Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 07-21 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, JULY 21,1998 -7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ROLL CALL: X RON ANDERSON X CHARLIE ROUNTREE GLENN BENTLEY X KEITH BIRD X MAYOR ROBERT CORRIE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS SPECIAL MEETING HELD JULY 7, 1998: (APPROVE) MINUTES OF PREVIOUS REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 7,1998: (APPROVE) 1. TABLED JU_L Y 7, 1998: ORDINANCE #796 - TOM BEVAN ANNEXATION & ZONING ORDINANCE: (APPROVE) 2. TABLED JULY 7,1998: ORDINANCE # - ORDINANCE CHANGES WITH CROSS CONNECTION AND BACKFLOW DEVICES: (TABLE UNTIL AUGUST 4, 1998) 3. TABLED JULY 7, 1998: APPEAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EAGLE PARTNERS LLC BY RICHARD C. WILLIAMS: (APPEAL DENIED) 4. TABLED JULY 7, 1998: APPEAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECISION ON FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING: (APPEAL DENIED) 5. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST TO AMEND CITY ORDINANCE, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK BY TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT CORP: (TABLE UNTIL AUGUST 18, 1998) 6. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ARTIFICIAL NAILS SALON BY DARLENE JEROME - 1324 MERIDIAN ROAD: (APPROVE FINDINGS, APPROVE CUP) 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.13 ACRES TO C-G BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC: (CITY ATTORNEY TO REDRAFT FINDINGS FOR AUGUST 18, 1998) ( 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE, MCDONALD'S WI DRIVE-UP WINDOW AND IDAHO POWER COMPANY CREDIT UNION WITH DRIVE-UP BANKING BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC: (TABLE UNTIL ANNEXATION AND ZONING APPROVED) 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 121.897 ACRES TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED THOUSAND SPRINGS SUBDIVISION BY F ARWEST DEVELOPERS AND MARTY GOLDSMITH - NORTH OF VICTORY AND WEST OF EAGLE ROAD: (AMEND FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THOUSAND SPRINGS SUBDIVISION (330 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 121.897 ACRES) BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS AND MARTY GOLDSMITH - NORTH OF VICTORY AND WEST OF EAGLE ROAD: (TABLE UNTIL AUGUST 18, 1998) 11. DISCUSSION BY DON BRYAN - FLOODING PROBLEMS AT 2070 N. LOCUST GROVE: (MEETING WITH ACHD, NMID, CITY & BRYAN) 12. HAVEN COVE NO.7 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: (APPROVE) 13. AGREEMENT WITH DEVLIN PLACE AND FUTURE PARK LAND BY DAN WOOD: (APPROVE) 14. DESIGN REVIEW - WAREHOUSE/SHOP & MICRO-WAVE TOWER BY AHA ARCHITECTS - CENTRAL FACiliTIES COMPLEX: 15. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF SEPTIC SYSTEM PERMIT BY BRADLEY E. MILLER - 3475 COMMERCIAL COURT: (TABLE UNTIL JULY 28, 1998, SPECIAL MEETING) 16. REQUEST FOR LIQUOR LICENSE FOR EL ZOCALO BY LINDA OLSON: (TABLE UNTIL JULY 28, 1998, SPECIAL MEETING) 17. REQUEST FOR BEER & WINE LINCENSES FOR WINGER'S AN AMERICAN DINER BY YICK YEE FAMILY COMPANY: (TABLE UNTIL JULY 28, 1998, SPECIAL MEETING) 18. REQUEST FOR BEER & LIQUOR LICENSES FOR THE FRONTIER CLUB BY DAVID AND ERIC SANDQUIST: (APPROVE) 19. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: 1. SHARI STILES: A. DISCUSSION OF WEED MAINTENANCE CONTRACT. (LOOK AT AGREEMENT) B. DEVELOPMENT REQUEST ON CHINDEN BOULEVARD. (AS PER COMP PLAN) 2. GARY SMITH: A. WATERLINE JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT WITH PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. (APPROVE) B. BID AWARD FOR WELL NO. 20. (APPROVE) C. CHANGE ORDER NO.5 - TULLY PARK. (APPROVE) 3. BILL GORDON: A. DEPUTIZING OFFICER RESOLUTION: (TABLE UNTIL AUGUST 4, 1998) 4. TOM KUNTZ: A. LIGHTING AT TULLY PARK. ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY21.1993 ENTERED INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 6:31 P.M. BACK FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 7:45 P. M. Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we close the executive session. Rountree: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded we close the executive session. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. . The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:45 p.m. on June 21, 1998 by Mayor Corrie. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Anderson, Charlie Rountree, Keith Bird, Mayor Corrie. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JULY 7, 1998: Corrie: Is there any corrections or alterations of those minutes? Rountree: I have none. Anderson: I have none. Corrie: Entertain a motion for the acceptance. Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: I make a motion that we accept the minutes as written. Bi rd : Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Anderson and seconded by Mr. Bird to approve the minutes held July 7, 1998. All in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: Aye. ITEM #1: ORDINANCE #796-TOM BEVAN ANNEXATION & ZONING ORDINANCE. ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNt.~ JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 2 ( Rountree: I think the question we had on this last session was a legal description, was it not. Smith: I believe so. Rountree: Has that been corrected Mr. Smith? Berg: Yes Mr. Mayor and Councilman Rountree, the confusion was between 2.1 acres and 1.8 acres. The 2.1 included the right-of-aways, which we require so that we have connecting parcels. So that is the only concern and we did get that incorporated into the ordinance. Rountree: Do we have the number. Corrie: 796. Corrie: Did you want to say something before we do the audience then. Rountree: No. Unless you have a question or anything. Corrie: No. Thank you. Ordinance 796 is an ordinance of the City of meridian annexing and zoning certain real property which is described as a partial land situated in the NW% of section 8, township 3N, range 1 E, Boise Meridian. Ada County, Idaho also being a portion of the easterly 206.55 feet of the westerly 453.20 feet, block 7 of Pleasant Valley subdivision and providing for an effective date. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have ordinance #796 read in its entirety. Hearing none. Entertain a motion from the council. Rountree: I move that we approve with suspension of rules ordinance #796. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion is made by Mr. Rountree and seconded by Mr. Bird that we approve ordinance #796 with suspension of rules. ROLL CALL: Anderson, yea. Rountree, yea. Bird, yea. Bentley, absent. MOTION CARRIED: All yea. ITEM #2: ORDINANCE # -ORDINANCE CHANGES WITH CROSS CONNECTION AND BACKFLOW DEVICES. Corrie: Gary do you have any questions on this ordinance? Smith: No, I don't Mr. Mayor. (- MERIDIAN CITY COUNCti.J JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 3 Corrie: Council, any other questions? Rountree: I have a question for Gary. Did you do anymore investigation into the possibility of providing some of these backflow devices through a vendor to the folks that currently have systems that won't comply. Smith: I did raise the question with the water department. I haven't got back together with them to get an answer to see what they have found out. They were going to call around and make several calls to see what might be available. I will follow up on that and bring it to a conclusion. Rountree: As I read the ordinance it is applicable to everyone. Smith: Yes. Rountree: No matter what. Smith: Yes. That's one of the questions that we needed to be sure that you are aware of because if it wasn't an approved device initially then it will need to be removed and replaced. Rountree: My understanding even if it was an approved device initially, it still has to be replaced if it doesn't meet the current-or new specification ordinance. Is that correct? (Inaudible) Smith: Well, ~ guess Councilman Rountree that the one sentence that I see is any such cross connections now existing are hereafter installed shall be abated. Rountree: My concern is if I built a house 2 years ago and had an approved system in that system theoretically met the back flow prevention requirements of the City at that point of time. If it doesn't meet the now defined backflow prevention assembly requirements or meet the test that's prescribed in the ordinance, it's my understanding that I would then have to replace that. Smith: Right that was my understanding is what they are going to require in terms of revising the ordinance. I don't see that specifically stated. Anderson: It's on the top paragraph of page 3, Gary, Paragraph C. Smith: Right. Rountree: I have no further questions Gary. I do have a comment that I still think it is unclear and... ( \ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 4 Smith: The way that I read that, that is unclear. It's not specific to that point, the way I read it. They are talking about the protection being commensurate with the degree of hazard. Rountree: And that's not defined. Smith: Right. Rountree: Okay, thank you. Corrie: Does the council wish to have this go back and be rewritten? I'll entertain a motion to that effect. Rountree: I move that we table ordinance #797 for rewrite and clarification of backflow prevention assembly and it's applicability to current systems. Anderson: Second. Corrie: We won't have that number any longer? We mayor may not? Berg: It depends on some of the other ordinances that may come up. Hopefully, we will have that number. Rountree: Okay, we will refer to it as the ordinance then, cross connection ordinance. Corrie: Do I hear a second. Bi rd: Second. Corrie: Motion is made by Mr. Rountree, seconded by Mr. Bird to table till August 4, the ordinance change with cross connection and backflow devices. Any further discussion. Rountree: I have none. MOTION CARRIED: All Ayes. ITEM #3: APPEAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EAGLE PARTNERS LLC BY RICHARD C. WILLIAMS. Corrie: Mr. Prior, can you give us some guidance on this one? Prior: Mr. Mayor, what is required is that the City Council will consider the information that has been submitted by the applicant Mr. Williams in regards to (- MERIDIAN CITY COUNc'-.lL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 5 the appeal. There will be no public hearing or no public testimony given on this appeal, it's merely a situation where the City Council considers the facts presented by Mr. Williams in the appeal. The City Council will have 10 days to submit a decision to the city clerk, that can be done individually where you will submit your decision to the city clerk and the city clerk will notify Mr. Williams within 10 days of that decision on this appeal. Mr. Williams has every right to testify at the public hearing and can request that his appeal be incorporated into his conditional use permit Item #8, if that is his desire. The applicant has been informed of all of these rights Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Thank you Mr. Prior. Based on that, we have Mr. Williams written appeal. So, do we need a motion to have that accepted by the council. Prior: I don't think it's necessary to have a motion, Mr. Mayor. All it does, all you need to do is take it under advisement that the appeal has been issued and that the city council will provide a decision within 10 days to the applicant. Corrie: Okay. Understand on that one, Dick? Okay, thank you. Rountree: Is that 10 days from this evening? Prior: That will be 10 days starting today. Excuse me, 1 0 more days, 10 additional days, President Rountree. ITEM #4: APPEAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECISION ON FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR MAWS SUBDIVISION NO.3 BY TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING. Corrie: I will ask Mr. Prior to give us counseling on that one. Prior: Same decision Mr. Mayor, I spoke with the applicant on this item, as well. The applicant's only request is that his conditional use permit public hearing be noticed and brought before the City Council as soon as possible and he would also at that time request that the appeal be incorporated into the public hearing at that time. Once again, the City Council has been provided with some information in regards to the appeal. In the form of an application for appeal and a memo in that regard. Once again, the City Council will have 10 days to address the issues on that appeal. Corrie: Any questions for council on this appeal? Anderson: I have none. We will carry it on to a public hearing on that one and note it. ITEM #5: FINDS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST TO AMEND CITY ORDINANCE, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF ( :MERIDIAN CITY COUNLLL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 6 LAW AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK BY TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT CORP. Corrie: Mr. Prior, I'm going to give that one to you too. I can do it, but I'll let you explain it to the council. Prior: Mr. Mayor, it is my understanding in discussing this, I was not a party to the initial decision made in regards to the Troutner Business Park and the procedures followed. It is my understanding that this needs to be brought back to the Planning and Zoning Commission for their consideration and there needs to be a public hearing held on the Findings of Fact on this particular item. At this time I would advise the council that the proper course of action would be to table this item and allow the Planning and Zoning Commission to bring this item up on their agenda. Corrie: Any further discussion? Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I have a question for the council. In the memo from special council on this subject, it indicates that as a result of our motion to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, that it was inappropriate at this time. Later on in the discussion, it indicates after reviewing the transcript, finds the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law are required. Do I take that to mean, it's for Planning and Zoning first and then come back to us, not as it relates to the hearing we had last meeting. Prior: That is correct President Rountree. Rountree: Easy on the President. Corrie: No further questions? Rountree: No, that clarifies the letter. Corrie: Alright, I will entertain a motion for table until the 18th of August meeting. To give time for the Planning and Zoning to meet. Rountree: They are going to need longer than that. Corrie: At least they have a meeting. Their meeting will be the-we have their Findings of Facts the-they will meet on the 11th of August. Mr. Prior said that he would have the Findings of Fact completed by the 18th. Either the 18th or the 15t of September. Rountree: My only question is there sufficient time to notice this? Does it need any longer than the 15 days? ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCJiJ JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 7 Stiles: It can be noticed for the August 11th meeting. Corrie: So it will be up to your pleasure the 18th of August or the 1 st of September. Anderson: I make the motion we table the development agreement for Troutner Business Park until August 18th. Rountree: Second. Corrie: Okay, motion made by Mr. Anderson, seconded by Mr. Rountree to table this Item #5 till August 18th meeting. Any further discussion? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: Is Mike here? Did you follow all of that? Okay, I'll explain it to you a little bit (Inaudible)-after you hear the explanation of what is going on it will be a lot better. ITEM #6: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ARTIFICIAL NAILS SALON BY DARLENE JEROME -1324 MERIDIAN ROAD. Corrie: Is the applicant here tonight? Council, I believe you have the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law in front I hope. Any questions in reference to the Findings of Fact and Conclusions. Rountree: Question for Shari. Do you have any additional comments you want to make on this Shari, or are you well covered in this? Stile: Yes, I am well covered in it. Rountree: If there is no more discussion Mr. Mayor, I would like to make a motion. I move that Meridian City Council approves the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as provided by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, seconded by Mr. Bird that we approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, prepared by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. Any further discussion? ROLL CALL: Bird, yea. Bentley, absent. Rountree, yea. Anderson, yea. MOTION CARRIED: All yea. ( :MERIDIAN CITY COUNLLL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 8 Corrie: Entertain a motion for the city recommendation. Rountree: I move that the Meridian City Council approves the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application, with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, seconded by Mr. Bird, the decision and recommendation that was read. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion. MOTION CARRIED: All Ayes, 1 abstain. ITEM #7: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.13 ACRES TO C- G BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC. JO ANN BUTLER, 607 N. 8TH STREET, BOISE. WAS SWORN IN BY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNY. Butler: I understand that right now we are just dealing with annexation and zoning, is that correct, and the conditional use separately. Okay. Again, good evening to the Mayor and Council members. Your ordinances and your plans set forth the standards and the criteria and the guidelines that we have to meet when we request annexation and zoning. Of course, before we ever did request annexation and zoning, we made a particular attempt to go through each of your ordinances and your plan to make sure that we weren't making a frivolous application. I gave a package to the council and mayor yesterday and to your staff, in which I did a synopsis or a summary of each of those standards and criteria that are listed under your ordinance to show exactly how these requests meet with your zoning ordinance and your comprehensive plan, because I believe that you are going to hear tonight testimony from several that state boldly that we don't meet your comprehensive plan. I was fortunate enough to be involved and sat in on many of the public hearings when this city went through its comprehensive plan process back in 1992 and 1993. As those of you on the council will remember, you had packed houses, polite listening sometimes, but sometimes people a little upset about the decisions that the city was making then on identifying things like commercial activity centers, which, this property sits right smack dab in a commercial activity center that this community decided back in 1993 should be set on the comprehensive plan map and be identified in the comprehensive plan. In many ways, the hard decision that this community had to make, were made in 1993. You had a lot of citizen input, you had a lot of hearings, and you made those decisions, and those are not easy decisions. This year you also went through extensive negotiations with Ada County in finally setting the area of impact, which I believe is also contiguous with urban service planning area. So, you have gone through a lot of work and what this application ( NlERIDIAN CITY COUNCiL JULY 21,1998 PAGE 9 for annexation and zoning represents is just a progressive outflow from your decisions back in 1993. We are not cutting against the grain, we are not asking for anything that this city hasn't already contemplated was in the best interest in Meridian when you made those legislative decisions, several years ago. I'm not going to take apart bit by bit each of the standards and criteria that I have listed for you in my packet to the city. I know that you understand that the Idaho codes suggest that representatives for applicants such as Eagle Partners submit suggested findings and conclusions. We do that, we spend the time and effort to do that because one, we have already done it before we request annexation and zoning, and we do it as an assistance and help to the city to help provide you with a synopsis and we hope it does help. We think it does provide you with all of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions that you will need to supplement your findings in reaching the proper result, which is to grant annexation and zoning. I'm really not going to spend more time than that on the annexation and zoning issues, I think a lot of the other issues you may hear are maybe aqdressed by others in the audience deal with mostly with the conditional use, so I will save time for that. I will reserve time for a rebuttal, if that is okay with the council and then stand for questions. Corrie: Any questions from council at the present time? Bird: Not at this time. Butler: Thank you. Corrie: Anyone else from the audience like to issue testimony? Dick? RICHARD WILLIAMS, 3133 AUTUMN WAY, MERIDIAN, ID 83642. WAS SWORN IN BY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Williams: I didn't expect to be up here this quick, Mr. Mayor. My name is Dick Williams. As most of you know, I'm a past member of the Meridian City Council sitting on this council from 1976-1981. I was the President of the City Council when they developed the first comprehensive plan and was an integral part of the development of that plan. I like you had put in many, many hours in the development of this plan. I was also the chairman of the Ada Planning Association for a year while I served as the president of the City Council, so planning and zoning is a real hot button with me. I've lived here for 29 years, raised four kids that have gone through the Meridian school system, I'm proud to be a member of the City of Meridian and always have liked to live in Meridian, I chose to live in Meridian, I didn't have to. Tonight I represent the Greenhills Estates subdivision, which is a 123 homes that is on the northerly portion of this proposed development. If I could, the people that are in Greenhills if you could raise your hand or stand up and say hi, to let you know we are in force here tonight. One of the things I would like to do, first of all, is for the public record is present petitions opposing this development from 800/0 of the 123 homes within ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNC.LL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 10 ( that subdivision. To show you that we are not in favor of this proposed development for a number of reasons. Secondly, I would like to go on and put into the public record, the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law that were developed by this City Council in January of 1997, 16 months ago, that denied this application and the reasons for the denial. I'm reading from your Findings of Facts. The project is not in compliance with the terms of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and therefore the annexation and zoning application is not in conformance with the comprehensive plan. That it is concluded that the annexing and zoning of the property would not be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. I would like to submit this as-- Additionally last year, just for your own edification and since you don't have anything else to read tonight. Submit the information that we have presented last year, why this application does not comply or meet with the comprehensive plan. Submit why this application does not comply with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan or Zoning ordinance. One tning I would like to bring up, we're not sure which site plan we are dealing with. Back in November, the developer came to our subdivision and said this is our site plan, we've got a gate here, a barrier so there won't be any traffic after hours between the credit union and their proposed development. What they submitted to you a month later, eliminated that gate. This is what they originally sent to you. Then later on they changed the plan again. In this plan, what they didn't have in the first plan, they parcelized (sic), did a partialization (sic) of this lot. Now in 1983 or 1984, the Idaho Transportation Department purchased this lot, they didn't condemn it, they bought it. They split off this section, they resold the lot, that's the one split that the county allows. Now we see, their propose to sell a lot to ACHD, they've got a lot line for the credit union and another lot for their development, which interestingly, their lot line is in the middle of their proposed roadway, so they have ingress and egress out of this proposed road. Then after the Planning and Zoning, which approved this and sent this to you, they changed the site plan again, without public hearing. Now, they have a cross access easement between the properties that didn't exist before. This we feel is a major change in the plan which should in the least sent this back to P & Z because it is a major plan change, no publication, no public notice. They used to have the dumpster here, in order to get this crossed access they moved the dumpster up here. This is just what we think, is the latest site plan, we are not sure. A week ago, I asked them for their latest site plan, they gave me this one. So, I don't know. We don't believe that the due process has been followed, because due process is predicated upon what was originally submitted and noticed, and this has not been done. We have a number of other concerns about this a lot of which deal with the comprehensive plan. Major statement, first page, comprehensive plan, "manage to grow to achieve high quality development- enhance Meridian's quality of life for our residents." I won't go through all of these they're in the notes. "The importance of maintaining compatible land use is to ensure an optimum quality of life... the development of areas should be based on functional plans and proposals in order to ensure that the proposed uses conformed to the comp plans, camp plan policies that are compatible with surrounding neighborhoods." I can't see how a five lane major artery, which the ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNLLL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 11 ( ACHD's numbers say will generate 22,000 cars a day, on that road, will enhance the quality of life in my backyard. There are a number of other items up here, the fumes which you folks denied an application by Albertson's for gas pumps on Cherry Lane and Ten Mile, for the exact same reasons that we are asking for denial of this, noise, vapors, lights 24 hours a day shining your bedroom window. It's amazing, you could come over to my house at 3 o'clock in the morning in my front room and read the newspaper and not turn a light on, of course the blinds are open. The vapor problems when they fill the gas tanks. They dump probably 11,000-12,000 gallons of gas on a tank load. You can just hear those vent when-if you have ever been around a gas tank that has been filled like that, you can hear the vents whistling and that's vapors coming out. This type of development across from a hospital, I doubt that the fire chief would be happy with that one. We have other folks, with your permission Mayor, call and (inaudible) in order to keep this fairly orderly tonight, we have some people that would like to testify on this. The first one I would like to ask come up is Kathy Todd. KATHLEEN TODD, 3020 AUTUMN WAY, MERIDIAN, 83642. WAS SWORN IN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Todd: Mayor Corrie and members of the City Council, as a mother and speaking on behalf of the parents and the children in our neighborhood, we are extremely concerned over the McDonalds proposal. It used to be safe for our children to plan in our front yards and ride their bikes down the neighborhood streets, however, because of the travel congestion that currently exists on Eagle Road, all of that has changed. At times, and these times are becoming longer and more frequent, there is so many cars on Eagle Road, that we have major gridlock. Cars are unable to enter or exit from our neighborhood. At St. Luke's which is currently just a medical center, not a hospital, the cars have been sitting through several lights waiting to get out of their parking lot. We also have many cars throughout the day, that are using our neighborhood as a short cut. All of this current congestion is frustrating many drivers. We are seeing many of these frustrated drivers cutting through our neighborhood and exit onto Franklin, they are irate, frustrated and speeding. How many close calls must we have, or will it take a death of one of our children, or one of the adults before the congestion problem is addressed. Have any of you been stuck in this gridlock, if not, urge you to come and experience, it is quite an experience. Can you even imagine more traffic and more congestion with yet another gas station and another fast food. Our whole neighborhood is at risk and our children won't be safe and neither will we. Other concerns are the high level of noise and intense smells. With gas stations and fast foods, noise and smells are a given, they're inevitable. We can only imagine the 24 hour intensity of " blasting stereos and loud noises at such a close proximity to our homes and the smell of gas, garbage, hamburgers and french fries 24 hours a day, every day, is nauseating. I like McDonalds, but 24 hours a day would be a little too much. The comeback will be, but we have the credit union as a buffer. Well, I'm sorry, but the wind currents won't know ( MERIDIAN CITY COUN(,J.L JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 12 that the credit union is their idea to stop. It will be a 24-hour noise and smell pollution for all of us, depending on which way the wind blows. Another concern is the truck stop syndrome, we feel that if Chevron is allowed to go in next to Texaco, we will have a truck stop atmosphere. Truckers are already spending the night at Texaco, ~nd you can't convince us that they would not be welcomed at Chevron, this is not appropriate for a residential neighborhood, nor is it appropriate for a medical center, soon to be hospital. They are ahead on their schedule, as far as their building. Again, added congestion and added noise, 24 hours a day. We have another neighbor Mrs. Velestan, who was supposed to get up tonight also, but we are extremely concerned with the types of people who tend to stop at and congregate at these areas. We realize that we all need to fuel our cars, our boats, etc., but we don't feel that we need two gas stations side by side in the middle of the mile stretch. Intense high volume 24-hour business, naturally bring undesirable people and eventually crime. As a family oriented neighborhood, we don't want this, we will loose all of our privacy, we won't be able to enjoy our front yard or our backyards, and for those of our who back up against this proposal, we won't be able to enjoy the insides of our own homes. The crime will increase at our expense, again, unavoidable if Chevron is allowed to go in. We have a nice neighborhood and want to keep it that way. If any of your were in our position, I'm sure you would be standing here just as I am now, fighting to save your children's safety an for the safety for you entire neighborhood. Please turn down Chevrons proposal, thank you. Corrie: Any questions. Bird: I have none. Todd: Thank you. Corrie: Who was the other one, Dick? ROBIN BROWNING, 912 S. WATERTON AVE., EAGLE, 10. SWORN IN BY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Browning: Good evening gentleman, I have been requested to speak to you tonight on behalf of the Greenhills Estates residence. I am a top producing real estate agent in Ada County and have been for over ten years and I have sold somewhere in the range of $50 million dollars in residential property, that is the market that I specialize in. Just to let you know, as a realtor I can tell you that a home is usually the largest investment that someone makes, as an individual, ,and that investment has some right to protection from permanent, dramatic and negative impact of surrounding development. The type of development that's being proposed here, typically decreases the value of a residence by approximately 200/0. I can't give you specific numbers on these individual properties because there is no way of knowing until after the development is completed, but I can tell you that it also severely limits any future appreciation of -{ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCLL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 13 those existing homes. That's a tremendous detriment to the financial situation of a lot of the families that purchase homes in those neighborhoods. It's very difficult as a realtor to anticipate that kind of negative impact, but this is one of those situations where it is pretty obvious to see what is going to happen. I can give you a personal example, I live in Eagle, I live in a home that is about three years old and the home that I live in used to be bordered by farm. Currently, the realignment of Highway 55 is in my backyard. Now, I have a buffer, I don't have McDonalds behind me and I don't have a Chevron station, so that is definitely an advantage, but I do have a five lane road, which is Highway 55 running directly behind my house, on the other side of a sound wall. Since the road was approved to go in, where it has been placed. The next door neighbors who put their house on the market two years ago, went from a sales price of $219,000, which was fair market for that house and I think was approximately what they paid for it, and they were unable to sell it for just short of two years and finally got ride of it for just over $180, 000 dollars. That was really a difficult situation for them. There haven't been any other lots that adjoin Highway 55 in my neighborhood that have sold since that road was proposed and approved. There have been other lots in the neighborhood that have sold, but that has really created a problem for the people who border that road. So, it does negatively impact the community. I've lived in Boise all of my life and I have people who come in from out of the area, when I'm showing them property, they ask me, they say "who approves this stuff? Why do you have house sitting next to some of the things you do?" I don't really have any good answers for them. It's a situation where, it's really up to the people who have the ability the foresight to plan for those areas to protect the neighborhoods that are already in existence. We always know that growth is going to occur and I benefit directly from the growth that occurs in this community, by way of residential development. So, I have been on both sides of this issue, but when you have vacant ground. Of course, everybody wants a park to be placed next to their neighborhoods, and that would be ideal, but there can be better buffers between busy areas and residential neighborhoods. I think that's what the people in this particular area are asking for is some consideration in that direction, so... (END OF TAPE) Rountree: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: You indicated in your testimony that better buffers is a possible solution, what does that mean? Browning: Well, in a neighborhood where I just sold a home that is similar in price and lot size to the neighborhood that the Greenhill Estates is located in it's over in Versailles Heights subdivision off of Eagle and Chinden, which is also a very busy area. The adjacent property is office, so it is used eight hours of the ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCil.., JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 14 day, low rise not high rise, no high signs, no neon lights, limited number of people that are coming and going and that has a minimal impact on the neighborhood and on the property values. Helps a lot, so that's an excellent alternative if you are looking for one. In some of the developments that I have seen, you also see higher density residential, that is a buffer between those areas like patio homes, condominiums, apartment complexes and so forthlo So, there are certainly alternatives to the use of the type of ground that's being proposed here. Bird: You stated in Eagle that your property value was because of, basically Highway 55 coming through. Am I right? We already own-Eagle is a five lane road. I don't think you would want to build anymore residential on that would you? Browning: I'll tell you what, it's interesting that you mentioned that, I was in an office meeting a few years ago and one of the realtors in the meeting said, all of these lots need to be developed and sold, so we have to sell the good lots as well as the bad lots. I remember thinking, okay, I'll tell you what, you sell the bad lots and I'll sell the good lots, because I don't want to have to go back to the clients that I have sold property to and explain why their properties haven't appreciated. That's the truth, that's what is going to happen. Corrie: I guess my question Robin is, if the families life center, whatever this mall is going to be on-planned Fairviewand Eagle Road, what from your standpoint as a real estate agent, what do you think that will do to Eagle Road? What you would think, would it be more traffic? Browning: You're talking about the center that is being proposed right now? I don't think there is any question that there is going to be a lot more traffic. When I saw the proposal for the project that is being submitted right now, first of all, it amazes me that there is a road proposed to go where it is, directly behind this neighborhood. Corrie: I'm talking about the Eagle Road. Browning: Oh, in the general area? Corrie: Right. Browning: There is absolutely no question that that area is going to grow and it's going to grow dramatically. There are all kinds of different uses, but... you know when you-when we extend Cole Road, we go in and purchase the properties from the homeowners that are negatively impacted, because we recognize as a government that those properties-it's such a negative, it's such a hardship for the people who own those properties that the government has an obligation to reimburse somehow. That's not what is being proposed here, but as a council t' MERIDIAN CITY COUNLLL JULY 21,1998 PAGE 15 ( for planning and zoning and planning purposes, we have, I think an obligation to be considerate of the existing neighborhoods. You're not talking about somebody who is asking for a new subdivision, you're talking about existing homes and a large number of them that are nice, that have a community that has been established there. Corrie: Thank you. Did you have anybody else? CHARLES HOREL, 3043 AUTUMN WAY, MERIDIAN, 83642. WAS SWORN IN BY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Horel: Mr. Mayor and members of the council, I appreciate your time tonight. I'm going to try to make this as brief as possible. There is a couple of things, of course you are all familiar with this, the comprehensive plan and one of the things-I get pretty emotional about talking about some of this stuff. I like Meridian, I love Meridian, I like having my kids, no I love having my kids go to school here in Meridian. We moved here because it was a great quality of life. Right here, the front page of this, "Quality of life, well let me think for a moment, it's all of the things that make meridian a wonderful place to live, work and raise our families." J couldn't say it better. We just feel in our community situation right now, this proposal of adding a gas station, a McDonalds, how does this increase or make the quality of life for us better. I don't know. This is a pretty tough question, I know that progress doesn't stop, it's like-it's just like gravity, it keeps on working all of the time. I digress, but anyway, the comprehensive plan of 1993 has part of its contents references to natural resources and hazardous areas. As stated on pages 31-33, we have several issues to which the plan eludes, because of the verbiage in the section on water quality policies, 2.1 U- 2.3U. We feel that the City of Meridian is ultimately concerned with these issues. Keeping this in mind, I want to present you with a copy of the Idaho Wellhead Protection Agency Plan, in case you haven't got one. I think you already have, but here's another one. This is a voluntary program endorsed by the state department or the DEQ. Part of that program states that the quality of water is the utmost importance to all of the states inhabitants. One of the things that I'm trying to get to here is that because of this proposed development, we have a community well, which sits literally within (Inaudible) feet of this. Because of the adjacent proximity to this proposed development, we feel that the community well has the possibility of being compromised and we feel this is a very real issue. One of the issues, that if someone becomes ill or incapacitated due to source of contamination to our water supply through or because of this development, who ultimately is responsible? Who is going to step up to the plate and accept responsibility, and say, you know, we shouldn't have put that there and we did contaminate your water, we're sorry but, you know, who's going to step up and say we accept that responsibility? We know that (A) that there is gas pumps going in there, we know that there is refuse and grease, who knows what else, antifreeze for sure. What we don't know, there is some intangibles here about the flow of these materials into our aquifer, which would effect our community ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNLLL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 16 well. With the addition of that development, we would have an increase in traffic. Proposal by ACHD, of course you all know about, is a five land road adjacent to our community and this piece of development and a projection of 22,000 auto day trips, which would make it one of the busiest intersections in Idaho. Now, that would create a turn going right around our wellhead, if a-the wildest scheme scenario, what if a hazardous waste spill took place because of a truck making a turn too sharp, or whatever. What if this happens? What happens to our quality of water? There is a lateral ditch, which also runs parallel with these properties. What happens if there is contamination to that water, again, due to some unforeseen source of contamination? All of the people in Greenhill Estates are greatly concerned about this. Again, if a spill occurs, who ultimately is responsible? We ask that the City Council of Meridian would utilize this plan, the Idaho Wellhead Protection Plan, in this decision, not only with this particular development, but with all of the developments that are being proposed, in and around Meridian, for the best interest of all of the citizens in the community. An additional problem that I have is noise. I mean, we've got water, we've got health issue here, we've got a noise issue. If indeed we have got a 22,000 per day traffic situation behind our houses, are we affecting the standards, the noise standards set forth by DEQ? Who ultimately is responsible for monitoring these things? Are these in violation of state laws? Also, we have emission standards to which we have to live by. Again, with the addition of a five land road behind the existing homes in Greenhill Estates, would the emission standards of the state or community be compromised? These issues are just brought to your attention, so that-the community neighbors and the citizens of Meridian, we know we want and need the protection of our health and welfare. We the homeowners of Greenhill Estates ask that you take these issues into consideration in determining what is going to happen with this and future projects. The quality of life, again is stated here in the comprehensive plan is (A) one in Meridian and I would like to see it kept that way. Thank you. Corrie: Thank you Chuck. Any questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Do you want to enter anything in the... Horel: Yas. Corrie: Thank you. Just as a reminder, those plaques and what have you, we will enter them as testimony. We will have them available for you if you want to use them again or... incase we had. Williams: Those are for the city your honor. HOWARD FOLEY, 2875 AUTUMN WAY, MERIDIAN, ID 83642. WAS SWORN IN BY ASSISTANT CITY ATT-ORNEY. r MERIDIAN CITY COUNCJ.L JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 17 ( Foley: I have been a resident of this community for 20 years and have lived in Greenhills for the last 15 years, raised my family there, my sons have gone through the public school system, Meridian High School. I want to address what I think are some of the legal components of the issue that is before the council tonight. Ms. Butler in her opening indicated that the applicant had made efforts to abide by the zoning ordinances and application requirements. I think they are deficient in a couple of aspects and I want to point those out to you. This is a copy of the zoning ordinance 2-416. Sixteen is the requirements for an application and we have highlighted the two that we think are problematical. Item #11 requires the applicant to show the necessity and the desirability of the development pertaining to the zoning amendment and it's harmony with adjacent development. If the council approves the request before it tonight, it will be required of course, by an ordinance to amend the zoning for the particular property. I think it is incumbent upon the applicant to establish to you the necessity and desirability of this development. Item #15 which I will address in a little more detail, requires the applicant to provide you with a statement of how the proposed zoning amendment relates to the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. OUf City of Meridian zoning ordinance also provides the section 2-402, that the ordinance is based upon the officially adopted comprehensive plan that is purposes are to promote the achievement of proposals of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. To encourage orderly growth and to protect residential communities, industrial and civic areas from the intrusion of incompatible uses and to protect against intrusions and hazards. The zoning ordinances also provide. I apologize going back and forth. But further provide general standards applicable to zoning amendments that the new zoning will be harmonious with, and in accordance with, the plan. The proposed uses will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious. The proposed uses will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighbors. The zoning change will-will the area be served adequately by essential public services. You will see through this particular ordinance, your ordinance, and my ordinance, that the theme of harmony and compatibility exists. It's equally clear and the reason that I point out to you that there is an emphasis in the zoning ordinances to comply with the comprehensive plan, that the application here is extremely problematical and in our view. The comprehensive plan as we pointed out last time the applicant was here, provides for general policy desirable components of orderly planned growth. If you look at the plan, you don't see the Eagle area in that plan, what you see is a circle, that really looks like it was drawn on to accommodate St. Luke's and there really isn't much of anything else. The comprehensive plan at paragraph 5.7 and paragraph 1.4, require this council to do a detailed market analysis when a mixed-use development is proposed. We would submit to you that the proposal of the applicant can't be anything but mixed use. Their proposal is to put a gas station, a fast food restaurant, a credit union, a car wash adjacent to the gas station, all on one parcel or as Mr. Williams pointed out, now perhaps were up to three parcels, if in fact the proposal is to subdivide it