Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002 08-06 Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:45 P.M., on Tuesday, August 6, 2002, by Mayor Robert D. Corrie. Members Present: Mayor Robert Corrie, Tammy de Weerd, Keith Bird, Cherie McCandless and William Nary. Others Present: Bill Nichols, Gary Smith, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Brad Watson, Mike Worley, Sharon Smith, Ken Bowers, and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: X Tammy de Weerd X Bill Nary X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird X Mayor Robert Corrie Corrie: All right. The time is a quarter until 7:00. I will open the City Council Regular Meeting on Tuesday, August the 6th, at the City Council Chambers. We will have roll call attendance, please. Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda: Corrie: Okay. All here and present. Adoption of the Agenda is Item Number 2. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: T he only thing outside of the Consent Agenda would be to take care of is Item Number 7, a Continued Public Hearing for the contract Parks and Recreation System Action Plan has been asked by the Parks Department and the Committee for the impact th fees to be tabled to September 12, so they can do some more work on the impact fees. Other than that I would move, then, that we approve the agenda as noted. De Weerd: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to adopt the agenda with the exclusion of 7, a Public Hearing, which will be postponed. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed no? All approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 3. Consent Agenda: A. July 9, 2002 Approve minutes from City Council Special Meeting: Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 2 of 77 B. July 9, 2002 Approve minutes from City Council Joint Workshop: C. July 16, 2002 Approve minutes from City Council Regular Meeting: D. Tabled from July 2, 2002: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 02-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 196.20 Tuscany Lakes acres from RT to R-4 zones for proposed Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – west of South Eagle Road and south of East Victory Road: E. Tabled from July 2, 2002: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: PP 02-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 455 single-family lots, 38 common lots and 1 other lot on 190.47 acres Tuscany Lakes Subdivision in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed by Gem Park II Partnership – west of South Eagle Road and south of East Victory Road: F. Tabled from July 2, 2002: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 02-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development consisting of 353 buildable lots and 31 Tuscany Lakes common lots on 138.88 acres for proposed Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – west of South Eagle Road and south of East Victory Road: G. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: VAR 02-007 Request for a Variance for reduced setback from ten feet to five feet on the side of a home with a dormer on the second level by KW Homes – Lot 28 Block 4 of Packard Estates No. 3, 2641 E. Bernice Dr.: H. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 02-004 Request for annexation and zoning of 127.74 acres from RUT to C-G, L-O Sutherland Farm and R-4 zones for proposed by Sutherland Farms, Inc. – east of South Eagle Road and north of East Victory Road: I. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: PP 02-004 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 308 building lots and 30 other lots on 127.64 acres in proposed L-O, C-G and R-4 zones for proposed Sutherland Farm by Sutherland Farm, Inc. – east of South Eagle Road and East Victory Road: J. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 02-005 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for residential, commercial and office park Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 3 of 77 Sutherland Farm development for by Sutherland Farm, Inc. – east of South Eagle Road and north of East Victory Road: K. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 01-015 Request for annexation and zoning of 34.60 acres from RUT to I-L and L-O Utility Subdivision zones for proposed by Falcon Creek, LLC – 3365 North Ten Mile Road: L. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: PP 01-017 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 11 building lots on 34.60 acres in Utility Subdivision proposed I-L and L-O zones for proposed by Falcon Creek, LLC – 3365 North Ten Mile Road: M. Order Granting Appeal: AP 01-00 Stop Work Order at 2340 West Franklin Road by Walt Morrow: N. Development Agreement: AZ 01-008 Request for annexation and zoning of 12.71 acres from R1 and RUT to C-G and R-40 Baltic Place Subdivision zones for proposed by L.C. Development, Inc. – Franklin Road west of Locust Grove Road: O. Resolution No. 02-381: Recognizing ValleyRide as the regional public transportation authority: P. Award of Contract, 2002 Sewer Cleaning Project: Q. Award of Contract, Asphalt Pavement Improvements at Waste Water Treatment Plant: R. Agreement for Professional Services Addendum No. 1 – White Drain Sewer Trunk Project, Keller Associates: S. UV Disinfection, Grit Basin and Outfall Project – Tertiary Filter Bypass Change Order: T. South Slough Sewer Project, Sewer Easement – Dixie Roberts: U. South Slough Sewer Project, Sewer Easement – Vern Alleman: V. Snorting Bull (Woodbridge) Subdivision Off-Site Water and Sewer Easement – Paul and Margaret Loree: W. W.H. Moore Consent to Annexation Agreement: Corrie: Consent Agenda. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 4 of 77 De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I move we approve the Consent Agenda with the following changes, to move Items D, E, F, M, R and W to the Regular Agenda Number 5 as 5-D, E F, M, R, and W. Bird: Second. Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Approve Bills: Item 4: Department Reports 1. Police Department – Mike Worley A. Agreement for Police Testing: Corrie: Item Number 4 is the Department Reports -- excuse me. Department Reports, Police Department. Mike Worley. Worley: Thank you, Mayor, Members of the Council. We have over the past few months been in some discussions with a company called Public Safety Testing out of Bellevue, Washington. This company has been in existence for a couple of years in the State of Washington and their business is to conduct pre-hire written testing and physical fitness testing for police agencies. They do provide validated tests in both areas. The applicant goes to them and can specify which agency they would like their test scores to go to. This has proven to be very successful in Washington. The candidates, rather than going around hitting each department on different testing schedules, can get one test score that's provided to whomever they want it provided to. Once we get a test score from somebody from this organization, we then continue on with our normal application process for selection. The agreement that you have in your package is an agreement to allow Public Safety Testing Company to conduct our pre- hire tests. Like I say, they have been in Washington for a period of time and the agencies I have talked to in Washington are very happy with the service they are getting. They are just making an in-road into Idaho. This will be the first area that they have attempted to serve. The City of Boise has already signed an agreement with Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 5 of 77 them. Garden City is in the process of doing so, and Nampa is -- was in the process of it, but due to the untimely death of Chief Priest that's been put on hold, but the last information I had is they are also planning to move with them. With that I would be open for questions and, if not, I would ask Council's approval and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest the agreement. Corrie: Okay. Any questions of Council? Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: Chief, I don't see any cost of this agreement. Corrie: Exhibit A. Worley: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bird, there is -- the cost is based on the number of employees in the Police Department. We are able to fund a three-year contract, which we can also opt with each individual year. We do have funding available remaining in our budget this year to fund a three-year contract, which locks us into our current -- price based on our current number of employees. Even though we would add employees over the next three years, by doing a three-year contract we can lock into a -- not only a reduced fee, but a fee based on the current number of employees. Bird: Thank you. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Chief, I was just curious and maybe I just missed it in the contract, but since the grade is based upon employees on the -- currently in the department, not the number of people that get tested to be on the department, does that mean we can test how ever many we want? Is that how that works? Worley: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Nary, actually, yes. The employee or the applicants themselves also pay a testing fee to the company, but they will test as many as they want, because they are testing for 100 plus departments in Washington, plus whatever they sign up for here. They are also moving into California and there is no restriction on where you would test. For instance, if somebody, you know, in the Seattle area is interested in Meridian, Idaho, they can take the test in Seattle and have the scores sent down here. That's strictly a function between the applicant and the company. Nary: Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 6 of 77 Corrie: Any further questions? Okay. Thank you, Chief. Any discussion? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion on the request for the City Police. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I'd move the approval of this Subscriber Agreement with the City of Meridian Public Safety Testing dot com for the terms as described in the contract that have been presented, including Exhibit A and, as well for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest for the three-year contract. Bird: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll-call vote, please. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 2. Public Works Department – Brad Watson A. I-84 Sewer Crossing Project Latecomer Agreement – G.L. Voigt: Corrie: Public Works. Brad Watson. Watson: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and Council Members. The first item under Department Reports is a Latecomer Agreement with G.L. Voigt Development Company for a sewer line they constructed two, three years ago across Interstate 84. It ended up serving the Resolution Sub and it also serves another benefit area. I'm not sure that this needed to be on -- under Department Reports, it probably could have been taken care of under Consent Agenda. The only point of interest is that this agreement reflects the discussion that you and I had over the Silverstone Latecomers Agreement, which includes adding a 10 percent city administrative fee, rather deducting it from the latecomer payments. If there are any questions, I would be happy to answer those. Corrie: Okay. Any questions of Council? Okay. All right. That being the case, I will entertain a motion on the Project Latecomer Agreement on the I-84 Sewer Crossing, G.L. Voigt. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 7 of 77 Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve the I-84 Sewer Crossing Project Latecomer Agreement for G.L. Voigt Company and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Roll call vote, please. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES B. Five Mile Sewer Trunk Extension Latecomer Agreement – Sundance Development Company (Silverstone): Watson: Thank you. The second item under Department Reports is a Latecomers Agreement with Sundance Development Company for the Five Mile Sewer Trunk extension by Silverstone -- or to Silverstone Subdivision. I did not receive a signed copy of that agreement as of 5:00 today, so I would request that it be tabled to August th 27. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we table the Five Mile Sewer Trunk Extension Latecomers Agreement with Sundance Development Company, Silverstone Project, until August th 27. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no? Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 5: (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) D. Tabled from July 2, 2002: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: AZ 02-005 Request for annexation and zoning of 196.20 Tuscany Lakes acres from RT to R-4 zones for proposed Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 8 of 77 Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – west of South Eagle Road and south of East Victory Road: E. Tabled from July 2, 2002: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: PP 02-006 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 455 single-family lots, 38 common lots and 1 other lot on 190.47 acres Tuscany Lakes Subdivision in a proposed R-4 zone for proposed by Gem Park II Partnership – west of South Eagle Road and south of East Victory Road: F. Tabled from July 2, 2002: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 02-006 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development consisting of 353 buildable lots and 31 Tuscany Lakes common lots on 138.88 acres for proposed Subdivision by Gem Park II Partnership – west of South Eagle Road and south of East Victory Road: Corrie: Okay. The next item is the items removed from the Consent Agenda. We have D, E, and F. Who took that one off? Keith, did you want to have all three at one time? Bird: It was Tammy's -- Corrie: Do you want to discuss them one at a time or all three at one time or -- De Weerd: All three at one time. Corrie: Okay. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, the applicant has sent a letter regarding the finding and so I thought it would be appropriate to discuss the issues and to see if we want to change anything. Corrie: Okay. Let's hear from the staff first on the comments. Brad? Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Staff has reviewed the th July 25 letter from Kent Brown at Briggs Engineering. The first item there -- actually, I guess the first two have to do with the Ada County Highway District comments. Since those are incorporated into our findings, essentially this is making our findings compliant with what the final ACHD report was. That they do have that 10 foot wide pathway just on one side of their entry off of Locust Grove, if you recall, on the north of their main collector there. That's what that Item 16 on the first page has to do with. We did submit a Position Statement on the Item 17 that has to do with the height of some houses adjacent to this -- or houses within this on Lots 32, 33, and 34, so there are three lots involved and the request there is to change it from a 20 foot maximum height from zero grade to a 25. We are concurrent with that in our Position Statement. Then the last -- th the fourth item there on Kent Brown's July 25 letter is regarding the new water mains Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 9 of 77 and there was a Position Statement from Bruce Freckleton, the Public Works Department that concurs with that. Generally, I think staff's in concurrence with our two position statements. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: On the height issue, what was the testimony about that? When the residents left did, they think it was going to be 20 feet? Was P&Z -- was that their recommendation? How are we changing it from 20 to 25 or what are staff’s feelings on that? Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner de Weerd, our feeling is tied to the Building Official's comments about the average height of a standard single-family detached house. According to Daunt Whitman, those -- you know, 25 foot is a -- would certainly be a maximum, but there are many single-story houses that have that as a height from existing grade to -- you know, to a peak. That's -- somewhere that was derived from. I'm sorry, I did not check to see if the 20-foot was specifically discussed. Certainly, it has -- it has been in there since the original Tuscany. If a neighbor or property owner, you know, read the staff report, that five foot would be a change. De Weerd: Yes and I guess that would be my concern. Corrie: Okay. Any other questions for staff? Mr. Brown, are you here? I know you're here. I talked to you earlier. Name? Brown: Kent Brown. Business address 1800 West Overland, Boise, Idaho. Just -- the discussion about the building height came up specifically -- from P&Z it was a recommendation that it be a single level. Then at the City Council you were the ones that had the problem with, you know, what does that really mean. There was discussion from the attorney as to we really need to be specific on this and an arbitrary height was picked at 20 feet at that point. In speaking with the Building Official after that, they said 25. I think the critical part that you guys would be most interested in is that it's not talking about having any windows other than the ones that are on the lower level and nothing that can peer down and that language is still the same. What we are looking at is just it gives us a little higher pitch on the -- with a 6/12 pitch roof, that we have that height. That's I think the biggest part of that difference. We did go back and we previously discussed with the Highway District and got them to adopt the pathway. That's the only other really change that's taken place and asking you to adopt those plans. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 10 of 77 Bird: I'm in agreement with Mr. Brown, because you get things on 20 feet, it's an awful flat roof. De Weerd: And you're not going to have any -- Bird: And you're not going to have any ceiling in the house. Twenty-five is going to give you a real steep, but it should do the job. Might get a 1/12 pitch if you got a nine foot ceiling in there -- Brown: A lot of that had to do -- to just clarify, you take the 6/12 pitch and taking an average width of the house and then putting a 6/12 on there, you exceed that 20 foot height, just taking an average width of the house. That's where that was derived. I think you have the protection with the wordings that Mr. Nary put on that condition with regards to the windows. De Weerd: Oh, he came up with the 20? Nary: Well, Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: And I would agree with Mr. Brown. Probably the 25 does make more sense. There is -- I don't know how many affected people there are in this area. Brown: There was one. Nary: Yes. Mr. Brown, I recall we had a circumstance that happened in the City of Boise where a person built his house consistent with the height requirement of the house next door. I think it was Boise at that time, but since we won't have -- we shouldn't have a problem that all these houses are going to be built, you know, at approximately the same time and all be under the same restriction, that shouldn't happen. I think that the first floor -- I think I got the impression, Mr. Brown that I think when people left that was what they wanted. You know, no windows, not facing their house, their homes, that kind of thing. I think -- I think 25 makes sense and I don't see it as a change that -- De Weerd: No and since P&Z didn't mention a height, they mentioned a story, that's fine. Corrie: Okay. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 11 of 77 De Weerd: I move that we approved the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on the request for annexation and zoning of 196.2 acres from RT to R-4 for the proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision and have the Mayor sign and the Clerk to attest. Bird: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: And that would include the comments from the applicant on the Findings where appropriate. Bird: Second agrees. Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? McCandless: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. McCandless. McCandless: Since originally, I voted against this project, but it still went through, I see no reason to continue in my no vote. I just wanted to say that's why I'm going to vote aye on this. Corrie: As the school kids would say, it's the principle of the thing. McCandless: The principle of the thing. You bet. Corrie: Any other discussion? Okay. Roll call vote, please. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on the request for Preliminary Plat for 455 single family lots, 38 common lots, and one other lot on 190.47 acres in the proposed R-4 zone of Tuscany Lakes Subdivision. Ask the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest and to incorporate the comments from the applicant into the findings. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 12 of 77 Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Any other discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, please. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I move we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development consisting of 353 buildable lots and 31 common lots on 138.88 acres for the proposed Tuscany Lakes Subdivision. To incorporate the comments from the applicant into the Findings as noted and ask the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Bird: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Excuse me. Roll call vote, please. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. M. Order Granting Appeal: AP 01-00 Stop Work Order at 2340 West Franklin Road by Walt Morrow: Corrie: The next item is M, Order Granting Appeal Stop Work Order on Franklin Road by Walt Morrow. Mr. Bird. Bird: No. Mr. Nichols. Corrie: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I asked this to be pulled, because the applicant or the appellant, I should say, noted some items in our draft findings. There were some typos where east should have been west with regard to Franklin Road and Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 13 of 77 we will fix those. The other had to do with the condition, which had been in a previous draft of the order regarding a Conditional Use Permit on any other uses beyond the storage and the calving. Going back through and looking at the minutes, that was not part of the motion to include that condition in the order. We didn't have -- I think we just got the minutes here just recently, so -- so that would be paragraph two of the order, which had read that any change or enlargement of a use would require a Conditional Use Permit will be stricken. It does still limit the use of the property to storage and a loafing area for cattle. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: Was that not in the original documents, though, and the discussion? I guess I can't -- Nichols: Councilwoman de Weerd, Mayor, Members of the Council, there was a lot of discussion about it. Basically, it was talked about as being deferred until such time as the issue comes up. Mr. Morrow's contention was that if his proposed use is a use that's allowed in the zone, that he would have to comply with whatever Building Codes are required for that specific use of the building at the time. That he would not need a zoning approval for the use if it were an outright allowed use in an industrial zone. That's what's reflected in the minutes. If you want, we can defer the issue and you can review the minutes. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I guess, you know, it wasn't specifically talked about, but it appears this -- in recall I thought that was in the documents originally anyway. I would like to look back at -- you know, on one hand you want a nonconforming use and on the other hand he wants to be able to do what is allowed in the zoned use, so he wants his cake and eat it, too. I think you either want it one way or you should have it the other. So -- and that wasn't specifically addressed in the discussion, but it was in the documents that we had in front of us in our original motion I thought. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: And I have no objection if we want to set it over so we can review the minutes. My recollection is that what I think Mr. Morrow said was essentially if he was going to change the use to be a conforming use, then he didn't need to get a Conditional Use Permit to do that. That as long as it was going to be something that would be allowed so that change from the non-conforming to a conforming use, it's pointless, then, to have to come back for a Conditional Use Permit at that point. De Weerd: But he should have to do a Conditional Use Permit to do a non-conforming use. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 14 of 77 Nary: Well, he can't change to a nonconforming -- another nonconforming use. Corrie: Is that zoned industrial? Nary: It's zoned industrial now. Corrie: And he has a grandfather clause, is that right? Nary: Yes. Corrie: Okay. So he has -- yes, he can do what he wants as long as it's industry, but nothing else -- Bird: That's what this states right here. Corrie: I just -- Nary: But if you would feel more comfortable reviewing the minutes, fine, it doesn't matter. That was my recollection that he was simply saying that -- this says on any change of use you will have to get a Conditional Use Permit. To him it didn't make sense if he did decide to change it to something that was a conforming use and allowed within the zone, a strict reading of this would say he still has to get a Conditional Use Permit anyway and that doesn't make any sense. Bird: Don't make any sense. Nary: But, you know, we can certainly set this -- this has gone on for nine months and it doesn't matter if we set it over. De Weerd: It seems like he's building already. He didn't wait for this document anyway. Nary: Well, if you want to wait until we can review it, that's fine with me. I don't care. De Weerd: Yes. If we could do that. Mr. Mayor, I would then move that we table this item to August 20, 2002. Nary: I'll second. th Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to table to August the 20 meeting. Yes. Okay. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. th Opposed no? Okay. All ayes. It will be tabled to the 20. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 15 of 77 R. Agreement for Professional Services Addendum No. 1 – White Drain Sewer Trunk Project, Keller Associates: Corrie: The next is R, which is the Agreement for Professional Services Agenda Number 1 for White Drain Sewer Trunk Project, Keller Associates. Is that the one that Keith had? Bird: That's the one I had. Corrie: Okay. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. Watson? Watson: Yes. Bird: I have no doubt that this is legitimate and everything, but we are getting up to 20 th percent engineering fees on a project? That is -- to me it seems like, you know, 1/5 of your project going to engineering fees? It seems a little steep when most of our other ones I went back and tracked have been running in the 11 to 14 percent and none of them have been sewer trunks, Brad, so I don't know. Watson: Councilman Bird, Mayor, and Council Members, on the last page of the attachment, the original agreement amount with Keller was 137,000. Our original construction estimate on this was 1.4 and, as you know, we had quite a bit of competition on the award of that bid. The second low bidder was I think about 1.1 million. I don't know, that's kind of neither here nor there. Typically, these sewer trunk projects that we have been doing, the Five Mile Relief Line, the engineering is much less, but we don't really have to secure easements through undeveloped ground on those. The real -- the amount of effort extended on this to not only procure the easements, but to redesign to conform to all these subdivisions that are going in has been huge. There are areas of this trunk that have been redesigned probably four or five times to cooperate with several developers and we -- Keller is very cautious about this and I'm conscious of it. We try to do as much as we can in-house to negotiate some of these easements and take care of some of the administrative work that -- just so we don't run up the bill, but I don't know if that answers your question, but -- Bird: Okay. I have got one other question, Brad, and it's probably more of a statement than a -- are they -- are they doing the actual going out and purchasing the easements from the landowners? Watson: Councilman Bird, when the project began Keller was charged with making the initial property owner contact and negotiating with them. As the project evolved and Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 16 of 77 more developers purchased property throughout the alignment, that sort of drug the Public Works and specifically me into it to be the go-between, because Keller didn't know what was going on, on the development side. I had to be the go-between quite a bit. Yes, they were charged with procuring the easements and negotiating for donation of easement and, as you well know, that hasn't occurred in all instances. I -- they didn't do it all. Bird: Brad, what do you think on another project that -- of this type that -- would it not be better to get easement people, like real estate people, to go out and purchase it, other than engineers? Watson: Councilman Bird, I think that's an excellent idea and we know of at least one other firm that has the personnel on staff that does this professionally. There are some other right of way agents, that's all they do, that we have made contact with. They are offering their services so I think we engineers have learned a lot on this project about easements. Bird: So has the Council and the Mayor. Corrie: Yes. Bird: That's all I have. Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we enter into an agreement for the Professional Service Addendum Number 1 on the White Drain Sewer Trunk Project with Keller Associates and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, please. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. W: W.H. Moore Consent to Annexation Agreement: Corrie: The last item is W, W.H. Moore Consent to Annex Agreement. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 17 of 77 De Weerd: I asked that that be pulled. I had a couple of questions on the agreement and that was just more technical. If I was reading it literally or correctly, but that we will supply water and sewer to 68 acres, of which W.H. Moore has title and ownership and then effective, when both parties have executed this agreement, that obligates us to providing the services at the time. You know, I don't know legalese, but the way it was written I could have read it by when this is executed we better have those services up there and so I guess I would like an opinion on why it was written that way and if that would, indeed, make us liable or obligated at that time when we know it can't be done. Corrie: Mr. Nichols? Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, we used this agreement before with other landowners and so we just adapted it to this particular one. Perhaps I misconstrued what the motion of the Council was. He asked if -- my recollection is he asked for a will- serve letter and that he was willing to extend the service -- well, I think the services are there at least on the waterside and will be there soon on the sewer side through the South Slough extension. We can certainly revise this page to say when available. When readily available. That's on the second page. Corrie: Okay. All right. Mr. Nary. Nary: I'm wondering, too. I didn't notice this either, but I think Council Member de Weerd brings up a good point. I think didn't we have the same issue with Woodbridge that we had intended -- that they -- the will-serve letter was intended to be when available and eventually that became a contentious issue. We eventually had to extend the line out there sooner than we anticipated. Now was that -- is my recollection hazy about that? Because that's what I thought was essentially the same issue that Councilwoman de Weerd is bringing up is what happened with another project, that we ended up having this extended a little sooner than we thought we would, because they were saying we committed to doing this. Is that -- am I in the wrong ballpark on that? I think there was an issue about water pressure with Woodbridge. There was an issue about getting the line there extended and they were willing to actually pay for some of it. We -- the city ended up doing it, but partly because we had made this commitment like this and I think the intent was when we were able to, but the language didn't reflect that very clearly, so we just went ahead and did it. I think Council Member de Weerd's recollection is what the discussion has been all along. It was meant to be when we are able to do that, not next week, but as soon as possible or as reasonable a possible. Gary, do you recall what I'm talking about with Woodbridge? Smith: Councilman Nary, Mayor, and Council, it's a little bit hazy, but I think that our staff recommendation for approval of Woodbridge, at least Phase 2, was to -- for the developer to provide that extension to connect the subdivision. The decision that came out of Council was for the city to do that as part of our need to supply necessary pressures there for fire flow and so forth. I don't know. As I said, I'm a little bit hazy on my memory with that particular issue and comparing it to this, I'm not sure, but we do -- Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 18 of 77 as Mr. Nichols stated, we do have water service along the frontage of -- along the Ustick Road frontage of Winston Moore's property right now. We will be beginning the South st Slough sewer extension no later than the first part of -- or November 1. I think it has a st six-month construction schedule. We should be there completed by May the 1. I don't think that, in all reality, Mr. Moore will be able to do anything as far as his project is concerned within that time schedule. The good lord willing and the creeks don't rise, we will be there and be able to serve the property. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Maybe I don't know if it will matter with this agreement. I think the intention of the agreement is that you certainly can have a developer saying, well, I'm losing my financing. I'm spending more money on this, and you have agreed to provide it. It's six months away or it's a year away and we all knew it. We all talked about it, but our agreement doesn't say it. I don't think it's a concern, probably, maybe with Mr. Moore, but maybe just from a language standpoint in the future we are probably going to have to tighten it just to protect ourselves, so someone else doesn't say they lost some business opportunity because we weren't ready to provide the service right away. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: All this is is a letter of service when sewer and water is there. The water is already there. I don't -- and I think, like Mr. Nichols said, we have had these before and the deal with Woodbridge is -- I don't think is on the same line. I don't see any problem with it. When we have it there, it will be there, and it's in the works being there. Now if we didn't have a plan and we wasn't going to be doing it, it might be something else. We probably wouldn't want to enter into an agreement. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: We know what it is and we know what it means and says, but of late it seems like everything that's written seems to be challenged and kind of twisted. I just -- that's why I started reading things word by word to see what it really does say and not what it should imply. That was my primary concern. I guess a second question would be if we -- we have committed to helping plan an annexation route to this piece of property. If we can get that annexation route before the services are -- before the services are there, can we go through annexation at the same time and have this application in the city? You know, does this encourage that or discourage that? I'm just trying to look at all the T's and I's and make sure they are dotted and crossed. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 19 of 77 Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: At least on this project, because, again, I don't think there is a concern with Mr. Moore. Maybe -- I see Mr. Seel's here. If we can at least make it clear on this particular agreement, that Mr. Moore recognizes that we don't have the services there today and that's not going to be a hindrance to him. At least on this one we can do that and I saw Mr. Nichols nodding his head, we can get that language a little cleaner so that we are clear in the future ones, I think that would be adequate. Then at least we have it on the record. I don't want to put you on the spot. Seel: I'm fine. Nary: As long as they are willing to put that on the record that Mr. Moore does recognize that we don't have the sewer service there and, you know, it's anticipated that it would be another six to eight months, that -- Seel: Jonathan Seel, W.H. Moore Company, 600 North Steelhead. Yes. To clarify, Mr. Moore's intention is when sewer and water is available. We know water is available. When sewer is available that we can connect to it at that time so there is no expectation at this point that when we signed this letter that the city is obligated to do that. With respect to the path to annexation -- and we mentioned this before to some people -- we are very interested in a path to annexation. If there is a point available, our preference is to go that way. However, right now what the county has said, before they would even process our application, if we go that route, we have to have a will-serve letter. That's kind of the genesis behind it to say, but if you want to change the language that states that way, I know Mr. Moore will be very comfortable with that. That's his intention and he would say that's -- Corrie: I think it questions what if's, but that's not what we are after. Just the one question. Has Winston or have you started the procedure with the changing of the area of impact with the Boise City Council? Seel: Yes. Corrie: It has to start with them on yours. Seel: Yes. Just to answer that, I talked to the Ada County on this. I have talked to Will Berg and also to Gary Smith and as was explained to me -- and I have been through this process before. The first step is what's referred to as a renegotiation meeting and apparently you're going to have one here in the near term. At that, you get together with Ada County, basically, and say, yes, we are in agreement. Meridian can have this land, we are in agreement, and then we go through what is, as I understand, is more the formal approval process. That's the very first step and I, in fact, did talk to Will I think yesterday. I asked him when that was and he said, well, we are not sure when that's Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 20 of 77 going to be scheduled, but when it is I will let you know. Again, we are ready to go forward on that at the appropriate time, but that's the first step. Corrie: Thank you. Any other questions. Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, if you wish, we can have a revised agreement out this week and off to Mr. Moore or you can leave it as is. He's made the one change on the first page in terms of commercial development versus Business Park, which I don't think is a substantive change at all. However you wish to do it, we are ready to go. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'll throw this out. I move that we approve the Consent to Annex Agreement or serve -- the will-serve letter with the W.H. Moore Company. Nary: Second. Corrie: Okay. Any other discussion? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I was going to say Mr. Seel's statement on record is enough. I don't think we need to do an amended agreement. I think that's adequate for this one. We will just clean up the language on the next one and that will be fine. Corrie: Okay. Any other comments? Roll call vote, Mrs. Clerk. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Annexation is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 6: Resolution No. : Adopting the Comprehensive Plan: Corrie: Now we are on Item Number 6. A resolution. I have got it here. Resolution Number 02-382. This is adopting the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 21 of 77 De Weerd: I guess one of the issues when we passed on this was to clean up the language on the USPA and I would like to know if there has been any progress or activity towards that. It certainly shouldn't hang up this resolution, but I thought it would probably be an appropriate time to ask. Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, Councilwoman de Weerd, there has been contact with BCA, Ada County Association of Realtors, and Mr. Larry Durkin on getting together. They are prepared to do so. We actually have not set a date, but we can -- you know, they are prepared to meet. There was a couple of vacation issues going on, but everybody is back now, so we can move ahead on -- our understanding was that it's just basically layout the issues and the concerns that were addressed in the Public Hearing during the Comprehensive Plan on the urban service area and particularly using Public Work's letter regarding, you know, services outside of the city limits as kind of a base point. To kind of set the agenda off of that and it will basically just be a -- kind of a working meeting between staff and those three contacts I just mention, so -- De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: Then, Brad, will you be taking the lead role in this, the P&Z Department, or Public Works? I just want to make sure that someone is responsible for making this happen in a timely manner. I don't want this to drag on as long as that Comprehensive Plan did. You know, I would prefer to have it resolved by the time we get it to the County. I hope that doesn't give you a whole lot of time, but you never know. Hawkins-Clark: Understood. Yes. The text of the Comprehensive Plan can be amended at anytime. You know, we are not restricted to the six-month issue, so we are certainly ready to move ahead. We -- I took the initial role to contact them. Frankly, we waited until this resolution was done, thinking it was kind of the way we wanted to go, but we can move ahead and set that meeting soon. De Weerd: Well, I would like to see that done, so when we do take this to the County we have that language in hand. That's just for the matter that that language concerned me on what decisions are made at the county level on some of the language in our Comprehensive Plan. It would be nice if we could bring that at the same time. Hawkins-Clark: If I could ask is there other parties that the Council would like to be involved in the discussion or would a Council representative like to be involved in the meeting? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 22 of 77 Nary: I didn't hear Public Works as a part of that and I assume they would need to be a part of that discussion as well. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Right. De Weerd: Well, I would be more than happy to, but I think it would be more appropriate that our full-time Mayor is. Corrie: Task well taken. We will do it. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I have one other comment, too, that I probably should have said the night that we approved the plan before we got to this resolution. I did want to thank the Planning staff, especially Brad and Steve, for all the work that went into it. This is a tremendous project and it's a great thing for the city. Brad, you did a ton of work on it and so did Steve. I know it was rewriting all that text over and over and over again and Steve in re- coloring the map 45 different times. That's a lot of work and we didn't say thank you for all that time and effort that you spent as well, so I just wanted to thank you. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. De Weerd: Ditto. Nary: Same McCandless: Same. Corrie: Okay. You want to go ahead? Nary: Mr. Mayor, I will move that we approve Resolution 02-382, adopting the Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian. De Weerd: Second. Corrie: Okay. Let me back up just a second. Is there anybody in the public that would like to have the Resolution Number 02-382 read in its entirety? Thank you. I know we haven't read the title, but we need to do that, so if you will read the resolution by title only. I was just kind of jumping ahead to see if there was anybody out there that wanted it. Thank you. S. Smith: See how much reading we are doing tonight? Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 23 of 77 Corrie: Yes. S.Smith: Resolution 02-382. Resolution of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian to provide for findings and to establish the Meridian Comprehensive Plan for the City of Meridian and providing for the following chapters. Introduction. What is Meridian's history and what does the future hold. How was the plan put together? Who lives in Meridian and what do they do? What are the physical and cultural features of Meridian? What services are provided in Meridian? How was the land in Meridian developed? How to make this plan a reality. References to provide that to the Comprehensive Plan. Shall be the official policy guide for decisions concerning the physical development of the community. To provide for goals, objectives, and action within the plan based on six key community values. To provide for private property rights and providing an effective date. Corrie: Okay. You have heard the reading of the resolution by title only. I'll ask the question one more time. Is there anyone from the public that would like to hear it in its entirety? Hearing none, we had a motion and second. Any further discussion? Okay. Roll call vote, please. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. The plan has been adopted. We will move foreword. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from July 2, 2002: Proposed Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System and Action Plan: Corrie: Item 7 has been requested to be continued to September 10 of 2002. This was Mr. Bird's request from a request from the Parks and so, Mr. Bird I will entertain a motion to do that. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we continue the Comprehensive Parks and Recreation System Action Plan until September 10, 2002. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 24 of 77 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 8: Ordinance No. : AZ 01-008 Request for annexation and zoning of 12.71 acres from R1 and RUT to C-G and R-40 Baltic Place Subdivision zones for proposed by L.C. Development, Inc. – Franklin Road west of Locust Grove Road: Corrie: Item 8 is an Ordinance Number 02-968. This is a request for annexation and zoning of 12.71 acres from R-1 to RUT to C-G and R-40 zones for proposed Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C. Development Corporation. At this time I will ask the Clerk to read Ordinance Number 02-968 by title only. S. Smith: Thank you, Mayor, and Members of the Council. City of Meridian Ordinance Number 02-968. An ordinance finding that certain land to be known as Baltic Place Subdivision, the location of which lies contiguous -- do we have the wrong one here? No. That's right. Excuse me. Which lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho and finding that the owner has made a request for annexation in writing to the Council. That said land be annexed into the City of Meridian and zoning designated High Density Residential District (R-40) and General Retail and Service Commercial District, (C-G) and declaring that said land, by proper legal description as described below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof in conflict herewith and directing the city engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the area to be annexed with the Ada County recorder, auditor, treasurer, and assessor, and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215. Corrie: Okay. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have Ordinance Number 02-968 read in its entirety? Hearing none, Council, I'll entertain a motion on the request for annexation and zoning. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I move that we approve Ordinance Number 02-968, request for annexation and zoning of 12.71 acres from R-1 to RUT and RUT to C-G and R-40 zones for proposed Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C. Development, Inc., and to have the Mayor sign and the Clerk to attest, with suspension of rules. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mrs. Clerk. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 25 of 77 Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion is carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 9: Ordinance No. : AZ 02-008 Request for annexation and zoning of 5 acres from RUT to L-O zones for the proposed LDS Stake Center by Lombard Conrad Architects – 2515 W. Ustick Road: Corrie: Item Number 9 is Ordinance Number 02-969. This is a request for annexation and zoning of five acres from RUT to L-O zones for the proposed LDS Stake Center by Lombard Conrad Architects, 2515 West Ustick Road. At this time I would like to have, the City Clerk read Ordinance Number 02-969 by title only, please. S. Smith: Thank you, Mayor. Ordinance of the City of Meridian Number 02-969. An ordinance finding that certain land to be known as the LDS Stake Center located 2515 West Ustick Road and which lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho. Finding that The Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the owner, has made a request for annexation in writing to the Council. That said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated Limited Office District (L-O) and declaring that said land, by proper legal description as described below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho. Repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof in conflict herewith and directing the City Engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho. Directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the area to be annexed with the Ada County recorder, auditor, treasurer, and assessor, and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215. Corrie: Okay. You have heard the reading of Ordinance Number 02-969. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have it read in its entirety? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion on the ordinance for the request for annexation for the LDS Stake Center. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I move we approve Ordinance Number 02-969, request annexation and zoning of five acres from RUT to L-O zones for the proposed LDS Stake Center by Lombard Conrad Architects and ask the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest, with suspension of rules pursuant to state code. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 26 of 77 Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve Ordinance Number 02-969. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mrs. Clerk. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion for the ordinance is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 10: VAR 02-009 Request for a Variance from the required number of parking Cole Valley Christian School spaces for the by Jeffrey L. King – 200 Application withdrawn by Applicant – refund East Carlton Avenue: requested Corrie: Item Number 10 is a Variance -- a request for Variance from the required number of parking spaces for Cole Valley Christian School by Jeffrey L. King, 200 East Carlton Avenue. The application withdrawn by applicant and refund requested. Council, you have a letter here of the request to retract the Variance and have a refund requested back. Any discussion? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. nd De Weerd: Since it was part of our discussion at the Public Hearing on July 2, I don't see that there is really a problem not visiting the Variance request until a time when it is needed and that we should refund the application, because it's not a requirement -- or it's not an issue at this time. I guess if there is no further discussion, I would -- Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I just had a question, because I guess I propose this a lot of times as well, but what I'm curious is most of the time that we have done this and refunding it is because there is either a misreading of an ordinance or a direction given to somebody to apply for something maybe they didn't have to have. Here -- I guess maybe I just don't remember the discussion well enough to know, but here this is a situation where somebody applied for something and they decided they didn't need it. It wasn't that we told them they had to do something, it's that they decided they didn't need it. Now is that my poor recollection of -- because if somebody changes their mind in the middle of it and we have done all the staff work, which is what the fee is to cover, then I guess I'm not really in favor of giving back the fee. I just don't recall specifically what the reason for the withdrawal is and maybe Brad can help me with that. Nichols: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 27 of 77 Corrie: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, I think the reason for the Variance request was if they were going to build the gym, then they were going to need additional parking spaces and they wouldn't have enough room for those. That's why they asked for a Variance but they are not building the gym at this time, as I understand their plan, so they have to come back in and get a Certificate of Zoning Compliance if they wanted to build the gym. At that time, then, the parking would have to be addressed. Nary: So they will have to pay it later if they want to come back in anyway, so -- Okay. That's fine. Corrie: Any other discussion? Nary: No. Corrie: Okay. I will entertain a motion for the request. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we allow the application to be withdrawn by the applicant and refund the money to the Cole Valley Christian Church School, Variance on the number of parking spaces by Jeffrey L. King. Nary: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to approve the request for withdrawal of the applicant and refund requested. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 11: FP 02-011 Request for Final Plat approval of 19 building lots and 3 other Cherry Crossing lots on 11.57 acres in an R-4 and C-N zone for Subdivision by Hawkins Companies – northwest corner of West Cherry Lane and North Linder Road: Corrie: Item Number 11 is a request for Final Plat approval of 19 building lots and three other lots on 11.57 acres in R-4 and C-N zone for Cherry Crossing Subdivision by Hopkins Company. This is on the northwest corner of West Cherry Lane and North Linder Road. Council -- excuse me. Staff comments. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The Council should th have received a staff report dated July 25 from Bruce Freckleton and Steve Siddoway. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 28 of 77 We are asking that those conditions be referenced. We did also receive a response st from CSHQA, the applicant's representative, dated August 1, which you should have also had in your packets from a Jessica Aguilar. The general outline of the plat is here on the screen. As you may recall from the Preliminary Plat, there is an existing split zone here on this corner with C-N on these three commercial lots located right at the corner with single family detached housing along the north and along the west. The Final Plat request before you is to plat the entire acreage, the 11.57 acres. The next item on your agenda does have to do with a Non-Development Agreement request that pertains to the three commercial lots on the corner. I believe there are three or four st items to just point out on that August 1 response from the applicant. The second page, requirement Number 14, does have to do with the non -- if the Non-Development Agreement is accepted, they are requesting that the perimeter landscaping on Cherry Lane and Linder be held until the first commercial occupancy. Essentially, they are looking at not having perimeter landscaping here along Linder Road, along the commercial, nor along Cherry until they come in with actual buildings and construction on these three commercial lots. There is, as you probably know, an existing house here approximately here on the property and the applicant is asking that that existing dwelling be able to remain in use until that specific Lot 1, Block 3, here is built upon. I think that's the only item of disagreement. Staff is recommending that since the landscape buffer on Linder Road is 25 feet, it would actually -- and we are asking for that buffer to be constructed when the first commercial building is constructed, regardless of which one of these three it's built on, so that Linder landscape buffer would -- you know. The building is going to be sitting in the buffer, so they are going to need to remove the house in order to construct the buffer. We are recommending that the house be removed upon the first commercial Building Permit. We -- staff is okay with that Item Number 14. On the Number 24 due to a clarification for their CC&R's, I think the applicant is concerned that these commercial lots not be in the same block as the residential, so that they are not misconstrued to be a part of the same CC&R's as the residential. They are asking for these to be a different block. They have shown them as Block 2, Block 3, Block 4 and I think we'd like to -- prefer to see all a single block, but it could be a different block than this residential component here, so residential is shown as Block 1. If this were all Block 2 as a commercial block, then that would probably be our preference, rather than showing three different block numbers. I believe that's the main two points on that. We would just ask for those two corrections th from that July 25 staff memo. Stand for any questions. Corrie: Any questions from Council of staff? Okay. Thank you. Is the developer here this evening? Huffaker: My name is Brian Huffaker with Hawkins Companies, 8645 West Franklin Road in Boise. I appreciate you taking time to review this application. I know it's been a long time coming with many different applicants standing before you to get to this point. We are glad to bring some type of closure to this property here. We concur, basically, with the entire staff report as written, except for a couple items that Brad has brought up and we will try and clarify what our intent is with these three items. In our response st letter of August 1 under the requirement Number 24 regarding the -- addressing the Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 29 of 77 block and lots, we just were informed today by the County that they were denying our request for separating the commercial lots out with the different blocks. I don't think that's an issue anymore, because the County won't let us do that from their standpoint so that the current request in the staff report that those commercial lots be part of the same block as the residential will be so. Items Number 14 and Items Number 2 in our mind kind of go together as far as what we are trying to accomplish. It certainly would be our preference if we could, as Council Member de Weerd mentioned, if we could have our cake and eat it, too. It certainly would be our preference on the perimeter landscaping around the commercial lots to only do the portion of whatever commercial lot is being developed at the time in parcel by parcel. I have talked with the staff, I understand the concept that the city is trying to establish with some uniformity there and we don't mind doing that, even though it might be premature to come to the other lots, we understand what you are trying to accomplish there. That's why statement Number 14 we would agree to do the full perimeter at whatever the first commercial lot comes in. What our concern is with the house, which does sit at approximately in this location on Linder, is we feel that it is an existing use that's being utilized. It is generating income to offset the cost of the property. To prematurely remove that house and remove that use we feel is a burden to the owner in trying to financially secure the property and develop that. We don't feel that it really is a hindrance to the landscaping buffer at the time that it is put in. The house only encroaches in the 25-foot landscape requirement by about seven feet. The 25 feet of landscaping is not 100 percent plant material, there is a lot of grass and ground cover, which easily in that seven-foot area could be later improved with even bushes or sod or ground cover, whatever that might be. The trees that are on the original approved site plan could easily be placed outside of the perimeter of where that house might encroach that original 25 feet. I guess in requirement Number 4 we are okay with that, as long as that does not interfere with our building, our right to keep that house there along Linder. Other than that, we really don't have any other concerns with the report. The Non-Development Agreement has some time periods in there in which the landscape and the improvements on Phase 2 need to be completed, why do we have a commercial property come in or not, so that you do have some strings to bind us and to uphold us to perform. We'd ask that you would allow us to continue the use of that house until such time as that parcel is developed, which physically would require that house to be removed. Corrie: Any questions? Thank you. Huffaker: Thank you. Corrie: Okay. Council has heard the request for the Final Plat. Any discussion? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: Was that house an item of discussion on the Preliminary Plat? Did anyone look at the minutes on what testimony was taken at that time on the -- Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 30 of 77 Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: And I can only recall this item in Planning and Zoning, but my recollection is that the house was supposed to be removed. I don't think there was a discussion of leaving it there. I guess that was my only thought and that's what I had thought, but that was when it was Save-On and when Albertson's was coming in. That was prior to the Hawkins Company buying that property, but that's my only recollection was that was the prior developer. They were removing all of that, because they were going to build all of that, because I remember asking them are you going to do this, because they were closing some other stores. They assured us, oh, yes, they would be moving right onto it, and then they sold it. I think that was my only recollection of the discussion. That was a prior property owner, not with this property owner. They were supposed to remove it. Corrie: Hang on. It's not a Public Hearing, so who are you and -- Aguilar: If I may address the Council. I'm Jessica Aguilar with CSHQA, one of the developer's representatives. Corrie: Okay. Aguilar: And I can answer the question. Corrie: Okay. th Aguilar: I'm with CSHQA. The address is 250 South 5 Street. During the Preliminary Plat process, that it was a different owner and it was the intent at that time to demo the house. That whole site was going to be demo'd at once, whereas in this case it is being developed in multiple phases with separate owners. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Bird: I was just going to state I don't recall when it come before us, the Preliminary Plat, or anything, the house wasn't a big issue at all. I don't recall it leaving or staying, you know, when it was -- the landscaping and the buffer was the thing that was the most -- our staff was the most concerned over. I don't see any reason the house can't stay -- it's a nice looking house -- until they are ready to develop the thing and then they will move it out. Corrie: Anybody live there now? Bird: Yes, there is somebody living there. Corrie: Is somebody living there now? Okay. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 31 of 77 Nary: The house that was on the corner is vacant it has already been removed. The other house -- the older house, there was one vacant there and then the one that's behind it is the one I think we are looking at. De Weerd: The brick one. Bird: Yes. The brick one is the Nyborg's home. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess I don't have an issue with the house, as long as, you know, that traditionally next to the house where the old one stood, is just usually a pile of weeds that, you know, I guess that could be the primary concern is that property be kept up. You know, if they landscape the berm area, I imagine they will keep up the landscaping on either side of it, because they will need to have to landscape that corner. I think it never was an issue, because the applicant who brought it through was going to take an active and immediate course of action, so it never was an item of discussion, since it was going to be a Save-On and a McDonald's. Nary: Right. De Weerd: So it wasn't an issue at the time. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Maybe I'm unclear as to the language. It appears to me on this issue about the house, the language in the staff report, Brad, simply just says they are going to have to remove the house before they develop the property, which we do -- I think we all agree on that. Hawkins-Clark: Phase 2. Nary: Right. Are you concerned because it's all one block now, that once they start developing any portion of that lot, like the -- what now is defined as Block 4, but now it's all going to be Block 1, when they develop that, that they are going to have to tear the house out at that point? Because of the -- all of it being one block? I guess I'm unclear as to what the change is we would be asking for, if you want us to leave the house until they are ready to develop that piece, what change would we need to make? Because I don't think, your language really prohibits that. Hawkins-Clark: Councilman Nary, Members of the Council, Item Number 14, the way we have it worded, it says if a Non-Development Agreement is approved as submitted, Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 32 of 77 the remaining Phase 2 landscaping will be planted at one time prior to the first commercial occupancy. No. I'm sorry. That actually -- that actually would still be correct. Nary: Yes. I'm looking at additional considerations, Page 2 -- Hawkins-Clark: Right. Nary: And all it says is until we -- they have to move the house before they can develop the property and we all would agree with that. I think they are just saying they don't want to develop that lot that the house is on and have to put the landscaping in just to tear the house out until they are ready to develop that piece. That particular language doesn't seem to prohibit it. I just -- I guess I couldn't see where we need to change it. Hawkins-Clark: Typically, also, our additional considerations are not included in the Legal Department's final documentation. Strictly the site specific. As written, the additional consideration would not be included as a condition. Nary: So if I'm correct, everything else we have heard, then the only -- the only issue that was of any contention still is -- well, was the 24, but the developer has said they are fine with the staff recommendation and requirement Number 14 I think is fine. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Nary: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: So it would just be incorporating the corrections proposed in the August st 1 letter for Number 2, Number 8, Number 10, and Number 14. Nary: Right. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Nary: Okay. Corrie: Any other discussion? Okay. I'll entertain a motion on the request. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I'd move the approval of FP 02-011, request for Final Plat approval of 19 building lots and three other lots on 11.57 acres in an R-4, C-N zone for Cherry Crossing th Subdivision by Hawkins Companies. Pursuant to the staff report of July 25, with the st correction as requested by the developer on their position statement of August 1 in regards to the requirements Number 2, Number 8, Number 10, and number 14, as site Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 33 of 77 specific requirements from the staff report. Site specific requirement 24 could remain, and for Counsel to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order. Bird: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, please. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Motion approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 12: Non-Development Agreement Cherry Crossing Subdivision for by Hawkins Companies – northwest corner of West Cherry Lane and North Linder Road: Corrie: Item Number 12 is a Non-Development Agreement for Cherry Lane -- excuse me -- Cherry Crossing Subdivision by Hawkins Companies, northwest corner of West Cherry Lane and North Linder Road. Discussion? I'll entertain a motion on the request for a Non-Development Agreement. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I move we approve the Non-Development Agreement for Cherry Crossing Subdivision by Hawkins Companies and for the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded for the approval of a Non-Development Agreement and for the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Any further discussion? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Since this is just an agreement, do we need findings, or do we just -- Corrie: Yes. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 34 of 77 Nary: Do we need Findings, Mr. Nichols? Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, in two and a half years of being at the meetings we haven't had a Non-Development Agreement. I would think just approving the Non-Development Agreement as you accept the terms that are there is good enough to authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest and then it will be recorded. De Weerd: Okay. Well, I would amend that to a Non-Development Agreement and ask the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Bird: Second would agree. Nary: And I just had a question, Mr. Mayor. I didn't -- and maybe -- oh. I guess I didn't notice the comments from the staff on this Non-Development Agreement. Is there any concern about it and maybe I just didn't see it? Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Mayor, the only item I believe staff has noticed -- we did read through essentially the agreement and the Non-Development portion in terms of utility and landscaping we are in agreement with. There is in the second paragraph on Page 1 a reference to the blocks which now, according to -- it sounds like, according to Mr. Priester at Ada County, are not going to be able to be numbered as such, so that -- those should reflect the correct numbers. Other than that, staff is in agreement. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I would ask, then, the attorney to update the block information, but still authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest pending those corrections. Bird: Second agrees. Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no? Motion carried. Corrie: Item Number 13. Mr. Nichols, I don't think we need a role call vote, do we, on that one? Well, I'm learning parliamentary procedure rather quickly. Well, it won't hurt. Roll call. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 35 of 77 Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. Mr. Mayor, just for the record, we didn't prepare the Non-Development Agreement, so we will find out who did and make sure that it's corrected. Item 13: FP 02-015 Request for Final Plat approval of 82 building lots and 4 other Marlin Subdivision lots in an R-4 zone for by W.H. Moore Company – north of I-84 east of South Linder Road: Corrie: Good point. Item Number 13 is a request for Final Plat approval of 82 building lots and four other lots in an R-4 zone for Marlin Subdivision by W.H. Moore Company, north of I-84, east of South Linder Road. Staff comments? Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The Preliminary Plat, as you know, was approved just a couple of months ago and so this is the first phase of the -- what they have as a two-phase subdivision. It's at the northeast corner of I-84 and Linder Road. Here on the screen is their proposed Phase 1. They are proposing essentially to construct the majority of the western half of the subdivision. They are proposing to construct the full buffer along South Linder Road, as well as the full buffer along I-84. They have included the road to connect to Mallard Landing Subdivision, which was a request of the Planning and Zoning Commission and a requirement of the City Council. rd It is in conformance with the Preliminary Plat. The staff report is dated July 23 from Bruce Freckleton and Dave McKinnon and so we ask that those conditions be included with just what I believe are two small changes to that report. That's on the first page at Item Number 1. It refers to the Development Agreement and Item Number 11 on Page 3 refers to the Development Agreement. A Development Agreement was not required for Marlin Subdivision so that was incorrectly added. Those two conditions would just be -- need to strike the phrase -- the Development Agreement phrase on those two items. We did receive a response back from Hubble Engineering and there was one concern regarding Mr. Joe Silva's comments on the Final Plat. I don't know if Council th received them, but what was given to staff at hearing is an August 6 -- just dated today, actually, an amended -- just a two page -- yes, an amended two page report, dated August 6, from our Deputy Fire Chief that does -- basically just corrects Item Number 7, which has to do with the street width. This subdivision, as you may recall here around this pocket park, they had proposed 29 foot street sections with restricted parking on one side, just on the residential side. That was added along with the th correction to the street width. I think with the inclusion of that August 6 revised memo from Joseph Silva and those two corrections in our staff report everything is in agreement. Thanks. Corrie: Thank you, Brad. Questions, Council? Okay. Is the developer here this evening? Jonathan. Seel: Good evening, again. Jonathan Seel, W.H. Moore Company, 600 North Steelhead, Boise, Idaho. As Brad mentioned, we have read through the staff report and, yes, we'd ask that the reference to the Development Agreement be stricken in those two items. I have a copy of a letter, which I would like to have inserted, from Joe Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 36 of 77 Silva, which Brad talked about with the 29-foot wide streets. My only other comment -- I'll make it brief -- is on Item Number 3 on Page 2 of the staff report, approximately midway down, it says all development improvements, including playground equipment and landscaping, shall be installed and approved prior to obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy. We don't disagree that putting it in. Our concern is we are starting the project this year and, as all know, with winter coming on it may be impossible for us to be able to put these in. We had talked to Brad about coming up with some language of weather permitting. Obviously, we want to get the playground and the landscaping and everything as quickly as possible, it enhances our ability to market it, but we don't want to be restricted to potentially having to build or sell a home and having somebody move in, only because the playground equipment or something else is not there. We would ask that there be some language which Brad had actually sent over to us, basically saying that weather permitting we would put those in and up to that point we would bond for it and I only have the one page. Something like that would be acceptable to us. Again, I think we still go with the spirit of our agreement. Corrie: Any other questions of Jonathan? Seel: All right. Thank you very much. Corrie: Okay. Any further discussion on the request for Final Plat? Hearing none, then, I will entertain a motion on the request for Final Plat with the inclusions or exclusions. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I move that we approve the request Final Plat of 82 building lots and four other lots in an R-4 zone by -- for Marlin Subdivision. To include the corrections of deleting the reference to Development Agreement to Item Number 1 and Item Number 11, to adopt the language that was submitted regarding Item Number 3 as weather permits, up to -- after that to bond for -- whatever that statement was. And to adopt the th amended statements by the Meridian Fire Department, Joe Silva, dated August 6 and ask the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order. Nary: Second. Corrie: I assume the attorney has that -- okay. Okay. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, please. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Final Plat is approved as ordered. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 37 of 77 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 14: FP 02-016 Request for Final Plat approval of 38 building lots and 7 other Baldwin Park Subdivision lots on 13.72 acres in an R-8 zone for by Capital Development – ¼ mile south of West McMillan Road and east of North Linder Road: Corrie: Item Number 14, a request for Final Plat approval of 38 building lots and seven other lots on 13.72 acres in an R-8 zone for Baldwin Park Subdivision by Capital Development, 1/4 mile south of West McMillan Road and east of North Linder Road. Staff comments. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. This is also the first phase of the Baldwin Park Preliminary Plat that was approved a few months ago. Again, we are talking about the east side of Linder Road north of Ustick, just north of the half-mile section line. Here on the screen are the boundaries of the proposed phase one. Again, with Linder Road here on the left side of the screen and the primarily collector entry road. A pocket park is shown here in the center of the plat. The White Drain does course the full boundary pretty much of this subdivision. I have included a portion here on Phase 1. The staff report regarding this was dated July 31, 2002, from Bruce Freckleton and Dave McKinnon. There are just a couple of items to point out. You should have received a memo that was prepared by myself, just submitted dated th today, August 6, and there are a couple of items there that are in response to Briggs Engineering August 6th’s memo. Largely they are in agreement, but I will just hit the three or four items here that there are some discrepancies on. Again, referring to that th August 6, Number 2 is regarding the pressurized irrigation system and the applicant has originally noted that that would be owned and maintained by Settler's Irrigation District. They have requested the option to have the homeowners association own and maintain that. Gary, did you want to address that? I think our main issue there is we just wanted to get that nailed down tonight, rather than leaving it open and kind of hanging out there. We have basically just proposed either to leave it the way it is or if there are the homeowners -- if the homeowners are going to do it, then we have got an optional condition there. It's standard language regarding submittal of an operations and maintenance manual. Item Number 8, just regarding fencing -- and I will just point that out here on the south side of the plat, there is a micro path that is Yosemite Drive is here. On the south side of Yosemite, there is a 20-foot wide micro path and this is just correcting the lot numbers. Fourteen is here on the west and sixteen is on the east. That should be a correction to where the fencing was noted in the original staff report. Also, the staff report didn't address permanent fencing on the south side of the project. Number 18 is a recommended new condition that we have to construct permanent fencing here on the lot lines, rather than the subdivision boundary line. The city does have a 36-foot wide sewer easement, half of which is on the Baldwin Park property and half of which is on the future middle school property. That simply doesn't make any sense to us to have the permanent fence, obviously, in the middle of the easement. We are just recommending moving that fence up to behind these lots. Since this is a common lot here on the west side of this micro path, we are recommending that the Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 38 of 77 fencing on these three residential lots be more friendly to this open space area and not be a solid six foot. That's -- that's the fencing here issue along the south. Then the last item under general requirements Number 1, we have not yet received a written statement from Settler's Irrigation District requiring the White Drain to remain open. As you may recall during the Preliminary Plat that did get some discussion. I checked the minutes. Essentially, the board has told the applicant verbally that they are going to require that White Drain to say open and not be piped. According to the Public Works Department, they did check, it looks like it would be a 36-inch or so pipe. Typically that 48 inch requirement that we have had wouldn't apply to this, in terms of waiving the piping, but should the Council support leaving that open, there does need to be formal waiver granted tonight to leave that open. I think those are the main issues that staff had. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess whatever happens we would like to see a letter from them to Meridian, so if they change their mind on some of the conditions depending on these applications that seem to hang them up forever. So -- and seeing that it seems odd that they want to keep that open with the school going in just to the south of it -- I don't know. The applicant can probably answer that one. Corrie: Any further discussion? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. Is the representative of the applicant here this evening for Briggs? Arnold: Mayor, Members of the City Council, for the record Steve Arnold. Business address 1800 West Overland Road. Briggs Engineering. I'm here tonight representing Capital Development. You have received our comments on the staff report and the planning staff has addressed all of our issues. Tonight it looks like you're wanting us to hammer out whether it's going to be the homeowners association or Settler's Irrigation. We will be constructing it to be owned and operated by the homeowners association. We are having some difficulty with the Settler's Irrigation District. I believe that Brad commented on Lot Number 8, that should be Lot 14 and 16, Block 4. Hawkins-Clark: I'm sorry I did not. That would need to be corrected. Arnold: That still is the lots that are going out above. In regards to the Settler's Irrigation District as to piping or opening -- or leaving the canal open, we originally came before this Council and we were showing it piped and that's what we wanted to do. We have since met with the Settler's Irrigation District and received twice verbally and the client's received it twice, that we were to remain -- leave that open and that they needed a certain width easement. I can, if this Council feels comfortable, before the signature Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 39 of 77 of the Final Plat, we can always get a letter at that time stating their position. It was their position and it was this board's approval. I have read through the minutes also, that we were going to leave that open based on our testimony and discussion. It was always the intent with the Preliminary Plat that we were leaving it open. I guess I would concur with the recommendation in this general requirement that tonight the board had granted the formal waiver of piping that, because of the situation that we are dealing with Settler's. As you know, across the road with Bridgetower Subdivision, they are required to leave it open. They were told once by the board that they were -- that they had to -- that they were going to pipe it, that piping was okay. The board acted on the decision and then after the fact came back and told them, no, you guys will need to leave it open, mainly due because it's collecting the groundwater within the area. They didn't feel that -- they felt as we were to pipe it, it wouldn't function as it was designed to. We disagreed with them. However, they have the final say within their easement. I will stand for any further questions. Bird: I have none. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Arnold, I guess -- so in the recommendation from the staff, what do we need to change? I guess we just need to say on that to comply with whatever Settler's Irrigation District requirements are. Is that really what we are talking about? Arnold: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Nary, basically. That's what was on our Preliminary Plat letter -- on our Preliminary Plat Findings, to comply with Settler's Irrigation District. Nary: Is that Site Specific Requirement 15? I guess I don't -- I don't see anything in there that says you have to pipe it. Arnold: There is none. It's general requirement number one. Nary: Oh. Okay. Arnold: It's a standard, I believe, boilerplate language. I just didn't want to get down, you know, where we are getting to the signature of the Final Plat and have someone go through and -- I mean as a general condition it was -- I guess I'm trying to head off a headache. De Weerd: Good idea. Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I do remember that conversation and I guess we need the letter from the Irrigation District. I would also like that letter to go to the school direct and it seems like Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 40 of 77 the neighbors, as they move in, they back up to this and they see kids playing in it, they then want to challenge and have it piped. If there can be some official note on the plat or something that that drain is -- that is the intent is to be left open, so it's, then, obvious for those people buying those lots that they are buying a lot next to an open ditch. It's going to solve some heartache in the long run by them petitioning the developer to pipe it further down the road. It might help having that notation that it's an open ditch or something on the plat. Arnold: Mayor Corrie, Councilwoman de Weerd, that's something that we can certainly add to the plat. There was one more item and it wasn't on any of our responses, but it was a concern that was brought up tonight in the previous Final Plat, which is the Certificate of Occupancy for the homes with the landscaping. I guess our concern is the same thing that came tonight. We are essentially on the same schedule as the Final Plat that was before you. I guess my concern is that we could go into get the plat recorded and we may not, due to weather circumstances, be able to put the landscaping in. We'd like to have the same caveat that you placed in the previous Final Plat and subdivision. I apologize, I didn't have any comments to Brad about that and I -- honestly, it was not thought of until we heard it tonight. It is a concern now that we are running into the same situation, weather permitting, that we may not be able to get the landscaping in prior to occupancy. We might be able to bond for that, exactly the same condition that you approved on the previous Final Plat. If that could be added, we would appreciate that. Corrie: I know the developer. We will do so. It will be done. Arnold: Yes. De Weerd: I think he should have to do it. Corrie: We will bury her tomorrow. No offense, but -- okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Council, discussion? De Weerd: I have none. Corrie: Okay. I will entertain a motion, then, on the request Final Plat approval for Baldwin Park Subdivision by Capital Development. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, I would move the approval of FP 02-016, request for Final Plat approval of 38 building lots and seven other lots on 13.72 acres in an R-8 zone for Baldwin Park Subdivision by Capital Development. Pursuant to the staff report of July 31, 2002, with the following amendments. On Site Specific Requirement Number 2, to include the alternate language of homeowner’s association ownership of the Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 41 of 77 th pressurized irrigation system as proposed in the memo of August 6 by Brad Hawkins- Clark. Also, that would include the comments from Briggs Engineering on their memo of August 6, 2002, as well. That the lot numbering be amended to reflect the proper lots and block numbers that were incorrectly stated. The other site specific requirement be amended, Number 3, to include language regarding allowing for weather permitting and that the applicant will bond for the installation of all landscaping, so that there can be a Certificate of Occupancy permitted prior to the installation of landscaping if weather won't allow that to be completed. That general requirement Number 1 also be amended to include language after the first sentence that states, shall be tiled -- that the area shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4-13 if allowed by Settler's Irrigation District. There will be a note on the Final Plat with a reference to Settler's Irrigation District as to their preference of leaving the drain open at this time. I don't think I have any other amendments that I -- De Weerd: Did you mention the landscaping? Nary: Yes. Bird: I will second it. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to -- Nary: And for the attorney to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order and all that. Corrie: Okay. The motion is to approve with amendments as per the motion for approval. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mrs. Clerk. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Before we get into the four Public Hearings, I'd like to take about a five-minute break if we may and be back in here at about 20 minutes until 9:00. (Recess.) RECONVENED AT 8:45 P.M. Item 15: Public Hearing: AZ 02-012 Request for annexation and zoning of 2.02 Jerald S. Frank acres from RUT to R-4 zones by – 2310 South Locust Grove Road: Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 42 of 77 Corrie: Okay. I will reconvene the Meridian City Council Meeting and Item Number 15 is a Public Hearing. This is a request for annexation and zoning of 2.02 acres from an RUT to R-4 zones by Jerald S. Frank, 2310 South Locust Grove Road. At this time I will open the Public Hearing and the rules of the Public Hearing is that the applicant will have five minutes to present their side for the annexation and then the public will have three minutes apiece for any comment that they would like to make. Then after all the testimony is taken, then we will have any rebuttal by the applicant for three minutes or whatever time afterwards to make any rebuttal. At this time, as I said, I'll open the Public Hearing and we will invite the staff comments first. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council. The subject parcel is highlighted here on the screen. It's on the east side of South Locust Grove. As was noted, 2.02 acres. It's existing Ada County jurisdiction with a RUT zone and they have submitted an annexation request to be annexed with a city zone of R-4. It is contiguous to the city here to the east and to the south. Raven Hill and Los Alamitos Subdivisions are on the south and Raven Hill wraps to the east as well. Sportsman Point Subdivision is here on the west side of Locust Grove and rural residential existing county here to the north. The request for annexation is come due to a request for a municipal water and sewer service, which was granted by the Council in October of 2000. The City Council approved the hook up due to a failed drain field for their septic tank. That was a requirement of the hook up was to annex and so that's why this is before you. Staff does have some -- well, the Zoning Commission recommendation, I'm sorry, which is for the Jerald S. Frank property, you should have in your packets. There are five recommended city conditions, as well as the Ada County Highway District conditions and Fire Department conditions proposed there. I think that's all staff has at this point. Corrie: Okay. Any questions from staff at this point? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Is the developer here today? De Weerd: The property owner? Corrie: Or property owner, whoever -- anybody here? Okay. We have two people signed up. I think that's Jess Harris? Is that -- am I close? Hopkins: Jason Hopkins. Corrie: Jason Hopkins. Okay. We got to put new pens out there for you. I'm sorry. Okay. Jason and Mike Anderson. Okay. Jason, you're first. Raise your right hand, please. Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Hopkins: I do. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 43 of 77 Corrie: Okay. Hopkins: Or yes or -- Corrie: Whatever. We know you'll tell the truth, so -- Hopkins: All right. I guess, Mayor, and Council Members -- Corrie: Name and address. Hopkins: Oh. My name is Jason Hopkins. I live at 1726 East Doberman Drive. That is in Raven Hill Subdivision, which is the second lot that is on the south side of the subject property. Right there. Yes. I guess my -- I have two reasons for being -- I agree with the annexation. I don't have any concerns with that. The concern that I have is with the zoning change and I don't fully understand zoning and would just like to say that my concern lies with the future development of that property. The lot does not lend itself well to future development and my concern is that the person applying for the re-zoning would want to develop and maybe put in dwellings. They could theoretically add seven more dwellings to it. I don't know that all seven would be approved, but it would lend itself towards flag lots. It just -- I feel it would be unsightly, just because it wouldn't develop naturally well, just the shape of it and the way it is and the nature. My concern is -- or my reason for being here is to oppose the zoning change and I don't know if the zoning change would make a difference or not. Is that valid? Corrie: They are requesting an R-4 zone, which would allow them four houses to the acre, which would be approximately eight houses that they could build on this. Hopkins: Right. Yes and there is one existing. The one existing is -- has street frontage and in my opinion a dwelling unit should have street frontage. If it doesn't, then it ends up in a flag lot type situation and my experience -- I'm a realtor and, yes, I should know the zoning better than I do, but I don't, so -- my experience with flag lots has been that they never quite turn out as nice as a real subdivision. It's an afterthought and when the project was finished, it looks like an afterthought. The residents that live in the surrounding area are stuck looking at an afterthought and that was my concern. There would be one, two, three, four, five, six, seven or eight residences that would look upon that area and also those people aren't here. There are a few other people here from the same subdivision, but it just doesn't go. I just feel that that change wouldn't go with nature of the way the land has been developed around there. I guess that's all I have to say. I don't know if I can suggest not going to the R-4, maybe leaving it the way it is, and still annexing it. Is that -- is that an option? Corrie: Brad. Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, upon annexation a City Zone does need to be requested. Now the R-4 is only one of several zones that could be requested, but in order to -- in order for city codes, setbacks, and other standards to Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 44 of 77 apply in the future, we need to attach those to a zone. At least my understanding is -- and the attorney could correct me if I'm wrong, but, you know, there needs to be a zone attached upon an annexation request. Hopkins: Would an R-1 be sufficient? Hawkins-Clark: Actually, the city does not have R-1. We do have the R-2 or R-3. Those are the lower density zones. Hopkins: Okay. I guess the next question I would have, since the applicant isn't here, if the applicant applied for it, then I might suspect a motive for future development. If the city assigned it, then that was not the applicant's intention, then I have no reason to suspect that there was a plan for future development, so -- Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Mayor and in this case the applicant did pay the city to process and prepare their application. De Weerd: They were required. Hawkins-Clark: They were required to. They could have prepared it and requested a zone on their own, but in this case they did pay a higher fee for the city staff to actually prepare it, which is unusual for us, but they can do that. Hopkins: So what I'm getting, then, is that my suspicions were incorrect and that the person is trying to do some kind of development. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Hopkins, do you know what the zoning is for your subdivision? Hopkins: Probably R-4. Nary: I guess being a realtor you probably understand that we are looking for compatibility, just because you can just build -- just as you have a zone that allows you to build eight houses in two acres doesn't mean you're even able to come near that, because of setback requirements and everything else. I guess I -- I understand your concern, I don't know that realistically in that location, the way that lot is shaped, that they are going to have a real easy way to try to squeeze eight homes onto that lot. Hopkins: I didn't think they would and I figured they'd probably do seven or less. My concern was that -- Nary: Probably five. There would be maybe five but it wouldn't be any different size wise than where you're at. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 45 of 77 Hopkins: Sure. I guess you have already addressed my concern. De Weerd: Just a response. The applicant was required to do this, because we are extending water and sewer, because he did have a failed system and this was just a requirement that he annex in to the city. He's actually fulfilling the obligation he had, because he did hook up to our water and sewer. This would zone his and future use and typically I know this Council is not real thrilled about annexing and zoning land without a plan, for the very reason you're standing in front of us. The questions that it raises to the neighbors and that sort of thing but this was a condition of the sewer and water service to the piece of property. It's kind of one of those extraordinary circumstances that, you know, personally I don't like to zone and we even had a recent problem doing this without a plan. We typically don't like to do this kind of effort exactly for what you're talking about, because no one knows what the intent was. Right at this point no one -- there is no intent, other than fulfilling an obligation to annex, and he even asked our staff to complete the application and request whatever appropriate zone per our Comp Plan or to make it harmonious with the surrounding property. So -- and when he does come in with a plan, if that ever does happen, the neighbors would then be notified of that Preliminary Plat and he would have to still go through that process of planning his piece of property. You would know at that point, what his plan would be. Hopkins: Okay. Thank you. De Weerd: If that helps. Hopkins: Actually, it relieves a lot of concern, so -- De Weerd: Yes. Hopkins: Okay. That's all I -- De Weerd: I can understand why you're concerned, because we are, too. We don't like to approve something without a plan. Corrie: Thank you. Mr. Anderson? Anderson: I'm fine. Corrie: Is there anyone else that would like to issue testimony at this time? Yes, sir. Raise your right hand, please. Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Cushing: Yes. Corrie: Name and address, please. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 46 of 77 Cushing: My name is Art Cushing. I live at 2230 South Locust Grove. It's the second -- yes. Right there and my question is -- I was questioning the people here before the meeting and they have a wood lot there now. Now can that be a business -- in an R-4, can they continue to have some kind of a -- we have questioned -- Corrie: If it's residential they can't have a business. Is that correct, Brad? Zoned R-4 can they have a business -- wood business there now that's there? Hawkins-Clark: The City Ordinance does allow home occupations. From what I understand from what Mr. Cushing said before the hearing, the type of home occupation currently there would not conform to the City's Home Occupation Ordinance, but upon -- if there is an existing use and the ownership or the use doesn't change upon annexation, they are grandfathered. Corrie: But they can't pass it on to -- okay. Cushing: I'm just like the fellow here before. I am a little bit dubious of what could be done or what he would be doing and that was my concern and I thank you very much. Corrie: Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to issue testimony? Okay. Council, any questions of anybody? Bird: I have none. Corrie: You want to close the Public Hearing or keep it open? Continue it? What's your pleasure? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I imagine the applicant is not here, because it's just an obligation to annex that this application is in front of us. I do think it is important, Brad, if you could just restate the process if he does come back to want to develop it, what the steps would be and what that means to the existing use and that sort of thing. If you could just give a summary on that to reconfirm or restate what -- Hawkins-Clark: Sure. De Weerd: -- the questions are. Hawkins-Clark: Sure. Assuming approval of the annexation tonight, the existing residence and any existing uses would remain. Upon change of ownership or upon change of use or upon subdivision of any of those three in the future, then the current owner or a future developer would have to submit an application to the city to either change the use -- if they are going to create more lots. That would require a Preliminary Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 47 of 77 Plat, so everyone within 300 feet of the property would get a direct mailing from the city informing them that the property would be platted. The only -- the only uses allowed under our Zoning Ordinance for an R-4 is single-family residential and schools. Those two uses are allowed outright. Technically, I guess, a school could come in and just submit a -- for a Certificate of Zoning without having a Public Hearing for that parcel, because schools are allowed without any special permits in the R-4 zone. That would have to still, of course, conform to all the city setbacks and our existing ordinances. That's the standards that would apply. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I was going to say, too, Brad, if -- my recollection of most of the other types of projects of this type, the lower density zoning, the R-2 or three, is not common to be adjacent to those R-4 -- that close to the roadway. It seems like most of the other projects we have seen are a higher density, R-8 or R-15, are closer to the roadway where the -- and as it goes further away from the road the density starts to spread out; is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: I would say that's typical, yes. Nary: So the R-4 is really pretty common for there or higher, but the lower density with half acre lots are not very common to be put in that sort of location would that be accurate? Hawkins-Clark: Right. I might also add that the -- there is the Planned Development process under City Code, which if somebody wants to do a Planned Development, they can asked for 20 percent of the land area to be something other than single-family housing, but that would -- De Weerd: That would also involve a Public Hearing. Hawkins-Clark: Yes and that would also involve a Public Hearing se everybody within 300 feet would be noticed. It's not uncommon to see a group of parcels like this to be all purchased by a single developer and try to do something larger than just a single two-acre subdivision. De Weerd: If that happened he would have to go through the plat process and the neighbors would be advised. Hawkins-Clark: Right. De Weerd: Within 300 feet. Okay. Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 48 of 77 Corrie: Any other questions? I'll entertain a motion, if you so desire, to close the Public Hearing. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I move we close the Public Hearing. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Further discussion? Okay. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion on the request for annexation and zoning of 2.02 acres from RUT to R-4 zones by Jerald S. Frank. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve the annexation and zoning of 2.02 acres from RUT to R-4 zones by Jerald S. Frank at 2310 South Locust Grove Road, Meridian, Idaho, and for the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order. Nary: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded for the approval of the motion. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote, Mrs. Clerk. Roll call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All approved. Annexation is approved. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 16: Public Hearing: RZ 02-001 Request for a rezone of .97 acres from L-O to C-G zones for Lot 3 Block 2 of Amended Magic View Subdivision for a SubwayBlaine and Cynthia Jacobson sandwich shop by – northeast corner of East Magic View Drive and South Allen Street: Corrie: Item Number 16 is a Public Hearing. This is a request for a rezone of .97 acres L-O to C-G zones for Lot 3, Block 2 of Amended Magic View Subdivision for a Subway Sandwich Shop by Blaine and Cynthia Jacobson, northeast corner of Magic View Drive and South Allen Street. At this time I will open the Public Hearing and invite staff's comments first. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 49 of 77 Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Mayor. The property is currently zoned limited office. The Subway Sandwich Shop that is referenced has already come through the city and received a Conditional Use Permit for that use, so that has been approved. The rezone request did not happen at that time, so they have come back and requested now for the change from the L-O to a commercial general, a C-G zone. As stated in their application, the main reason for that is the C-G zone does allow for higher signs. Under the current zone, they would be limited to an eight-foot. The Planning and Zoning Commission in their recommendation to the City Council has placed a condition that no signs on the lot may be taller than 20 feet, which is what the Sign Ordinance says. They have also limited the number of signs to one. The commercial zone, staff has found to conform. There are some conditions that are included in the recommendation, but it is the existing zone adjacent to the east and adjacent to the south. I don't believe the city staff has received any written comments back from the applicant, nor have we received any comments from adjacent property owners, although we understand there may be some submitted in writing. I think that's all I have. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Any comments? Questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. Is the applicant here this evening? Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Larsen: Yes. Corrie: Name and address for the record, please. Larsen: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, my name is Cornell Larsen. My address is 210 Murray Street in Garden City. I'm here tonight representing Blaine and Cynthia Jacobson on the request you have before you for the re-zone of the parcel mentioned by staff. I want it to be somewhat clear that the portion we are asking for the rezone on is about the lower one-third of the area that is shown with the black line around it. The property to the north of that would continue to stay office and would not be rezoned at this -- you know, we are not asking for that and we assume the existing owner would not be, because he has no reason to. It's W.H. Moore and he develops pretty much office facilities. I want to take a minute and maybe refresh your memory a little bit about why we were looking for the Subway Shop there. It would be an excellent place for the traveler to stop as he's going down the freeway and also as the area develops into a Business Park office facility. With the development of St. Luke's, it gives us an excellent place for a food service facility. If the traveler stops there, he doesn't go on down Eagle Road, he doesn't cause additional congestion as he goes farther north. The Subway site people -- selection people felt this was a good site. In their last visit that they made to the site, their recommendation was that we look for some additional signage and conditional signage being the height of the sign and so the reason for our request is two reasons. One is the signage and then, secondly, as we have progressed with the project, we have had inquiries regarding people that would be more into retail type of Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 50 of 77 business, which tends to lend itself more to your general commercial zone, C-G zone. This would be somebody like a cell phone user or a medical supply store that might sell medical supplies, they have had interest, as well as some coffee shops. Yes, the signage is one of the primary reasons, as well as there is the use that we were looking for some additional uses. As you may or may not recall, Subway would be using the building to the west of -- I don't know whether -- can you put this on the overhead, Brad? Do you have a way of -- Hawkins-Clark: Sorry. Larsen: I have three copies of the little site plan that I passed out to you. The building that would be to the west, Subway would occupy a portion of that for their corporate offices in the area. They would then lease out the remaining portion of that to a user who may come along. Ideally, they would have a very compatible use to their facility and would have something that was unusual and so also noted on that site plan you will note the location of the sign. We were proposing a sign in the location when we had sent some of the original applications through in front of the facility. It's 20 feet high and the building is about 18 feet high at that location. It should be fairly well screened from the neighbors to the north. They should not be able to see a large portion of that sign at all and when the building to the west is constructed, then it would pretty much screen it off from all the other people that might be north that might have what would be called an obtuse angle of that sign. That, in general, is our reasons for the request. We wanted to note that, you know, there would be approximately 3,000 square feet of space that would be available for lease that would be out there that could be considered a commercial use different from an office use. As I mentioned before, the buffer to the north with the office would stay intact. The subdivision for this piece of property has been completed most recently. The -- as a part of our original approval on the Subway, the second building also comes back in front of this Commission again before it is able to go forward with the permitting, because it would be the two buildings on a site would invoke the PUD conditional use portion. That second building will also be back before you again, which would also give the neighbors or anyone who might have concern an opportunity to look at it again. We liked the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations, because it limited the uses to office uses for that building. If we did get a retail use, that also comes back before you based on the motion that Planning and Zoning made. We like their limitation of the signage. We are not opposed to those limits on the project. I believe the last time we had a couple individuals who commented from the neighborhood that we were opposed to the project and if there is individuals out there now, we hope this may have given them a little bit of insight into what our request is. I don't think I have anything else. I would be happy to answer any questions. Corrie: Okay. Any questions? Bird: I have none. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 51 of 77 Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I'm a little confused, Mr. Larsen, and maybe you can help me. The original zone on this property is L-O. Larsen: Correct. Nary: And some of the limitations and that would allow a sign of 15 feet is that right? Larsen: I believe it's eight. Nary: Eight. Okay. The 20 feet that's recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission was fine, but I thought I heard you also say that the limitation of office uses was fine as well? Is it just the sign? Larsen: What the Planning and Zoning Commission motion was is that any use other than the office use as a condition of rezone, any of those uses that are -- if I can restate that. Any use other than those stated in the L-O zone would have to come back before the Commission for a Conditional Use hearing. If we did have a commercial use there, Planning and Zoning and the City Council get the opportunity to look at what that use might be. If it's a medical supply facility you might say okay and if it's something that is detrimental to the neighborhood or to the area, you, obviously, have the option to say -- to say no. That intent was to give the Council, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the neighbors the opportunity to see what that retail use might be if we had that type of user. Obviously, we'd like to have a medical user or something like that, but we have had inquiries regarding the retail use and as a result of the need for additional height on the signage and those requests, we did ask for you to consider the rezone. Nary: The other concern I would have is under the language about the sign. It says no sign or signs upon the lot may be taller than 20 feet in height. I guess what that tends to say is that if you have a couple other businesses there we could have three 20 foot signs on that lot. Larsen: Actually, we would ask that they limit that to one sign. Nary: So it can be a center sign? Larsen: Yes. It may not have come out that way clearly in their motion, but I believe in our testimony we said we could live with one 20-foot sign for that site. That sign would primarily be for Subway. We may have a lower sign that we would like to have to comply with the L-O zone for the office facility, but we do not need a higher than 20 foot sign. Nary: You're saying a lower sign, you mean like a monument sign on the ground or -- Larsen: Monument. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 52 of 77 Nary: Monument. Larsen: A sign on the ground. Nary: Okay. Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Brad, on the recommendations from Planning and Zoning staff, it seems like the concern primarily was the change in zone with the change -- then the ability for the height of the sign, as well as the fact that we sort of had Public Hearings to death on this property in this area. With those limitations from Planning and Zoning, it seems to be probably a reasonable compromise, but I guess I didn't hear any input from you or the rest of the staff as to whether or not those compromises satisfy Planning staff's concerns about that property. If it's one center sign, instead of three or four different signs and if it's 20 feet versus eight feet -- I mean that's going to be significantly dwarfed by the signs that are already there in that particular area. So my concern would be having hundreds of signs there. Twenty feet doesn't seem to be outrageous, but I didn't know what your thoughts were. Hawkins-Clark: Councilman Nary, staff did in our report recommend denial. Yes, as you stated, the -- there is a development agreement that was entered into by Mr. Moore for this property, you know, and that is some of where staff was going with our -- you know, with our recommendation. As you well recall, the Ameri-Tel Inn a couple of years ago was proposed on this parcel and we -- we reviewed the development agreement at that time and that was one of the reasons for recommending denial of that was noncompliance with the development agreement, which -- the original Conditional Use Permit did have just two offices, you know, no retail. Certainly, the recent development in the subdivision, particularly on the south side of Magic View with the hotel, as well as with the Hubble plat and some of the other projects, you know, has since changed the nature. The city also approved a Comprehensive plan amendment tonight that shows, you know, some office uses actually here along -- adjacent to Greenhill Estates. You know, this application clearly does not fall under the new Comprehensive Plan, should it have that would not have complied. So, you know, we -- I think our concerns are some of the history, maintaining consistency with the development agreement with the -- and whether or not being off of Eagle Road, if a sign will really be that effective in attracting freeway traffic. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Even amending the development agreement -- I mean the notices that would have been sent for this rezone would be the same that we send to amend the development agreement if we were having a Public Hearing; wouldn't that be right? Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 53 of 77 Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Nary: And it looks like we haven't -- I don't know if we have anybody else to talk about, but it doesn't look like a lot of other ones, but I didn't know if we received a lot of input besides the gentleman that had testimony. Has there been a lot of input to the staff? We didn't get any letters or signatures or anything else, so -- Hawkins-Clark: Right. Neither did we. To my understanding, there has not been. Nary: Okay. Larsen: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Nary, there was a couple individuals who did comment last time on the -- from the neighborhood as well. Also I wanted to -- there aren't many avenues for changing a sign in the ordinance or changing the height of a sign. So, yeah, the signage is important to the Subway people that came and reviewed the site and they feel comfortable that a 20 foot sign would be give them enough presence from Eagle Road that they could be seen and could attract people that are stopping for gas or looking for food as they come off the freeway. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Larsen, when we approve that CUP, they knew at that point all they had was an eight foot sign when they asked for it. Larsen: I don't think they had made their final inspection on the site from the corporate people at that point in time and I know they haven't made that -- you know, they hadn't made that determination at that point. Or it may have been an issue at that time. Nary: Thank you. Corrie: Okay. Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Larsen: Thank you. Corrie: Is there anyone here that would like to issue testimony on this subject? Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Bowen: Yes. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 54 of 77 Corrie: Name and address for the record, please. Bowen: Mark Bowen, 3067 Autumn Way. Mayor, Members of the Council, I'm here on behalf of 33 residents of Greenhill Estates. We have a petition we'd like to submit. We are opposed to the rezoning of the plot in question. We feel it's in direct violation from the development agreement that has been reached and this has been at hearing to death and we are not so much concerned with the sign as we are having to revisit proposed uses for this parcel if it were rezone to commercial. Even though they say we can revisit it, we don't want to revisit it. Something that's compatible with limited office, I think we, in spirit, agreed to that, and are in agreement with the development agreement. We feel like this is a direct violation of that. I don't think anybody that I have talked to in the neighborhood is really opposed to a 20 foot sign, we think perhaps pursuit of a sign variance would be more appropriate and something that we do want to address in the sign directly, but we think that rezoning it for dealing with the sign is an inappropriate use of the zoning ordinance. So with that I'd like to submit the petition and any questions. Corrie: Okay. Questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Bowen: Thank you. Corrie: Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Child: Yes. Corrie: Okay. Name and address, please. Child: My name is Jared Child. I live at 3157 Autumn Way. I'm here to oppose the rezoning as indicated in the notice of hearing. My name is on the petition as well as the others. I have been away from the area for about five or six months. I have been trying to keep in contact with a lot of things that are going on in the area. Back in July when there was a previous hearing, I e-mailed the city clerk to give me more information on this issue, which I never received a reply to that. So in reference to this recent hearing notice for tonight, I had to concur with the gentleman who just spoke for our subdivision that I think that a variance should have been given on the signage, instead of a rezoning. I think if you rezone this small piece of property you basically shoestring in the whole three acres. And if it comes to that, then, of course, more signage, we could get another McDonald's sign out there. I know how that sign went through and I particularly don't care for that sign myself, especially where I live. And I oppose the sign. I think the eight foot monument sign, as is required, should stay, unless there is a variance given to change it to a 20 foot and I guess that's all subject to location and as far as the Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 55 of 77 remainder of the properties out there, that should be subject to its own merits on what comes up. Anyway -- so that's pretty much what I have to say, but I oppose this rezoning. Thank you. Corrie: Anyone else like to issue testimony? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I don't want to give testimony. I just want to clarify that since that McDonald's sign came through, we do have a sign ordinance and that's probably why we are all here today, because that sign ordinance does exist and that's limiting what they can do and so this is what their answer is, but I would agree with you, what an odd way to try and get a taller sign is to change your uses. So that's just my two cents worth. Corrie: Developer, any comments? Larsen: Mr. Mayor, Cornell Larsen. I do not have any additional comments. If there was -- again, the signage is an issue and so are the uses. The signage is probably a more important issue to the Subway facility and that I guess if there were an avenue to get that, it would be great, but there doesn't appear to be any and we felt like this was a reasonable request, so we made it. Corrie: Any discussion? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I know the Public Hearing is still open, but I guess my concern is if we as -- and I think Mr. Bowen brought up the right point. Part of the whole process in this area was to create a development agreement that we didn't have to revisit over and over and over again. And I understand the neighbors' concern that this is not -- and I don't think Mr. Larsen or the developer here is attempting to wiggle that door open a little bit, but that's what it does. And every time we want to revisit this particular piece of property, every single use they want to do that's not L-O, those neighbors have to make sure they get their time in and get their petition out and show up and have to address it every time. That was why we did it that way. That's why the development agreement was done like it was. And I'm sorry if the developer, when they requested the CUP for the Subway, really hadn't made a final decision in regard to the signage and how that may impact their business positively or negatively, but, I'm sorry, that's not really our problem, that's really their problem in making a decision on developments. I think this really falls in the category -- and maybe this is something among the many other things that planning staff is working on, but we have brought this up more than once, that we have to find variances that are not just tied to the reason that are stated in our ordinance, but find Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 56 of 77 some ways to deal with this very issue and this is about the third one of these we have seen in the last three months for the same thing. It makes some sense and there is some reason and rationale for the signage, but to use a rezone as a method to get that, because that really is the only way to do it currently and our variance ordinance is pretty restrictive, isn't very reasonable, but I don't think rezoning it is the answer. I think that's riskier than revisiting our ordinance regarding the signage and if that impacts them opening the Subway at this time, I'm sorry, but I think we really just need to just work on our sign ordinance and find some avenues that are going to make more sense, but this just isn't -- this just isn't the right way to do it. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: Brad, has staff really sat down with the sign issue and really looked at our ordinance to see if there is any exemption for this that might be appropriate in this case? You know, I think we are addressing an issue, but opening up a larger one where it might not be needed. Hawkins-Clark: Councilwoman de Weerd, Members of the Council, we really haven't gone into much review on the sign ordinance. We do have that on the August 29th agenda for the Planning and Zoning Commission and there is a 4:00 o'clock meeting that we are just going to hash through a number of ordinances that are either outdated or new ones that we have been requested to review. So certainly it's -- you know, it's upcoming at the end of this month and in September we do have, now that the Comprehensive Plan is done, slated some time to review it and the current ordinance, I can safely say, really doesn't provide a separate variance process for signs, other than our standard variance procedure. In preparing a sign ordinance I don't recall many -- you know, many communities doing that. Certainly we could look into that, if that's what I'm hearing, to build into the sign code an opportunity for less stringent standards than what the variance process is now. De Weerd: You know, I don't know if we are looking for less stringent, but seeing how special circumstances could be dealt with, it just seems like an odd solution to try this route to address a sign issue and, of course, you don't want anything, you know, huge, to open that door either, so, you know, maybe even the applicant can work with that and see, you know, where there might be an opportunity for such an exception or something that we can look at. But, yeah, I -- this isn't the route. Hawkins-Clark: As Mr. Larsen was speaking it did cross my mind that, you know, an overlay for the subdivision -- a sign overlay, as well as some other commercial office areas of town might be appropriate. We could -- rather than basing the sign height on zone, we could do some overlays based on districts and that -- I could see where that might work for this area, particularly as this subdivision turns into more office commercial uses. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 57 of 77 Nary: I know I can think of three people in the last three months that would certainly offer some input as to what would be better, because we have this issue so often and it really -- every one of them has had reasonable reasons, but they didn't fit the variance requirements, so I think there are people out there that would certainly offer some assistance. De Weerd: With that said, I would move to close the Public Hearing. Nary: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: Any further discussion? De Weerd: I have none. Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. I'll entertain a motion, then, on the request for rezone. Nary: How come I'm always making the denials? Mr. Mayor, I'm going to move that we deny RZ 02-001, request for rezone of .97 acres from an L-O to a C-G zone for Lot 3, Block 2, of the Amended Magic View Subdivision for a Subway Sandwich Shop by Blaine and Cynthia Jacobson, pursuant to the staff report, as well as the discussion tonight, that it is incompatible with the development agreement that is already existing and that even the compromise proposed by the Planning and Zoning Commission are not adequate to address the concerns that were raised by the creation of that development agreement and that our counsel prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made for denial. Any further discussion? Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: If we are going to deny this, then if it's agreeable with a 20 foot sign, how are they going to come back to get a 20 foot sign? We have no way for a variance on the sign. Nary: I think they are going to have to wait until we amend our ordinance. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 58 of 77 Bird: Well, that's fine and dandy if you're going to wait to set your business up, I guess, six months to a year from now. But usually when you set a business up -- and it's not that that area don't have retail out there, you have got places that -- within a block or two that probably have more retail coming in and out than this place or the office building next to it, whatever. That's having -- so I think that -- and I agree with the zoning, but -- it's the only way they have of going through there. I agree with the development agreement sign like it was, that's reasonably brought in. But I believe a business needs to have a house that they can open up with and still be able to have a compete business. I'd like to see what kind of -- you know, until we change that, which with our track record it could be three to four years. De Weerd: You're welcome to serve on that and start tomorrow. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Mayor, all I was going to say, Councilman Bird, is that -- I guess two things. One, whether they knew it or not, they should have known that when they asked for it. But, secondarily, there are other methods to get visibility for a business and one is the freeway signs. You know there is -- the ITD puts out those freeway signs that are for businesses like this, for restaurants that aren't as visible, to allow for that type of access, so that people can find it. There are ways to do that. I agree with you, and that's why I think we have to push and I think at least the planning staff is trying to address that and they -- government is slow, it will take just a little bit longer. But, you know, I do think there is at least some way they can address it, but it is an important system, but I just think that this is probably the only way they could do it, but I don't -- I just don't think it's the right thing to do. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: You know, I appreciate that our Planning and Zoning Commission is going to work with Planning and Zoning staff to start evaluating some of these ordinances. I think that's a very positive step in the right direction. These ordinances aren't developed or tried and true overnight and, certainly, if you would like to champion them for an update, I would recommend that you work with the staff members that helped write it and know how much time they put into it and until we have a chance to see how it works, it's very difficult to anticipate all of the different things that happen. Be there on the 29th when they discuss it and invite all your friends and see what you can do. But until then, we have an ordinance that we have to make decisions by and I know that puts our applicants that are trying to market this in a real awkward situation. But until those ordinances are changed, there is -- our hands our tied and in many cases so are theirs. And that's what we deal with. So I call for the question. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 59 of 77 Corrie: The question has been called. Roll-call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Motion denied. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 17: Public Hearing: CUP 02-016 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an 11, 700 square foot multi-tenant flex space office / warehouse building Falash & Ross Construction, Inc. by – 150 S. Adkins Way, Lot 5 Block 2, Medimont Subdivision, northwest corner of E. Franklin Road and S. Locust Grove Road: Item 18: Public Hearing: CUP 02-017 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for an 11, 700 square foot multi-tenant flex space office / warehouse building Falash & Ross Construction, Inc. by – Lot 10 Block 2, Medimont Subdivision, northwest corner of E. Franklin Road and S. Locust Grove Road: Corrie: Item No. 17 and No. 18 is a Public Hearing for Falash & Ross Construction Company. One is for a CUP 02-016 and the second is for a CUP 02-017. At this time I will open the Public Hearing on both 17 and 18 and invite staff's comments first. Before you do that, let the record show that we do have another letter from Mr. Jim Witherell from August the 3rd of 2002 and I believe the staff comments mentioned in the letter in July, but we do have a July letter for the record to be given to the Clerk for putting into the record. Okay. Fine. Thank you. Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Mayor, do I understand correctly that we can do the report on both 17 and 18? Corrie: Yes. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Well, regarding No. 17, they are very similar requests. This No. 17 is the lot -- three lots down from Franklin Road here on the east side of Adkins Way. The development agreement did require the Conditional Use Permit to be required for all of these industrially zoned lots. They come through a Conditional Use Permit, since they do -- at that point in time backed up to existing residential uses. There are, I believe, two existing structures on that east side of Adkins and these are just some site photos. Curb, gutter, sidewalk, street improvements are all existing here in this subdivision. So these are lot specific internal improvements. Just go here to No. 18 and show you the second -- the second lot is the very southerly one here on Adkins Way, just immediately behind the Woodbridge Subdivision office, which sits here on the rear and there is a vacant portion here, so -- so those are the two lots in question. I'll go back here to the -- the site plans are fairly similar. Here is Adkins Way on the left-hand side of the screen. Both are multi-tenant office-flex type building spaces. The parking is Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 60 of 77 surrounding on the east on No. 17. The Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval of both of these applications and you do have their recommendation. The Commission did recognize Mr. Jim Witherell's letter of July 3. They have recommended hours of operation be limited to 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. in accordance with the development agreement. The tenants will include industrial uses as a utilization of the building for only office uses is prohibited in the I-L zone, so they can't be one hundred percent office, technically, according to the zoning. We do not have any response from the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission on file, so I think I will just go here to the elevation that is proposed. The east elevation is probably of most interest and as you can see, it is the -- there are no windows or lighting fastened here to the east side of the building. There are overhead doors for the various multi- tenant flex spaces. They are proposing a monument sign that is six foot in height for both properties. And here on No. 18 is just more or less a flip of the -- of the northerly lot. Again, parking shown here on the east and similar building elevations. And similar signage. I think that's all. Corrie: All right. Thank you, Brad. Any questions from Council of staff? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Brad, I noted in the letter from Mr. Witherell that there was a concern about the parking spaces being on the easement and that there was some testimony or something you said you would correct that and I'm looking at that site and I don't know they if corrected it, so I'm not sure. Has there been some submittal regarding that? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Councilman Nary, the -- Bruce Freckleton, I believe, did look into that. He could not find -- and certainly structures over easements are prohibited, but in terms of parking on an easement, he was -- he did not see where that originated from. So I think that's the difference, whether or not a parking lot is considered to be, you know, a structure or improvement, that would not be allowed on an easement, typically that's -- typically parking would be permitted. Nary: Well, I know -- and I can understand, because I think the rationale is that you can always rip up the parking lot if you had to. It's easier than tearing down a house. But what was raised by Mr. Witherell was that the way that particular piece of ground is is that trying to install an asphalt parking lot on top of it is potentially damaging to the irrigation system that's already existing there. Do you know if Bruce was able to take a look at that? He's saying there is insufficient -- the irrigation pipe is plastic, it's 12 inches in diameter, it's barely covered by sod, there is insufficient earth, no more than an inch covering the pipe, to allow a gravel base and asphalt for a parking lot without foreseeable damage, which is not likely, because I think it's too close to the surface from what I'm reading. Do you know if he looked at that issue? Do you have the letter from August 3rd by Mr. Witherell? Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 61 of 77 Watson: Council Member Nary, Mayor, and Council Members, I have not heard of this -- for lack of a better word -- allegation until right now, but when they submitted grading and drainage plans to me for review, one of the things that I would be looking at is adequate cover over any existing irrigation lines. Our minimum depth for sewer, which is plastic pipe, is three feet. Sometimes they can use a higher grade pipe and get a little bit less than that, but I don't know that Bruce looked into that. Nary: Okay. Thank you. Corrie: Any other questions? Okay. Is the developer here this evening? Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Falash: Yes. Corrie: Name and address, please. Falash: Mayor, Council Members, my name is Michael Falash. My business address is 149 South Adkins, Meridian. I own the office building right across the street from Lot No. 5 and -- which is just basically on five right across the street. I'd like to address a little bit on the easement issue, because that has been a big issue in the past conversations. We have got several drawings. Like Brad said, we will look at that and they do make piping that can be located in there and, you know, we have no problem going back if it's -- if we can't get the depth, we will go and change out the pipe to a suitable grade of piping that is rated for traffic load. Easements are typically, like Brad said, my experience on -- not in Meridian, Boise, is it's just the setback requirements for access through the easements of irrigation, power, pressurized irrigation, whatever it may be. It's limiting, you do not let your building go into that part of the property, but you're allowed to put paving, landscaping, other things that actually can cut through it and cut through it to the building. Some of the other comments, too, in the development agreement it was noted that on the east side of the property there was a -- there is an existing 20 foot landscape buffer that was developed as part of the development agreement that goes down the whole east side of the property line and that was set up in the agreement to buffer the residential area from Medimont Subdivision and when I recorded it, the landscape easement, there is a fence between our property and the landscape easement and then the residential area. So there is quite a bit of buffer area to that area. We are proposing, you know, flex spaces. Our intention is to provide spaces for small businesses that need some office space, warehouse, such as we have had over across the street in the building on Lot 5 on the other side of the street, you know, painters in the warehouse space, vinyl mark, fish finders and fish counters and they need some warehousing, so we are looking for those small companies. We are not anticipating -- we are only looking at 14 foot ceiling heights in there, we are not talking about height, tall storage type companies coming. I noted the lumber products down the road and they are a whole different breed of company that has big trucks, forklifts, semis, and stuff coming through. You know, our principal clients are -- that we are looking for is the small businessman, the 1,500 square foot space and 500 square feet Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 62 of 77 of office and 1,000 square feet of warehouse space or some kind of blend of that. Across the street when they develop that, they will need probably a little higher mix, maybe 60 percent office and 40 percent office. So it's just kind of hard to tell what will come in there. But we are following all the guidelines of the development agreement and when we submit plans for tenant improvements, they will go through the Planning and Zoning process and they will make sure that they are the type of tenant that is approved under an I-L zone. So there are some checks and balances to make sure that we keep the right kind of clientele coming into this project. There was concern in the previous meeting about not knowing what type of client will come in. Well, there is a check and balance for that sort of thing. The buildings we are proposing are concrete buildings, which I think they are an upgrade from the two buildings on the two adjacent sides that are block buildings with asphalt shingle roofs. I feel like we are kind of bringing the standard up in that area also, that we are not following suit for what's already existing along there. As far as the comments on the Planning and Zoning, I agree with, you know, the recommendations and comments on it and leave it open for questions from Council members. Corrie: Any questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to issue testimony at this time? Is the testimony you're about to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Robertson: Yes. Corrie: Name and address, please. Robertson: My name is Bernie Robertson, 185 South Locust Grove Road, Meridian. Our home is east of this it -- talking about Item 17. And we have a problem with the parking in -- on the east side of the building, because right now a small machine shop is directly behind us and their parking is on the north side of the building. When they drive in in the morning, their lights from their cars are shined directly in our bathroom and our bedroom and, you know, in the wintertime when they come to work at 6:00, 6:30 in the morning, that's what we get. So we are going to have somewhat the same problem if they are going to have parking on the east side, that's directly behind the building, which we don't have now, we have it on the north side. So he's talking about having, you know, cars parked on both the north side and the east side and it directly affects, you know, our privacy and our -- the fact of the cars going in and out and we get the dumpster that comes in there every morning about 6:30 and so we getting a lot of noise and we have no objection to the building at all, we are just trying to protect our own privacy and our own quality of life. The other thing we have a problem with are the lights on the back of the buildings. There was a small machine shop, I mean it lit up our entire back yard and if we had a party back there, we wouldn't have to turn a light on and so we asked if he would mind turning the lights off and he did and we really appreciated that. So we, again, are asking that there not be any lights on the east side of that building, because it just -- it just lights up the whole area. But I do have concerns also -- or we do about putting the parking lot over that irrigation pipeline that is -- that is on the other side of that chain link fence and he talked about a buffer. Well, the buffer consists of chain link Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 63 of 77 fence, some scraggly pine trees and some -- some people would call lawn. I don't call it lawn. That's the only buffer we have. So we get light, we get noise, we get everything along there. It's 17. It's not this one. It's Lot 5, Block 2. That's the one. Uh-huh. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Would you like to comment on your -- Falash: I'm Mike Falash. Again, we have agreed that we wouldn't put any lighting on the east side of that building and there are some zoning requirements or ordinance requirements for lighting and how far those lights can shine out and so forth, which we have on the north side and the south side. Being an industrial area it's pretty tough not to have access around the entire building when you are providing that kind of a building and service and that type of clientele we are after. What Medimont was set up for was light industrial, because you're going to need access to the rear of the building and access to the front side of the building, so I understand their concern of the lights and traffic and coming around the side, but I don't -- you know, the way Medimont was set up and, you know, I think they did the best they could with what they had with the landscape buffer and the fencing across there, but I couldn't see any way that we could really design the building and not have access to the rear, because you need the overhead doors, you need the frontage to come in for the office space, so I don't know what the solution to that is, other than that's just kind of the nature of how it's zoned and what we are up against. Corrie: Questions from Council? Okay. Falash: Thank you. Corrie: Anyone else? Okay. Council, any further discussion for the Public Hearing? Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: And maybe Mr. Falash can answer this, too. There was some discussion earlier about the dumpsters and I saw some recommendations from the Planning and Zoning Commission about the dumpsters and -- so they wouldn't be subjected to the residents, I think that's addressed again by Mr. Witherell's letter. Falash: On Lot 5, which is the one up in the middle, we did -- the dumpster -- you know, I don't think anybody wants to have a dumpster up on Adkins Street, because there is a 30 foot wide landscape corridor down through there and I think the idea is not to have -- is to keep that corridor, you know, in the city planning -- in the city concept plan of having a development come down through there and have that all landscaped. So the dumpster on Lot 5, whether it's in the -- there was a question whether it should be in the other corner or the northeast or southeast, they are both backing up to residential areas. On the Lot 10 on the other end, we did move it to the south end of the corner, because it was moved furthest away from the residential section of the property on our northeast Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 64 of 77 corner of that property and then right adjacent to the east it's really a commercial piece, so we did move the dumpster down to the south end on Lot 10. You know, there are the other two buildings that are already existing that do have their dumpsters located on the east side of their property and to me that's the most logical spot for it, you know, with some screening around it. Whether we move it ten foot one way or another, I don't know if that will -- I don't think that will make any difference on a -- when they come in and remove the container and dump it. Maybe something could be worked out with the sanitation department to look at different hours to hit this area. Maybe that's a solution to that early morning dumping and that would help solve the problem of the local residents being -- to make their pick ups at 9:00 or 10:00 in this area. I don't know. Nary: I guess I noticed -- and maybe -- I don't know if you're the right person to answer this, but I'm looking at that Planning and Zoning recommendations in regards to the -- I think it's Lot 5, which I think is the one that these folks are concerned with, and they deleted the section regarding the dumpsters. Falash: I think at one time we were going to move it to the south side, instead of the north side, but generally not -- you're still on a residential boundary there, so did we accomplish anything. It wasn't gained -- it didn't gain anything by moving it from one end to the other, so I felt it -- to me I voted and argued that we thought it should be at the back of the building and not the front of the building. So that's why we went to that discussion with the Planning and Zoning. We got that approved that direction and then we are moving the one on Lot 10 instead, because it didn't abut a residential area on that one corner. Nary: Thank you. Corrie: Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay. If there is no other discussion for the Public Hearing, I will entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we close the Public Hearing on the Conditional Use Permit and also the Conditional Use Permit on the multi -- on Lot 10, Block 2 and also on Lot 5, Block 2 in Medimont Subdivision. McCandless: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 65 of 77 Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to close the Public Hearing on CUP 02-016 and CUP 02-017. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. Opposed no? All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: Further discussion? McCandless: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. McCandless. McCandless: I notice also on these P&Z recommendations that all exterior lighting should be kept down shield or otherwise altered, whether attached to the building or located in the parking lot, so that the lights cannot spill over to adjacent property. Has that been done? Falash: That was one of the recommendations from Planning and Zoning and that's one of the things they will be checking when we submit our drawings in for building permits and stuff. Right now everything is just sort of a concept and we agreed to limit our lighting, not to do any lighting on the east side and we will provide -- there are types of lights that will give you that shielding and we have no problem providing that. McCandless: Thank you. Corrie: Okay. I caution Council to not ask those questions when the Public Hearing is closed. We can reopen it if you want to do so. Thank you. McCandless: I was just reading these and I noticed about -- they talked about lighting and that was -- Corrie: Okay. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I believe they have got pine trees out there in the deal, which we addressed at the last building with the lumber company coming down there. This development was designed to be these type of buildings and stuff and I feel for the neighbors back there that, yeah, they probably do get lights shinning in their yards or in their houses at times and stuff, but it is a -- they have done a very nice job of developing out there and I think they have tried to be very friendly to the neighbors. The irrigation thing don't bother me, because I think with state laws, your water rights are -- I mean they can yank up the parking in no time, so as long as you get your irrigation, so -- and I think these would be very nice additions to Meridian and I think that Mr. Falash has been very agreeable to Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 66 of 77 work with the neighbors and do what they -- would try to do what they asked on the lighting and stuff and the parking. So I think it's a very nice development out there. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Brad, could you put up the picture again of the -- the one -- I guess the trash enclosure troubles me some. Could you put up where those -- the one that shows where this lot is in relation to these folks that testified? As I understand that testimony, they are right -- right to the east of this -- of that property? Okay. And the trash enclosure is proposed to be to the rear of the building and the only separation from that trash enclosure to their property is that grass strip and trees and the fence; is that correct? Hawkins-Clark: Including a chain link slatted enclosure. Nary: Okay. But they still have to drive the truck back there to dump the -- Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Nary: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: The existing fence is not slatted, but the three-sided trash enclosure would have slats in it. Nary: And there was discussion at the Planning and Zoning Commission about relocating that and they just found it wasn't practical in any other location as well? Is that what I understood? Hawkins-Clark: Councilman Nary, I wasn't at that meeting, but, yeah, it seems like, according to Mr. Falash's testimony, they felt it would be of no benefit to move it to the north, although those two properties that are the yellowish color have an approved apartment complex on it, although we haven't seen that complex come through, but they are R-40 zoned is what those have. Nary: So currently this is still bare ground and this is another industrial building of some sort; correct? Hawkins-Clark: Uh-huh. Nary: Well, there is not much we can do for these folks, other than move that trash. I don't know what else we could do differently. But at least that avoids more parking and trucks and traffic. I recognize that Mr. Falash is correct that having access around the building is probably necessary in this area, but I don't know that you want to have a garbage truck driving back there every week, so -- Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 67 of 77 De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: So are you suggesting that they move that to the north corner and then how does the garbage company have access to that dumpster to dump it? Nary: Well, there is space between the buildings. I mean this is -- right now, Brad, where is the east property line? Right there. And this is where the trash enclosure is supposed to be? Right here? And those folks' property is right here sort of? Hawkins-Clark: Uh-huh. Nary: And if you move it to this corner of the property, what's there right now is a proposed apartment complex that doesn't exist yet and there is another industrial building here and it is a completely open parking lot to access it from there. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: You move it up there and you lose your parking spaces and -- I mean they can move them down, more parking spaces there at the east, but then you're really going to get the lights coming into their house. I don't know how often the dumpsters are picked up out there, I don't know how busy they are, I don't know how big a dumpster they put in there, but -- Nary: Mr. Bird. Are they at the minimum required parking spaces for this building? I mean if they move this from here to there and they lose -- I mean that appears to take two or three spaces at most. If they move that to here, are they under? Hawkins-Clark: Councilman Nary, Members of the Council, I believe that it's one to 1,000 in warehousing, so 11,700 square feet, you would be looking at 12, but then you have got to add on potential office. I did not see a breakdown on the plan. Nary: It appears they have about 36 parking spaces. They seem to be in blocks of 12. Twelve. Twelve. Twelve. Approximately. And I would agree adding parking to this location doesn't improve this location for the neighbors. I guess my preference would be to leave this area free from parking, but it doesn't enhance the neighbors, in that at least once a week a big garbage truck has to come through here. They have to get the garbage and if they move it up here and if they are not -- if there is no loss -- or loss in spaces to the north, it isn't going to impact them in that regard, what difference does it make? Bird: Mr. Mayor? Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 68 of 77 Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: Most of your -- most of your garbage to that thing is going to be hauled out through the south end and that's where your -- because your store fronts are going to be up in -- on the north side where the parking is. So, you know, you're looking at not only having to haul a lot more, are going to have them come blowing out as hauling out, it's inconvenient, they pick up once a week, I -- and that's -- I don't know what the trash company -- but I bet they tell us they don't want it to go there, because they are pulling in during business hours, they don't want to be pulling through a bunch of cars that's got a chance of backing out into them or them hitting them. This is logical if you come straight in and I feel for the neighbors, but it's maybe picked up once a week -- I don't think you would want it on Adkins Street. That's your main boulevard. Yeah. And that's all landscaped there. Nary: I guess, Mr. Mayor, my only concern is from what these folks said is they already get a lot of what the other -- the adjacent properties here, they get lights, they get parking, and now we are saying, okay, we should drive the trash truck down here so they can get all the lights the whole way down to get in and get this trash and I guess I'm thinking the dumpster doesn't mind driving down my street and backing out, I'm not sure it's that big a deal to move it over here. It seems like my recollection from prior testimony from other ones in this area that part of the concern is the trash comes at like 6:00 o'clock in the morning in this particular area, so all the more inconvenience and, like you said, there is not much else -- I agree with what you're saying, Mr. Bird, but that is part of this type of development. So whatever is left -- I mean what little less of an impact we can put for these people -- there is still going to be some noise, and there will be some lights, there will be some dust and all those other things that are just from this type of development, but I guess I don't see that that's the most awful thing in the world, just to move that location, as long as we are not going to have a parking space issue next. Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Mayor, they do have the parking detailed out on their site plan and even if it was all office, which they are prohibited from being all office, they would be five spaces beyond code. Nary: What's this little bulge out here, Brad? What is it? It's at the backside of the lot. This is Adkins here and this is a building. So is this just drainage? Hawkins-Clark: Just a landscaped area. De Weerd: A landscaped drainage area? Hawins-Clark: No. It's not open. In terms of open pond you mean? Nary: Or swale or something. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 69 of 77 De Weerd: Or swale. Hawkins-Clark: There is a pressurized irrigation connection point in that area. Their landscape plan does show two trees and sod in that corner. Nary: Can't they flip flop those two things there and put this up here and put the landscaping there or is there an engineering problem with that drainage? De Weerd: More pipe. Nary: There is no screen fencing along here either, is there, Brad? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Nary: The cars are parking face in, headlights all shining -- right now, though, there is no property here, it's just over here. But, again, you're still going to have all the lights going this direction when there is an apartment building there. Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Nary: And there is no requirement for them to screen this fencing at all? Hawkins-Clark: Correct. Yeah. The fencing was a requirement of the original developer of the whole subdivision. Mr. Barnes had to do the 20 foot landscape strip, which has the pine trees spaced occasionally and the fencing, which was just chain link. So, yeah, the only screening is around the actual enclosure. Imagining the -- they have required -- - they estimated two cubic yards of waste to be generated, so, you know, a ten foot wide dumpster area, but typically I would imagine they would come in and pull up around in back, back in to access this dumpster. It's foreseeable that they could enter on the north, turn to the south, and back in to access the dumpster here. I think Mr. Bill Gregory would review the final submittal and make comments on that, but -- at SSC. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: That would be a back loading dumpster? It wouldn't be -- how large a dumpster do they usually have on something like that? Ten yards? Three yards? So they do load it from the back or do they come in from the front? If they are front loaders, do they have to come in -- so if you put it up in that corner right up there, you're going to eliminate a whole bunch of parking lots -- or parking spaces, because they are going to have to come in to come in straight on to it. Hawkins-Clark: Just these two or these two. Bird: And then bring it all the way through there and back straight in. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 70 of 77 De Weerd: Then they could come straight in and -- Corrie: And back out. De Weerd: And then you could fill those -- where it's currently at with two trees and have a little bit more of a buffer for the headlights. You know, I guess, in essence, we continue to -- and it's not the applicant of the subdivision's problem that the landscape buffer is not adequate. It's just not adequate. And we continually get this. Every single application we are going to hear this and he went to the absolutely bare minimum that he absolutely had to do and these applications -- or these applicants continue to hear the gripes about it, but he met the intent of the development agreement and so you're kind of in a Catch 22. The homeowners association of the subdivision or the association of the subdivision, it sure would be nice if they were part of the solution, so the neighbors could have a little bit of peace of mind. But, again, they inherited it. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I wonder -- and I don't think there is any way you can make this be done, but the existing chain link could be slatted, which would really help. I don't know how much that costs. I don't have the slightest idea. It isn't in the development agreement. Good idea. Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: It's a great idea. Unfortunately, Mr. Barnes is the one that has to do it and there is nothing that requires him to come back here to do this. The property owner -- he doesn't own that fence, so they can't do it. So I mean we are kind of between a rock and a hard place. And, like I said, I think that's my -- I guess that's my rationale is we need to do whatever minimal things we can do to alleviate something for these neighbors, because there is not a lot of other things we can do. We can't -- we can't plant more trees, we can't slat the fence, we can't build a better buffer for them, because we are kind of stuck in that regard. So the best we can do is at least -- you know, Mr. Falash has agreed to limit the lighting, so that's at least one of the concerns they have raised and he is willing to do that and he has done that on the other pieces, so I think we are comfortable with that and, like I said, my only other concern is locating the trash enclosure -- at least if we move it, it sounds to me like we have a lot of adequate parking, so they can move it and still make it acceptable and they can essentially change that parking lot configuration to put the trash to the north of that and put the trees to the south and at least that's something. It's not a whole lot, but there is not a whole lot else we can do to alleviate the impact this has on these neighbors. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 71 of 77 Bird: I think when you -- I think moving it you make an unsafe situation when you bring it over there and you have that big -- and I don't think the trash company is particularly going to want to recommend doing that, because anytime you get one of those trucks in, even though you say they always come at 6:00, 6:30 in the morning, there is times when you fill it up and you have to call in and they have to come at a certain time during the day and you're asking -- you bring one of those trucks in with all the parking spaces with people pulling in and out, you're asking for a safety concern I believe and I also think you're going to lose a lot of trash by the time you haul it from the back and that's where -- that's where it's designed to haul out to the north and dump it. Papers blow and stuff like that in the wind and that's a tough question. De Weerd: You have that same issue on either side, because they still have to walk either the length of this or the length of that. Bird: You don't come out that way, you would be coming out this way and around to dump. You don't come out through the front office. Corrie: Well, we have heard from two. Do the other two have any comments? De Weerd: I guess one other solution might be is -- you can't put up another fence, because that causes a safety issue, but you could put up a light barrier that's the height of the headlights of the cars that could help minimize the impact, you know. And I certainly have no -- I have a great imagination, I just don't know what that would be. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I think you're talking like on this eastern area here where you have some sort of four foot fence, so that way you have got a shield from parking cars and as well as the trucks coming through here to dump, is that what you're talking about? De Weerd: That would be a possibility. Nichols: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council, with the Conditional Use Permit you can impose conditions that are reasonably related to the impact the development will have on the neighbors and the landscape buffer has proven inadequate, a requirement to slat the chain link fence would give you the light barrier that you're asking for. You're not asking the applicant to put up a whole new fence, just to simply slat a portion of the fence adjacent to this lot and that may be sufficient -- it may still be inadequate compared to a berm type landscape buffer and those kinds of things, but it may be Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 72 of 77 something that's certainly reasonably related to the development and the impact on the neighbors. But it's got to be less expensive and less burdensome than building a new fence to simply slat the one that's already there. Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: Doesn't the -- I guess -- and I agree with what you're saying, Mr. Nichols, but he's going to have to get the approval of Mr. Barnes to slat the fence. It's not his fence and it's not on his property. I guess that would be my only concern is that if Mr. Barnes were to say I don't want you to do that, you can't. So I agree that's the best -- that is the right outcome, I just don't know whether or not Mr. Falash can effectuate that. It's not his property. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I agree with Mr. Nary. I think that is the ideal thing and maybe Mr. Falash or the owners of the properties in there could go to Mr. Barnes and ask him if he would consider doing that. I don't see any way that we can force him to do that and there is no way that you can force Mr. Falash to do it for this section through here, because he don't own the fence. Nary: Mr. Mayor, what we could do -- I guess another alternative is we can put -- like Mr. Nichols said, we can put reasonable conditions on this development to lessen the impact on the neighbors. We can also include in those findings the alternative that slatting the fence would be the alternative to either moving the trash enclosure or, as Councilwoman de Weerd would like, you could build a light barrier or something like that. That, again, puts the -- I guess Mr. Falash can go to Mr. Barnes and say, look, it's a lot cheaper for me to slat that fence than it is to build a second fence or to move and redesign my trash enclosure to a different location. But at least we would feel like we are attempting to alleviate the neighbors' concerns, as well as providing as many alternatives that are reasonable as we can. That gives Mr. Falash the ability to do a couple of different things to lessen that impact and one of them can be, I think as we said, probably the least acceptable alternative, that he's going to have to get Mr. Barnes to agree with that, and that's I think at least probably as much as we can do. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: Maybe the best thing to do would be to reopen this Public Hearing to continue it until the -- until the 20th and give the applicant an opportunity to talk to Mr. Barnes or whoever manages that and our staff to look at maybe -- I wasn't really talking Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 73 of 77 a fence, more, you know, a light bar or, you know, just options that could help mitigate traffic lights or talk to the garbage company and see where it is -- the only way we can even get his comments was to reopen this Public Hearing and -- Nary: Is that -- De Weerd: I don't know. I just want -- it seems like we are up here trying to solve some issues that I think would be best solved with the applicant and Mr. Barnes and our staff and -- Nary: And the neighbors. De Weerd: -- and the neighbors and not us. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: You know, it's all well good to do this, but we have had, what, two developments come through here with these same arguments that we passed on. The other neighbors have had the same problems and we passed on them, because that is an industrial commercial development. We haven't had to put anything in the buffer or anything like that and I -- I'm not for reopening, I guess, at this time. Hawkins-Clark: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Brad. Hawkins-Clark: If I could just throw out one thing. One difference is I don't believe the other two had head-in parking on the eastern boundary. That's one difference. One other thought that I had, if you want to go with the either/or option, they do have three and a half feet of play in this drive aisle width right here, they are exceeding -- they only have to have 25 feet from the parking stall to the building and they have 28 1/2 feet. If it could be that if you took say these three parking spaces, this area right here, you know, within three and a half feet, if they created a little planter and you required arborvitaes, that they would still meet all the city code and they would only have to be, you know, four feet high to block any head-in lights, if you follow me. It would be a new planter that, you know, wouldn't need to go the full boundary, the primary concern is this -- are the neighbor here to testify, but it could be just, you know, a little three and a half, four foot wide planter that you would have some short shrubs in that would be tall enough to block the headlights. The main issue there, of course, is you still have to get an underground sprinkling line there. Just another option. De Weerd: Well, I guess it all is a matter of do we sit up here and offer a solution or do we allow the applicant to have a say, as well as the neighbors and -- Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 74 of 77 Nary: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I agree with Councilwoman de Weerd, is that I don't really want to redesign this whole project, I was just trying to alleviate some concerns and do I think it's fair to allow the applicant to, one, provide some input and also to provide the best alternative. I mean we are supposed to come up with one tonight and I think the difference has been I think every time -- I think we have always tried to address the concerns, some we can't, some we can. Here this happens to be something we can. I mean it's something we can deal with that's a pretty small thing, but it's not real small if you look next door. I think on the other ones we have always tried to address what was there and some just didn't do it, some of it was dealing with more of issues of building height or a blank wall behind my house and it really didn't have a whole lot to do with this particular type of thing that I can recall, but I guess I would be more in favor of at least reopening the Public Hearing and if we can't make a decision tonight, that we continue it to give the applicant the opportunity to see what alternatives exist that are going to work for him, as well as his neighbors and that we just get it done, rather than spending another half hour. Bird: I have no problem with opening it tonight, but let's talk to the people, let's get it decided tonight. If you look on our agenda -- De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, let's reopen the Public Hearing. Corrie: I'll entertain a motion. De Weerd: So moved. Corrie: Do I hear a second? McCandless: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded to reopen the Public Hearing. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: I'd like to hear what you have to say. We are spending a lot of your money. Falash: You guys always stick me last on the agenda. Corrie: Your name, please, just for the -- Falash: My name is Mike Falash, 149 South Adkins. I'll tell you what, I'll agree to put slats on that fence line, because I think that will probably be a good solution for adjacent Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 75 of 77 landowners. I don't have a problem with that. I'm thinking I'm sure I can get John to agree to do it. That's Lot 5. Lot 10, on the other hand, is at the other end and it really abuts a commercial piece of property, so I would like -- we are hearing both things at one time, so I don't want to -- make sure we address one lot against the other, but I have no problem, I think the slats are probably the best solution. You put landscape in, you'd have to make it so dense to really block lights that you'd probably have them just stacked in there, but I think slatting is probably the most logical solution to it and I have no problem providing it on this lot, so if you're agreeable to that, that will help out with the lighting and agree on the amount of lighting we have off of the east side and -- which would be none and we will definitely need a shield on the other side. So I do like to have the dumpster at this end, but, you know, if we go and slat that whole fence in there, you will have a six foot high screen across there and I hope that will keep everybody happy. Corrie: Now would you like to say something about slatting the fence? You're still under oath. I just need your name and address. Robertson: Bernie Robertson. 185 South Locust Grove Road. I think that sounds fine. If we can work with the developer and hopefully Mr. Barnes, if that's what it takes, you know, and we appreciate it, we really appreciate the time you have taken on this, because it's kind of an issue for a long time now, the fact that we have to face those lights all the time and slats would help solve some of the problem. Thank you very much for the time you have taken. Corrie: I think, Mike, you can get -- Mike, you can get him to do that. John -- if you need any help, I will twist his arm. He owes me a favor. Nary: His neighbors would tell Mr. Smith that if ever listens to anybody in Medimont Subdivision -- De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I move we close the Public Hearing. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: Now I'll entertain a motion on CUP No. -- what we are discussing here, 02-016, which is the mixed use permit for the 11,700 square foot multi-flex space, 150 South Adkins Way, Lot 5, Block 2. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 76 of 77 Bird: I would move that we approve the Conditional Use Permit of the 11,700 square foot multi-tenant flex space office warehouse buildings on Falash & Ross Construction, Incorporated, Lot 5, Block 2, Medimont Subdivision, northwest corner of East Franklin Road and South Locust Grove Road and to include the condition of slatting the existing barrier fence, I think it's a six foot high chain link fence, and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order. McCandless: Second. Corrie: Okay. Just for point of order, is that 16 or 17 that has that slat? Bird: That's 17. Corrie: Seventeen. Okay. Nary: And it's on the eastern boundary. Bird: The eastern boundary only. Yes. That block. Corrie: Thank you. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Okay. Roll-call vote, please. Roll-call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: I'll entertain a motion on the request for Conditional Use Permit No. 02-017. Bird: Mr. Mayor? Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve the Conditional Use Permit on a 11,700 square foot multi-tenant flex space office warehouse building by Falash & Ross Construction, Lot 10, Block 2, Medimont Subdivision at the northwest corner of East Franklin Road and South Locust Grove Road and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order. De Weerd: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion has been made and seconded. Any further discussion? Roll-call, please. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 2002 Page 77 of 77 Roll-call vote: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; DeWeerd, aye; Bird, aye. Corrie: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Bird: Now wasn't that better than coming back the 20th with another -- De Weerd: Yes. Corrie: So if there is no other, I will entertain a motion we adjourn. McCandless: Mr. Mayor, I move we adjourn. De Weerd: Second. Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: Adjourned at 25 until 11:00. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:35 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: / / ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR DATE APPROVED ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK