Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995 05-16 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, MAY 16,1995 -7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MAY 2,1995: (APPROVED) 1. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF C-G FOR 74 ACRES BY E.l. BEWS: (TABLE UNTil JUNE 20,1995) 2. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A VARIETY OF MIXED, PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USES BY E.l. BEWS: (TABLE UNTil JUNE 20,1995) 3. STEINER DEVELOPMENT: APPEAL PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: (DENY APPEAL) 4. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO R-4 AND R-15 FOR 45.46 ACRES FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO.5 & 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: (REMAND BACK TO P & Z) 5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO.5 & 6 93 lOTS BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: (REMAND BACK TO P & Z) 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO R-8 FOR .40 ACRE BY D.W. INC.: (APPROVED; CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE ANNEXATION ORDINANCE) 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MAWS ADDITION NO.3, 6 lOTS BY MAWS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT BY DAVID AND DENISE HAll: (TABLED UNTil JUNE 6, 1995) 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR A TWO YEAR TIME EXTENSION ON RECORDING FINAL PLAT FOR GOLF VIEW NO. 4& 5 BY GOLF VIEW ESTATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: (TABLED UNTIL JUNE 6,1995) 10. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF SPECIALTY CANDY BY THE LITTLE CHIPMUNK: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 11. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A QUICK SERVICE RESTAURANT BY MCDONALD'S INC.: (APPROVED) 12. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 2 DRIVE THRU RESTAURANTS BY RICK THOMAS: (APPROVED) 13. KAT SHUMWAY: DISCUSSION OF PIOL T RECYCLING PROGRAM: (WILL RESCHEDULE LATER) 14. REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION FOR FILING FINAL PLAT FOR FIELDSTONE MEADOWS NO.5: (APPROVED ONE YEAR EXTENSION) 15. RONALD VAN AUKER: REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY HOOK UP TO A SEPTIC SYSTEM: (GRANT TEMPORARY HOOK UP TO SEPTIC SYSTEM FOR ONE YEAR REQUIRING HOOK UP FEE AND BOND FOR SEWERUNE EXTENSION) 16. WRIGHT BROTHERS/CESCO: REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY HOOK UP TO A SEPTIC SYSTEM: (GRANT A TEMPORARY HOOK UP TO SEPTIC SYSTEM, PAY HOOK UP FEE, LATE COMERS AGREEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT) 17. BOLO'S PUB AND EATERY: REQUEST FOR BEER AND WINE LICENSE: (APPROVED) 18. TEXACO TRAVEL CENTER: REQUEST FOR BEER AND WINE LICENSE: (APPROVED) 19. ROBERT MONTGOMERY: PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED STORAGE FACILITY WITHIN MERIDIAN CITY AREA OF IMPACT: (WRITE LETTER TO ADA COUNTY) 20. TERRY ADAMS - FOREIGN TRADE ZONE: (ALLOW MAYOR TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS ON THE FOREIGN TRADE ZONE) 21. BEDFORD PLACE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: (APPROVED) 22. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER: 1. BID RESULTS: WELL NO. 12 PUMP REPLACEMENT: (APPROVE CARON PUMP SYSTEMS BID FOR $77,850.00) 2. EPILEPSY LEAGUE OF IDAHO - MUD VOLLEYBALL: B. SHARI STILES, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR: 1. DESIGNATION OF ERO FOR SENIOR CENTER ICDBGI PROJECT UPDATE: (APPROVED) C. WAYNE CROOKSTON, CITY ATTORNEY 1. FOTHERGILL CC&R'S: (APPROVED) 23. EXECUTIVE SESSION: MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MAY 16, 1995 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Grant Kingsford at 7:30 P.M,: MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Morrow, Max Yerrington, Bob Corrie, Ron Tolsma: OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith Shari Stiles, John McCreedy, Wilma Barker, Mike Littlefield, Delores Richey, Virgil Richey, Mary Edmondson, Lee Edmondson, Doug Campbell, G.A. Ruyl, Gary Fletcher, Forrest Kermes, Wayne Forrey, Gerald Rice, Richard Willis, Ed Burtner, Glen Griffin, Tresha Griffin, Gary Fors, John Timons, Karen Gallagher, Jeff Hull, Steven Bradbury, Bill Teter, Gary Lee, Ted Hutchinson, Russ Hepworth, Bryan McKoy, Brent Adamson, Mike Caven, Brad Miller, Michael Vance, Robert Montgomery, Terry Adamson, David Turnbull: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MAY 2,1995: Kingsford: Are there any corrections to those minutes? Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I move they be approved as written. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve the May 2nd minutes, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF C-G FOR 74 ACRES BY E. L. SEWS: Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his designee to speak first. Wayne Forrey, 52 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Forrey: Mayor and members of the Council, my name is Wayne Forrey and I am working with Ed Sews. Ed is a native of Eagle and Meridian, in fact he graduated from Meridian High School I think about 50 years ago, he has a reunion this summer. He has owned property along Franklin Road, which border to Interstate 84 about 17 years. I am going to show you a few aerial views of that property and walk through some of the history of this project to be very concise I know there are some folks that want to testify on this tonight. This is looking towards the east and in the foreground is the St. Luke's Hospital project vvhich is under construction. That is the Interstate 84/Eagle Road Interchange which would be the northeast quadrant the Bews property is in green, the light brown property is Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 2 included in the annexation request. That is the portion of the Interstate that abuts the Sews property there. This is the neighborhood in general, you see a plan view here of the Interstate Interchange, some of the residential development and rural residential that is out in that area. The green property is all of the Bews property, the olive green color that you see is a Farmington Estates Subdivision which was approved I think in the early 80's and was anticipated for a residential development by Ed Sews, platted but never developed. Then in late 1993 vvhen the City of Meridian began updating the Comprehensive Plan and it became apparent that the City anticipated significant business type development at that interchange area, Ed decided to vacate the Farmington Estates plat, that has been vacated. I am going to walk you through a history from that point since the Comprehensive Plan to tonight. In January when the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan it became apparent that the City anticipated mixed and business uses at that interchange area. So in May of 1994 a year ago we submitted and application for annexation for mixed planned development zoning and then in June 14 we had a Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing on that annexation request. The Planning and Zoning Commission decided to table that request until November 7 of 1994 to give the City time to update the zoning and development ordinance. At that time there was consideration for a health service zone in that area. Then in November we got back off the table and then the Planning and Zoning Commission decided to continue that tabling to give the City more time to amend the zoning ordinance again looking at that health service zone issue. Then in February of 1995 we had various meetings with City officials and we received direction to go ahead and proceed with an established zone that is already in the ordinance rather than waiting for a future health service zone that mayor may not happen. And then include a list of specific land uses to be processed by a conditional use permit. Very similar and same procedure that the St. Luke's project was approved by the City. On February 17th we did apply for C-G Commercial General zoning because the majority or the predominant land use that we anticipate in this project would be commercial in nature, but there would be some non-commercial uses to blend in with the mixed development objectives so we proceeded with a conditional use permit then and identified 12 specific land uses. On March 14th we had a public hearing with the Planning and Zoning Commission, we identified those 12 specific uses, we have been coordinating very good I believe with St. Luke's Hospital through this past year. Watching their project grow and develop and anticipating development of the Sews property. They looked at the 12 uses we worked out with them, one use was confusing to the hospital and it was the auto travel plaza. They felt they could agree to all of the 12 uses on the Sews property as compatible to the hospital as long as the auto travel plaza would not become a truck stop. If it was a truck stop then they felt that specific use would not be compatible with their proposed medical project. Then on April 11 findings of fact and conclusions of law for annexation to commercial general with that conditional use for those 12 specific uses was approved by your Planning and Zoning Commission and recommended onto the City Council. That recommendation came with a list of conditions. We agree to all of the ACHD conditions, Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 3 their comments and approvals. We have had 4 different occasions to work with the Highway District. Item B there is we agree completely with the Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Central District Health, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District, the School and US West conditions that have been incorporated into the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Now there are a few conditions we would like some clarification on to understand how it would apply to this development. First of all in the March 10, 1995 memo from Mr. Bruce Freckleton, in his comment #2 pertaining to wells. The comment was that any wells on the property would have to be discontinued or abandoned. There are I believe 3 wells on the property, one is a production well, production capability well. It is about 485 feet deep, it has been recently pump tested. It would be a very good well for a City to develop. We are actively negotiating right now with the City of Meridian. Hopefully the city would acquire that well or want to use that well. So we would like to clarify his comments #2 to keep the possibility open to continue negotiating with the City if you see it is advantageous to use that well rather than just walk away from it. Also in that same memo there were comments from the Planning and Zoning Administrator. Comment #1 pertained to putting planned development regulations on this application. We did not apply for planned development, we proceeded with a zone that you have now in your zoning ordinance with a conditional use process to allow those other specific uses. So we would thing that comment #1 would not apply. The same with comment #4 it would not apply to this specific situation. Comment #7 asks that we coordinate with St. Luke's Hospital to make sure they were compatible uses and we believe we have done that. We have already accomplished that. I am stating tonight that the auto use that we listed will not be a truck stop. That is because of the sensitivity and the partnership that we want to have and have had with St. Luke's Hospital. Comment #8 asks that all the uses in this project be subject to a conditional use procedure. We are asking for C-G zoning and your current ordinance does allow 6 of the 12 uses that we are proposing to be developed right now in the C-G zone. So the same C-G zone that you have at Meridian 1-84 Interchange for example that same zoning is what we are applying for. We would want the same opportunity to proceed with permitted uses at this project just like any other property owner in Meridian that has C-G zoning. Now for other uses we definitely support and want to proceed with a conditional use permit. Let me show you what those uses are. In the application we identified these 12 uses as part of the Conditional Use Permit. The general retail, commercial and professional offices the auto travel plaza which will not become a a truck stop, the hotel suites and motel complex and down at the bottom the restaurants those are permitted right now in your C-G zone. That is the zone we are asking for, those other uses the retirement center, the nursing/elderly care town houses, multi family apartments, patio home and medical services would require a conditional use permit. Those certainly should be processed at future City Council public hearings. So in that process as the Sews project proceeds and let's assume a restaurant is developed we would proceed on that basis without a conditional use but come in for the site plan review through the normal permit processing through City Hall, but the medical services or the retirement center would come Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 4 into City Hall, public hearing before the City Council with specific site plans. That is the way we hope that it is approved by the City. We think that makes then very good balance of uses, it keeps in character with the existing C-G zoning that we have in the community. But those uses that are needed to be reviewed by the public with specific site plans we definitely agree that it ought to be done by conditional use permit process. I would be happy to answer any questions. Kingsford: Mr. Forrey, you are aware that the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted in I believe December of 1993 required that all that area have a conditional use permit. So what you are proposing in that permitted area would be in violation of our Comprehensive Plan. Forrey: I guess it depends on how you apply that policy, you know Mayor I helped write that and at the time we met with Citizens the example that was used to help write that policy about conditional uses along the Interstate and I don't want to be derogatory but there as a business property in Meridian right along the Interstate that was developed without a conditional use permit and citizens said we don't want that kind of thing to happen again. There is no landscaping, no screening, they are really close to the fence along the Interstate, there should have been a set back, how do we prevent that from happening. My response was well we should have a conditional use permit policy that addresses that. So, now, at the time we did that I don't think anyone envisioned that would be 6 or 7 or 8 or a 1000 feet deep away from the I nterstate. The intent Mayor was to get uses along the Interstate under a conditional use permit process to review for citizen and City Council and public review. I don't know how far you stretch that back. Should something on Franklin Road be subject to Conditional Use because it is within a 1000 feet of the Interstate, I don't know. But if that is the direction that you are taking that policy and that is really a Council decision because the Camp Plan is a policy guide and ultimately it comes back to the Council. If that is the feeling of the Council then I would agree with that and Ed is here tonight and he would agree with it. If that is the way the City is going to treat all of the properties along the Interstate that it be done by Conditional Use then the playing field is there. If other property owners have to do that we will do it as well. It just comes down to that Council interpretation of depth. Kingsford: Other questions of the Council? Corrie: Mr. Mayor, this auto travel plaza, you say it is not there now, or it is still there. I am a little foggy on that. Forrey: This is, in the conditional use permit, working with City staff, we came up with the process of giving a specific list of uses that would happen at the Sews property to allow this conditional use permit. During the public testimony at the Planning and Zoning Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 5 Commission 8t. Luke's Hospital commented that they had no problem with all of those 12 uses except they did not understand what an auto travel plaza would be. And they said if that is a truck stop or a fancy name for a truck stop then we are against it. We don't want a truck stop next to the future hospital. So, I am saying tonight it will not be a truck stop that is just a gas station a gas and go chevron it is an excellent example here in Meridian of an auto travel plaza. Now there are some trucks that deliver fuel in there and that would happen here as well but it would not be designed and constructed as a truck stop. It would be designed as an auto fueling and quick gas and go type operation. Kingsford: Other questions of Mr. Forrey? Thank you, anyone else from the public? John McCreedy, 1275 Shoreline, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. McCreedy: Mayor and members of the Counci!l am an attorney, I work for Jim Jones in Boise and I am here tonight on behalf of 12 residents of Meridian. The Griffins, the Hines, the Burtner's, the Hollingsworth's, the Kearne's, the Nelson's, the Clark's, the Ownby's, the Barchi's, the Timon's, Mr. Hoalst, and Mr. Willis. I did this afternoon fax over to the Mayor and Council a letter that I would like to have included in the official public record as testimony of those people. I do have extra copies if anyone didn't get it. I did have a chance the speak with Wayne this afternoon a little and kind of gave him an outline of what our concerns were at this point. Kingsford: You are speaking of Wayne Crookston? McCreedy: Wayne Forrey, surprise attack on this, the bottom line as I understand it is the Montvue Residential Subdivision is located essentially adjacent to the prbposed development did not have notice other than by newspaper notice of this development application. The majority of them really haven't had an opportunity to look at the project or to come in here and testify. Now I understand that the City of Meridian complied with the 300 foot notice but I kind of question whether that is adequate in this case. I think the City does have the authority to expand those notice requirements and that is going to be one of the issues we would like to take up tonight. Although technically the notice requirements were complied with clearly I think the residents of the Montvue Subdivision have some concerns and that they are going to be affected by this proposed development. There is some access issues that clearly affect them, there will be some noise issues, general land use, fundamental land use issues that will affect them. They all have water well, or the majority of them do that may be impacted. Public services, you have had a recommendation from P & Z that you get a fire department in the area. All those issues will in fact affect the Montvue Residents. I was contacted for the first time last night by my secretary who indicated that they really didn't have an understanding of what was going on. She asked me to come and speak tonight and I told I would do that provided that she Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 6 got me enough sponsors to play in a golf marathon up in Terrace Lakes in a few weeks. So that is how I got hooked into it. We would first off like to ask the Council to consider a formal deferral of this to the June 6th City Council hearing. The reason is I think the record is pretty clear that there was not actual notice to those (inaudible). I have had a chance to talk to a few of them. They do have some serious concerns, Wayne Forrey and I agreed this afternoon that it would be good to get those 2 groups together and try to address some of those concerns. If in fact a deferral is not in order then we would ask that you deny the conditional use permit application and the rezone. We have several fairly good legal and factual reasons for that denial. One, I think the folks in Montvue need an opportunity to comment on a specific plan, a specific, comprehensive, single, formal development plan for the proposed area. That includes the appropriate studies, the traffic studies the environmental studies. From what I understand from Mr. Forrey's presentation he would prefer more of a piece meal approach to the approval and we think that is contrary to the Comprehensive Plan and it is pretty much contrary to due process where citizens have an opportunity to take a good hard look at a formal, clear, concise, sufficiently detailed proposal that is going to affect their property rights. So we think that is the better course to go. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Commission, I commend them they are fairly exhaustive and they do a pretty good job of setting forth the issues. I think it is clear that under the Meridian Comprehensive Plan that this area is certainly considered planned unit development material and that is what should be done. We'd ask that there be a couple of modifications to those findings of fact and conclusions. You have clearly got any number of agencies that expressed a lot of concerns with the project, IDEQ, the Division of Environmental Equality, ACHD, the traffic study, the St. Luke's plan that is out there. There is a lot of material for these residents to have an opportunity to look at to ensure that their rights are protected. We'd ask that you wrap all of those basic conditions up into one clear, concise environmental study that is to be filed with the City and made available to the residents that they have an opportunity to look at it rather than 7 or 8 different filed studies that come in at different times. Provide a time line for the submission of that study so that these residents can understand how it is going to affect their property. Second we would ask that you consider imposing design review along with public hearing with the design review on the project. We think that is clearly within your authority and it would certainly help go a long ways toward providing a forum for the citizens and the developer to get together and decide what looks best for that area. Third, I would point out to you a decision that I did participate in the Judge Bail issue and it regards how you process development agreements. The basic issue is do you approve the use first and then take a look at the development agreement or do you look at the proposed use and the development agreement at the same time and approve or deny both of them together essentially in tandem. Judge Bail looked at it and this is of course the Boise zoning ordinance not the Meridian zoning ordinance and concluded that there the language was pretty clear and I have provided a copy of her decision. That if you are going to require a development agreement don't approve the change in the rezone first, Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 7 hold up on the rezone, don't enter findings and conclusions approving it because that would be premature but take a hard look at the development agreement. Make sure it does in fact meet the terms and conditions of the Comprehensive Plan and then if it does grant the rezone and if it doesn't deny it. Now I do not that in the Meridian ordinance you do have a provision that allows you to pass rules and regulations on how you are going to create and require development agreements. I don't know that those rules and regulations are out there yet but this is probably one of the first opportunities to define how you are going to do that process. I think Judge Bail's reasoning is the better policy and that is give the citizens an opportunity to look at one Comprehensive Plan for development for the parcel at one public hearing and that hasn't occurred yet. We think that is the better approach to doing it. It is fundamentally a due process issue, I note that the developer says tonight that they did not apply for a planned unit development but I think you clearly have the authority to require one. It seems to be mandated under your Comprehensive Plan. If you are going to approve 6 uses and then leave 6 uses subject to conditional use permit you have to kind of wonder what the purpose of having those additional public hearings might be. There is definitely going to be infrastructure and other matters in place to accommodate the first six uses that should be commented on first before those uses go into affect. We don't think the (inaudible) is going to serve the residents, they should have a opportunity to comment on one project at one time. The Planning and Zoning Commission did not recommend further public hearings on the development agreement or on any final development plan. We would specifically ask that notice be provided to and we can provide you a list of the residents who are interested to the people in the Montvue Subdivision that are clearly going to be affected and that there be additional public hearings on the development agreement and the final development plan before any development goes forward. That is the testimony that I have and I thank you. Kingsford: Thank you, any questions? Crookston: Mr. McCreedy, did I understand you to say that you do feel the City met the notice requirements within the 300 feet? McCreedy: I haven't personally examined the mailing of it but I do note that in the findings of fact and conclusions of law it has stated that they did meet the 300 foot notice requirement. I did look at the mailing list, I haven't gone out and personally measured whether there are people within the 300 foot area. It appears that they met it in order to definitely state it under oath I would have to do some more work (inaudible). I do think that 300 foot requirement should be expanded particularly for planned unit developments when there are subdivisions that are going to be affected. Kingsford: I would like to ask, I wasn't clear, how does this development affect people's wells there? I don't understand that logic. Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 8 McCreedy: Well, I do note that from talking with a couple of the residents that when other subdivisions were put in around them and wells sunk that they did notice a decrease in their pressure. Now as this one is going to be hooked up to City sewer and water that may not be an issue. But there are certainly some waterways in the area, the recommendation is that they be tiled and lined, but again that is an issue to be looked at. Kingsford: Thank you Gary Fletcher, St. Lukes Regional Medical Center, was sworn by the City Attorney. Fletcher: I apologize for not getting this over to you earlier Mayor and members of the Council but I will briefly go through it and you will have an opportunity to look at it later and 1 would be glad to get copies to anybody who might like to have those. I am appearing to make comment on the applications before the City Council for annexation and conditional use for the E.L Bews property. As you all know St. Luke's has been working for more than a year now preparing to begin the St. Luke's West Ambulatory Care Center now underway at Eagle Road an 1-84. In the course of this preparation I think many will testify that we have assumed a leadership role in working with the City on utility services which facilitated access for other property owners. On thing 1 want to make clear this evening we are not here to oppose development in any respect, we don't think it is up to 81. Luke's to dictate or to have a predominant role in decisions that are made relative to the development of this area. Rather it is responsibility of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council and the neighbors and developers and we would hope to playa substantial role in that process and participate to the extent that it is beneficial to the area but also hopefully beneficial to the patients that we are going to serve here in Meridian at St. Luke's West. The concern 1 think that brings us here this evening is that over the past few weeks there have been discussions relative to traffic circulation and roadways within the area bounded by Eagle Road, 1-84, Franklin and Cloverdale. I believe you received a letter that you hopefully you have seen dated May 3rd from Deborah Tullis and Thomas Webb relative to some of these discussions which have gone on. We want to make it clear this evening that we were not asked and have not participated in any of these discussions much to our chagrin. In our view clearly there has not been adequate study done to support any action to traffic circulation or public roadways in this area. We would respectfully request that the City Council not take any action that might establish or even project at this point public roadways in this area at this juncture. I need to tell you that we have commissioned ourself preliminary traffic studies that we are willing to make available to the City and any others that might wish to see them based on our understanding of the developments that would occur at the St. Luke's site as well as the developments east of there to Cloverdale. These studies suggest at this preliminary stage that all 3 developments namely the St. Luke's development, Mr. Bews's and the Tullisffhomas development could not be adequately served by a public access through St. Luke's Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 9 property for that matter by the existing Franklin Road and Eagle Road and the intersections that may be planned or might be envisioned in these areas. Our opinion based on these studies is that these developments frankly could not be completed in totality as they are being proposed and you may not have seen anything relative to the TullislThomas development. We just received a copy of that today, but our judgement is that none of those developments could be completed in their totality with the current road system or frankly with a major road through the St. Luke's property. So, all of us would be compromised as it relates to access ingress and egress at least as it currently appears. S1. Luke's purchased the property at 1-84 and Eagle Road to develop a medical campus and it was our intent to maximize the use of that property over time. In our judgement any significant roadway through the campus could seriously compromise future development along with access to these medical facilities by patients and ambulances. After obtaining the necessary approvals we began construction early this year before any other annexation or conditional use applications were heard. It is our opinion that St. Luke's should not now be conditioned by action on applications currently under consideration. I think in summary we would ask that no action be taken to establish or imply roadways at this point until the implications of that are studied and considered so that the area can be developed in an orderly and planned way. So again we are not here to particularly oppose anything or support anything we are here to express concerns relative to what we envision to be major traffic circulation and roadway problems in this area. We do not want a chain of events in terms of any approvals to dictate what might end up being done relative to traffic circulation and roadways. Rather what we are asking for is a deferral on any action that relates to traffic circulation and roadways so that there could be an opportunity for the City and neighbors and ourselves and others to participate in whatever process may be necessary to determine what is best for the entire area for the future based on what is envisioned in terms of developments. Thank you very much Mayor and members of the Council, I would be glad to respond to any questions that you might have. Morrow: Mr. Fletcher, your original concept for the St. Luke's Campus was one of a closed self sufficient single site and not dependant upon surrounding developments to support your facility? Fletcher: That is correct. Morrow: One comment, its S1. Luke's Meridian and then Boise. Fletcher: I apologize, I will know better next time. Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Fletcher? Thank you Gary, anyone else from the public? Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 10 Forrest Kearns, 230 Southwest Montvue, was sworn by the City Attorney. Kearns: I just have a couple of comments. One, we, Mr. Fletcher came and talked to all of us last year and we understood that their plan was closed campus so to speak, low traffic impact area. And now we have been advised that they wish to put a road across here through St. Luke's which is certainly within 300 feet of the Montvue Subdivision. I am a licensed land surveyor, I can tell you this is a 1/2 mile, this is a 1/4 mile and this is 330 feet, this is Holloway's property. While that is not 300 feet per say I agree with the Attorney that is helping us that it is probably reasonable to assume that we would like to know what is going on. Our major concern is a roadway through here which would definitely affect us. And also as a surveyor I have been involved in water studies and water generally follows ground water will generally follow and I can't testify totally to that but it will generally follow your above ground water courses. This is a water course here so this will affect and everyone of us over here has our own well. So it would affect our water. Kingsford: But only if there were wells put there, if I am reading the concerns correctly. Kearns: Also, on the roadway, it was my understanding that the major reason for putting the road in there was because there is not that they needed 2 accesses. That is 1320 feet less maybe 100 feet where Bear's property is there. That is plenty wide enough for 2 accesses in off of Franklin plus the plan that we saw indicated a connection with I don't know whose subdivision is over here, but it indicated a road coming through this area too into that. I guess it came from over in here somewhere and out into that other one is better, but it went over in along Franklin over towards Cloverdale and gained another access in that area. That is alii have to say, any questions? Morrow: I have a question, I am confused about this well issue. Typically the wells in your subdivision would be 90 to 120 feet deep and these projects would be served by City water which are generally 450 to 750 deep not even in the same strata. They would be required to have pressurized irrigation which would take advantage of surface water as provided by Nampa Meridian and so I don't see where they would be any issue at all here that relates to individual domestic wells within the subdivision which you live. What is the point with respect to the wells? Kearns: I guess our major concern is that the development will get into that strata and affect our water. We feel that there should be a comprehensive study done as to the effect on our water and also the waste water and that sort of thing. Morrow: Waste water meaning? Kearns: Surface run off from the streets, how will that be handled, will that affect us? Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 11 Kingsford: Those are things that would have to be covered, typically they are retained on site and so on, but it is a valid concern. Any other questions of the Council? Anyone else from the public? Gerald Rylf, 360 Montvue Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Rylf: Mayor Kingsford, gentlemen of the Council, I would like to start off my little presentation by asking everybody in Montvue Drive to please stand up. Now this is a majority portion of the people that live on Montvue Drive. When they say our concern is the road that has been proposed immediately adjacent to our subdivision and how it would affect everyone. We have gone to the P & Z notes, minutes and we have selected paragraphs which we feel will directly affect our subdivision. I will just briefly note these, on page 8, paragraph 4 talks about any development be harmonious with the general vicinity. Now since our area has been one of low development and the people that are attempting to develop the area around us are talking about an extremely high density development, they are talking about apartments, town houses and so forth. Also, in paragraph 4D it deals with having a non-hazardous situation or one that is disturbing. A road immediately adjacent to Montvue Drive that could be possibly feed from a road coming from Franklin could and probably would be used as a short cut for people trying to avoid the existing Eagle Road, Franklin Road intersection trying to get to 1-84 and the reverse coming from 1-84 and then going back up. If a road was put through the property by St. Luke's. On paragraph 4F is says that any development would be non-detrimental to the economic welfare of the community and we find that hard to believe in that if our tax base would be suddenly increased because of a forced annexation by Meridian which will surround us maybe gentlemen we will be voters for Meridian. And we question who is going to pay for the fire department and where would it physically be located on the St. Luke's property. Paragraph 4G deals with excessive production of traffic or noise. Once again we consider that traffic possibly coming from Franklin and escaping out through a road through the 81. Luke's property onto Eagle Road would be extremely noisy. Paragraph 41 we talk about no destruction of natural or scenic features. It is already stated that if the road would go through that the proposed jogging paths and vegetation that would be planted by 81. Luke's would have to be given up and have to be stopped. We submit that the BewslTullis people could select alternate routes for roads if they need to be the property including going south over the freeway if they have to or going toward Cloverdale and selecting that instead of trying to load down Eagle Road. Are we going to have restaurant signs next to the hospital saying this road to Jolly Back hamburgers etc. Now, if the property immediately adjacent to the subdivision which belongs to a man named Holloway, he has it up for sale now and is expecting somebody to come and buy his property. A road could also be placed on the Holloway property intersecting any road that would be through St. Luke's. Thereby increasing the traffic, we would request that not only a traffic study but environmental study be taken into consideration by the City Council Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 12 before approving anything. May I answer a question about the water at this time for Mr. Morrow. As you know sir, anytime agricultural land is no longer being irrigated that it does help in feed the aquifer an the aquifer is getting less and less. Once again here we have agricultural land being promoted into something where they will take from the aquifer but they will put nothing back. The people in the subdivision are concerned about their water, we do not have City water in the subdivision. We are all on wells and have septic systems. That is aliI have, thank you very much. Kingsford: Any questions for Gerald? Thank you Richard Willis, 3555 Montvue Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Willis: Mr. Mayor and Council I live on Montvue Drive and I would like to say when Mr. Bew's representative made his proposal he stated that his proposal was in accordance with Sf. Luke's master plan. I recall attending a meeting when Sf. Luke's presented their master plan as did most of Montvue. I don't believe anyone protested the plan that Sf. Luke's presented. They were very considerate of all of the neighbors in Montvue and they took our views into account when they developed their plan. Quite frankly I don't remember seeing anything on that plan of an access road as Mr. Bews is showing on his plan. Now, I live on Montvue so I know what the traffic is on Eagle, you don't have to be a traffic engineer or do any studies to walk out on Eagle Road at a busy time of the day and you will see traffic (End of Tape) because there is not a whole lot of development on southeast Eagle. We understand that is about to change and we have heard stories about when that development goes in over there they are talking about 24,000 cars a day. Where are those 24,000 cars going? A good number of them are going to come down Eagle and we also know that Eagle is proposed to be 4 lanes all the way to Eagle and will eventually be the major north/south access to the northern part of the state. If you go out there and look now if you put a light at S1. Luke's the current traffic that stops at Franklin will back up from that light up to your freeway off ramp. You start dumping 24,000 more cars or however many there are shortly you are going to have the same situation that Boise had a Cole and Overland. Traffic will be out onto your freeway. Now, the last point I would like to make is we have heard testimony here from Sf. Luke's stating that they don't want that road, now when the S1. Luke's property was originally approved I would like you to recall back there was a lady that appeared before the Council who was protesting a zoning change of her neighbor along Franklin Road. She had an attorney represent her who made a very good presentation but at the end of the presentation Mr. Morrow who I recall specifically asked this lady's attorney if his client was willing to purchase her neighbors property. And she said no and Mr. Morrow made the most profound statement that was made that night when he stated than what gives you the right, your client's right to tell that neighbor what they can do with their property. That is exactly what Mr. Bew's representative is telling S1. Luke's is that they are going to have to give them access. And we have heard testimony Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 13 that they do not want that. Now you stated you have to treat all citizens equally and I stand behind that 100%. So if the statement was true that night it is true this night as well. Thank you. Kingsford: Any questions for Mr. Willis? Morrow: My only comment is that I stand by the statement. Ed Burtner, 285 Montvue Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Burtner: I just wanted to add one comment on the wells, I think the other things have been pretty well expressed already. Mel Southerland who also lives on Montvue Drive was not able to be here tonight, he asked me to express and I will say because I know this to be true. The wells during the, a couple of years ago when we had the realtor out they started that well up on the property, you will have to excuse me I have a problem with my throat. They started that well on a pump 24 hours a day and everybody here in the subdivision will know this. At that time Mel Southerland's well dropped to the point where he could not get water out of the bottom of it. Guss Hine who is not here tonight his has dropped, mine has dropped considerably over the time since we moved there. There must be some sort of connection between that big well and the water we get. I think it is something that should be considered. If we are going to be using our wells we have to know that we are going to have water. That is all I have to say. Kingsford: Thank you Ed Glen Griffith, 3295 North Montvue Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Griffith: All my neighbors have adequately addressed most of our concerns. I think there is one other issue that for us who have purchased property in this subdivision within the last couple of years it hasn't been addressed and that is if the City Council's decision is to go ahead and approve this and their solution for our water situation is to force us to sign onto the City water that is a considerable financial undertaking. Some of us it is going to be a hardship. I purchased this property me and my wife with the knowledge that we had water. If we kept our well up that was the way it would stay. Now, I didn't fathom being in the City this quickly. I think it is an issue that ought to be brought up. Robin Hollingsworth, 3300 North Montvue Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hollingsworth: In listening to the testimony this evening by Mr. Forrey, he spoke a lot of how well he has worked with St. Luke's Hospital and that may well be but I think that he did not take the residents of our subdivision into consideration. As has been stated tonight Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 14 we knew what the plan was for St. Luke's Hospital there was not plan for an access road. They were going to put up a beautiful buffering of landscaping, there was going to be a jogging path for residents of not only our subdivision but also of the Greenhill Estates across the street so that it could be accessible to them also. That will be eliminated by this plan. Also, as far as Eagle Road goes and the Eagle Road congestion we not only have Eagle Road but we also have two lateral roads, Overland and Franklin. They are 2 way roads at this time, 2 lanes. Last week I was in my yard and my friend was coming out of Springwood Drive which is directly across from Montvue Drive. For curiosity sake because we have been having so much trouble and this mind you was at 7:30 in the evening, I glanced at my watch and it took her 8 minutes and that was to get across to the median. And then to ease her way into oncoming traffic, that is not even during rush hour. As Mr. Willis stated daily traffic is backed up past Montvue Drive, well towards where the access to St. Luke's and where this access, the access road that is proposed by Forrey will be located. At this time it is just absolutely impossible. I also agree with Mr. Fletcher, I do believe that this is a piece meal. When you are a resident in a subdivision and you do not have privy to all of the paperwork and to tell you the truth we do not want to make it a full time job to read the little Meridian newspaper, the Idaho Statesman, listen to public television wherever it is that they place these notices we do not for the next year and a half to the two years want to make it a full time occupation to keep up with what is going to be coming in our backyard. I feel that a plan needs to be submitted in its entirety and that we will be able to see exactly what Mr. Bews is going to do as far as noise reduction and also I would say lighting. Especially if we have an access road so that there will not be anything that is intrusive on our neighborhood. So I would like to see the full plan. I think that we all know that growth is inevitable and that especially this intersection is very much desirable. We understand that but we would also hope that we could work with existing residents. That our way of life won't be so disturbed that we won't be able to sell our homes because we are an island. I just feel that we could do this in such a fashion that it could also be harmonious with the residents in Montvue Subdivision. Kingsford: Thank you Tresha Griffith, 3295 North Montvue, was sworn by the City Attorney. Griffith: What I wanted to talk about was traffic. Since there is so much cars going on Eagle Road and one winter when it was really bad the cars were backed up they thought our subdivision was a short cut so we had about 80 cars in just a few minutes pulling in and turning around and finding out it was a dead end. You should have seen the mess that it caused. So that is why I think we need traffic studies and other studies to take a look at and see what kind of impact this will have on us. Also, every year we have a pair of ducks that return to our land and I would hate to see this wild life habitat disappear because of the congestion of traffic and noise and other things that might prevent them Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 15 from returning back. When I step out into my back yard I feel like it is a park because I enjoy seeing them walking around and hoping that they nest around there. Seeing that the neighbors have their animals and it is an agricultural subdivision I think it is really good for the kids to see this wildlife and how it is to live in a quiet subdivision. It is one of the older subdivisions in the city. I thin we need to preserve a lot of the older stuff instead of trying to modernize and push everybody out. I think it is my opinion that I would like to see a traffic study, another study so we could look at and make some comments and also have a public hearing so we express some other concerns. Thanks Kingsford: Thank you Gary Fors, 843 Lilac, was sworn by the City Attorney. Fors: This isn't pertaining to anything going on tonight I just wanted to let all the Council members know that we have had a meeting at 4:00 tomorrow in City Hall if you haven't been informed on it. Thank you Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Anyone else first please, let's take one shot at everybody if we could? Kearns: (Inaudible) about the road and the traffic being backed up here at the Eagle Intersection. This land is this has been widened (inaudible) which makes a considerable difference in the amount of traffic backed up (inaudible). Kingsford: Thank you Mike Littlefield, 325 Montvue Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Littlefield: I would like to speak about the most important thing and as a resident of Montvue Park Subdivision those of us who have families who have small children those of us who don't have children or are generally retired I would like to speak of safety. We have addressed lightly a fire department, I don't believe we have discussed any, we discussed traffic problems but I don't think we discussed basically a transient community which would be moving in adjacent to our property. We have very nice homes, we live in a very nice neighborhood, it has an excellent neighborhood watch. With apartment complexes moving in and people traveling basically though our neighborhood and through our backyards we have not discussed any safety issues. We have discussed any crime issues, we haven't discussed any of those things. I think all of those things need to be addressed. The road that we have now, basically we had a community meeting roughly eight or nine months ago where we decided as a neighborhood we would put up some lights. We knew we were going to have these problems but we were hoping we were Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 16 going to go on overkill by putting up these street lights. Now that we have you can see basically it is one road in, it make a little turn, it is tear dropped shaped and goes back out. We have children that like to ride their bikes, we have people that like to take walks around the neighborhood, we have horses, we have people that walk around through that neighborhood. Their safety is now becoming a concern where we all moved out into that area to avoid safety concerns. We have animals, we have children, and those are my concerns. I believe those are probably concerns of everybody in this room. I think they need to be addressed as well. Kingsford: Thank you, anyone else? Seeing none I will close the public hearing, Council members. It is clear we have received additional testimony is that right Counselor? Crookston; That is correct. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to have the City Attorney prepare new findings of fact and conclusions of law on the annexation and zoning to C-G for Ed Bews, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea (Inaudible) Kingsford: I would have taken that if I hadn't closed the public hearing, now we are going to have new findings. Go ahead Crookston: You need to re-open the hearing. Kingsford: Re-open the public hearing, you know what you are going to create, we are going to go full round again. Forrey: No, I think it is solutions, I have been taking notes and listening to citizens and here are some things to think about in terms of your findings of fact and for good development here. First of all if the Council policy in terms of that one Comprehensive Plan policy about Conditional Uses along the Interstate if that is the procedure the Council is going to follow then I want you to know that Ed Bews does not have a problem with that. We stated that at the Planning and Zoning public hearing and are re-iterating that tonight asking Council to make that determination of how to (inaudible) that policy. Secondly, Ada Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 17 County Highway District has required a traffic study of the Bews property and the St. Luke's property and they have asked to coordinate both of those properties together work with the Highway District, we are doing that. St. Luke's is a little ahead of us they started the traffic study and we are starting our with them. ACHD controls the layout of roads here. The Highway District on four separate occasions has asked that there be a traffic connector between the Sews property and the S1. Luke's property. If the Highway District changes that the policies we have to follow. One of the access points that has been proposed would be on the north side of the S1. Luke's site. I think a good way to mitigate the concerns that people have here is to move that access road and maybe move it down close to the Interstate which is another concept we have explored. At one time we anticipated 2 traffic roads between the 2 sites ACHD has indicated only one is necessary. It does not have to be on the north side and I think one of the things I would like to do with the homeowners out there in Montvue Subdivision and the Highway District and St. Luke's is look at moving that south and meetings we have had with St. Luke's Hospital they recognize they have to have some traffic access. We are going to have hotel, motel, restaurants, those services are critical to the hospital and for the people that will use that facility in Meridian. So there has to be some type of traffic access, maybe not a major road and I agree with that. We have got to do some good planning here with the highway district and with the citizens and we will do that. If the City acquires the Sews well and if there is a relationship between those water strata than the City has options, mainly not use it, if there is a problem we certainly want to protect your water or deepen it to get into a totally different strata, maybe we could go down to 700 feet instead of 485 to protect the water that is there. I sympathize with that and I hope that helps. Just a commitment that we will continue to work and help and try and make this a good project that we can all be proud of and not hurt Montvue Subdivision. Kingsford: Well certainly Mr. Forrey that is something that you need to move posthaste on because it is my understanding that utilities are already being planned or extended in that northern area. So that would need to be accommodated, we don't want to cut up the S1. Luke's property for them. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I think Mr. Forrey what I would like to see speaking for myself is that we are talking of about, there was a letter here from Thomas Tullis folk asking for more input with respect to traffic circulation. Mr. Fletcher testified to S1. Luke's concern, I think that what I would like to see is as a City Councilman is these things structured put into format and brought before the City Council. Forrey: The traffic study? Morrow: I want to see what the ultimate plan for those properties is and how it relates to other plans. I think the thing is that the danger is that these things get put together Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 18 some'Nhat haphazard infringe on other properties own plans and what I would like to see and I think it is a responsibility of the Council to see those plans and either pass on them favorably or unfavorably. But have on the public record the concurrence of Mr. Fletcher and St. Luke's, the concurrence of the ThomaslTullis properties, and the ones affected. I think those people ought to speak for themselves and say yes we are satisfied with this plan or no we are not satisfied with this plan. I think that should be done. Forrey: In that arrangement then probably the best way to approach it would be that the uses as it is stated in the current findings of fact that the uses would be subject to conditional use permit and review by City Council. I believe that would address that concern. Morrow: Wett I think there are some other issues there also. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, also Wayne, the 3 areas of roads, the top one which is commercial general, does that go into Montvue? Forrey: No, it goes into the Hottoway Tree Service property. That also was a requirement of the Ada County Highway District, they did not want a connection into the Montvue, it was a stub street into the Holloway property. Corrie: Then the other 2 is it says H20 the water line and the bottom one is below the hospital complex. Forrey: That is correct? Corrie: And those would go out to Eagle Road am I correct on that or (inaudible) in their parking lot? Forrey: No that is very conceptual and it is not meant to imply anything on the St. Luke's property. This was just exploring ideas with the highway district. At one time there was a concept of 2 connectors to St. Luke's but they have agreed now that it should be one and that has not been accurately located. Whether it is on the north side or the south side or the middle that is something the traffic study has to decide. Kingsford: Any other questions or comments? Mr. Morrow? Morrow: I have a comment and I think my personal preference would be to table pending these studies. Now we are talking about maybe concepts obviously some of the testimony we have had tonight including myself would like to see something more than concepts Wayne. So I think in fairness to us to the City Council and to our staff and to our citizens Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 19 I think that I would like to see some of these things ironed out before we go to findings so I would like to see it tabled until we can get more definitive information. That is a comment on my part. Kingsford: Any other questions first for Wayne? I did re-open the public hearing ma'am you are welcome to come and speak. Mary Edmondson, 3360 North Montvue, was sworn by the City Attorney. Edmondson: When Mr. Van Auker was developing north of Franklin we received 3 letters concerning various stages and so forth. We just got a round about gossip down the street that all of this development was planned and they were putting the first bricks in. I think that we should have a right to request of the City Council that they notify of these proceedings as they go along. That is alii have to say. Rylf: What we failed to understand is how a person can buy a piece of property and someone come along with a lot of juice and say they are going to put a road through when there are alternate ways of handling the situation. Now, if Mr. Bews has his property that does abut 1-84 it seems to me if he is in such need as access to this property for his restaurants and so forth that he would get away from Eagle Road and heavy traffic and trying to disturb the neighborhoods at Montvue Drive and to disrupt what St. Luke's has for is patients, get off the dime and develop his project and pick alternate input outs and leave Eagle Road alone. Thank you Patricia Rylf, 360 Montvue Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Rylf: It has been mentioned that Mr. Holloway's property would have a stub street. Mr. Holloway's property abuts our property to the east, it runs right along the irrigation ditch. St. Luke's property abuts our irrigation ditch to the north. If and when, I understand that Mr. Holloway has an offer that he is looking at today. If and when his property is developed and the road goes through there it can conceivably go by our back fence and that would make our neighborhood an island. So this also impacts in that way. Thank you. John Timons, 3460 Montvue Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Timons: I would like to make a comment on roads. I don't know if anybody from the Ada County Highway District is here but it might be a suggestion that they build a frontage road along the freeway and then Mr. Bews can have access off of that into his property. They can build a lot of businesses along that frontage road which would be better I think even for his development. That is just a suggestion. Then I have another concern, it is about your sewer district, your water and sewer facilities out at Ten Mile. I think it is just your Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 20 sewer, do you have the current capabilities of handling, are you going to build something else? Because my concern is that I grew up on Duck Alley on Linder Road and my family still has property there and there is a sewer line that runs down to the River. At times it is hard to handle all of that development out west of Meridian. I have seen raw sewage run into that river in years past. I wonder if this is going to add to that? Kingsford: We have never had raw sewage from our plant into the River. Timons: From Ten Mile? Kingsford: Not from Ten Mile, what that is, the Boise River outfall and what happens is if Ten Mile Drain is too low then we are required by EPA to pump that affluent that has been treated into the Boise River. Timons: So you are saying it is treated? Kingsford: It is treated yes, it use to be treated with chlorine now it goes through and Ultra Violet Basin. Timons: I should have taken pictures. Kingsford: We have never had a violation in our treatment plant so I don't think you saw raw sewage come from our plant. Timons: Well, that alleviates my concerns. Thank you Kingsford: Thank you, I wish somebody from the Highway District was here I would like to know what their feeling is with regard to, oh Karen you are here, get up here and tell us what the Highway District thinks about frontage roads. Gallagher: I was prepared to speak on the Conditional Use, I can wait or repeat it then whatever you would like. Kingsford: I think about everyone has integrated their thoughts both ways so why don't you. Karen Gallagher, ACHD, 318 E. 37th, Garden City, was sworn by the City Attorney. Gallagher: As a representative of the Highway District I am here tonight to request that no approval be given to this conditional use/annexation. I am not sure how you are going to proceed with it until a traffic study has been submitted and we have had a chance to Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 21 review it. As stated in the report from the District the plan submitted to the district are of a conceptual nature only and lacks sufficient traffic data and detail design information needed for a thorough staff review. Therefore their staff report will be a conceptual review only, those are the comments you have received from us. If your approval was to be conceptual we would like to incorporate in the traffic. Or either way the traffic study at this point we have no information to do any detailed analysis to even decide. Just from what the applicant has told us we believe at this point that 2 accesses to Franklin, one to Franklin and one to Eagle Road would be necessary for the circulation in this area. As far as the frontage road work, we would have some concerns. One of which in dealing with St. Luke's is that they wanted to keep their campus fairly secure and not divide it. Therefore the first access you can have off of Eagle Road is where their signal is located it is very close to that vicinity. You couldn't put a frontage road south of that, so to put a frontage road in you would need to back up to the east off of Eagle Road in order to have stacking and then pull the frontage road through either the St. Luke's Campus and down or if you wanted to leave St. Luke's intact it would have to go all the way over to the shared property line and then come south and then it would be a frontage road only on the Bew's property possibly extending over to the Tullis property. I don't know if that is what you had in mind. Usually a frontage road would encompass both properties, so I would see that as a problem just from the interactions and conversations I have had with 81. Luke's. I would like to also address the letter that we did receive from Thomas and Tullis that their concept, we do support having the connections at a minimum 2 between the Bews property and the Tullis property. The alignment that they drew up would continue the St. Luke's road straight through to the Tullis. And we would have concerns with a road going that far in that linear direction. We do support the connection more similar to what has been proposed at this point on the Sews conceptual outline. 80 again we would prefer or request that no approval be granted until we see some detailed information and a traffic study to square footage and type of development that is taking place on this property. Tolsma: Would Ada County Highway District have a great problem with isolating St. Luke's I mean just the entrance into their campus only and then putting Bews property with 2 accesses off of Franklin Road along with the Tullis property off of Franklin Road. I have a hard time isolating or making hospital parking lots thoroughfares. I worked for the paramedics for several years and the fire department and getting into St. AI's and out of St. AI's without having a through street there is exceptional and also 81. Luke's downtown. I would really like to see them have a closed campus if it is anyway possible to run their access off of Franklin Road. The hospital is not a thoroughfare to a subdivision or a grocery store or restaurants or gas stations or whatever. Gallagher: From our understanding it was to be a mixed use in this area and we also understood that the development that was proposed was to be in direct correlation to the people using the St. Luke's campus. Therefore we were in support of a connection of Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 22 some sort. We are having problems at this point with St. AI's that connections with the development that takes place to the west of the current campus that a connection would be needed there or that they would prefer to have a connection there so that people can flow. With the rate that they are growing the connections would be needed. So, in that line of thinking of development a connection of some sort would be positive we believe for the traffic circulation. Possibly the format, like I said we don't know the numbers that are going to be generated and just solely based on those it maybe possible or from our perspective that both connections one to Eagle and one to Franklin would work best for circulation. If that is not true and those numbers turn out differently like I said we would definitely still support some sort of connection maybe not such a main road as it drawn now. Morrow: Question, is this case Karen where St. Luke's has been completely approved is not St. Luke's in the driver seat whether there is a connection or not done? I don't know how as we as a City or ACHD could require St. Luke's to give up property to adjoining properties no matter how the numbers come out. If 81. Luke's doesn't want to be connected to anybody else and wants a closed campus then is that not the way it will be? Gallagher: We discussed it with them the status of this road and it was thrown out on the table that it could possibly be a public road in the future and they would build it. At this point they were open and willing to build it to a public road standpoint at this point so that it could be acquired by the Ada County Highway District in the future. Understanding that connection would go to the property to the east. Morrow: That is a decision that they will make. Gallagher: I am not sure and I didn't bring that file with me I apologize, I can find that information out on exactly how it is detailed or possibly the representative here can recall better than I can. I felt that it was fairly, it was an understanding that there wouldn't be a road block to it being public in the future. Kingsford: I believe my discussions with Mr. Fletcher indicated that they want to be a part of that certainly. I don't want to speak for you, you are still here and the public hearing is still open. Gallagher: Thank you Jeff Hull, 190 East Bannock, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hull: We would like to clarify a little confusion on St. Luke's being represented at ACHD. We have not employed or sent anybody to ACHD to comment on our desire to have a public thoroughfare through there as has been stated before this evening. I think it is very Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 23 clear that we are planning a closed campus concept and we are willing to share that with you in the future if necessary. We. St. Luke's proper has not been to ACHD offering, we are aware that somebody has represented that but it was nobody under our employment. Kingsford: Thank you, anyone else? Seeing none I will close the public hearing and you will get no rebuttle Mr. Forrey. What is the Council's pleasure? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I still stand by, I believe that we have called and approved findings of fact, I would think that from my perspective I would prefer to have that withdrawn and move for a motion to table pending resolution of some of these issues. Kingsford: That would need to be the motion then is to withdraw the findings and then table, 2 separate motions. Morrow: I move that we withdraw the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to withdraw the preparations of findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow: I would move that we table the E. L Bews request until further information resolving the issues brought forward tonight are presented before us. Crookston: You need to table to a date certain. Kingsford: Do you have any idea on the traffic study Mr. Forrey? Forrey: The traffic study is started and we can have that within 3 weeks. I am concerned about meeting with the folks in Montvue Subdivision. Thirty days possibly that would give us time to get the traffic study accelerated and share that with the folks that have testified tonight and their neighbors and continue meetings with St. Luke's. I think in 30 days we can bring that to a conclusion and also specific site plan on the property, more specific almost preliminary type information. Kingsford: Table it to the second meeting in June. Corrie: Mr. Mayor (inaudible) MerIdian CIty Council May 16,1995 Page 24 Forrey: That is the schedule we have tonIght but we will accelerate that in the morning. We will speed that traffic study up so we have time to meet with the folk and ACHD and others. Kingsford: Mr. Morrow would you restate your motion please? Morrow: I would move that we table this E.L. Bews request until our second meeting in June the date of which is June 20th. Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to table the Bews request until the June 20th meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Mr. Forrey, could we have copies of all the overheads for public record please? I appreciate everybody's comments. ITEM #2: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A VARIETY OF MIXED, PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USES BY E.L. BEWS: Kingsford: Those folks with interest in the Bews request, is there separate testimony specific to the conditional use permit that you wish to offer before you go? It will be tabled until that time too. Is there anyone else that would like to offer specific items to that? Seeing none then I would entertain a motion to table that to the 20th of June as well. Corrie: So moved Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Ron to table the Conditional Use Permit for Bews until the second meeting in June, June 20th, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: STEINER DEVELOPMENT: APPEAL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Kingsford: Who is representing Steiner? Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 25 Bradbury: My name is Steve Bradbury I am representing the applicant Steiner Development. We actually have 3 items on the agenda tonight, all of which I guess are interrelated. (End of Tape) why we are here and where we are trying to go. The City has before it Steiner's application for annexation, rezone and preliminary plat for The Lake at Cherry Lane Subdivisions No. 5 and 6. The Planning and Zoning Commission after a couple of public hearings approved in part and denied in part or I guess recommended for approval in part and denial in part the annexation and rezone. That is the R-4 portion was recommended for approval and the R-15 portion was recommended for denial. At the same time the Planning and Zoning Commission approved in part and denied in part the preliminary plat. That is approving the R-4 portion and denying the R-15 portion. As a consequence you have before you a I guess a mixed bag of partial approvals and partial denials and then some recommendations. It appeared to us that the best thing we could do was get an appeal of that which that portion of the preliminary plat which was denied before you so you could see the whole picture all at one time. As you know the project is a 40 acre site located on the west side of Ten Mile road between Ustick and Cherry Lane. It is currently zoned an RT zone a county zone and of course we are seeking annexation and rezone to R-4 for about 171/2 acres on a portion of the property and maybe the best thing I can do is suggest that if you look behind tab #6 in your book you will find a layout drawing that will give you a feel for where things are. The R-4 portion of the project which is outlined in black and consists of about 17 1/2 acres. The balance of the property is proposed to be rezoned to an R-15 zone and that consists of 3 separate development concepts. The R-4 portion is a total of or contemplates a total of 51 single family detached building lots, 8,000 square foot minimum and the intent of that is that project would meet all of the requirements of your code of the R-4 zone. This was the portion of course that was approved or recommended for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The R-15 portion as I said is divided into 3 sections, the first part that I want to point out to you is this part that is in this sort of purple color. What we have there is about 5 acres and that is proposed to be developed in 25 single family detached building lots of 6,000 square foot minimum. Again, the concept there is that the building here would meet all of the requirements of the code for an R-15 zone. The concept is simply to provide smaller lots with higher end homes in order to provide a housing type for people who simply just don't want to deal with the need to keep up a larger lot. Behind tab #9 in the booklet is a fact sheet that gives you a little more detail about what is proposed for that portion of the project. I am not going to take up a bunch of time (inaudible) detail I am certainly willing to answer any questions. Of course behind the fact sheet is a blow up drawing of what is proposed for that portion of the project. The second area that I wanted to talk to you about is shown in green it would be in the southeast corner of the property. This, the concept here what the developer has in mind is to create a housing complex for older persons, persons aged 55 or more. The concept would anticipate 63 building lots in a mix of single family dwelling and some 2 and some 3 family attached dwellings. In the center portion of that area is a proposed clubhouse and rec center which would have I think it is Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 26 about 2000 square feet with a swimming pool, kitchens, meeting room or the type of facility Vvi1ere the residents could come and make use of, gather and have functions. Behind tab 7 again is another fact sheet that gives you more detail about what is proposed for that project. Also behind tab 7 is again a blow up of the proposed layout and further behind that are some drawings showing the elevations of the proposed dwelling units to be constructed in what I call typical floor plans. These aren't intended to mean that is precisely what every unit will look like but just to give you an idea of what is anticipated to typical. The third area that I wanted to point out to you is Vvi1at is in this blue section or outlined in blue and that would be in the northeast corner of the property. Behind tab 8 again there is more information about that. The concept here is to create a condominium or town house development consisting of approximately 58 units. Of course this would all be common maintenance of the exterior and providing this same type of open spaces and amenities you generally expect to find in a condominium project. Now I have said a couple of times the word concept and the reason I have said concept is because before you, you do not have a precise development application for the proposed condominium area or for the senior citizen complex. At one point I think it was in November the developer came and showed you a drawing that was I guess again presented as a concept and we continue to present it as a concept now with the expectation that if approved if the annexation and the zone is approved then the developer would come back to you with a separate application for a conditional use permit or perhaps if the ordinances would work to permit a planned unit development for each of those 2 additional projects. What we are asking for is for annexation and rezone as requested subject to the condition that the developer bring in these more precise development plans to you at a later date. Now the Planning and Zoning Commission and this finally gets around to why we are talking about an appeal the Planning and Zoning recommended in part and denied in part, and denied in part the R-15 proposal. And as I understand their concerns as expressed in their findings and conclusions you will find behind tab 4 if you are interested is that they weren't opposed to the concept but simply were reluctant to approve a rezone without having a specific development proposal before them that the developer could be pinned to. The applicant is continuing in his request to obtain an approval under those conditions with the expectation that as a part of your approval should you choose to do so you would require a development agreement and in that development agreement you could include whatever conditions you felt were appropriate in order to assure that you could have sufficient control over what might be ultimately developed in those areas so that you wouldn't just leave in essence a blank check for the developer. Doug Campbell, the developer's representative here and I have been talking at length what sorts of conditions you folks might want to try and impose and we have some suggestions and we don't want to suggest that this is an exclusive list they are just some suggestions and certainly we would be willing to include an other sorts of conditions that might help you to have a little more comfort with respect to the proposal. As proposed using the numbers that I just talked about over the 40 acres there is a proposed gross density of just 5 units to the acre. One Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 27 suggestion that we had is perhaps as a condition of approval you could require that 40 acres not exceed or development on that 40 acres in total not exceed an average of 5 units per acre. That way you don't approve something today or think you are approving something today and a year or two later somebody comes to you with a project that has a much greater density than what you are thinking. Another suggestion is perhaps you can impose some time limits with respect to when applications must be filed for these additional projects. A suggestion that we have is perhaps you could impose a time limit of say 6 months for the senior citizen complex and a time limit of say 2 years for the condominium project. One thing that I haven't told you is that the developer intends to build this project in 2 phases, the south half essentially which is south of the main access road first. And the north half in a subsequent phase. That way imposing some time limits you would then not have an open ended approval that would last out into the future. Another suggestion we have is that perhaps you could condition in your approval by restricting uses in the property to residential uses only. I realize that in an R-15 zone there are permitted and conditional use application which might contemplate something other than residential uses. So if you wanted to have the comfort that you are only looking at a residential project then perhaps you could condition whatever approval you have on that. And of course as I said we would certainly be willing to talk about and listen to any other thoughts that you might have. The overall concept here is to provide a higher end development that provides mixed housing types that would be governed under very strict restrictive covenants. The development that comes to my mind which I perceive to be the most like what is proposed here would be the river run development over in Boise and I can only assume that you have some concept of what they have there. Basically it is a mixed housing type with single family detached, single family attached, and some multiple family dwellings. It probably would be helpful to give you some idea of the types of amenities that are proposed in the project as well so you have a feel for what we are doing there. Maybe the best way to look at it is to again pull out this layout map and I will try to show you what we are talking about. The idea here is to put a 20 foot landscaping buffer along Ten Mile Road here. Behind that landscaping buffer would be a 6 foot high block wall and we have a drawing of it over here to my left which some of you may not be able to see very well. Six foot high with a foot of wrought iron on top of it. That wall would come along Ten Mile and then turn and come into the subdivision along the main entry access and the same thing this way into here. The senior complex would then be fenced around the balance of the property as with the condominium project would be fenced around the balance of the property. There is additional landscaping there would be center dividers in the boulevard that accesses the property these are 12 foot dividers. There would be 5 foot wide landscape parkways on either side of that main access street and internal to the subdivision are several landscape circles which again are generally depicted on these drawings that we have here. This is what I am talking about when I talk about the landscape circles and some of the center divider and parkway strips would be landscaped on the entry of the subdivision. The landscaping treatment intention is to provide again Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 28 a top notch high quality landscape treatment throughout the subdivision. Streets would be built to ACHD standards the idea might be to provide a security gate into the senior citizen complex and perhaps even a security gate into the condominium town house project. The main access road has 80 feet of right of way to accommodate all of the landscaping. One other thing that you might be interested in and in working with the highway district the developer agreed to dedicate a strip of land up here in the corner of the property in order to provide for a collector status into the Englewood Subdivision to the north. Services are City sewer and water, pressurized irrigation with concurrence of the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. Of course one other significant feature is that the developer wants to dedicate to donate to the City a site for a city fire station down here at the southeast corner of the property. That would be approximately 160 by 160 foot section. The block wall that I was describing would then separate the fire station from the rest of the development. I guess in summary I would just like to say that what we are asking for a total here tonight is for approval of the annexation and rezone as requested and the preliminary plat approval which consists of the R-4 single family detached and the R-15 single family detached those 25 lots and then the 2 larger portions are included as lots in that subdivision. Then later that approval if you were to get it would be conditioned on the applicant returning with a conditional use permit application or planned unit development application for these additional projects. I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I have a question here, according to the cover letter and I think that we are dealing with essentially 3 issues. Item #3 is appeal the planning and zoning commission recommendation. In the cover letter there is a sentence that states and it is addressing the issues with respect to the planning and zoning, it says,"Accordingly, in the interim the developers created a proposal which has been described above and is depicted in the attached drawings." Now apparently this proposal has been created since the hearing at the P & Z level which in my mind constitutes new information that the P & Z is not aware of. I think that what you are asking us is to pass or hear an appeal of the information that was given to P & Z. I think I am confused as to what the two issues really are here. Kingsford: I think their application at least as I reviewed it was that they are appealing just the plat am I wrong their Counselor? Crookston: That is the way I read the appeal that was filed with the City was that they were appealing the plat. Kingsford: But then Walt has grounds to be confused as I am as well because we have then this little beautifully bound booklet that P & Z has not been privy to. Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 29 Bradbury: Maybe I didn't make it as clear as you should be. The P & Z simply makes recommendation with respect to the annexation and rezone so that comes before you automatically. The P & Z makes a determination with respect to the preliminary plat and their determination was to approve it in part and deny in part as I understood the findings of fact and conclusions of law. They approved the preliminary plat with respect to the R-4 designation and denied with respect to the R~4 portion of the plat and denied it with respect to the R-15 portion of the plat. Crookston: Excuse me for interrupting, the findings don't pertain to the plat. All they pertain to is the annexation and zoning. Bradbury: Yes I understand that, but and you can correct me if I am wrong, the same evening that the Planning and Zoning Commission issued its findings with respect to the annexation and rezone they also made a further vote to approve the plat in part and deny the plat in part. That is what we are appealing, is simply the denial of that portion of the plat which sought annexation which sought an R-15 zoning designation. I know it gets a little confusing and I have to admit that I have struggled with it a little bit too how you can approve a portion of a plat and deny a portion of a plat but that is what P & Z did. It seemed to us that in order to get the entire proposal before you we needed to file an appeal of that portion of the plat which was denied. Beyond that let me tell you why it is that you are seeing these concept drawings. Yes the planning and zoning commission I think was concerned that the developer was asking for a zone on certain portions of the property that where there wasn't a specific development application pending. There still isn't, we are showing you these blue portions and the blue and green portions in order to give you folks an idea of what the development concept is although all the plat would show this is not a depiction of the plat that is being appealed from. Because if it was a depiction of the plat which is being appealed from this green portion is all one big lot and this portion is all one big lot. In other words this is one lot in the subdivision this is another lot in the subdivision and then you have a whole bunch of others. These 2 lots in the subdivision are a concept, our concept is to be developed in this fashion. What we are trying to convey to you folks is give you an idea of what we have in mind so that you folks will have some measure of comfort in approving a zone and annexing the property and approving a zone conditioned upon the applicant ultimately developing something like what we are proposing. Did that help to make you understand or did I make it worse? Morrow: I think I was worse off than I was. Bradbury: I am sorry to hear that. Let me see if I can try it another way. The annexation is for 40 acres and in that 40 acres about 17 1/2 of it we are asking for an R-4 zone. Planning and Zoning Commission said we can live with that. The other 23 acres or less is proposed for an R-15 zone and the Planning and Zoning Commission said we can't live Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 30 with that because we don't know exactly what you have in mind to build there. So now we are here saying to you this is what we have in mind to build there and are providing you with this concept so that if you folks like the concept you can approve the annexation for 40 acres, approve the rezone to R-4 for the 17 and the R-15 for the 23 subject to the condition that the applicant come back again and go through a conditional use process which we understand is going to require additional hearings in order to get approval before any further development can take place on this area of it shown in green and/or this area shown in blue. Corrie: What about that part that is purple (inaudible). Bradbury: That is R-15 as well and I tell you I don't know why the Planning and Zoning Commission felt uncomfortable in approving that portion of it and the findings don't address it, I don't really know. That is a part of the preliminary plat as submitted and it seems to us that perhaps you could most certainly approve that again if the concept is acceptable to you. Kingsford: It seems to me that you have presented us with something that P & Z ought to have. It would certainly be my preference that you take that booklet and give it to P & Z and let them make a pass on that. Bradbury: Okay, I understand and I suppose I can understand what you are saying and I guess I need to tell you this. We have been to P & Z at least 3 maybe 4 times and have shown P & Z various concepts but in any case whether we are going to P & Z back with this concept or going to you folks with this concept it is again nothing more than a concept which is going to require public hearings before both Planning and Zoning Commission and this body before development can take place at least with respect to those at the proposed senior citizen area and the proposed condominium area. The preliminary plat which is before you hasn't changed, it is exactly what was submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The only thing you have before you now is a little bit more information into the concept. Kingsford: Why I said what I did though Steve is P & Z at least the members that I spoke with were not comfortable because they didn't have adequate information on those 2 areas. What I am suggestion is that you are giving us that perhaps adequate information that should have gone to P & Z in my judgement. Bradbury: I understand what you are saying I guess the only argument that I can make again is that it is not for approval or disapproval of the condominium project now or even if we went back to P & Z. Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 31 Kingsford: AgaIn, though I think that I fall back on our Counselor's recommendation that we have a way better handle at annexation and zonIng. If those people get to be satisfied with your concept then I don't have a problem with the annexation and zoning. If they are uncomfortable with this program than I don't think we want to grant an R-15. Those people work awfully hard and I certaInly don't want to circumvent theIr authority. Bradbury: No and I agree with that, I certainly understand that and if this body thinks they would like to have the Planning and Zoning Commission take a look at this thing we will certainly go. Morrow: I think from my perspective I think that is what they are there for. I have a problem with addItIonal information that is not testIfied to before them being presented to us at the City Council and in fairness to them they make very good decisions based on the information that they get. In this particular case there seems to be lots of loose ends that don't make a lot of sense to me. I think obviously what they are telling us is that they have some real reservations because I think that it is a little tough on a 40 acre annexation request to approve part and not approve the rest and that is not the type of thing that I would like to see come before us. So from my perspective I think that it rightfully belongs with this additional presentation before P & Z. Bradbury: One of the things is that so you don't get the feeling that we are tryIng to run around P & Z that Doug and I had in mind was that perhaps if you folks got a look at this concept and were to say something to the P & Z to the effect that for what it is worth folks we like the concept. Kingsford: We never try to intervene in their thought. Bradbury: I don't want to you intervene I am thinking that perhaps you can gIve them the benefit of your thoughts. That was part of what drove us to come to you with this project. In addition to the fact that we have, the developer has some time constraints that he has to work with in terms of acquisition of the property and we are beginning to run a little short. Kingsford: What is the Council's pleasure, remember you are just talking about the appeal of the plat. Morrow: I guess I need some help here, my motion would be that this really go back to P & Z and I guess we accomplish that by denying the appeal, Counselor? Crookston: If you just simply the deny it, it stays where it is. It is just a recommendation to be denied. Our ordinances are a little different as between annexations, zonings and plats. Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 32 Our subdivision ordinance says that if P & Z denies it does not go to the City Council unless by appeal. On the annexation and zoning it comes to the City Council regardless of the recommendation of P & Z is. So for the purposes of the plat you can either approve the appeal and send it back to P & Z, you can deny the appeal and then that plat then is dead. Or you could approve with conditions and say how you want it addressed. Morrow: That was a University of Idaho answer could you give to me in Boise State? Crookston: I can't deal that way. Kingsford: I think what need you to look at Walt is your motion jf that is your desire and then put that subject to it being sent back to the next P & Z meeting with their review of the additional material so that it automatically gets on their agenda and the ball is not dropped. Corrie: So you can approve the appeal and then send it back? Kingsford: No deny the appeal and then remand it back to P & Z with the additional information. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we deny the appeal, remand this back to P & Z for the presentation of the additional information. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to deny the appeal and remand it back to Planning and Zoning Commission with the additional information, any discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Bradbury: Just for clarification do I understand the decision to mean that you are not, the plat hasn't been killed it has just been sent back to P & Z to be looked at again, is that the intention? Kingsford: That is the big 10-4. ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO R-4 AND R-15 FOR 45.46 ACRES FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO.5 & 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: Kingsford: We will take testimony if that is the folks desire to give that tonight because it Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 33 was noticed. Recognizing that it will also you will have a shot at it at P & Z and this body if it gets here. Crookston: Well, the annexation and zoning would not unless you decide would not necessarily go back of that portion of the R-4 portion. Kingsford: In any event it would necessitate being tabled because I don't think it is this body's interest in annexing and zoning that separate. We only have one legal description I don't think we could do that. Bradbury: To the extent that you care about what I think abut that, I agree. It seems to me to make the most sense to have everything going in the same place at the same time. Kingsford: I don't even think we could pass on that zoning because we don't have legal descriptions for the separate parcels I don't believe, I think it is the whole thing. Bradbury: I am not sure you do either. I guess I would suggest unless there are more people here who wanted to testify with respect to the issues you simply table the matter until you get it back from P & Z. Kingsford: On the annexation and zoning I think we keep it but on the plat it is (inaudible). Are we on board with that then Counselor? Crookston: If I understand it correctly, you are going to table everything but the anything that was requested to be annexed and zoned R-4, you are going to keep at the Council level? And everything else goes back to P & Z including the plats. Kingsford: I don't know that it makes a whole lot of difference whether we keep the zoning here or it goes back. That is going to be acted on the same fail swoop at the Planning and Zoning. Morrow: I think it all goes back. Kingsford: I think legitimately it all goes back. Crookston: The annexation and the zoning and the plat? If that is the Council's decision. Kingsford: We don't want to be too confused here. Crookston: As I understand it that is your request Tuesday. Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 34 Bradbury: Maybe I can answer it, our desire would be to have the application in total all moved from one level to the other so we don't get lost in the shuffle and confused about what is happening to who. Now, if that means that some progress is lost then I guess maybe I (inaudible). Kingsford: I don't see any way it would be lost, they are going to go together. Bradbury: I think maybe the best bet is to send everything back for another look is maybe the way I would put it in simply lay persons terms. Corrie: You have made some statements in here that was not in there and (inaudible) Kingsford: There are several things in this booklet that are considerably different that might satisfy the concerns that I heard from Planning and Zoning. Bradbury: And I understand what you folks are trying to accomplish and we are going to certainly go along and cooperate with you. Corrie: I might add, what you said at the Planning and Zoning (inaudible) corner out of the fire departments area there. Bradbury: That was just so that we could fit cars around the corner easier. We can take a look at that. Corrie: It is not much but you had RV parking (inaudible). Bradbury: Yes there is actually a spot and it is down there adjacent to that fire station that shows parking. Corrie: Is that RV parking? Bradbury: The first concept showed RV this would be more like for visitor parking. Kingsford: For the public though you have been noticed that there was anyone who would like to offer testimony on either agenda items 4 or 5 we would certainly be glad to hear those. Bill Teter, 2201 Allumbaugh Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Teter: Sometimes when I stand before people like you I get a little nervous. It might take me a few minutes to get over it then I will tell you what I have. I would like to ask this Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 35 Council a question. Since we have started the negotiations of this property, we own it It has been 16 months, we have been back and forth before the City Council, before the Planning and Zoning, before the Highway Department and now we have come 16 months later. I am partly in the City zone and partly out of the City. We have been requested that we sell to another subdivider property for a road. After that was negotiated and Ms. Stiles stood here and said it was not acceptable but now it is on the plan exactly the way it was when we started. I am trying to get the land farmed but that is very difficult because we don't know whether we will have it this month or next month or a year from now. My question is, is there somebody that can tell us what we can do with that land, what will be required, what will be built on it and when we can do it? It seems to me that 16 months trying to get it zoned and planned should be long enough. Mr. Campbell may never speak to me again I don't know because he didn't know I was going to stand up here. But to the wife and I it is getting quite frustrating. Kingsford: I can certainly understand that. Teter: If there is someone that we can go to, to get some help get this plan and this property exchanged into a subdivision that we had hoped to I would like to have it answered. Thank you Kingsford: I guess I don't have an answer for your question. We act on that which is brought before us. That which is brought before us has to be complete satisfactory at least to date that hasn't been the case. I don't have a date certain for you, I don't know what your contract is with Mr. Campbell. I am certainly not an attorney and I thank God for that. But that is something that this body can't advise you until such time as we have a plat that is satisfactory we are not going to approve it. Teter: I heartedly agree with that, but is there someone that can tell us what can be built there and what cannot? What is satisfactory? Kingsford: Well, certainly at this moment what could be built there would be left up to Ada County because it is not in the City limits of Meridian and we don't have jurisdiction per say today. Now, with the request for annexation what can take place in the City is considerably different than what can take place in the County. Much more dense population and so forth but that has to be a satisfactory development plan to the City before that is approved. Teter: How can we be partly in the City and partly out? Kingsford: I don't understand that either which part is in the City? Teter: R--4 Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 36 Kingsford: It is not in the City that has been held up too, none of it is in the City at this point. Teter: They told us at the Planning and Zoning that it was annexed. Kingsford: They had recommended annexation of that this body just denied that and sent it back to P & Z and it is going to be kept in one parcel. All of it currently is in the County. All of your ground is in the County. Teter: I have no animosity but it certainly is confusing. Kingsford: I've got to agree with you. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, if if Might, Mr. Teter also part of what the process here is and one of the reasons it is so incredibly frustrating is that you have been here all evening and you have seen the development that was prior to you by State law and by City ordinance we are require to solicit testimony from anybody that is affected by a development. In this case each time there is a new concept then the process has to be re-done so the public has an opportunity to voice their opinion about the project. Those things have all changed over the last 20 years and so in answer to your question there is no on individual that can provide you with the information that you are looking for because by State law and City ordinance we are required to have input from not only the Planning and Zoning and the City Council and the Mayor and the staff but the public in general. So that does make the project very tedious and very time consuming. (Inaudible) Morrow: Could easily be could be much simpler projects. This issue you are dealing with 4 different types of land use on one parcel of property. The ones that you are addressing in all probability were one land use and very simply housing project and not very complex. (Inaudible) Kingsford: Anyone else from the public that wants to be thoroughly confused? Seeing none I will close the public hearing on item #4 and open the public hearing on #5. ITEM #5: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO.5 & 6,93 LOTS BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: Kingsford: Do any of you want to comment again that is, you will have a second shot at that at both P & Z and this level. Seeing none I will close the public hearing on that issue. Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 37 Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we table items 4 and items 5, question is a date certain. Kingsford: It would have to be not tabled but remanded to P & Z. Morrow: I am sorry let me retract that and start over. Mr. Mayor I move that we remand items 4 and 5 to P & Z for further action. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to remand items 4 and 5 to P & Z for further action, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #f3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO R-8 FOR .40 ACRE BY D.W. INC.: Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Gary Lee, JUB Engineers, 1750 Summertree, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lee: The application before you this evening is an annexation and zone request for a strip of property that is sandwiched in between Wingate Subdivision an approved preliminary plat and a couple of existing developments Chateau Meadows East NO.2 and Mirage Meadows Subdivision. This piece of ground is 20 feet wide, adjacent to the property Chateau Meadows it is known as Dixie Lane. There is also an additional 10 foot strip adjacent to Mirage Meadows that was left out of the Mirage Meadows subdivision. So in the area of the Barker property and Akerstrom property it is 30 feet wide. At the time the developer presented Wingate Subdivision preliminary plat he did not have clear title to that property and subsequently was not able to make it part of the annexation request for preliminary plat. Since that time he has proceeded through a quiet title action on that strip of land and was successful and now has ownership of it and control. So we are before this body to request annexation and zoning to R-8 of that strip of land to make it contiguous to the City of Meridian city limits and button up that area. Kingsford: Gary, what's its status in terms of access easement? Lee: There are easement rights to the Wood property, Monroe property, Barker property and Akerstrom property from Fairview to that Dixie Lane. Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 38 Kingsford: So really nothing would change other than that be annexed to the City they are still going to have access be a private lane or what? Lee: Well, the access will change once the final phase of Wingate Subdivision is finished and the final plat has been prepared and submitted for approval. When this project goes forward East Oakcrest will continue to the east and will provide access through the Akerstrom property. And also to the balance of the Wingate subdivision. So the only other property that would be lacking access off of Dixie Lane would be the Wood property up north of there but currently it does have direct access to Chateau Meadows or Chateau Drive. So they all do have legal access to public right of way. One of the conditions in the Ada County Highway District review was to dedicate that portion of East Oakcrest Drive as public right of way to provide that access. Which we will do by plat. Morrow: That is that little strip of ground in the cross hatch portion? Lee: A portion of it would be 50 foot wide strip going directly east of Oakcrest. And then the portion lying north of that would be incorporated with that in the Wingate subdivision phase 2 plat. The strip south of that the developer has agreed to allow that pedestrian access to the Avest property. It is this strip about 100 feet long (inaudible). Kingsford: Any other questions of Mr. Lee? Lee: I have one other comment I wanted to make about some of the comments that were made by Ada County Highway district and city staff about the possibilities of extending a pedestrian access to the north all the way to Chateau Drive. We looked at that and discussed it, it would be very difficult at this point in time to and that pedestrian access (End of Tape) balance of the Wood property doesn't leave any room for a pedestrian pathway. Mr. Wood has expressed concerns about an access coming through there in his backyard (inaudible) neighbors to the west would have that same concern. Do you have any questions I can answer? Kingsford: Questions of Mr. Lee? Anyone else from the public? I will close the public hearing, Council members? Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, I move we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for P & Z for this annexation and zoning to R-8 for D.W. Inc. Morrow: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Walt to approve of the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for P & Z for the annexation and zoning for D.W. Inc. for Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 39 .40 acres, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision? Morrow Mr. Mayor, I recommend that the City Council of the City of Meridian approve the annexation and zoning as stated above for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law and the appl icant and owners be specifically required to tile all ditches, canals, waterways as a condition of annexation. That the applicant meet all of the ordinances of the City of Meridian and of the staff and if conditions are not met the property be de-annexed. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve of the decision, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I move we instruct the City Attorney to draw up an ordinance for annexation and zoning. Morrow: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Walt to have the City Attorney prepare the zoning and annexation ordinance, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea FIVE MINUTE BREAK ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MAWS ADDITION NO.3, 6 LOTS BY MAWS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Ted Hutchinson, 109 South 4th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 40 Hutchinson: Thank you Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. I believe there is a typo this is a 7 lot subdivision with 7 residential lots plus one drainage lot. This is the final phase for Maws Addition. The prior approval for this particular site which expired for Maws 3 had lots which had 60 foot street frontages, we have re-designed this proposal to comply with the current regulations for R-8 development. This site is zoned R-8 and I believe that this now complies with the street frontage and lot size requirements. We do include a drainage lot on the north end of the development, we will be making improvements to Adkins Lane which will be improved to 1/2 of a 37 foot street section plus 12 feet of paving plus the sidewalk. It is our understanding that Danbury Fair will connect to Adkins Lane will will further the completion of Adkins to its full width. We have reviewed the comments and recommended conditions of approval, we agree with those comments and conditions. We just have one question about one of the conditions regarding perimeter fencing. It would be our understanding that the required fence would be along the northern boundary and the southern boundary because this is the completion of the Maws Addition project. Then we should also not at this time that the entire site for Maws Addition is excluded from the irrigation district in 1992. Basically this will comply with the requirements for development in the R-8 zone. Are there any questions from the Council at this time? Kingsford: Questions for Mr. Hutchinson? Morrow: I have a question with respect to the site specific comments. Obviously you have indicated in your testimony that at some point in time Adkins Lane will hook up or continue through Danbury Fair. There is nothing here that indicates when that will happen, there is a comment that some form of temporary turn around will be necessary. I guess I would solicit your comments on that as I see it temporary turn around would be mandatory for emergency vehicle folk until that hook up is made. Hutchinson: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Morrow, that has created an interesting problem, the issue was raised at the Highway District as well for a temporary turn around on Adkins Lane. There are additional properties that go on beyond the boundary line of our property between us and Danbury Fair. Those properties have access onto Adkins Lane. We don't know when Danbury Fair will make the connection into Adkins Lane. It was my understanding from the Zoning Administrators comments at the P & Z hearing that will connect to Adkins, Danbury will connect to Adkins. Then there is the issue of where would the temporary turn around be located we are not sure how that would be facilitated on that ground given that there are additional properties that use Adkins north of this site. I am not sure how they are turning around at this point at the end of Danbury or Adkins excuse me. Any suggestions on how I could accomplish that? Morrow: (Inaudible) and Gary concerning that? Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 41 Kingsford: Any other questions of the engineer? Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Morrow: I have a question for Gary, can you help us out here with respect to turn around information for our fire department? Smith: I am sorry Councilman Morrow I haven't been out to the site so I don't know what Adkins Lane is like. Morrow: In terms of the site specific comments that was from the Planning Department that was Shari's deal and is she gone for the evening or here? Smith: She is here I don't know where she is. Kingsford: Front and center Shari, comment on Maws Addition, Adkins Lane. Morrow: The turn around issue. The question is that we need some place for our fire trucks, large vehicles, paramedic vehicles to be able to turn around. Now Mr. Hutchinson has indicated that there are properties on down Adkins Lane at the current time and also the comments are that this will hook up to a street in Danbury Fair at such time that is developed and apparently that is not developed at this point in time. And there is no schedule. My concern here is how do we get stuff turned around and the site specific comments that you wrote you address the issue of some form of temporary turn around may be necessary. What did you have in mind for accomplishing that? Stiles: That the end lot there not be developed until such time as that access is available through there. So essentially it wouldn't be a buildable lot until the access goes through. Because there is no other way to accommodate a 50 foot radius turn around. Kingsford: Either that or get permission from the people to the west to allow for that turn around part of it on their land. Would that be a possibility? Stiles: I guess they could approach them about it, we did get a letter from one of the neighbors across the street that seemed to think that all of the right of way would be coming off of this property here and that none of the additional right of way would come from their property. Morrow: That is Mrs. Farrington? Stiles: Yes Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 42 Kingsford: Was she advised that wouldn't be the case if there would be, she would be required or whoever when that is developed that half street? Stiles: I don't know if she was here for the hearing. She thought because she had a survey which showed where her present pins are that any future road would just come off the other side of the street. Corrie: I guess Mr. Mayor what you are saying the people to the west doesn't give a turn around Lot 33 can't be built on until it goes through is that what you are saying? Does the developer know that? Stiles: I don't know. Kingsford: Well, perhaps that 34, Ted can you speak to that. Lot 34 is your water retainage is that correct, what would be wrong with making a ball turn around on that site? What is its depth I guess is the first question? Hutchinson: (Inaudible) Kingsford: Looks like 25 but I am not certain. Hutchinson: (Inaudible) I was just talking to the developer on this and he may have a possibility of speaking with another property owner about the development of a 50 foot turn around at the end of that. Like I say temporary in nature until Danbury is connected through to Pine. Kingsford: I think certainly an approval would have to be conditioned on either that taking place or designate either Lot 34 if you can get it all on or restrict Lot 33 for a temporary turn around. Hutchinson: We recognize that if that is the condition we will have to comply with it one or the other we will get a turn around. Kingsford: Any other questions of staff? What is the Council's pleasure? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the preliminary plat subject to the staff conditions subject to the Council condition that there be a turn around at this point on, my preference at this point would be to have it on Lot 33 because we know that it feets there. So I would make my motion that we approve the preliminary plat. Kingsford: I think you can just limit it to requiring a 50 foot turn radius and if that requires Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 43 limitation on Lot 33 so be it. Morrow: I would move that we approve the preliminary plat with the requirement of an all weather 50 foot turning radius. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the preliminary plat for Maws Addition NO.3 conditioned upon all staff requests being met and the City Council request of a 50 foot all weather turning radius be met at the end of that street, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT BY DAVID AND DENISE HALL: Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the owner or their designee to speak first. Are they represented here this evening? Were they aware of this Mr. Berg? Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on that issue then? Anyone familiar with the request? Shari are you familiar with the request by Dave and Denise Hall, variance to the setback requirement? They are not represented here this evening. Stiles: Is that for, they wanted a 4 foot 6 inch side setback instead of 5 feet? Corrie: (Inaudible) Kingsford: Will is saying that Daunt had some comments that didn't get into our packet. Morrow: If I understand their application correctly they purchased this home unknowing that it was in violation of the setback, under #4. Corrie: (Inaudible) Kingsford: Was it a spec home or what? Stiles: Mayor and Council this was John Barnes submitted this application he is the one that dropped the application off. I don't really know what the association is there unless he is just trying to help them out because he feels partly responsible for it. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I move that we table this to the first meeting in June. Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 44 Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to table this item to the first meeting in June, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR A TWO YEAR TIME EXTENSION ON RECORDING FINAL PLAT FOR GOLF VIEW NO.4 & 5 BY GOLF VIEW ESTATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Russ Hepworth, EHM Engineer, 4418 Clinton Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Hepworth: I am representing the applicant Golf View Associates Limited Partnership the applicant is requesting a two year time extension to complete this final platting of phases 4 and 5 of Golf View Estates. As a way of background we have completed the construction on phase 2 in late 1992 and completed construction of phase 3 in 1993. We have received approval though this Council for the final plats of Golf View Estate NO.4 and 5. Number 4 being March 2nd 1993 and NO.5 being July 6,1993. Because of the slow sales for the completed construction of the phases 2 and 3 and most currently the reconstruction of West Cherry Lane further slowing these sales it has put a delay on construction and also the final platting processes for phases 4 and 5 of this project. It has been delayed until at some point the lot inventory can be reduced to what is approximately 10 to 15 lots. At this time well because of this delay in the construction of 4 and 7 phases 4 and 5 of this project the platting process just kind of got away from us and we didn't finish that in the time required. And at this point we are requesting again that 2 year extension so we can complete the platting processes on 4 and 5 subject to the conditions that are already on those final plat approvals. As a note just want to state here that the construction plans for both of these phases of construction for Golf View Estates NO.4 and 5 have been submitted to the City. They have been returned to me with revisions, required revisions, I have at this time submitted them back to the City to the engineering department and they have those and are reviewing them at this time. Any questions? Kingsford: I guess maybe, you are saying we have approved the final plats and we have the development plans in here. They are about to be approved, you are asking for a 2 year extension on just recording? Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 45 Hepworth: Right Kingsford: You want to sit on all of that for 2 years before you record it? Hepworth: No, we want a 2 year, and maybe we don't need this, it was my understanding that we did, even though we have final plat approval through this Council we have not completed that in what I believe is the one year time period to do so to final plat those 2 phases. We are requesting a 2 year extension time period to complete the final platting process and recordation of those 2 phases. Kingsford: So what you are is already one year delinquent jf your dates are hooking up with me. So your 2 years would run from the time they expired or are you asking for 2 years from now? Hepworth: Two years from now even though we are one year delinquent. Because it would be, the one year would have been for like (inaudible) July 6, 1994. Kingsford: This may be a good time to ask for a development agreement, could you give a $100 a lot for those like phase 1 did for the golf course? Golf course construction, we had just a verbal agreement with the prior developer on phase 1 from sale of each of those lots we got a $100 into our golf course development fund. They are doing that in Cherry Lane No.1, 2 and 3 as well. The new part that is out there by the lake and Ashford Green we are looking at an initial development agreement of $600 a lot to develop that. I thought this might be a great opportunity. We had asked and requested that and the ownership changed and never heard anything back. (Inaudible) Kingsford: I think it was in the form of a letter. Hepworth: This is for the existing Golf View NO.1? Kingsford: Correct Hepworth: That is already a standing letter, accepting $100 a lot. Kingsford: We would be glad to take that for phases 4 and 5 it would help us greatly that is something I couldn't necessarily force. Nor would it be blackmail for this approval. Yerrington: Mr. Mayor can we go back and have them tile the Safford Lateral? Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 46 Kingsford: Well, certainly that becomes an issue. I know the developer of Ashford Greens is here and that is one of his concerns is he is going to be looking because that lateral will abut part of his property it also abuts this. Our current ordinance says that it be tiled. He is going to be I know asking for a variance to that because it is going to put him in a position of hardship to tile that all the way along this property and so forth. So that will become and issue. Well, I guess we don't have any more questions, this is a public hearing we will have to take other testimony. Anyone from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. What is the Council's pleasure? Bryan McKoy, 180 Telemark Road, Ketchum, was sworn by the City Attorney. McKoy: I just wanted to follow up on the comment that was made Mr. Mayor, I am not quite sure what the issues are and whether this is the proper forum. We were unaware of any contribution regarding the golf course or whatever golf course fund there was it was certainly not disclosed to us back when we purchased the property. So I am, I would just leave that up to you. Kingsford: We did receive from Dennis Marshall and I believe it was the first 22 lots that he had some control over. He did agree to and contribute $100 per lot for those first 22 lots. I didn't see the letter but I directed a letter be addressed to new ownership and I assumed at that point that was you to see if you would be willing to contribute that same amount. The City will be developing that golf course at least to my knowledge we never heard anything back from that letter. McKoy: Is this the Cherry Lane golf course? Kingsford: Correct, the second 9. The other issue that we were just discussing is Safford lateral that our ordinances now require that be tiled. It will abut, Safford lateral I believe separates the properties of Ashford Greens and Golf View Estates. McKoy: To our north? Kingsford: Right, their south, that the Council may very well be looking at since the plat has expired that should be tiled and logically, jointly by the 2 if in fact they require that tiling. McKoy: It would be phase 5, about half of our northern perimeter is, would be in phase 5 approximately. The other half was included in phase 2. It has been fenced and there are property owners there now. But, if, we would certainly consider the request for the $100 if I just knew more about the details and what was involved and how it was applied. If that Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 47 were applied to phases 4 and 5. Kingsford: We certainly couldn't make that retroactive and it is not anything that I don't think we have the right to demand any way. McKoy: No, but it is certainly a reasonable amount. Kingsford: I don't know what is the Council's pleasure with regard to the plat extension and your concerns about the tiling? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have a question here, if we deny the variance and the plat is expired then there is an entire resubmittal process subject to new conditions that exist today. If we approve the variance re-instating the plat and granting a two year extension that is under those conditions that it was originally approved by. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, then they would not be required to do the tiling then is that correct? Kingsford: I think that is correct, then you need to decide if you do that are you going to force all of the obligation on to the other side. And certainly you can only deal with 4 and 5 on that issue. (Inaudible) Kingsford: You are talking about 48 inch probably. Corrie: I am sure because there is a lot of water that goes through there. Morrow: That was the one that Nampa Meridian with respect to Ashford Greens testified that a 48 inch diameter pipe would handle the flow is that correct. At other areas within Cherry lane it is already tiled. Kingsford: Correct, there is a portion of it that is tiled through the golf course. Crookston: Is the Safford Lateral the same as the Eight Mile Lateral? Kingsford: No Crookston: To my knowledge the only portion of the Safford that is tiled would be right along the front of Cherry Lane Village No. 1 along Cherry Lane. Corrie: Yes, I think that is correct. Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 48 Kingsford: And what is the size of that? Crookston: I don't know. Corrie: (Inaudible) Kingsford: Forty-eight moves a lot of water though. It is not as big as Eight Mile that runs through along NO.6 in the golf course. It is certainly no bigger and that is a 48 inch pipe. Morrow: So the Safford lateral here is not contiguous to the Ashford Greens property? Kingsford: It is, it goes in and goes between Golf View and what will be Ashford Greens. Morrow: Eight Mile crosses the golf course? Kingsford: Right it will also go across then Ashford Greens, across the golf course and will go along the north boundary of Ashford Greens and into Black Cat. Morrow: And does not one of these belong to Meridian and one belongs to Settlers? Kingsford: That I couldn't address. Hepworth: The Settlers irrigation canal runs along the north side of West Cherry Lane and then comes up Kingsford: Is it Safford lateral though? Hepworth: No, it parallels Safford lateral on the west side of Black Cat Road. It goes up the west boundary of Kingsford: So both Safford and Eight Mile are Nampa Meridian ditches is that correct? Hepworth: I think Settlers irrigation is a separate entity. Kingsford: I know that is true but I want to know is who has control over both Safford and the Eight Mile Drain. I know the Eight Mile is Nampa Meridian. Hepworth: The Safford is Nampa Meridian then. Kingsford: Thank you, what is the Council's pleasure? Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 49 Morrow: Mr. Mayor, point of discussion here, I think the issue here is that we need to make a decision about the tiling thing because I don't think it is fair to require Ashford Greens to pay the full boat in that common area. I am not totally comfortable about making a decision about this without having these facts before us. I don't disagree and I think it is something you guys need to look at and look at closely is with regard to both of those projects. It is fenced on the south side of Golf View for quite a distance. I think you need to look at what you want to see there in a way of continuity and perhaps a table might be appropriate. Morrow: I would move to table until the, when is the next Ashford Greens hearing regarding this? (Inaudible) Morrow: I would move to table to the first meeting in June. Crookston: Has the hearing been closed? Kingsford: I don't remember, I think gave one opportunity, okay the hearing is closed. I think I did. Morrow: The motion is to table the action on the request for variance from Golf View Estates Limited Partnership until the first meeting in June, June 6th. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to table this issue until the first meeting in June, June 6th, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF SPECIALTY CANDY BY THE LITTLE CHIPMUNK: Kingsford: Is there a representative present on that? It is not a public hearing. Adamson: I don't know why I am here. Kingsford: You tell us what you want to have. Adamson: I am the representative, I am one of the owners of the building. We made the Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 50 application for the conditional use because we felt that was the politically correct thing to do. And, we appeared before Planning and Zoning and we have been given some recommendations as of Friday I was handed a pamphlet or a compilation of papers and some of that is somewhat confusing. Not being politically savvy I don't know what the procedure is now for the conditional use. Whether we meet all the conditions, whether we scream and holler or what happens next. But since I was told we were on the agenda I was told somebody ought to be here. Kingsford: Does the Council have any questions of the applicant? Tolsma: (Inaudible) Adamson: Side by side basically, Son Shine occupy which I am an employee, Son Shine occupy about 2/3 to 3/4 of the building. Carpet Headquarters occupied the other portion which would be basically the west half of the building on the lower floor. Carpet Headquarters is gone now. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Adamson: Yes Tolsma: We have a lot of people who use that alley that complain about the debris and refuse piled in and adjacent to the alley. (Inaudible) Adamson: We have not been approached but I can agree. No one has mentioned anything to us but I can agree we have a man that hauls our scrap that isn't too timely in getting it hauled off of which we are trying to address and spring is here and we can operate. We are looking at fencing that back portion in so it becomes invisible. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Kingsford: Any other questions? You indicated you had some questions and concerns about the comments, which ones are you not clear on? Adamson: There was the paving issue and I see that a specific comment has been addressed that, that we would be responsible for paving a portion of the alley that is on our property. And then the concept of retail space was addressed at the P & Z meeting that basically there is not much retail space and I see they are still requiring parking spaces for 3,000 square feet of retail which there isn't that much retail that would be there. I think we can probably live and we can handle the paving of the portion of the alley that would be ours. Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 51 Kingsford: How many square feet then do you think would be assigned to the candy portion? Adamson: Retail part would be approximately 200 to 300 square feet. Kingsford: Shari, what would that require then in parking, 200 to 300 square feet of retail? Stiles: One space for every 200 square feet, so 2 for that use. Adamson: We have the capability of approximately 8 to 10 spaces on the side that we are in a rental agreement. So I guess that would not be a problem then. Kingsford: Any other of those that you had a question about? Adamson: Procedural I guess, do we continue to forge ahead to make things work and then you would at some time and day say yes you got or do we get a conditional permit approved and then we continue to make it work? Kingsford: You should have the conditional use permit before you forge ahead. Adamson: We are forging with the cleaning and repairs and that sort of thing. Kingsford: Any other questions of the Council? I think you have findings of fact, is there a motion on those? Morrow: I have a question, on page 8 Item 5, the comments of the City Engineer and the Planning and Zoning Administrator must be met and complied with triple question marks. What is the implication there? Crookston: The implication there is an error by your attorney. It was a matter that I forgot to go back and look to see what those requirements were. Corrie: (Inaudible) Adamson: The original request for ACHD was that we pave from our property all the way to first and of course we cried and they backed that up and deferred it to Meridian City and Meridian City took it under advisement and their response I am guessing is #6 on the findings of fact page 8. Kingsford: What was your question Bob? Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 52 Corrie: That was the same one in the site specific comments (inaudible) I think that should be part of it. But #5 needs to be taken out I think. Morrow You are saying take out sentence number 5? Corrie: Take that #5 (inaudible) the comments of City Engineer and Planning and Zoning Administrator cannot be met according to what the findings of fact are on #6. He is paving part ofthe alley and the other says he has to pave it all. I think that is one of the reasons you brought it up (inaudible). Morrow: You are talking about the site specific comments from the planning department? Corrie: Yes Kingsford: I don't see a problem with that Bob I guess maybe I am (inaudible). Corrie: Okay, 15 parking spaces are required. Kingsford: That will have to be adjusted to (inaudible) but with regard to the paving it says shall not be required and that matches with what our staff recommendations are. They shall pave the alley on their property (inaudible) I read the site specific comment wrong. Morrow: In terms of the site specific comments items 2 and 3 are in error. Corrie: (Inaudible) Adamson: It was our understanding that we had one. Stiles: Mayor Kingsford and Council (End of Tape) I looked through our files and couldn't find anything on Carpet Headquarters or anything on Son Shine. Do you recall any of you? Kingsford: It would be my guess that Carpet Headquarters wouldn't have required one because that building has long been a furniture and carpet outlet and that would have not been required. Now the Son Shine issue I would think should have had one. Adamson: I addressed that with Jack Niemann when we first moved here. I guess things were different in those days. Kingsford: Well, it is still required everything in Old Town which that was required a conditional se permit. I don't know that ever come before the City Council. Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 53 Adamson: It might not have due to my greenness in this. When Jack and I discussed this before we moved over he said that is in Old Town I don't see any problem I will take care of it. I thought that was all that was necessary. So we never pursued it at that point figuring that was all that needed to be done. So, if the process if application like we have done so far with Little Chipmunk then no we never did any of that. It was all verbal. Kingsford: That is the way it should have been. Adamson: Can we incorporate the 2 since I have already started the check with this one? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I think, I guess I am not concerned about the staff conditions because item 6 on page 8 also addresses the issue of the paving only on the alley behind the applicant's property. With respect to the parking spaces I think that we can adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as \Mitten with the condition that the parking spaces be moved from 15 to 2 as required. Kingsford: Well, either 2 or 4 depending on whether he is talking 200 feet of 300 feet. Morrow: It is 1 parking space for every 200 square feet. So we are assuming it is 300 square feet and requires 2 spaces. So I would make the motion that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written with the stipulation that in the site specific requirements #3 be changed from 15 parking spaces to 2 parking spaces are required for 300 square feet of retail space. Corrie: (Inaudible) Morrow: Number 2 Bob is addressed in item 6 of the findings of fact and conclusions. Corrie: I know but it is also (inaudible) Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved and second, discussion. I think you need to deal with this, Mr. Corrie is saying since it incorporates in the findings the requirements of staff that issue with regard to paving all of the alley needs to be deleted to where it only is required, so it parallels Morrow: Item 6 says that. Kingsford: I know but in your site specific it says all the way to 1 st Street. And also in the findings it says that staff requirement shall be met. And so there is a conflict there. In item 5 it says all staff requirements be met and staff requirements were paving it all the way to Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 54 1st Street, so you have a conflict and I think that is what Bob is talking about. Morrow; I will withdraw the motion. Yerrington: Second withdrawn. Kingsford: Do you have a new motion? Morrow: The new motion would be that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written with the modification to the site specific comments of deleting item 2, changing the requirement on item 3 to read 2 parking spaces are required for 300 square feet of retail area. That would bring it in conformance with item 6 with respect to the paving on page 8. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the findings of fact and conclusions of law but deleting site specific requirements of item 2 and amended item 3 to have 2 parking spaces for 300 square feet of retail space instead of 15, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision? Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that the Meridian City Council approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the amended findings of fact and conclusions of law. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the decision which was to approve the conditional use permit as outlined, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Smith: Mr. Mayor, can I get a point of clarification on the alley paving, I could be wrong but I don't think the alley is on the property. I think it is a dedicated right of way on a plat. So I guess I need to know (inaudible) adjacent to their property rather than on their property. The half of the alley or from their east to west property line. Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 55 Kingsford: Did the Highway District speak to when they were talking about their part were they talking about half the alley or the whole thing? Smith: They were talking about the whole alley I believe when they started out. I think that is part of Old Town that is part of a plat and (inaudible). Kingsford: I think you are right that is a dedicated (inaudible) Smith: That alley is a dedicated right of way and public right of way and it is not on the property it is adjacent to the property but it is not part of this property. So if they are going to be required to pave that alley if they are paving the half of the alley adjacent to their property. Kingsford: Is that about 8 feet? Smith: Yes, typically those alleys are 16 feet wide so they are talking about 8 feet for the width of the property, the east west width of the property. Is that what the applicant understood from the Highway district? Adamson: My understanding, their first request of course was the entire alley for the whole length and when we cried and said we couldn't do that our original statement it is not our alley it is the City of Meridian's. Smith: It is the Highway District's. Adamson: They didn't argue with us, but they still wanted to see it done. So when I saw this that we would do the portion that was on our property I have not yet put the tape measure to it but if we have much of that alley it has to be measured in inches that would be on our property. Smith: Well, I don't think it is on your property it is adjacent to your property. Adamson: I understood the concept of adjacent and I was thinking 8 feet times the width of my property. Smith: Correct, that would be my thought. Adamson: It seems silly to me but then I guess I won't bring that up at this point. There is one pothole and the rest of it is good. The pothole is this big and the rest of it is great. Everybody else's stuff is in a miserable mess. It looks like ours will be pretty easy to patch up and fix. Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 56 Kingsford: I don't know that the Highway District really has authority nor do we to make him fix a street when they modify their building in any way do we? Smith: I think we ran into the same situation with the Red Door shop here on East 1 st. That alley and parking they had to provide on their property it seems like there was some alley improvements required by the highway district there also. Kingsford: But they had to do that with some parking and we aren't seeking that here. Smith: Right and they had a drainage situation to deal with. ITEM #11: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A QUICK SERVICE RESTAURANT BY MCDONALD'S INC.: Kingsford: Does Council have any question about that? This is on the Locust Grove and Fairview Avest property. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, on page 6 of the findings of fact, number 8, the structure on the property must be brought up to all codes prior to issuance of an occupancy permits. Is there a structure there? (Inaudible) Kingsford: It probably should read to be constructed to that. Any other questions or comments? Is there a motion on the amended findings? Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the amended findings for the McDonald's conditional use permit. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve of the amended findings of fact and conclusions of law on the conditional use permit, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision? Morrow: The motion would be that the Meridian City Council approve the conditional use Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 57 permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the amended findings of fact and conclusions of law. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the decision stipulating to the amended findings, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #12: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 2 DRIVE THRU RESTAURANTS BY RICK THOMAS: Kingsford: Mr. Caven are you representing him? Caven: Mayor and Councilmen I am here representing Rick Thomas on the conditional use that is before you for 2 drive thrus. I would like to clarify on page 38 of the planning and zoning commission comments that were made, I don't know if you can see the plat map over here, building "B" is the restaurant that we have the tenants for at this point. It was a little bit confusing in the comments here. It said Building "A" which is on the north side. I just wanted to clarify it is Building "B" that we have tenants for, building "A" we haven't filled and so the comment was made that this was a conceptual drawing or if this was the final except for that pad "A" that could turn into a might not end up a drive through it could end up with a full sit down restaurant. We would like to go ahead and get the conditional use for a drive thru and then change it to a sit down if that is the ultimate use for that. I just wanted to clarify that, that was a little mix up. It had in here that a 30,000 square foot retail building below was going to be a sit down restaurant, that is not going to be a restaurant (inaudible). I want to make one other comment on the findings of fact and conclusions of law page 9, item 7 and 8, item 7 states that we meet the requirements of Ada County Highway District and also the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. We don't have a problem with that. It does coincide with number 8 however where the City has asked us or is not going to permit us vehicle access to Gem Avenue to the north. At this point we aren't requesting access, however we would like to see if we could strike number 8. East 1 st and Meridian Road as you know right now is kind of up in the air what is going to happen with those streets. My understanding is that it is a concept drawing right now for traffic going both ways on both streets. I guess there are some talks with the City of Meridian about making that a one way going north on East First and a one way going south on Meridian Road. So that could affect our piece of property and how the internal flow of traffic is affected. So we would like to keep it open as a possibility to put an access across the Eight Mile Lateral to Gem Avenue in the future if the road designs around the property are changed and affect our traffic flow on the site. Right now they don't affect it Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 58 in a negative way so we don't need it, but we may need it in the future, And Shari can talk to you, she talked to ACHD also, They are not opposed to the access across the Eight Mile to Gem Avenue. I believe it was put in there because of the comments made by the bowling alley that they had an agreement with ACHD that they could park there. Well to my knowledge ACHD is not in the business of reserving parking spots on public right of way for people. So you can talk to Shari she talked to ACHD to that effect and if you have any questions in that regard. Other than that, that is all we have. Kingsford: Questions of the Council for Mr. Caven? Yerrington: I have one question, how about the Eight Mile Lateral, tiling that ditch. We are talking about tiling it through the golf course in a 48 inch tile how about that section there? Caven: The staff report, we have to go through a variance process for that which we have filed and it has to come before this Commission, Council here. Talking with Planning and Zoning and with staff it has not been a requirement to tile laterals over 48 inches in diameter. Talking to the Irrigation District they are not requesting that it be tiled, the estimate is it would be a minimum of 48 probably up to 61 inches in diameter. Staff and the irrigation district are not recommending tiling of that lateral. It has not been tiled to the east through the Corporate Park to the east of us and it hasn't been tiled to the west. Kingsford: Any other questions or comments? What is the Council's pleasure? Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I guess I have one comment for Walt, you said (inaudible) Morrow: Well, my comment was I did not want to see this or any other development along those properties interfere with the completed designs that, for Franklin Road, East 1st, Waltman Lane project. This has ingress/egress off of both East 1 st and Meridian Road which would work with that configuration. Now then obviously the actual development here would have to be with that design data. We should be seeing that as a City Council for the final design within a matter of the next few weeks. I know that the engineering company was substantially behind schedule, it was my understanding, and Gary correct me here if I am outside, but it is my understanding that the ACHD is doing the final review of those plans subject to the final printing. We will see a short presentation before us and my comments would still hold that the development of this property would not interfere with that design. Caven: Bell Walker Engineers is doing that road design, they work for us also. The set backs and the property that they need has been taken into consideration in this project for the widening and the giving up of the property that they need for the roads. Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 59 Kingsford: Is there a motion on the findings? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve of the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that the City Council of Meridian approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for property described in the application set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the conditional use permit as set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: He did have a request that number 8 be eliminated, can he come back later about this vehicle access if he wants to do that? Kingsford: I think that is appropriate, we are talking about something that certainly Bell Walker is not talking about at least now and that is 2 ways. I think that has been a rumor it might very well come to pass and in the event that it does I think you need to come back and we will address that, the access to the north. ITEM #13: KAT SHUMWAY: DISCUSSION OF PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM: Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I met with Kat on Monday evening and the outcome of that meeting was that she will make a presentation to us but because of the length of tonight's agenda she asked that it be postponed until some date in the future and that she would make contact. I was supposed to talk to Will and she was going to try to call also obviously Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 60 (inaudible). ITEM #14: REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION FOR FILING FINAL PLAT FOR FIELDSTONE MEADOWS NO.5: Kingsford: Does the Council have any question about that? Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question, their extension, they don't have a time, do we set it as a year? Kingsford: Is the applicant present? What was their request Shari do you know was it for one year? Morrow: So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve the extension of final plat for Fieldstone Meadows NO.5 for one year, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #15: RONALD VAN AUKER: REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY HOOK UP TO A SEPTIC SYSTEM: Kingsford: Is Ron's representative here, do you want to explain that? Miller: I am Brad Miller, Mr. Van Auker apologizes for not being here he had another engagement. Kingsford: I saw him out there he just didn't want to stay that long. Miller: No, he had to go somewhere else. What we have proposed is to build a 50,000 square foot warehouse on Commercial Court right next to Albertson's Sundry Center. Upon submitting the plans we received word that we would not be granted the permit because it would be hooked up to a septic system since there was not sewer in that area yet. We are currently in the process of getting the sewer over that direction as of last week I met with the Albertson's folks, with Jim Nelson, John Jackson over there, Mr. Van Auker also with Elixir Industries and we have formed a little group to bring the sewer over in that direction. We will be hiring an engineer tomorrow and within a month we will have a preliminary plan on extending that sewer. We would like to obtain permission to hook up Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 61 to a septic system for a temporary period. We would imagine having the sewer available for hook up about one year from now. The building would be finished in November probably so we would really only be hooked up to a septic for maybe 6 months to a year at the most. It is our objective to get on the sewer system as soon as possible for funding our lender prefers that we be on a sewer system rather than on a septic system. This is our first choice but with the demand in the market place we would like to get the building up and get a tenant in there. Kingsford: You are talking about a warehouse and you are just talking about a restroom facility for that? Miller: Correct, the tenant we are talking to now would have 8 employees they would less they discharge less than I do in my house with my wife and 4 kids. Kingsford: You live in the City limits, we are going to have to up yours. We discussed some sort of bond or a surety that be done which was our concern about making sure that the sewer be extended. And granting the septic system might preclude that. Do you have a proposal on that? Miller: We, Ron and I discussed that briefly. We would proposed that you take our word for it that we have the incentive necessary to get the sewer system in. We have the funds available which we assume will be around a million dollars between all the partners involved there to extend the sewer. It is our objective to get the sewer over there as soon as possible. We want to build out all of those things on the corner of Franklin and Eagle as soon as possible. We have a number of tenants who want to be in there immediately so it is to our benefit to bring the sewer over as quickly as possible. Kingsford: I think probably at a minimum it would be in the City's best interest to require a hook up fee at this point even though you hook to the sewer so that is out of the way and we don't have to fight with your new owner or tenant. Miller: I don't have a problem with that at all. Kingsford: What is the Council's pleasure? Morrow Although I am comfortable with Mr. Van Auker's word that this will in fact happen there are some other partners involved in this that may have some impact. I would think at the very least it would be in the taxpayer's and the City's best interest to require a bond for extension of the end of the existing sewer to this property. And therefore ensuring that if the consortium of other people fall apart than this (inaudible) candidly we can set time constraints for the temporary septic system and if the group falls apart and a year from Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 62 now there is no sewer trunk line built for whatever the reason than what do we do take an owner that had nothing to do with this application and shut him down? I think that would also be there to protect the interest of the owner. So that would be a point of discussion from my standpoint. Kingsford: Any other comments? I think that Ron was agreeable to that when we discussed it earlier. I don't think that it was necessarily his preference. Walt's point is well made, if we are just (inaudible) than a consortium. Is there a motion? Morrow: Having said that, I would make a motion that we grant Ronald Van Auker a temporary septic system to last no longer than May 16, 1996 and that we require a pre- payment of the hook up fees at point of building permit and that we require a bond completion bond for that portion of the sewer trunk line as it extends from where it currently exists to this property. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the temporary hook up to septic system that it approved through May 16, 1996, that they pay a hook up fee to the sewer system at this time and that they provide a bond to extend the sewer from its current termination to this site, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #16: WRIGHT BROTHERS/CESCO: REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY HOOK UP TO A SEPTIC SYSTEM: Vance: My name is Michael Vance, during 1994 an annexation took place generally over on the intersection of Eagle Road and Overland in the area of the Par 3 golf course, you perhaps knew it as the Peck annexation. There was a whole list of conditions of approval that went with that annexation. They mainly had to do with a development agreement. Most of that having to do with a subdivision. Our client is going to hopefully buy the entire piece and place a heavy equipment sales and service facility on the site. They would take up the entire site. Unfortunately the site is located on the south side of the freeway, the interstate and the sewer is located on the north side of the interstate. There are however, there has been discussions over the last month or two about bringing the sewer underneath the freeway. The sewer line has to be bored underneath the interstate. What we are requesting the Council approve is a temporary septic tank solution so that Cesco might be able to move onto this site, the entire site, the entire site that was covered under this annexation. Unfortunately I can't give you a time limit for this. My alternative to this short of a bond which I am not sure we could even cover what we have done in the past Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 63 is do a recordable agreement that runs with the land, it runs not only with the present owner but with future owners, and that agreement basically states that first of all they have to hook up to the sewer. They have to enter into a pay back agreement either with the City or the developer who ends up bringing that line underneath. The septic tank has to be removed and it has to comply with Central District Health Department requirements and those sorts of things. I gave Shari a copy of that agreement or a draft and I don't know if it made into your packet or not. That is certainly a thought that we could do. I am not sure how we would do the bonding. We would certainly agree to paying the sewer hook up fee if it was required. Basically the size of the facility, while looking big on the outside really has a couple of bath rooms and a probably a small kitchen facility. I believe I gave public works a number of fixture units that were equivalent to about 2 residential homes. So with that I would request that we be allowed to have a septic system on a temporary basis for this Cesco facility. I would be happy to answer any questions? Kingsford: Questions of the Council? Yerrington: How long of a period of time would you want it? Vance: Well, once the facility is in there, this is the difficult part, once the facility is there how do we determine what a legitimate period of time is. My own thoughts are that I don't think there is any question the sewer is going to come underneath the interstate and that there is property located directly east of the Peck parcel already has I think it is a 15 or 20 foot utility easement where sewer is supposed to come down to Overland Road and then go down toward Eagle Road. That is a very difficult question to ask because if we say it is for a year or 2 years or 6 months and that doesn't occur what do we do? I think with the recorded agreement and payment of the connection fee I don't think there is any question that you could certainly force the owners of the property into hooking up to the sewer the moment that it is there, in fact hooking onto it as it goes by and as soon as it is tested and accepted by the City. It is just the horrendous cost of trying to get one sewer service onto the opposite side there. There is a sewer line that exists, I think it is just to the west of the Par 3 golf course now and they are not allowing any further service into that line now so it has to be an alternate line brought over. One that I think is being brought over to the St. Luke's Hospital. Kingsford: Any other questions? Is the Council prepared to take action? Morrow: I would like to have some comments by City Engineer Smith. Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, there aren't any plans at this point to extend the sewer under the interstate. There has been an awful lot of discussion from property owners on that side of the interstate concerning the sewer availability thereof. But at this Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 64 point there are no plans, there have been no proposals. We don't know for sure where the sewer is going to be, we do know that the facility plan shows a 10 inch diameter sewer line extending along the boundary line between this parcel and the Thomas parcel to Overland Road. It also shows sewer line extending along the south boundary of the interstate off ramp to the south and east. Beyond that there are no plans, there are no time periods established. It is a crap shoot at this point as to when that happens. I think it is going to happen with all of the activity that seems to be going on over there including the mall proposal that sewer line will have to cross the interstate. The applicant is correct that once sewer line is adjacent or within 300 feet of his property they will connect, that is an ordinance requirement, they shall connect. At that point they would be required to pay a late comer fee as would be assessable to the construction of that line also. The only thing this does is just like the same conversation that the Mayor and I and Councilman Morrow had with Van Auker's in terms of taking a piece of property out of the picture for contribution to the extension of sewer line or the cost of that extension. But it is a relatively small parcel compared to the other pieces over there. Gary Voigt's parcel to the south of Overland Road is about 90 some acres, 300 lots, this is the sewer line that they would need for that parcel to be developed. Morrow: I guess part of my question would also be is that our conditions of annexation and zoning what do we, did we spell out any conditions in those annexation and zoning documents that indicated that sewer was a requirement of development. Kingsford: I think that is why he is asking for a variance. Vance: I will read it to you here, it is actually the first one that the applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land. The water is not an issue because it is there and it can be extended. That is really the purpose of my request tonight is to ask for a variance or a relaxation of the first paragraph such that we can, we can comply with most of the other ones even though they deal with subdivision issues which we are not subdividing. We are not asking for anything it is just a relaxation of that first paragraph. There is no question they want the sewer. Morrow: This is the entire parcel of ground? Vance: The entire parcel of ground, I don't know if you have seen, Mayor may I? (Inaudible) it is not going to he subdivided, it is not going to be cut up. Really most of the issues that we have dealt with during the development agreement plan or a lot of them will be taken care of. There is a ditch going through that will be tiled but most of the other issues really deal with the subdivision as it is developed and there is no final plat there is nothing. Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 65 Kingsford: Certainly I think this is a continuation of the land uses in that corridor of Overland and the freeway. I think we wi II miss an opportunity if Counci I doesn't grant this temporary variance. I know for certain that the applicant is looking at other parcels in Meridian that have been unsatisfactory for a variety of reasons. I think that is a good use for that property. Morrow To add to that I don't have a problem with any of that. I do think that we need to put some safe guards into the proposal so that it is very well understood by all parties today and in the future that when the sewer gets there (inaudible). Kingsford: I haven't read it but I like his agreement that he spoke to. I think that is a fairly good safeguard. It is a little different than what we were talking about with Mr. Van Auker because he is talking about a number of parcels that are going to be in his group developing, this is a single parcel with a single owner. Morrow Well, coupled with the fact here is we have a project here that is literally a long ways away from the sewer and that doesn't apply in the Van Auker case. Smith: Mr. Mayor, a couple of things, the house that is presently on the parcel is that going to be removed? Okay, the second thing is the location, do you know where the location of the water is at this time? Vance: It is my understanding that it is very close the to Par 3, we initially thought it was at Locust Grove and Overland and have since found out it that it is some 200 to 300 feet along Overland. Smith: It is on the east boundary of the driving range, so you would be required to pick it up at that point and extend it to your east boundary and it is a 12 inch diameter water line. Vance: That is correct. Smith: I was wondering, the other thing, the conditions of approval for this, Shari was mentioning that a development agreement would be required for the project. That those agreement conditions for future connection could be part of that agreement then too. Vance: Would there be a late comers or what I call a pay back agreement allowed on the 12 inch water line? Smith: Yes, there are provisions in the ordinance for that late comers agreement, you probably should get a copy of those and review them so you understand what conditions those are. Thank you. Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 66 Kingsford: Is Council prepared to make a motion? Morrow: One more comment, in conjunction with the development agreement you are aware in the City of Meridian we require an occupancy certificates and subject to completion of the project for our occupancy. Vance: Well aware, we have been through it many times. Kingsford: Is there a motion? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would request that or I would move that we grant the request for a temporary hook up to a septic system for the Cesco dealership as described in the application and that as soon as sewer service is available that the property be required to hook up to the sewer service, that the original hook up fees would be paid at time of building permit, and that any late comers charges or additional fees with respect to the cost of that trunk line be assessed at time of hook up, to and including a development agreement executed by the applicant and City of Meridian. Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve the request for a temporary hook up to a septic system for Cesco Enterprises, requiring the hook up fee to be paid at the time of building permit that they be willing to pay a late comer's agreement into the development of that line and that they enter into development agreement with the City at the time of permit, before the time of permit, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #17: BOLO'S PUB AND EATERY: REQUEST FOR BEER AND WINE LICENSE: Kingsford: Chief, do you have any problem with that? (Inaudible) Kingsford: Entertain a motion to approve the beer and wine license for Bolo's Pub and Eatery. Yerrington: So moved Corrie: Second Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 67 Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Ron to approve the beer and wine license for Bolo's Pub and Eatery, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #18: TEXACO TRAVEL CENTER: REQUEST FOR BEER AND WINE LICENSE: Kingsford: Any problem with that Chief? (Inaudible) Kingsford: Entertain a motion on that. Tolsma: So moved Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve of the beer and wine license for Texaco Travel Center, we did by the way get their County license they turned that in today, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #19: ROBERT MONTGOMERY: PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED STORAGE FACILITY WITHIN MERIDIAN CITY AREA OF IMPACT: Montgomery: It has been a long evening so I will be very brief, I am here, my name is Bob Montgomery and I am here on behalf of Steve and Lavon White (End of Tape) Mr. Bob Unger and he indicated to us before Ada County would with the review of the project that they needed some indication from the City of Meridian as to their feelings about this because the Comprehensive Plan at the site of their property I believe calls for a single family residences. So, Mr. Unger suggested that we visit with the Council and get some indication from them or at least an indication that they didn't object to a review by Ada County to proceed onward with the project. So, Mr. Steve Wiess is here and he would like to explain very briefly what the project is and what they are planning. Weirs: I will try to make this as brief as I possibly can. On your Comprehensive Plan you will notice on the right hand side up near the outer border there is a red mark next to one of your I believe it is a proposed park. That is our property, it is located at 2500 North Eagle Road. It consists of 12 acres. It is a very irregular shape and we are severely limited by the slough on the north side and an irrigation lateral on the south side regarding Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 68 ingress/egress. We would not be accessible to the properties on either side of behind us because they are literally the first spot from the division of the slough to an irrigation lateral. And it is very narrow at the back of the property and very wide towards the front. The second page is the aerial photograph taken by the Idaho Transportation Department in March 1994, again outlining the property boundaries that we currently have. You can see the development in the area. What we want to do is provide a service for the continuing growth of the Meridian area and allow people to meet with the covenants of the subdivisions and such of the single family dwellings around us to have a place to park there excess vehicles, motor homes, boats. It is excess storage units instead of filling their garage and parking on the street they would have another place to locate those extra items. The third page if you unfold it is a preliminary landscape. Shari indicated that there would need to be some extensive landscaping. Idaho Transportation Department does have plans in fiscal year 1996 to widen that section of highway. They have already purchased 70 feet from us for the entire length of our frontage which is I believe 212 feet, nearly 213. Idaho Power, unbeknownst to Ada County was quite surprised and somewhat dismayed over the fact that they are running a major transmission line down that section of road. They evidently indicated they thought it was possibly going to be a buried line, Anyway we are limited on the constraints of the irrigation canals, the slough, the progress that is coming our direction as to what we can do with that property. Being as it is such a small parcel of ground single family dwellings after we put in street and curb and gutter and utilities and what not wouldn't be a viable option for us. Kingsford: Roughly how many acres are you looking at there? Weirs: The entire parcel that we own is 12 acres, what we are looking at doing is developing 7 acres in possibly 2 different stages. We would put in an entirety of 600 storage individual storage units along that, that includes RV and outside covered storage for different vehicles and what not. Kingsford: That is your intended use for the whole parcel? Weirs: Yes, right now we have a plan of doing the 7 acres in possibly within the next 5 to 10 years, we would go ahead and extend it on back. Currently we have a residence on that property, 3000 square foot house with a tote car garage and the remaining 5 acres until such time as they are ready to develop the rest of it would remain a rural setting we might put one steer out there on grass or something like that. I do have a preliminary, it didn't get into your little thing here but I do have a preliminary outline of what the entire land would be consumed of if you would like to see that? Kingsford: Go ahead. Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 69 Weirs: This is the entire piece of ground, the boundary lines, the slough and this is how much of it we would be developing right away. The remainder of the residence and the pasture back here (inaudible). Morrow: Type of construction of the buildings? If we looked around Ada County and the cities in Ada County what would this project most look like in terms of building construction? Weirs: Most of the storage facilities in Ada County are a frame with a metal covering, we are looking at doing it out of block or concrete (inaudible) so that it is a more permanent more pleasing, easier to design as far as making it easy on the eye and what not for people to come by and to rent and what not. Morrow: Based on what you are saying these would be very similar to the ones that are being built currently on State Street? Weirs: Yes, very much so, the buildings of course would be much longer and what not because we do have more room to work with but yes they would be very up class. Morrow: Just east of Collister? Weirs: Yes, they would all be surrounded with a cyclops security fence, we would go ahead with that all the way around our property line. Problems we have right now with other types of developments that we have considered you know we owned this property since 1969, I grew up on it, I used to hunt and fish around it, you can't do that any more. Livestock is a problem because Eagle Road is going to become such a busy thoroughfare that if we did have an animal get out onto the highway the liability would be atrocious. The surrounding neighborhoods have got dogs and what not that come in and attack young calves in the spring. I don't know if I should say this but I have shot several dogs in the years past before there were many homes around. As far as growing a crop it is a very small parcel of ground, (inaudible) farmers are hard to come by. Things are changing we can't put in a sewer system we can't put in water because it is not available and this would be the way for the property to help pay for itself, increase the Meridian City's tax base in the years ahead and a benefit to the future development of the area. Corrie: Have you run this by the Fire department yet? Weirs: I talked to Mr. Voss about it because I needed to talk to him about what type of fire protection, fire suppression would need to be detailed into the plans as we go along. He indicated that intemal sprinkler system would not be necessary. That there would need to be fire hydrants with a minimum of 1500 gallons per minute for the fire trucks in case of Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 70 some sort of horrendous disaster. But he did indicated also that if we discussed it with the fire department overseeing Councilor whatever it was that he was talking about at the time there could be a possibility they could waive it until such time as the City water did come our way. Now if you look in your Comprehensive Plan half mile north of us on the south west corner, well actually I guess it would be the northeast corner of Eagle and Ustick Road you do have a proposed well to go in there for City water. He kind of indicated they might be able to work something out if we get your approval, if Ada County is willing to work with us that we could go ahead an stem in all the systems and everything and then when the water came by we could just hook up to it. Kingsford: Either of those ditches that are adjacent to you are they live ditches year round? Weirs: The Slough on the north side had been a live ditch for years, the last 3 years it is dry from before Thanksgiving until May. I don't know if it is because the water table has dropped, I actually had Health and Welfare tell me that at one time the water table out there was 2 feet deep and our house sits 4 feet in the ground and I said I don't think so. It has been live in the past and we used to water livestock out of it and it has been dry in the last 3 years in the winter time. Corrie: You will probably have to run that by Rural fire and I don't know what they will tell you. Kingsford: Of course that is one of the things that Ada County gives them approval that they will have to meet. Weirs: An option we may have is to drill a well that will pump whatever required water. Basically what we are asking for right now is a preliminary (inaudible) from the Council that would indicate in a letter form to Ada County Planning and Zoning that you wouldn't necessarily stand in the way for us to go ahead with this project. Kingsford: Any further questions of the Council? Is there a motion? Smith: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to make a comment that the South Slough is one of our designated locations for a trunk sewer. We don't at this point know where that sewer is going to be exactly other than the Comprehensive Plan shows the trunk sewer route. Whether it is on this gentleman's property or on the other side of the slough I don't know. But in terms of locating your buildings I would request that you give consideration to enough space so that a sewer line could go through if necessary. At least the option is available to be located there. Typically we try to stay within the easement that has been designated by Nampa Meridian Irrigation District who maintains that ditch, I don't know Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 71 what that width is at that point, it varies up and down the ditches. Weirs: On the Slough Meridian I don't believe has an easement they just asked if they could enter our property to cut the trees and to drudge out the area that is plugged. On the south side of our property where the irrigation lateral is there is a lane that goes down on our property that they do maintain. That is another problem with the progress of the area as we have a lot of people running their dogs and riding their horses and riding bicycles and motorcycles up and do'Ml that lane and again we have a liability problem there if they trip and fall through a gofer hole and break their leg they are going to sue me not Ada County or Nampa Meridian Irrigation. So again this would fence this material, it would no longer be irrigated on that front portion that I showed you here on this map. The remaining back portion would still be accessible to Nampa Meridian for maintenance on those surfaces. Kingsford: I think Gary's point is we would like to have access and be able to put a sewer line there. Weirs: At this point in time we are looking at possibly having a driveway back to the home that is there right now. If we go ahead vvlth possible purchase of another piece of property adjacent to us if they are willing there will be a 25 foot driveway down the side there that vvlll be paved and you can put your sewer line in under that. When we develop on it will not be a problem. Corrie: What minor change is required (inaudible). Weirs: You have single dwelling homes in that area and we are going to commercial. I am assuming it is a commercial set up. You have on your comprehensive plan you have mixed use and commercial within possibly a 1000 feet of us on the north and the south. It is just again a small parcel of ground that if somebody were to buy it and try to develop it and put homes on it, it wouldn't pay. Kingsford: I don't know so long as it is green I don't know that it necessarily would be a violation of our comprehensive plan. The request is for a letter from the Council to Ada County P & Z, is there a motion? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we send a letter to the Ada County P & Z with a favorable recommendation subject to a couple of conditions. The one of course being the completion of the screening and secondly that Ada County P & Z as a condition of approval stipulate some future easement area for sewer line access as per Mr. Smith's recommendations. That is a decision that he needs to make. Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 72 Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve or to write a letter of favorable recommendation to Ada County Planning and Zoning with 2 stipulations one that have adequate screening and two that there be provided future easement on South Slough for sewer extension, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #20: TERRY ADAMS: Kingsford: Mr. Adams is the current holder of the Foreign Trade Zone in Meridian. We have had some discussion with Port of Lewiston and he wants to make a presentation to Council with regard to granting that transfer to Port of Lewiston for use of the Foreign Trade Zone. I will let him speak to that issue. Adams: Thank you, first I thought it would be in order to do a quick review of the Foreign Trade Zone. One, the goal is to assist existing international business by providing an area outside of the US jurisdiction so that any raw products that are imported in the United States are not assessed a duty so long as those goods are used in the manufacture of a finished good which is then being exported. Second, there was an assumption that the real potential in this area lay in the ability to provide this capability to existing businesses that their existing location not expecting them to build a new facility just to come inside of this zone so to speak. And that we would do so by granting special purpose sub-zone licenses to those existing businesses. There was a further assumption that any facility that was physically placed within the Treasure Valley Business Park which is designated in the original application as the geographical boundary that any facility would most likely be in the form or an administration building only. It was a further assumption made that I believed that we did not see that just because this was zone was granted that we would see an immediate rush to participate in that. I think that last assumption has proven very much true. Currently I have been approached by the Port of Lewiston and also Inland 465. Inland 465 is a warehousing venture a limited partnership comprised of Phost Maritime which operates the barges from Lewiston to Portland. Lewiston Grain Growers and Ken Cook who is alias manager of West Best Trucking based in Lewiston. The Port of Lewiston is serviced by Union Pacific and the Burlington Northern. Terminal #2 of which the warehouse is a part is 150 acres consisting of barge docks, container transload facilities, there are 10 truck lines and 11 international container companies represented there. The warehousing facility is 150,000 square feet of multi-module warehousing. Both Inland 465 and the Port of Lewiston are interested in obtaining the Foreign Trade Zone status. The granteeship of an FTZ I think needs to be understood is really not a commodity this isn't something that is sold such as real estate. It appears we have some options here, one Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 73 obvious is if Lewiston wants a foreign trade zone let them go apply for one. They have looked into that. They had some misconceptions, first of all by national law and national foreign trade zones board currently you cannot cross state lines. They went to a foreign trade zone in Butte, Montana to try and obtain some kind of operating agreement from Montana, that physically is not possible. That is not an option, so for them to obtain a foreign trade zone there are not very many ways. If they go through the same process we did for Meridian the first obstacle is the very reason you have a zone in Meridian and that is that the number one criteria that it be a US customs port of entry. We had to go back to the Idaho Statute in the first place because there was a mistake in the way the enabling legislation was written which allowed only Lewiston to have a foreign trade zone. Which was a direct contradiction to the law. So we went back and cleaned that up so that any public entity has the right to apply for a foreign trade zone so long as they are US customs port of entry. So Lewiston was automatically out of the vvrinkle right there unless they want to fund for having a customs official there. Meridian can develop the zone, the zone was approved in February of 1993 so more than 3 years have passed from when the grant was issued. In 1991 there was a sunset clause put in the enabling legislation for the zone stating you have 5 years from the date the grant is issued to activate the zone. So right now zones that were approved in 1991 and currently still remain in an inactive status there seems to be a lot of interest right now and there is a lot of activity at the foreign trade zones national level to activate those zones because they will expire in 1996. Real istically I would anticipate probably a 6 month span in there from the time you applied to activate the zone to where that was accomplished. Realistically I think we have used up roughly half of the time available to have something happen. The question is, is something going to happen to make that happen, do we see a change coming along. Personally I think not. Another option would be to apply to the foreign trade zone's board for remote non- contiguous site at Lewiston in which Meridian would remain the grantee. The problem with this is customs supervision. They have what is called the 60 minute 90 mile rule. And that is where Meridian now qualifies, technically we are not here in Meridian inside customs jurisdiction but we are within the 60/90 mile rule. Lewiston is a far stretch of that, realistically that is not an option. Customs will not bite off on supervising a zone that is 275 miles away from Boise. Another option and the one that we feel is the most logical would be to modify the original application to change the site to Lewiston. Some things would have to happen. First of all, all parties involved Lewiston, Meridian, myself as the operator, from the Governor's office, all of the Washington strength we can muster would have to be signed off on a mutual consent to have this happen. Lewiston will fund what they call a user fee based customs office. In other words they would front the total cost of the customs official. Right now that estimated cost of the first year is around $75,000 and then it comes dOIMl the year after that in some steps of which no one is prepared to say exactly what that is. The initial is somewhere in the neighborhood of $75,000 for the first year. The marketing efforts of the zone would be assumed jointly between the Port of Lewiston, Inland 465 and Service Transportation Inc. I think the harmony of that marketing efforts Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 74 with these groups to market all of the available services being barge, rail, warehouse, trucking, to domestic and Canadian companies might be an area that we seem to be lacking here and that is having some namely money behind some marketing efforts. I think one of the questions we have seen at this point is if that were to happen what happens, what would the affect be to this area for obtaining foreign trade zone status if the grantee is now Lewiston? If the original assumption is correct that development along this line would come in the form of special purpose sub-zones to individual companies that can really justify and utilize that capability then nothing changes. The order in which sub- zones are applied for and approved at a national level starts first with the closest general purpose zone within a state. This still is only one general purpose zone in the state. If there is an attempt to cross state lines then any general purpose zone can block that from happening. What I would question is why would it be in anyone's interest irregardless of where the general purpose zone was located to deny any special purpose application. That would just seem to me to be opposite of the intent. So what we have asked the Council to do it to give the Mayor authority to sign off an agreement to transfer this authority to Lewiston. Any questions? Kingsford: In terms of that history, I think Mr. Adams glossed over, Service Transportation of which he is the President is the entity that put together the foreign trade zone here in the first place. All the bills to do that were paid by Mr. Adams and Service Transportation. We have an applicant that wants to use it, we are looking at a possible corridor that maybe this will end up benefitting Meridian and the Treasure Valley. If it doesn't happen it is kind of apparent to me that we are never going to see any foreign trade zone use here. This gives and opportunity to Mr. Adams to possibly get a return on investment for the time that they spent in the legislature and all of the funds they had to go into getting this application in the first place. Again I think the main concern that I had and logically the Council would is where does that leave us. We don't have anything necessarily now but in the event that something does stem from that and than we can be a satellite or what is the appropriate term? Adams: Technically it is a special purpose sub-zone. Kingsford: So we would still have the ability to do what we could do now, I don't know as we are necessarily giving anything up but it gives Mr. Adams the opportunity to exercise what he spent quite a lot of money and time in creating. We had a meeting 2 weeks ago Terry with Inland 465 and Port of Lewiston and some people up at the Canadian border that have, at least feel like they can utilize a trade zone. At least from my perspective it doesn't hurt the City of Meridian and it has the potential to help Mr. Adams a bit. Morrow: I think there is a bigger issue here as I see it, the bigger issue really is that we can do the auxiliary place but if I understand this concept right the City of Lewiston which is in Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 75 the State of Idaho has a legitimate chance at, you bring in raw materials, you process those and then re-export them so it is a product enhancement the very thing that Jim Hawkins and his folk at the Department of Commerce have emphasized over the last 4 or 5 years. We don't have a real good shot at something like that when you have the Columbia and the Snake River and plenty of barge traffic. Those folk have an opportunity to monopolize on that and increase the economic well being of that area. And so it seems to me like it makes a heck of a lot of sense to have this thing up there as the headquarters and as part of this agreement we get satellite status. Kingsford: Plus it allows us, I think the one potential that we have is a corridor to that Port of Lewiston and I think personally the only way we are going to end up using it might be through that corridor. Morrow: You mean Highway 55? Kingsford: Correct. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Kingsford: I think that was discussed but they never really expressed a whole lot of interest in it. And likewise other companies, we discussed that at some length through the years and again I think I've got to emphasize the point that if this isn't exercised in that time period it is gone anyway. Morrow: For the entire State? Kingsford: Correct, it can be re-applied for. Corrie: Did I understand you to say that you had to get an approval from Meridian and you had to go to Washington to get all these other people involved? Kingsford: To get the trade, what is the guys name and his position? Adams: John Du Panty is the Chairman of the National Foreign Trade Zone's Board and what we feel like is just realistically in order to have a chance for this thing to succeed without going back from the ground zero process all over again only now maybe Lewiston in an identical, that the best chance we have to do that is to bring all the muscle we possibly can into show a unanimous agreement in this thing. I for one, gosh we couldn't find a better climate than we have right now, heavens it just doesn't get any better from a business climate. I think we have every opportunity to really put a good concentrated argument directly to the Chairman. This, I don't care how anybody else has done it in the Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 76 past, these are the geographical problems we have in Idaho. We can show unanimous support from this from tip to toe. Therefore your honor do it this way. I think if you have a minute, I know you have had a long day, probably not too many of you got up at 4:30 this morning like I did. It is interesting to take a look at what is happening and I think some of the opportunities we have in Idaho right now there are 2 factors that seem to be driving a Canadian to Mexico trade corridor. One that I have been involved in for probably 4 or 5 years now is generally called the, it doesn't matter it slips my mind, but that is a corridor mainly originating in Montana. The traffic, the logistics of Canada is very similar to Idaho and basically to the nation is the east west corridor is very strong, north south is bad, it is non-existent almost. Canada is the same way, so they have a real problem getting goods into Mexico. The corridor that they have been talking about for several years now is going to through Montana and basically through the 1-15 Corridor, taking in Utah, Colorado and down that way. Virtually eliminating this whole part of the State, the problem we run into is they are trying to bring into uniformity a weight law of 135,000 pounds in Canada as opposed to some states in that sector only 80,000 pounds. I think that is a gigantic project and I don't know that I will live long enough to see that happen. On the other hand, if you utilize a quarter from Lewiston, you can affect the same Canadian provinces and basically you are looking at Alberta and the western part of British Columbia because the western part of British Columbia is basically a bastard child to British Columbia. They don't participate in the 1-5 corridor. So by utilizing a rail route from Canada to Lewiston and Barge traffic from there to Portland you have got a potential for a real winner. The only thing that is stopping that from happening right now is the 30 mile section of track from basically the Burlington Northern has abandoned beginning in 1980 connecting Moscow to Lewiston. They have been fighting trying to get that re-instated for years. I think right now we have the opportunity to really pull some muscle together and make that happen. If we look at half a dozen steam ship companies servicing Portland, Seattle and the literally millions and billions of tons of freight they move running east on the Burlington Northern you are talking Potlatch that has jumped on board just as recently as the last couple of weeks to try and encourage that to happen. I think there is some significant force that can be exercised on the Burlington Northern for a mere 30 mile section of track. I really expect to see that happen and I think that is probably critical to make the Canadian thing happen. So anyway, it just looks like a really exciting time to me to at least get something happening with this Foreign Trade Zone as far as Meridian and this entire valley is concerned. I see that you sacrifice nothing, part of the agreement that I have with these folks at Lewiston is I will sign off on the agreement only if I continue to operate the zone. I can guarantee you that as long as I am involved in that I would welcome any opportunity to do business back home. For that matter I don't see why you couldn't if you really felt like to get the level of comfort you need in this issue I don't think you would have any problem at all with formally writing a stipulation that avenue remain open to you. Crookston: I just had one thought that came to my mind Terry and that is you indicated Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 77 when you talked about Lewiston applying for a remote non-contiguous site and that would be very difficult for Lewiston to do because they are 275 miles away. Doesn't that same thing apply if Lewiston is the Foreign Trade Zone and Meridian applies to be a remote non- contiguous zone? Kingsford: No, because we have a customs office in Boise. Morrow Mr. Mayor I would move that we authorize the Mayor to conduct the negotiations with respect to the Foreign Trade Zone on our behalf. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to authorize the Mayor to conduct the issues of the Foreign Trade Zone on behalf of the Council, all all those in favor? Crookston: If it is required does that include the Clerk's signature? Tolsma: Withdraw the second Morrow: I withdraw the motion and I wish the motion to read that the City Council of Meridian authorizes the Mayor to negotiate the Foreign Trade Zone items on its behalf and that should contracts be signed that they be signed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to authorize the Mayor to enter into negotiations on the Foreign Trade Zone on behalf of the Council and to have him sign contracts and authorize the City Clerk to attest, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Adams: Thank you gentlemen, that entire everyone has completed that sign off we are waiting for you so we will present that original document to you so I will call you. ITEM #21: BEDFORD PLACE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Kingsford: Wayne did you get the return of that from Mr. Smith this afternoon? Crookston: I did not, I talked to their office, I tried to get a hold of Gene Smith and he was not in the office at that time. The secretary thought he might have been with Mr. Turnbull, Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 78 I did talk to another Smith, Brian Smith and he said that he would try and communicate to Gene as best he could. He asked me how long I would be in the office and I said I would be there until 6:00 and I left the office about 6:15 and I did not hear anything back. As I indicated I did not fax my material to Gene Smith until approximately 2:00 today. Turnbull: Gene and I were in a meeting at the Building Contractor's Association from 4:00 to 6:00. When I left Gene gave me a call we live approximately in the same neighborhood he had the fax copy that Mr. Crookston faxed to the Hubble office he had that delivered to Gene's home, and Gene called to tell me it was there. Hubble Engineering had also made the corrections that Wayne requested in the development agreement and I brought the copy with me here. It has been corrected as Wayne has requested. Kingsford: I would entertain a motion to authorize the Mayor to sign that development agreement conditioned upon Counsel's review and make sure it does meet those comments. Yerrington: So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Bob to authorize the Mayor to sign the development agreement for Bedford Place Subdivision subject to the Counselor's quick review of that and make sure it complies with his findings, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow: Mr. Mayor, point of order, I think the City Clerk has to attest to that signature. ITEM #22: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members on May 10th we had a bid opening for pump and control equipment at Well No. 12 as part of our rehab project on that well. We had 2 bidders, Caron Pump Water Systems Inc. and Riverside Inc. and I have handed out to you a copy of the bid summary. Also attached, let me continue on. The apparent low bid at that time was Riverside at $75,350.99. Attorney Crookston took the bids with him or I believe Bruce Freckleton delivered them to Wayne because there was some concern about the responsiveness about the bid, each one of the bids. And Wayne (inaudible) the bids and attached to that summary sheet is Wayne's memorandum to myself and Bruce Freckleton. (End of Tape)The 2 bids both of them are somewhat non-responsive. The bid that Riverside submitted is more non-responsive and they are non-responsive to the extend that they are by State code required to list their mechanical and electrical sub- Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 79 contractors and they did not do that. We have always had in the bid document a provision that the City reserves the right to waive any and all informalities that we feel would be appropriate to ward a bid. Wayne has made the recommendation to us that we cannot waive that requirement of the State code requirement to list the mechanical and electrical sub-contractor. There was a requirement for each one of those contractors on this project. Therefore Wayne has suggested that this bid be declared non-responsive. The Caron Pump bid is also somewhat non-responsive to the extent that they were to include the addendum that was issued in their bid package. They did not include the addendum that was issued to them in the bid package but they did acknowledge on their bid proposal that they had received the addendum. Wayne finds and I have highlighted it he can find no cases that indicate the City cannot waive the statement on the addendum that states proposals not containing this addendum shall be considered non-responsive and shall be rejected. So therefore he considers that to be a minor informality as I do. The Caron bid although they were not low is the other bid that was submitted and my request would be that this bid be awarded to Caron Pump Systems Inc. in the amount of $77,850.00. They have 30 days in the contract time to get that well going and completed. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we declare the Riverside bid as being non- responsive and that we award the bid to Caron Water Pump Systems in the amount of $77,850.00. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to declare Riverside Inc. bid non-responsive and award the bid to Caron Pump Water Systems Inc. in the amount of $77,850.00, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Smith: May I also have the Council's approval for the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the contracts for the Caron Pump. Kingsford: The award and notice to proceed? Smith: Yes Yerrington: So moved Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Max, second by Bob to authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 80 documents awarding and the contracts for Caron Pumps, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Smith: I recently had a message from Bruce Stuart our Water Superintendent, the Idaho Epilepsy League or the Epilepsy League of Idaho annually has a fund raising event which is called mud volleyball. It has been held in Boise I don't know how many past years, this year they have decided that they need to hold it in Meridian, or they would like to hold it in Meridian. Tom Wright has donated the use of property at the southwest corner of Eagle and Fairview and the thing that I want you to be aware of is that they have requested to connect to the fire hydrant out there and to flood the ground so that they can create mud. I asked the lady at the Epilepsy League what kind of water amount they were talking about and she tells me it is somewhere around a million gallons. This event will be held July 15th. Tolsma: A million gallons of water? Smith: Right that is what she said, basically they are using what they have done in the past is use 8 fire hydrants for 5 hours on Friday evening and 3 hours early Saturday morning which is 8 hours. A million gallons is about 2000 gallons a minute for 8 hours. There are 30 volleyball courts this area is about roughly 250 feet by 450 feet in size. There are 3 rows of 10 courts each and it is something like 2000 entries the lady said in this tournament. Kingsford: What would that cost the City under our current fee schedule Gary? Smith: There is a minimum of $5.00 for the first 4,000 gallons and then it goes up at the rate of something like $.70 per thousand. Kingsford: It is more than that because we raised the price. Crookston: It is a $1.70 per thousand. Smith: No that is sewer Kingsford: It is more like $.85. Smith: Well maybe it is, even at $.90 a thousand that would be 1000 times 90 which would be $900 plus so we are probably looking at $900 plus $5. Kingsford: We are talking about a substantial amount of money to be donating to this thing. Meridian City Council May 16,1995 Page 81 Smith: The thing that impacts me is the time of the year and the time of the day, it is a Saturday morning early and sprinkler systems are going early. It is Friday night later in the evening and historically that is a water use time also. If you want to use water it is interesting but during the middle of the day is the least demand. (Discussion Inaudible) Smith: The one thing that I need to investigate and I am going to talk to this lady tomorrow because I just wanted to let you know about it tonight to get your feelings on the subject. That settlers ditch runs along the south boundary of that development out there. I don't know how many feet it is from that ditch but in terms of the City contributing to this thing it would almost, it would be a lot less impact if we were to rent a pump for them and pump it out of the settlers ditch so they could flood the fields. Now that is assuming the settlers ditch would be willing to turn loose of that much water. Because again it is 2000 gallons a minute for 8 hours, that is a million gallons if that is the number that they need to put in that field. Yerrington: Who would put the water on the field the fire department? Smith: Well, they talked about the fire department from their fire department volunteers and I am not sure who those people are whether that is Boise City, Cole/Collister or Whitney, Meridian, I don't know. You are not aware of it so they probably haven't contacted Meridian. They have apparently some people that the have worked with in Boise in the past. If you have any comments for me to take to her I will be happy to do that. I told her that I was bringing this information to you this evening so you were aware of it. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Smith: I think it is going to be around $1000 with the water. Kingsford: I would suggest that they take a look at using, it has been our policy to discourage use for irrigation, I think that ought to follow through for entertainment. If they try and take that out of the irrigation ditch I think that is a logical reason it isn't in Boise. Boise Water Corporation does the same thing that we do to encourage alternate day sprinkling and certainly it could be a major impact. Corrie: I wouldn't want to be in your seat when the phone calls come in (inaudible) wasted. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 82 Kingsford: I think clearly they have a right to a certain portion of that water because Upland is in that. What is the Council's pleasure, if you decide to saddle me with the phone calls I can handle them but it would be preference that they get it out of the irrigation ditch. I don't think that is a good use of domestic water. Corrie: If they can get the ditch to do it then fine, if they can't then I would (inaudible). think Boise City is trying to tell them that they don't want it. Smith: I was thinking that tanking truck that we have got is a 3000 gallon tank that would be 350 of those truck loads. So the consensus of the Council is to try and get the water out of the settlers ditch. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Smith: Okay, thank you. Kingsford: Shari? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council the only thing I have is on the senior grant for the block grant project we need to designate an Environmental Review Officer and that needs to be reflected in the minutes of a meeting. Kingsford: You want to be that person? Stiles: I want to so bad. Kingsford: Entertain a motion to designate Shari to be the Environmental Review Officer. Corrie: So moved Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Max to designate Shari as the Environmental Review Officer for the block grant for the Senior center, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Chief? Gordon: Nothing Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 83 Kingsford: You guys have a copy of the restrictive covenants for Fothergill Subdivision Phase 2, Counselor has reviewed those do you have any questions for him? If not I would entertain a motion to approve the CC&R's for Fothergill Point Phase 2. Corrie: So moved Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Max to approve of the CC&R's for Fothergill Point Subdivision Phase 2, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Counselor? Crookston: Nothing Kingsford: Walter? Morrow Two things, one is I would recommend that we defer the review of the personnel manual updates until our strategic planning meeting on the 29th. The second item would be that we will cover the sewer issues at that same meeting. Kingsford: Max? Yerrington: Nothing Kingsford: Bob? Corrie: One question, on the old middle school or high school that Alidjani building, did we send that letter out yet. Helen did not know anything about it and I have an address for her if it is registered. Morrow: Mr. Crookston was in charge of putting that together because we trying a condemnation process are we not. Crookston: Now that I remember we are and no I have not sent the letter. Corrie: Would you put Helen Alidjani, post office box 933 that will get to her about 10 days faster, in Meridian. I asked her about and she didn't know anything about and she said that is great. That is alii have. Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 84 Tolsma: (Inaudible) Morrow: It is Tuesday the 29th isn't it? Kingsford: No, Tuesday is the 30th. We are now into Executive Session. EXECUTIVE SESSION Kingsford: Okay, is there a motion on the acceptance on the property of 1st and Idaho? Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that the City Council of the City of Meridian authorize the Mayor to execute the necessary contract documents to acquire the 60 by 60 lot on the northeast corner of Idaho and East 1 st and for the City Clerk to attest to those documents. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest the City accepting the property 60 by 60 on the northeast corner of Idaho and East 1 st, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Tolsma: Did we ever get any kind of a quote or anything on demolishing this old theater building over here? Stiles: Councilman Tolsma and Mayor and Council I talked to the Department of Commerce about that because I had a question that is not an eligible use of funds for that block grant project. I don't know how it got as far as it did, I mean it was even down to a lease agreement had been executed. It was a year to year lease for up to 3 years a maximum of 3 years and there is no way the Department of Commerce would contribute one dime towards that. Tolsma: Did anybody ever say what is would cost to demolish that thing? Stiles: I don't know, I think Shoemaker, I think he had some rough estimates. Unless the property were in the public domain that it couldn't be included as part of that downtown project. Tolsma: I had one private owner who said he would donate $2000 if it would help you start it. Meridian City Council May 16, 1995 Page 85 Morrow: I don't know why we would go to that given our recent past we have some of the best demolishers in Southern Idaho residing in the City let's just turn it over to them. Kingsford: I would certainly be willing to entertain a motion to adjourn. Morrow: I have one more thing, I am sorry I forgot, very quickly and Mr. Crookston can handle this. My question is why do we have portable outhouses across the street from us? And information from 2 of the neighbors that there are residents living within that structure. Living within the old creamery. Kingsford: We suspected people living in there but I was unaware of the portable outhouse. Counselor let's get the judge re-advised, portable outhouses was not one of the things the judge allowed. Crookston: I will discuss it with the Chief of Police. Kingsford: I would entertain a motion. Corrie: So moved Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Max to adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 12:41 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ~{? ~~ GRANT P. KINGSFOR , R ATTEST: /310 OjJEN ItV (j {lImp eJ f'1pl}JCz - WctL A/fJ./'2- /lI1tl.~ /0/ ;qq5 - J ,'00/1';'}. C avo t'1 ~ /;/ m(J Wafer Si; s/e"YJS') ::Tn c.., I!, :.er S I ~e InL ,I b1lV pvA OJ ~ (}VJfJI" (}f11lJ to C rDvit .10 Gvpf :P' 77j!JSO~ ~ Ii 153.S-0 91 I ,- AMBROSE, FITZGERALD & CROOKSTON ATroRNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW GltANT I. AMBROSE (1915.1%3) JOIl N o. FITlGEllALD, "A. WAYNE G. CROOKSTON, Jlt, I'A. \\1I.UAM ,1. SCIIWARrl JOliN O. F1Tl.GERALIlIl.I'.A. I'lITER W. WARI!, JIt. 1530 WESr SrATE . P,O. BOX 427 TEI.El'llONE (268) 888-1%1 FACSIMll.E (208) 88B.3%9 MElUDL\N, IDAHO 83680 TI-llS FIRM INCLUDES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS MEMORANDUM RECEIVED MAY 1 6 1995 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: MAY 16, 1995 Gary Smith and Bruce Freckleton Wayne G. Crookston, Jr. WELL # 12 BIDDING MERIDIAN CITYEN~ ~ )Jd- Both of the bids received have problems with them. The Riverside bid, I believe, has more problems than the Caron bid. RIVERSIDE The Riverside bid does not have a correct envelop; the envelop does not state the entire name of the project nor does it have the License Number on it. The Information For Bidders states that "Each Bidder must designate the Mechanical and Electrical SUBCONTRACTORS, and their addresses, they intend to use. Failure to do so will result in the BID being determined a non responsive bid and will be rejected." The bid does not comply with requirement for the listing of the mechanical and electrical sub- contractors. The statement in the contract document relating to the subcontractors states that if the contractor is going to do the sub-contract himself that the document is to be marked "SELF" and if the job does not require that type of sub-contractor the document is to be marked "N/A". If Riverside was going to do the work itself it should have marked the space for the electrical and mechanical contractors as "Self". The "N/A" indicates that no electrical or mechanical work is required to perform the job. Gary has indicated to me that both are required to perform this job. If the firm is going to do the work itself, it must be licensed for that activity and the license number should have been added to the sheet. No license numbers were included. The bid complys with the other requirements. Gary checked on the licensing and Riverside does hold specialsty licenses for electrical and plumbing but, again, there are no licensing numbers on the sheet. The question then becomes, since the City has a statement that allows the City to "waive any informalities or minor defects", can the City waive the ~ub-contractor requirement. The City can waive the envelop requirements but it can no~ waive the subcontractor requirements. There are two cases that deal with the listing of sub-contractors, Aqricultural Services v. City of Gooding, 120 Idaho 627, and Nielsen & Co. v. Cassia & Twin Falls County Joint School Dist., 96 Idaho 763. They both state that the government agency involved has no authority to waive the State of Idaho requirement of listing the sub-contractors who are going to perform the electrical and mechanical work. The City therefore cannot waive the requirement for the sub-contractor listings. This bid of Riverside shall have to be declared "Non-Responsive". CARON The Caron bid meets all of the requirements of the bid as initially written. An Addendum was added to the bid documents. This is Addendum No.1. It stated that, "All bidders shall indicate receipt and acceptance of this Addendum on page BD-6 of the Bid Schedule. Proposals not containing this Addendum shall be considered non-responsive and shall be rejected." The initial Contract Documents and Specifications document do not reference an Addendum except on page BD-6 as part of the Bidder's Proposal, which at the top states that, "BIDDER acknowledges receipt of the following ADDENDUM: Addendum No. Addendum No. Dated: Dated: " The Contract Documents and Specifications document does not reference any addendums, or possible addendums, as being part of the bid or contract documents. In the INFORMATION FOR BIDDERS on page BD-2 it states that, "The BID FORM(S) shall include, the following: "BIDDER'S PROPOSAL, BID SCHEDULE (S), BID BOND, and ELECTRICAL AND MECHANICAL SUBCONTRACTORS." Caron, in the bid schedule on page BD-6, has marked the addendum area as follows: "BIDDER acknowledges receipt of the following ADDENDUM: Addendum No. Addendum No. 1 Dated: MAY 10, Dated: 1995 " I find no cases that indicate that the City can not waive the statement on the Addendum that states, "Proposals not containing this Addendum shall be considered non-responsive and shall be rejected. " The Information to Bidders does not state that any addendum are included in the contract documents nor does it state that if addendum are not included the bid is non-responsive. The Information to Bidders does state, "The OWNER may waive any informalities or minor defects. . .". OPINION Therefore, since Riverside failed to meet a requirement of the bid and the State law, since Caron did state that it acknowledged the Addendum and the City can waive the requirement of having the Addendum contained in the Proposal, and since Caron met all of the other bid requirements, the Riverside bid should be declared non- responsive and the Caron bid declared the low responsive bid. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, MAY 16,1995 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MAY 2,1995: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF C-G FOR 74 ACRES BY E.L. BEWS: -!A!;J.fe W~...;t J~ Zo-t5- PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A VARIETY OF MIXED, PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL LAND USES BY E.L.BEWS: {a./;(.e t(,J1..h"7 Jtvr-e '201"3:-- STEINER DEVELOPMENT: APPEAL PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: deJtrj aI/peaL PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO R-4 AND R-15 FOR 45.46 ACRES FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO.5 & 6 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: re/YLdY?,-CL i;acL 10 f'(z.- PUBUC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO.5 & 6 93 "LOTS BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: re frl.cvYt d.. ja c-k.. -to jJl { 2- PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO R-8 FOR .40 ACRE BY D.W. INC.: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MAWS ADDITION NO.3, 6 LOTS BY MAWS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: afljJi'"t:Jvi/ ,htR..>e..f)lt...j .;(....0.// CO/v>"f"~el...f;J (:[f/la 501 ~ar<HV>'-d.. 01.- IHhn.,f PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT BY DAVID AND DENISE HALL: ~ ~ .;Ttvr-e 6 If: /11-.7J-. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR A TWO YEAR TIME EXTENSION ON RECORDING FINAL PLAT FOR GOLF VIEW NO. 4& 5 BY GOLF VIEW ESTATES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP: -/1GW ~ dU/Ju!. 6 (3. ~ REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF SPECIALTY CANDY BY THE LITTLE CHIPMUNK: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A QUICK SERVICE; RESTAURANT BY MCDONALD'S INC.: a/trove cunend..ed-.. .;: 'f { elL ajJ jJ r t?V.e (.J (frLa/h 'rnt-d ua.e. ,;un m/?;- 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 2 DRIVE THRU RESTAURANTS BY RICK THOMAS: 'llrov.e ;:/f'le/t tl;'prbt/-f C::Jnd/!, t;n.u<-C a...a.e ;uu-nvU:;. KAT SHUMWAY: DISCUSSION OF PiaL T RECYCLING PROGRAM: (1.;/11 I-RJC/udtdLd_/l'~ REQUEST FOR TIME EXTENSION FOR FILING FINAL PLAT FOR FIELDSTONE MEADOWS NO.5: !/-f;rovR t/f'--R- rtVl--- ~ RONALD VAN AUKER: REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY HOOK UP TO A SEPTIC SYSTEM: tjrtYh:t A f.emfYorarj ~()O;{-ul' tv se)J?'""/c- 5''fJ fe--n--- #1- .~he. /jetty rflCr~/l....t'i1-j' AOt/k-uf' j:e€- tlYl.d b9na.. ~ S:et~/f"M!. .ev-knJ/~ WRIGHT BROTHERS/CESCO: REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY HOOK UP TO A SEPTIC SYSTEM: ~ ~-I a fe 1'7.::>(7"'.0-/\.J kcrok...-u..p ?o s..ejJl-iL S'jSi..0.,...), pa tj /wol.t.--"up k) ...R v;:t:e C~tf ti ~r th-e-C d..,e u:e.1o'p ~ ct.c;v-e tne~r BOLO'S PUB AND EATERY: REQUEST FOR BEER AND WINE LICENSE: ar fro V.e- TEXACd TRAVEL CENTER: REQUEST FOR BEER AND WINE LICENSE: ap jJ TO V JL.... ROBERT MONTGOMERY: PRESENTATION OF PROPOSED STORAGE FACILITY WITHIN MERIDIAN CITY AREA OF IMPACT: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER: 1. BID RESULTS: WELL NO..12 PUMP REPLACEMENT: B. SHARI STILES, PLANNING ADMINISTRATOR: 1. DESIGNATION OF ERO FOR SENIOR CENTER ICDBGI PROJECT UPDATE: CITY OF MERIDIA~T PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET L/~r7 Re1~A&/" Nrr<f!."sfJ &r/Je:s ~~S b 2 >t-- [ tlJC'$ 313&' 2./lf 1-10hfr/~ Mrk Sa~, Sc97~/!s~f!j CITY OF MERIDIAJY PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET I ,