this decision may, within twenty-eight (28) days ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR BUCKEYE PLACE SUBDIVISION / (FP-06-021) Page 3 of 4 • after the date of this decision and order, seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. By action of the City Council at its regulaz meeting held on the rc"~ of ~ , 2006. Copy served upon Applicant, the City Attorney. .~` •{ o` '` ~~ C~' ~~ F _ ~® -~,~~~~~''r'-~~ j1 day Public Works Department, and ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR BUCKEYE PLACE SUBDIVISION / (FP-06-021) Page 4 of 4 By: ~f l~'Gt,~l 4Yl ~f'`l'1~~ Dated: ~ °' O~-~~ CITY OF MERIDIAN P~NING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEP~MENTS STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: We have reviewed this These conditions shall Meridian City Council: Hearing Date: May 23, 2006 Transmittal Date: May 15, 2006 Mayor & City Council :..~ a E r~ „e 1RSe.,=~ 1 ~ ~~ ~~ `^F 9 F~. "P Zd ~.~ ~ Sonya Wafters, Assistant City Planner ~ '~`' Michael Cole, Development Services Coordinator ~ C Buckeye Place Subdivision Request for Final Plat Approval of Buckeye Place Subdivision Consisting of 16 Single-family Residential Building Lots and 3 Common other Lots on 4.99 Acres in an R-4 Zone by Briggs Engineering Inc. (File# FP-06-021). submittal and offer the following comments and conditions of the applicant. ~e considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the APPLICATION SUMMARY & LOCATION The applicant, Briggs Engineering, Inc., has applied for fmal plat approval of 16 single-family residential building lots and 3 common other lots on 4.99 acres in an R-4 zone for Buckeye Place Subdivision. The proposed gross density of the subdivision is 3.21 dwelling units per acre. The proposed net density of this subdivision is 3.72 dwelling units per acre. Buckeye Place Subdivision is located east of N. Black Cat Road and south of W. Cherry Lane, in the northeast'/a of Section 30, T.4N., R.IE. This property has not been previously platted. The submitted final plat substantially complies with the approved preliminary plat for this subdivision. Staff recommends approval of the fmal plat for Buckeye Place Subdivision with the comments and conditions stated in this report. SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS Applicant is to meet all terms of the approved annexation (AZ-OS-050), development agreement (Inst. No. 106060857) and preliminary plat (PP-OS-051) for this subdivision. 2. All fencing shall comply with UDC 11-3A-6B and 11-3A-7 and conditions of approval of the preliminary plat. Perimeter fencing shall be installed prior to release of building permits for this subdivision. 3. Prior to signature on the fmal plat submit signed stamped letter stating no buildable lots are encumbered by the floodplain associated with the Tenmile Creek. Phis letter must be from a professional surveyor or other licensed professional qualified to certify this. 4. The construction plans show a gravity irrigation line on the northern boundary of this development, but it is unclear if it is existing or planned to be installed. If it is to be a new improvement include plans in the construction set, and submit a letter of plan approval prior to signature on the final plat. Exhibit "A" FP-06-021 Buckeye Place Sub FP PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN P~NING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEP~MENTS STAFF REPORT 5. Revise or add the following note(s) on the face of the plat dated 3/23/06, prepared by Briggs Engineering, Inc., prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer: (9.) Complete recorded instrument number. (10.) Add Lot 1, Block 2 as a common lot and revise this note to reference City of Meridian Sewer Easement instead of City of Boise. (*.) Add note: "Fencing adjacent to Lot 11, Block 1 shall be in compliance with the most recently approved Fencing Standards of the City of Meridian." (*.) Add Note: "This plat is subject to a development agreement recorded as instrument number 106060857 of Ada County Records." 6. The Landscape Plan, prepared by Briggs Engineering, Inc. and dated 12/21/05, shall be revised as follows: a. Include tree class information in the plant schedule. b. Landscaping along the micropath on Lot 11 shall comply with UDC 11-3B-12 Micropath Landscaping. A minimum 5-foot wide landscape strip is required along each side of the pathway. One tree per 35-lineal feet is required along the pathway; add one additional tree. c. The applicant is proposing to construct 6-foot tall cedar fencing along the north-east and east boundaries of the subdivision; depict location & fencing type on plan. d. The applicant is proposing to construct 4-foot tall solid vinyl fencing adjacent to the common area & micropath on Lot 11; depict location & fencing type on plan. Submit three copies of the revised landscape plan to the Planning Departn~tent prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. The applicant has indicated that the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District will own and maintain the pressure irrigation system within this development. Since the system is to be owned and maintained by an irrigation district, a letter of plan approval shall be submitted prior to scheduling of apre-construction meeting. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. If a creek 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 shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the irrigable common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the Meridian City Engineer. 9. Sanitary sewer service to this development is proposed via extension of mains to the south of this property recently installed as a City of Meridian project. At this time the mains are not read to accept sewage and certificates of occupancy will not be issued on this project until these mains are activated. 10. The applicant shall install all mains to and through this development. Applicant shall coordinate with the City of Meridian Public Works Department, main size and routing, to be in conformance with the City's Master Sewer Plan. The applicant shall execute standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. 11. Water service to this proposed development is being proposed via extensions of mains in Pintail Pointe subdivision to the north. The applicant shall install water mains to and through this proposed development, and coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department. The applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements for any mains that are required to provide service. Exhibit "A" FP-06-021 Buckeye Place Sub FP PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN P~NING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEP~MENTS STAFF REPORT 12. The applicant shall construct the off-site connection to the multi-use path along Ten Mile Creek prior to issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the subdivision. 13. No on-street parking shall be allowed along Lots 1 and 18, Block 1, adjacent to the landscape island. The street shall be signed as "No Parking" per the Meridian Fire Department. 14. No subdivision identification signs are approved with this application. All and all proposed subdivision signs will require approval of a separate sign permit. 15. Remove all buildings that do not meet setback requirements, prior to signature on the plat by the City Engineer. 16. All areas approved as open space shall be free of wet ponds or other such nuisances. All stormwater detention facilities incorporated into the approved open space are subject to UDC 11- 3B-11 and shall be fully vegetated with grass and trees. Sand, gravel or other non-ve eg tated surface materials shall not be used in open space lots, except as permitted under UDC 11-3B- 11. 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 11-3B-11, then the applicant shall relocate the facility. This may require losing a developable lot or developable area. It is the responsibility of the developer to comply with ACRD, City of Meridian and all other regulatory requirements at the time of final construction 17. Staffs failure to cite specific ordinance provisions, or terms of the approved annexation, development agreement, or preliminary plat does not relieve the applicant of responsibility for compliance. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 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 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't be obtained, alternative plans will be reviewed and approved by the meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 2. Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base shall be approved by the Ada County Highway District, and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% shall be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 4. All development improvements, including but not limited to water, sewer, fencing, micro-paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 5. A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, landscape designer or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan upon completion of the landscape installation. The Certificate of Completion shall verify that all landscape Exhibit "A" FP-06-021 Buckeye Place Sub FP PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN P~NING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEP~ENTS STAFF REPORT improvements, including plant materials and sprinkler installation, are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan. 6. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the fmal plat. 7. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their 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. Compaction test results must be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 10. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 11. All development features shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 12. Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those trees that have to be removed. 13. One hundred watt, high-pressure sodium streetlights shall be required at locations designated by the Public Works Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. Final design locations and quantity are determined after power designs are completed by Idaho Power Company. The street light contractor shall obtain design and permit from the Public Works Department prior to commencing installations. 14. Approval of the preliminary plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to record the fmal plat within two years of the approval of the preliminary plat per UDC 11-6B-7A. 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 months, may be considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval per UDC 11-6B-7B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the fmal plat for Buckeye Place Subdivision (FP-06-021) with the above stated comments and conditions. Exhibit "A" FP-06-021 Buckeye Place Sub FP PAGE 4 Sonya Wafters From: kevin [kevinh@briggs-engineering.com] Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 12:47 PM To: Sonya Wafters Subject: RE: Buckeye Place Subdivision Final Plat Staff Report Sc ~tt~~a, \\'c agree ro the conditions in the staff report dated 11-'(ay 15, 2006. l~or a clarification, item #~ under site. specific conditions is an existing gravity irril;ition lint. 't'hat was installed b~ the owner and approved by \ ~-IIll. I will grt the modified landscape plan to you :\S.\P. "Thanks Kevin -----Original JlcssaKc----- (~rom: tionya \Vatters (mailto:watterss{pJmeridiancity.org] Sent: \Icmd<ty, May 1:i, 2006 11:16 :~1~1I 'I'o: jafacks(c~mindspring.com; kevin Cc: Jessica Johnson; ;llachelle Hill; Sharon Smith;'1'ara Green; \C'ill Berg Subject: Buckeye Place Subdivision hinal Plat Statf Rc;port Attached is a copy cif our staff report for the above-mentioned project. 1'Icase submit a written response to the- staff report to me prior to the City Council meetint; on i~•Iay 23rd. 'Thanks, Soma Svm a \\'.ttters (;l"ll- OI~ _1Il~.RIll1.1\ Planning llepartment 66O F.. t\'atcrtower I,n., Stc. 202 Meridian, Idaho 836-12 1'hcine: (208)88-I-3x33 I~as: (208)888-G8:i4 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~------~ Exhibit "!3" • May 19, 200b FP 06-023 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT Capital Development, Inc. ITEM NO. 10 REQUEST Request for Final Plat approval of 31 single family residential building lots and 5 common lots on 9.02 acres in an R-8 zone for Settlement Bridge Subdivision No. 5 -SEC of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY fIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: COMMENTS See Attached Comments Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. BEFORE THE MERIDL~N CITY COUNCIL C/C May 23, 2006 IN THE MATTER OF THE ) APPLICATION OF CAPITAL ) DEVELOPMENT, INC., FOR FINAL ) PLAT APPROVAL OF 31 SINGLE- ) FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ) LOTS AND 5 COMMON LOTS ON ) 9.02 ACRES IN AN R-8 ZONE ) LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST ) CORNER OF N. LOCUST GROVE ) ROAD AND E. MCMILLAN ROAD ) IN THE NE '/ OF THE NW '/ OF ) SECTION 32, T. 4N., R. lE. ) L CASE NO. FP-06-023 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT This matter coming before the City Council for Final Plat approval pursuant to Unified Development Code 11-6B-3 on May 23, 2006, and the Council finding that the Administrative Review is complete from Sonya Wafters, Assistant City Planner for the Planning and Zoning Department, and Michael Cole, Development Services Coordinator for the Public Works Department, dated: Hearing Date: May 23, 2006, to the Mayor and Council, and the Council having considered the requirements of the preliminary plat the Council takes the following action: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Final Plat of "PLAT SHOWING SETTLEMENT BRIDGE NO. 5 LOCATED IN THE NE '/ OF THE NW '/ OF SECTION 32, T. 4N., R. lE., BOISE MERIDIAN, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO 2006, HANDWRITTEN ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR SETTLEMENT BRIDGE SUBDIVISION NO. S / (FP-06-023) Page 1 of 4 DATE: 04/11/2006, SHEET 1 OF 4, ENGINEERING NORTHWEST, LLC", CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT, INC., Developer, is ConditionallyApproved subject to those conditions of Staff comments asset forth in the Memorandum to the Mayor and City Council from Sonya Wafters, Assistant City Planner for the Planning and Zoning Department and Michael Cole, Development Services Coordinator for the Public Works Department, dated: Hearing Date: May 23, 2006, listing 23 SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS/FINAL PLAT and 13 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A", and consisting of 5 pages, and by this reference incorporated herein, and the response letter from Capital Development, Inc., a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "B" and consisting of 2 pages, and by this reference incorporated herein, and the additional requirements of the Council taken at their May 23, 2006 meeting as follows, to-wit: 1.1 Adopt the Recommendation of the Central District Health Department as follows: The Central District Health requires after written approval from the appropriate entities are submitted, they can approve this proposal for central sewage and central water; that plans must be submitted to and approved by the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Division of Environmental Quality for central sewage and central water; that run-off is not to create a mosquito breeding problem; and it is suggested that the stormwater be pretreated through a grassy swale prior to discharge to the subsurface to prevent impact to groundwater and surface water quality; that engineers and architects should obtain current best management practices for stormwater disposal and design a stormwater management system that is ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR SETTLEMENT BRIDGE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 / (FP-06-023) Page Z of 4 preventing groundwater and surface water degradation. Manuals for guidance: State of Idaho Catalog of Stormwater Best Management Practices for Idaho Cities and Counties. Prepared by the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, July 1997. 2. Stormwater Best Management Practices Guidebook. Prepared by City of Boise Public Works Department, May 2000. 2. The final plat upon which there is contained the Certification and signature of the City Clerk and the City Engineer verifying that the plat meets the City's requirements shall be signed only at such time as: The Plat dimensions are approved by the City Engineer; and 2. The City Engineer has verified that all off-site improvements are completed and/or the appropriate letter of credit or cash has been issued guaranteeing the completion of off-site and required on-site improvements. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION AND RIGHT TO REGULATORY TAHINGS ANALYSIS The Applicant is hereby notified that pursuant to Idaho Code 67-8003, the Owner may request a regulatory taking analysis. Such request must be in writing, and must be filed with the City Clerk not more than twenty-eight (28) days after the final decision concerning the matter at issue. A request for a regulatory takings analysis will toll the time period within which a Petition for Judicial Review maybe filed. Please take notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest ORDER OF CONDTI'IONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR SETTLEMENT BRIDGE SUBDIVISION NO. S / (FP-06-023) Page 3 of 4 • in real property which may be adversely affected by this decision may, withintwenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order, seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the of t u 1;~-'1( , 2006. ~~ day \ ,~~~ ``1 ~ ~"t I I `/,,,~'Tr~ay C of Meridian .~` a Attest: ~~ ~ °°; ~~~ _ ~~~ William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk q Copy served upon Applicant, the Planni~ g D~~artrnent, Public Works Department, and City Attorney. f'~~~~n+n+++++'`°~° By: ~1~ l~ ~Y"? ~nil.f ~ Dated: Q~ ~~~~~® ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR SETTLEMENT BRIDGE SUBDIVISION NO. S / (FP-06-023) Page 4 of 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN P~NING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEP~MENTS STAFF REPORT STAFF REPORT: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: We have reviewed this These conditions shall Meridian City Council: Hearing Date: May 23, 2006 Transmittal Date: May 15, 2006 Mayor & City Council ,4 ~;~ 1 ,° - t1Hli'17P kp~'~~.~~ - ~~~ _ ~ ~~ tin M IL3.~~8[J ~' .* ~~: ~' P~~~~ aa~ ~5~ ~,_~y, _~~., Sonya Wafters, Assistant City Planner ~ ~~~~} Michael Cole, Development Services Coordinator ~ C- Settlement Bridge Subdivision No. 5 Request for Final Plat Approval of Settlement Bridge Subdivision No. 5 Consisting of 31 Single-family Residential Building Lots and 5 Common/other Lots on 9.02 Acres in an R-8 Zone by Capital Development, Inc (File# FP-06- 023) submittal and offer the following comments and conditions of the applicant. ie considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the APPLICATION SUNIMARY & LOCATION The applicant, Capital Development, Inc., has applied for final plat approval of Settlement Bridge Subdivision No. 5, which consists of 31 single-family residential building lots (attached and detached homes) and 5 common/other lots on 9.02 acres in an R-8 zone. The gross density for this subdivision is 3.44 dwelling units per acre. The net density for this subdivision is 4.01 dwelling units per acre. Settlement Bridge Subdivision No. 5 is located in the northeast 1/4 of the northwest 1/ of section 32, T.4N, R.1 E. The site is generally located off the southeast corner of N. Locust Grove Road and E. McMillan Road. A conditional use permit/planned development was approved for this subdivision that allowed for reductions to the minimum standards for lot size (to 4,031 s.f. for attached lots and 5,250 s.f. for detached lots) and street frontage (to 40 feet for attached lots on straight-away streets and 28 feet for lots on corners/cul-de-sacs, 58 feet for detached lots on straight-away streets and 30 feet for lots on comers/cul- de-sacs, lots sharing common driveways aren't required to have any street frontage). The final plat shows one less building lot than was approved on the preliminary plat; however, staff has no objection to this change as the applicant is not increasing the number of buildable lots from what was previously approved. Open space was also increased slightly on the north side of Lots 38 and 40, Block 15 and as a result, lot sizes decreased on these lots but still meet the minimum lot size requirements. The Planning Director has approved this minor modification. Staff finds that the proposed final plat substantially complies with the approved Preliminary Plat. Staff recommends approval of Settlement Bridge Subdivision No. 5 with the comments and conditions stated in this report. SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS 1. Applicant is to meet all terms of the approved annexation (AZ-03-035), development agreement (Inst. No. 104061807), preliminary plat (PP-03-041), and conditional use permit (CUP-03-065). Exhibit "A" FP-06-023 Settlement Bridge Subs FP.doc PAGE 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN P~NING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEP~MENTS STAFF REPORT 2. The applicant has indicated the pressurized irrigation system in this proposed development is to be owned and operated as a private system. Since it is to be owned and operated by a homeowner's association, plans will be reviewed and approved by the Public Works department as a part of the construction plan approval. 3. The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year-round source of water. If a creek 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 shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the irrigable common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the Meridian City Engineer. 4. All fencing installed on the site must be in compliance with UDC 11-3A-6B and 11-3A-7. Temporary construction fencing to contain debris shall be installed around the perimeter of this phase where permanent fencing is not proposed prior to release of building permits. The applicant will be responsible for all costs associated with the sewer and water service extension. 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. 6. Sanitary sewer service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in a previous phase. The applicant shall install all sewer mains necessary to serve this development. The applicant shall coordinate main size and routing with the Public Works Department. Cover over sanitary sewer mains shall be no less than three feet from finish grade to the top of the pipe. If cover is less than three feet from the sub-grade to the top of the pipe, alternated pipe materials shall be used per the Meridian Public Work's Standard Specifications. 7. Water service to this site is being proposed via extension of mains in a previous phase. The applicant will be responsible to construct all water mains necessary to serve this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. Applicant shall execute City of Meridian standard forms of easements, for any mains that are required to provide service. Graphically depict a special setback on Lots 15-18 Block 15. Building foundations may not be constructed within 20 feet of the infiltration trenches. Those lots that front the infiltration trenches must have a front setback sufficient to guarantee the DEQ mandated 20-feet. 9. Minimum house size for the attached dwellings shall be a minimum of 1,200 feet, exclusive of garage. 10. Lot 39, Block 15, shall have signage designating it as a private street. 11. The private street on Lot 39, Block 15 shall be constructed as a 29-foot wide street section measured from back of curb to back of curb. 12. The private street drive aisle shall be posted as fire lanes with no parking allowed. In addition, the curb shall be painted red. 13. The depicted swing gate on the emergency access shall be equipped with a Knox box Padlock which has to be ordered through the Meridian Fire Department. It shall be signed no parking for emergency access. Exhibit "A" FP-06-023 Settlement Bridge Subs FP.doc PAGE 2 CITY OF MERIDIAN P~NING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEP~ENTS STAFF REPORT 14. The private street within this development shall comply with all provisions of UDC 11-3F Private Street Requirements. Prior to signature on the final plat the applicant shall provide documentation of a binding contract that establishes the party or parties responsible for the repair and maintenance of the private street, including regulations for the funding thereof. 15. A permanent public pedestrian easement shall be recorded, in favor of the City of Meridian, for the North Slough pedestrian pathway prior to certificates of occupancy being issued for this phase. The easement shall be sufficient width to cover the 10-foot wide pathway shown. The hard surfaced pathway shall be constructed and fully improved prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for any building within this phase of the subdivision. Applicant shall work with the City Parks Dept. and conform to the Park's Dept. standards for construction of the pathway. The Homeowner's Association is responsible for maintenance of all landscaping adjacent to the pathway. 16. In the Legend on the face of the plat, please correct the note reference on the ACHD Storm Drain Easement to reflect note #10• instead of #9. 17. A License Agreement with ACRD will be required for all landscaping within the right-of--way of E. McMillan Road. 18. Depict a 5-foot wide sidewalk easement on the plat in favor of ACRD within Lot 48, Block 15, adjacent to E. McMillan Road. 19. Remove all buildings that do not meet setbacks established in the Unified Development Code, prior to signature on the fmal plat by the City Engineer. 20. The landscape plan, prepared by The Land Group and dated 4/14/06, shall be revised as follows: a. Include tree class in plant schedule. b. Include detail (picture) of proposed fence. c. Perimeter fencing shall be 6 feet in height per preliminary plat condition of approval #18. d. Legend shows the existing & installed plants as the same symbol; revise symbol. e. Calculations table meeting the criteria shown on the final plat landscape plan checklist. f. A statement of how existing healthy trees proposed to be retained will be protected from damage during construction. g. Indicate which existing trees on-site will be retained or removed. h. All woody shrubs shall be a minimum 2 gallon pot size. Submit 3 copies of the revised landscape plan to the Planning Department prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer. 21. Revise or add the following note(s) on the face of the plat dated 4/11/06, prepared by Engineering Northwest, LLC., prior to signature on the final plat by the City Engineer: (11.) "... is prohibited ~ee~A4ei." 22. Complete the Certificate of Owners and accompanying acknowledgement. 23. Staff's failure to cite specific ordinance provisions or terms of the approved annexation, development agreement, preliminary plat, or conditional use permit does not relieve the Applicant of responsibility for compliance. Exhibit "A" FP-06-023 Settlement Bridge Subs FP.doc PAGE 3 CITY OF MERIDIAN P~NING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEP~ENTS STAFF REPORT GENERAL REQUIREMENTS All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural waterways and the North Slough, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the area being subdivided shall be tiled per UDC 11-3A-6. 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't be obtained, alternative plans will be reviewed and approved by the meridian City Engineer prior to final plat signature. 2. Street signs are to be in place, water system shall be approved and activated, fencing installed, drainage lots constructed, road base shall be approved by the Ada County Highway District, and the Final Plat for this subdivision shall be recorded, prior to applying for building permits. 3. A letter of credit or cash surety in the amount of 110% shall be required for all uncompleted fencing, landscaping, amenities, pressurized irrigation, sanitary sewer, water, etc., prior to signature on the final plat. 4. All development improvements, including but not limited to water, sewer, fencing, micro-paths, pressurized irrigation and landscaping shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining certificates of occupancy. 5. A written certificate of completion shall be prepared by the landscape architect, landscape designer or qualified nurseryman responsible for the landscape plan upon completion of the landscape installation. The Certificate of Completion shall verify that all landscape improvements, including plant materials and sprinkler installation, are in substantial compliance with the approved landscape plan. 6. Applicant shall be required to pay Public Works development plan review, and construction inspection fees, as determined during the plan review process, prior to signature on the fmal plat per Resolution 02-374. 7. Any existing domestic wells andlor septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their 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. 8. Compaction test results must be submitted to the Meridian Building Department for all building pads receiving engineered backfill, where footing would sit atop fill material. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with any Section 404 Permitting that may be required by the Army Corps of Engineers. 10. Applicant shall be responsible for application and compliance with and NPDES Permitting that may be required by the Environmental Protection Agency. 11. All development features shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act. 12. Any tree over 4" in caliper that is removed from the property shall be replaced by installing additional trees, being the equivalent number of caliper inches of trees that were removed. Required landscaping trees will not be considered as replacement trees for those trees that have to be removed. Exhibit "A" FP-06-023 Settlement Bridge Subs FP.doc PAGE 4 CITY OF MERIDIAN P~NING AND PUBLIC WORKS DEP~ENTS STAFF REPORT 13. Approval of the preliminary plat shall become null and void if the applicant fails to record the final plat within two years of the approval of the preliminary plat per UDC 11-6B-7A. 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 months, maybe considered for final approval without resubmission for preliminary plat approval per UDC 11-6B-7B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the final plat for Settlement Bridge Subdivision No. 5 (FP-06-023) with the above stated comments and conditions. Exhibit "A" FP-06-023 Settlement Bridge Subs FP.doc PAGE 5 May 23 2006 1 : F°PM CTRL DEVELOPMEfVT 203271 CAPITAL DE~3LOPMENT, Iac. May 23, 2006 -Mayor and City Council City of Meridian 6b0 E. Watertower, Suite 200 l~lerid'ean, ID 83642 Re: File No. FF-06-023 Settlement Bridge No. 5 We, Capital Development; accept the conditions of approval as outlined by staff for the above referenced. Our response to the City-'s Site Specific Comments for this project is as follows: City of 1VYeridaan ~5ite 3necific.l~eaaire%ents I. All terms of the appr-ovedarultexativn (t1Z-03-035), development agreement (Inst. No. 104061$07), preliminary plat (PR-U3-041•), and coaditional use permit (CUF- 03-065) have been rnet. 2. The Sett]ement Bridge~Homeowner's Association will awn and maintain the, pressure irrigation- system within this development. 3. An irrigation well will be, continued for use as a secondary source as in phases l throagh 4.. ~ ~ .' 4. Agree. ~ . 5. Agree: 6. Agree: 7. Agree. 8, Setbacks for building foundation have been graphically depicted and noted for lots 15-1 $, block 15. 9. Agree. 10: Lot 39, block i S has been given a name (E.. Swift Water Ln,)_ and will have a street . sign installed accordingly.. 11. Agree. 12.. .Agree. • ~ . 13. Agree. I4. Agree. .. . 15: ` Agree. . lb. The legend on the face of the plat has been revised to reflect note # 1 D (ACRD Storig Drain basement). 17. Agree. 18: Existing. ACRD sidewalkeasements have been added to the final plat. p.2 6200 Narih. Meeker Plctce Bose, Idaho 83713 1 ~. Offlce:'{208) 377-3939 'Fax: (209) 375-3271 Mai 23 2Q06 1:?''PM C~TAL DEVELOPMENT 2053271 P-3 19. Agree. 20. The landscape plan wilt be revised as needed and 3 copies will be submitted prior to signing the final plat. 21. Revised note #i 1 of the final plat "._.is prohibited.'' 22. Agree. General Reaairements 1. Agree. 2. Agree. 3. A letter of credit will be submitted for those items not already installed or constructed. 4. Agree. 5. Agree. 6. Agree. 7. There are no known wells or septic systems within this phase. 8. No engineered backfill is required on this phase of this project. 9. There are not 404 issues with this phase of the development. 10. Agree. i l . Agree. 12. Agree. 13. Agree. Should you have any questions or need anything else, feel free to give me a call. Thank you, ~., Dave Yorgason Vice President Capita] Development Xc: Eugene Smith, Engineering Northwest 2 r:.n;n~t ..-~~. • • May 19, 2006 VAR 06-010 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT TNT Fireworks ITEM NO. 11 REQUEST Public Hearing -Variance to allow for larger temporary structures from the maximum 500 square feet allowed per UDC 11-3E-4C1 forTNT Tents - 1601 S. Meridian Road; 1600 Main Street; 1850 E. Fairview Avenue; and 4051 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: COMMENTS See Attached City Code /UDC References See Attached Comments See Attached Memo No Comment No Comment MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: See Attached Applicant Comments and At~davit of Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. • • May 19, 2006 VAR 06-011 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT Richard Handke ITEM NO. ~Z REQUEST Public Hearing -Variance to allow for larger temporary structures from the maximum 500 square feet allowed per UDC 11-3E-4C1 for fireworks sales, Christmas tree sales, and produce sales for Fat City Fireworks - at 6 different Meridian locations AGENCY COMMENTS ~~ CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: See Attached City Code /UDC References See Attached Requesf to Continue No Comments No Comments No Comments Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. May 19, 2006 AZ 06-014 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT ATM Development, LLC ITEM NO. 13 REQUEST Public Hearing: Request for Annexation & Zoning of 20.16 acres from RUT to R-4 for Cabella Creek Subdivision - NE comer of East Victory Road and South Mesa Way: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: See P$Z Item Packet / P&Z Minu!Fes See Attached Recommendation MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: See Attached Affidavit of Postin Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. • May 19, 200b P P 06-012 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT ATM Development, LLC ITEM NO. 14 REQUEST Public Hearing: Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 47 single family residential lots and 11 common lots on 18.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Cabella Creek Subidivision - NE comer of E. Victory Road and South Mesa Way AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See P8~Z Item Packet / P&Z Minutes See Attached Recommendation Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the Clay of Meridian. • May 19, 2006 AZ 06-005 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT Sea 2 Sea, LLC ITEM NO. 15 REQUEST Public Hearing: Request for Annexation 8~ Zoning of 58.56 acres from RR to R-4(3 TN-C (14.54 acres) and C-C (11.16) zones for Knight Sky Estates Subdivision - NW Comer of Chinden Boulevard and N. Linder Road: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: COMMENTS See P8~Z Item Packet / P>4Z Minutes See Attached Recommendation See Attached Commer>ts MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: See Attached Comments by Ken Mallea /Attached Affidavit of Posting Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian. May ~ 9, 2oob MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT Sea 2 Sea, LLC • PP 06-004 May 23, 2006 ITEM NO. ~ 6 REQUEST Public Hearing: Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 12b residential lots (22 townhouse lots and 102 detached single family lots, 7 commercial lots and 26 common lots on 55.83 acres in a proposed R-4, TN-C and C-C zones for Knight Sky Estates Sub. - NW Comer of 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 PB,Z Item Packet / P8Z Minutes See Attached Recommendation See Attached Comments MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: See Attached Comments by Ken Mallea /Attached Affidavit of Postin Contacted: Date: Phone: Emailed: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shell become property of the City of Meridian. • • May 19, 2006 AZ 06-010 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT Big River, LLC ITEM NO. 17 REQUEST Public Hearing: Request for Annexation & Zoning of 11.50 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Cardigan Bay Subdivision - 5450 and 5500 Larkspur Way AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: See PB~Z Hem Packet / P8Z Minutes See Attached Recommendation Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the CHy of Meridian. C~ May 19, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING u PP 06-008 May 23, 2006 APPLICANT Big River, LLC ITEM NO. 18 REQUEST Public Hearing: Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 28 building lots and 3 common lots on 11.50 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Cardigan Bay Subdivision - 5450 and 55~ Larkspur Way: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See Pti~Z Item Packet / P>3~Z Minutes See Attached Recommendation Date: Phone: Staff Initials: Mater~ls presented at public meeMngs shall become properly of the City of Merldlan. May 19, 200b AZ 06-020 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT Northwest Pipeline Corporation ITEM NO. ~ 9 REQUEST Public Hearing: Request for Annexation & Zoning of 4.65 acres from RUT to C-G zone for Williams Pipeline - 1301 Locust Grove Road: AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: Emailed: COMMENTS See P$Z Item Packet / P8Z Minutes See Attached Recommendation Staff Initials: Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the Ctiy of Meridian. Date: Phone: May 19, 2006 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING May 23, 2006 APPLICANT ITEM NO. ZO REQUEST Executive Session AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANMNG 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 b~acome pFoperty of the City of Meridian. ~• .; #~q~~~;~ ~ ' 4~ ,~' CITY OF b<~~~~ rt~v= _ ~ IDAHO ti,~. CEM reR ~ u` THensuHe V ~Y / SINGE 1903 MAYOR Tammy de Weerd CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Keith Bird Christine Donnel] Charles M. Rountree Shaun Wardle CITY DEPARTMENTS Fire 540 E. Franklin Road 888-1234 /fax 895-0390 Parks & Recreation 11 W. Bower Street 888-3579 /fax 898-5501 Planning 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 202 884-5533 /fax 888-6844 Police 1401 E. Watertower Lane 888-6678 / 846-7366 Public Works 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 200 898-5500 /fax 898-9551 - Building 660 E. Watertower Lane Suite 150 887-2211 /fax 887-1297 - Wastewater 3401 N. Ten Mile Road 888-2191 /fax 884-0744 - Water 2235 N.W. 8th Street 888-5242 /fax 884-1159 DELIQUENCY FOR TURN OFF Schedule for May 24, 2006 Cycle 1 MAYOR: This letter attests to the fact that no water users have requested apre- termination hearing for May 23, 2006. Users having delinquent utility bills will be shut off on May 24, 2006. The total amount past due is $9,012.80. The number of past due customers is 88 Jaycee Holman Billing Manager City of Meridian CITY HALL 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 CITY CLERK -FAX 888-4218 CITY ATTORNEY / HR -FAX 884-8723 FINANCE & UTILITY BILLING -FAX 887-4813 MAYOR'S OFFICE -FAX 884-8119 Printed on recycled paper CITY OF MERIDIAN Shutoff Account List CITY COUNCIL Page: 1 Standard Payment Customers May 23, 2006 05:29pm Current Period: 06/05/2006 -Transactions Included Through: 06/05/2006 Shutoff Minimum of $ 50.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Report Criteria: Terminated customers not included Customer.Cust No () _ {<}880000001 Customer.Bill Cycle = 1 Customer.disconnected = No Customer.shut off list = No Ref No Cust No Name /Service Address 1 30.74.1118.2 ALBERTO OSUNA 59 ROSE CL Past Due Balance 53.66 159.91 2 36.36.1078.1 ALL AMERICAN HOMES 60.10 84.45 556 FALLINGBRANCH DR E 3 37.37.3822.1 ALLEN, SCOTT 65.96 102.40 625 ELIAS ST W 4 24.03.0284.3 ALLISON FLICKER 55.22 93.81 609 MINERAL WELLS AVE N 5 24.04.1664.3 ANSON, RICK 8~ REBECCA 64.71 114.68 1432 HAVEN COVE AVE N 6 23.02.3872.4 BALES, SUMMER 55.20 97.12 1213 MERIDIAN ST 7 23.01.3310.4 BALLARD, JAMIE 65.54 136.00 711 PINE AVE W 8 23.02.2616.6 BLASQUEZ, MICHAEL & RANDY 68.52 119.50 524 PACK AVE W 9 31.31.0392.2 BODNAR, VASILY 60.00 71.67 989 INDUSTRY WAY S 10 22.50.1726.2 BOESIGER, MAX 60.38 136.31 1234 MERIDIAN ST 11 45.20.0107.2 BREWER, BRANDY 90.53 122.66 1246 PIENZA ST E 12 23.02.1290.5 BRINEGAR INVESTMENTS 62.81 101.40 1624 1ST ST W 13 30.74.3010.1 BROTZMAN, HENRY 56.26 126.21 669 CANVASBACK WAY S 14 24.04.2308.1 BUTTERFIELD, CHARLES & TONI 106.70 171.76 1475 SANTA ROSA PL N ~ i CITY OF MERIDIAN Shutoff Account List CITY COUNCIL Page: 2 Standard Payment Customers May 23, 2006 05:30pm Current Period: 06/05/2006 -Transactions Included Through: 06/05/2006 Shutoff Minimum of $ 50.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Ref No Cust No Name /Service Address Past Due Balance 15 30.74.2726.3 CAMPBELL, ROSS JR 82.79 145.41 1108 CRESTWOOD DR 16 22.51.0286.2 CATES, JEFFRY 171.30 193.63 704 5TH ST E 17 35.38.0605.2 CHAN, ALBERT 76.02 113.90 2371 POWDER RIVER ST E 18 36.69.0690.4 CHAVARRIA, KATHERINE 70.74 145.36 1149 MASTIFF ST E 19 35.43.0117.2 CLARK, D. BLAIR 68.14 111.04 1864 SAGEMOOR E 20 30.74.3352.3 CLAY, JAMES & JANE 51.00 138.66 1355 GANDER DR W 21 22.50.2360.4 CLAYBORN, TABITHA 118.58 261.43 1287 DRUCKER ST E 22 23.23.3986.3 COSTA, CHARLENE 8~ FEIL, KEVIN 76.28 117.16 891 BROADWAY AVE W 23 25.95.0318.2 CURTIS MOFFAT 89.24 129.85 4587 NEARBY DR W 24 22.50.4574.3 DA ROSA, JOE 100.97 199.68 220 PINE AVE E 25 24.04.2014.2 DENTONE, STEVE & LYNN 75.90 150.35 2166 SUNNY SLOPE DR W 26 24.04.1166.3 DONALDSON, NEAL 61.98 106.47 2620 FORECAST ST W 27 24.04.2282.1 DRURY, PATRICK 119.24 182.73 1422 SANTA ROSA PL N 28 22.51.0266.2 DUANGAN, CYNTHIA L 75.88 109.00 518 BROADWAY AVE E 29 45.20.0915.2 FISH, RAYMOND 53.76 82.86 1278 PISTIOA DR E • CITY OF MERIDIAN Shutoff Account List CITY COUNCIL Page: 3 Standard Payment Customers May 23, 2006 05:31 pm Current Period: 06/05/2006 -Transactions Included Through: 06/05/2006 Shutoff Minimum of $ 50.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Ref No Cust No Name /Service Address Past Due Balance 30 30.74.1056.1 FISHER, BEA J. 802.70 825.03 22 ROSE CL 31 35.65.0276.4 FRANK, THOMAS 8~ EDNA 91.80 162.05 2057 EASY JET ST E 32 22.20.0092.2 FRETZ, DAVID AND MICHELLE 50.94 83.05 1568 DRUCKER LN E 33 25.95.0415.2 GLUSHCHAK, VLADIMIR 81.97 104.30 943 LAMBERT WAY N 34 20.46.0548.3 GUICHARD, JOSEPH 117.50 117.50 1021 PRINCIPLE WAY N 35 22.50.2372.5 HAYCOCK, VANESSA 73.72 127.43 1358 DRUCKER ST E 36 22.51.0326.1 RAYMOND, DAVID A 124.25 186.61 318 BROADWAY AVE E 37 46.16.1001.2 HENDERSON, DIANNA 77.60 110.58 3922 MONTAGUE WAY S 38 25.05.0722.2 HOLLEY, ANNA 119.45 190.31 3540 FIR CREEK CT W #1 39 30.74.1014.3 HOLLOWAY, JERALD K 143.26 143.26 64 ROSE CL 40 24.03.0362.1 HONO, GREG & NANCY 81.43 207.35 1903 SNYDER DR W 41 22.50.0226.1 HOWELL, JAMES 76.97 164.10 234 & 236 STATE AVE E 42 35.65.0708.1 HUDDLESTON, CODY 52.52 129.38 2299 BAYOU BAR WAY S 43 36.36.1008.1 INLINE CONSTRUCTION 108.14 130.47 638 OBSERVATION DR E 44 35.65.0308.3 IVERS, BEN 50.27 105.42 2132 EASY J ET ST E 45 35.38.0120.2 JACKSON, TIM 8 TINA 53.81 76.14 2271 POWDER RIVER ST E 46 22.50.2116.3 JOSHUA NICHOLS 60.38 96.37 1356 STONEHENGE WAY N ~ 1 CITY OF MERIDIAN Shutoff Account List CITY COUNCIL Page: 4 Standard Payment Customers May 23, 2006 05:32pm Current Period: 06/05/2006 -Transactions Included Through: 06/05/2006 Shutoff Minimum of $ 50.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Ref No Cust No Name /Service Address Past Due Balance 47 24.03.0118.3 JUSTIN ISTRE 8~ SONDRA COMBS 107.28 158.26 620 MINERAL WELLS AVE N 48 22.51.0858.2 KRUEGER-SASMITA, KATHLEEN 71.36 94.70 311 PINE AVE E 49 22.51.0714.4 KUGEL, LISA 68.46 119.71 408 IDAHO AVE E 50 37.37.3340.3 KYNASTON, RODGER 81.48 122.22 478 BEAR TRACK DR W 51 30.74.0426.1 LACY, GLORIA 66.46 144.36 623 BARRETT ST W 52 22.20.0148.3 LAURENCE, PETE 67.04 93.25 1340 GALLANT LN E 53 46.46.6318.2 LEE, PAUL HOJOONG 67.42 105.56 2955 FALCON DR E 54 46.60.0002.3 LEMMO, KEVIN J. & ANDREA L. 110.16 132.78 3819 ARNO AVE S 55 22.50.2130.1 LIKES, JENNIFER 59.04 112.89 1051 GRANDBURG CT E 56 24.04.1442.3 LINDSAY, JOHN & KIM 56.67 114.00 1377 CLARA AVE N 57 23.02.2280.1 MASLEN, JENNY 64.99 109.62 201 CHERRY AVE 58 23.01.0170.2 MCCURDY, NATHAN 81.85 119.43 721 3RD ST W 59 24.03.0314.3 MCDOUGAL, MIKE 64.26 101.26 2001 SNYDER DR W 60 24.04.0022.2 MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT 1,158.01 1,180.34 1680 PINE AVE W 61 30.74.1076.1 MOORE, EVELYN 120.37 120.37 2 ROSE CL 62 22.50.0746.5 MORRISON, MIKE 63.94 136.95 131221/2STE CITY OF MERIDIAN Shutoff Account List CITY COUNCIL Page: 5 Standard Payment Customers May 23, 2006 05:33pm Current Period: 06/05/2006 -Transactions Included Through: 06/05/2006 Shutoff Minimum of $ 50.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Ref No Cust No Name /Service Address Past Due Balance 63 24.03.0878.3 NGUYEN, T. & MCFARLAND, K. 108.30 156.38 2502 SNYDER ST W 64 36.59.0104.2 O'CONNOR, BRIAN 243.27 265.60 3187 GLACIER BAY WAY S 65 23.01.1210.2 O'NEAL, GEORGE & JANET 56.02 99.80 821 2ND ST W 66 23.01.3130.2 PHILIPS, ROY 116.66 218.09 935 PINE AVE W 67 35.35.6014.2 PHILLIPS, CAMERON & LANG, KYLE 66.86 108.48 1769 FIRESIDE CT E 68 35.35.0081.3 PRELLWITZ, BARBARA 60.76 99.06 2960 INDIAN CREEK DR E 69 35.65.0460.2 PRESTON, S./PORRAZ, J./LOPEZ 71.57 137.43 2028 PARTY JET ST E 70 30.30.6222.2 RASMUSSEN, TONYA 52.62 82.58 1348 JACKSNIPE DR W 71 23.23.3490.2 RAYBORN, ROBERT 57.89 89.15 890 BROADWAY AVE W 72 30.74.3716.3 RICHARDS, JEFF AND KAREN 64.90 137.16 1100 MUSCOVY AVE S 73 37.37.3912.2 RITCHEY, FRANK 95.68 141.58 2331 ICE BEAR WAY S 74 22.50.0256.2 ROBBINS, ELLEN 86.06 151.71 32 STATE AVE E 75 35.38.0602.2 RUSSELL, BLANE 56.22 78.55 2337 POWDER RIVER ST E 76 35.38.0603.2 RUSSELL, BLANE 60.10 82.43 2345 POWDER RIVER ST E ;_, • r CITY OF MERIDIAN Shutoff Account List CITY COUNCIL Page: 6 Standard Payment Customers May 23, 2006 05:34pm Current Period: 06/05/2006 -Transactions Included Through: 06/05/2006 Shutoff Minimum of $ 50.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Ref No Cust No Name /Service Address 77 23.23.3026.3 S. BRUMBOUGH & COLBY & C.BLAIR 992 IDAHO AVE W 64.84 103.57 78 24.04.1290.3 SANECKI, KATHY 54.85 135.16 2591 CARLTON ST W 79 25.05.0720.2 SANTOS, WILLIE & MARIE 81.10 189.29 3508 FIR CREEK CT W 80 35.64.0064.3 SHIELD TRUSTEE SERVICES, LLC 71.76 101.89 3120 GOLD BAR AVE S 81 25.95.0911.2 SIMPSON, BRIAN 51.38 73.71 890 WOLFSBURG AVE N 82 22.51.0050.4 STEEL VENTURES LLC 250.00 261.38 37 BROADWAY AVE E 83 24.03.0122.2 SWANSON, ALAN 121.55 168.05 664 MINERAL WELLS AVE N 84 22.50.1998.4 TAMMY 8 KHUDEIR AL-SAMMAK 86.00 166.00 991 CROSSBILL CT E 85 23.02.2550.7 THOMAS, DREW 105.51 135.63 1313 4TH ST W 86 45.25.0320.2 THOMAS, ROBERT & SARA 111.37 157.72 1418 PALERMO ST E 87 22.50.4586.2 VICTORY, MICHAEL & YUNSUK 51.66 84.78 9132NDSTE 88 30.74.3122.1 WESTERBERG, STEVEN 72.96 141.53 668 MUSCOVY AVE S Grand Totals: 88 Customers Listed 9,012.80 13,317.17 Report Criteria: Terminated customers not included Customer.Cust No () _ {<}880000001 Customer.Bill Cycle = 1 Customer.disconnected = No Customer.shut off list = No Past Due Balance