illegally, without application for subdivision permits. The ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNLLL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 18 ( comprehensive plan goes on to talk about neighborhood identity and on page 74t paragraph 6.5U, it directs that the council-that land use planning reflect the characteristics of neighborhoods. In paragraph 6.6U, the neighborhood policy plans that land planning should accommodate the neighborhoods and the plans should address themselves to the improvement of existing neighborhoods. The goals of the comprehensive plan direct the council to look toward orderly growth, compatibility of the uses, preservation of neighborhood integrity. The plan on page 15, directs that the council do it's best to ensure the high quality of life for all citizens. On page 18 it addresses itself to interchange development. If you look at the comprehensive plan, the comprehensive plan discusses interchanges at Locust Grove, at McDermott, but there is a significant area that is missing and that is the Eagle Road area, simply is not addressed in our comprehensive plan. We would suggest and submit to the council that what is proposed here is in the nature of a strip development. There is a proposed commercial, office, that now abuts residential areas it violates the policy which requires a significant and sufficient buffers and mitigation by application with conditional use permit. It requires the preservation of neighborhoods, it requires that the zoning be compatible with the comprehensive plan itself. This is a chart that is contained within the comprehensive plan and identifies the different type of roadways, the interstate, principal arterials, minor arterials, collectors, minor collectors. The area that we're discussing here this evening is an area that is right in here. You will see there is no roadway there, you will see it is not a collector, it is not a minor arterial, there's simply nothing there at all. Additionally, if you look at the definitions of arterials and I submit to you that's what's being proposed here. When we start talking about vehicle trips per day at 20,000-22,000, that's a huge number, it's a number that is now consistent with what travels up and down Eagle Road. I want to assure you that this is not something that we simply manufacture so we can present a good argument. I would submit to you that Mr. Terri Little when he testified before Planning and Zoning on April 14, 1998, at page 43 of the transcript, uses the number of 22,000. It's a little difficult to understand whether he is talking only about this parcel, or something else that maybe going to develop. It seems extremely clear to me what he is talking about on behalf of ACHD is this... he is talking about this roadway that is going to come in here and then if you read the transcript he will talk about a straight shot. Know, I don't know if that is subject to a Jot of interpretations but I've been born and raised in Idaho and a straight shot seems to me to be pretty much this direction. It sure seems to me that the point of all this is going to be to hook on to Locust Grove. That's what I think ACHD has in mind for you and for the rest of us. We have deep and great concern as I hope you will, that's what's in the mind of ACHD when they are talking about this number of trips off of this property. I'd also direct your attention to the minutes of ACHD meeting on the 8th of January of 1997, where that exact same figure is used. You will see if you read that transcript further that Mr. Borup for planning and zoning attempted to get Mr. Little to identify for him their plans to bring that road in off of Eagle Road and then bend it back to Magic View. If you read that, you will see that he avoided making any statement, he talks about flexibility, he talks about the need to look into the ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 19 future and he talks about straight shots. That is a great concern to us. This-f would also make reference in terms of planning procedures, that not only is this type of roadway or this type of a major arterially not contained or even discussed in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. It is not discussed in the Ada County lon9- range plan or the Transportation Improvement Plan or Ada Plannings Destination Traffic Flows for the year 2010 and the year 2015. This simply doesn't exits, I know that you all know that Franklin Road was proposed for an expansion to five lanes. So, we are going to have five lanes on Franklin Road and if Mr. Little and ACHD is correct, we are going to have five lanes % of a mile away running down the back of our property line. That's what is on the table for your consideration. Before Ms. Butler jumps up here and says that it's really not what they have in mind, I want to say I agree with her. I don't want to go out of my way to agree with other attorneys but that is absolutely true. If you look in your records to the March 10 letter from Mr. Strite, who represents the applicant, he says in the second paragraph in asking for a 30 day delay, "as you are aware, ACHD and the Meridian City Council have come to the unfortunate conclusion that a new roadway will be required, thus necessitating a total site redesign." I want to apologize if I'm making this too basic to talk about things you already know. This is the roadway that everybody is talking about here. This is the amount that Mr. Williams or this section that Mr. Williams talks about appears now to have been sectioned off to ACHD for a roadway. This is a bend that Mr. Little won't tell Planning and Zoning for sure is going to come this way. This is the straight shot that we are all talking about. While I'm over here and-I want to finish one other thing, I'm sure your council will discuss with you what Mr. Williams talks about in our legal power lunch we call due process. It's simply nothing more than being fair. Telling people what you've got in mind so that everybody can discuss it and have public hearings and do those sort of things. I want to draw your attention to the fact that there have been three revisions to this site plan and this latest revision has been done in June. I want to tell you that this site plan which is before you has never been discussed by planning and zoning, and it's not fair. It's not due notice and it's not proper notice and it's not due process. I want to tell you that this element right here, which is this cross access easement, will bring traffic in off of Eagle Road onto this straight shot, ACHD five lane, 22,000 vehicle units per day road. I can assure you at least in my mind, they aren't going to use the first turn in. I don't see a truck and tractor rig with three trailers on the back of it making that quick of turn across traffic this way. They've got to come all the way down the back of our neighborhood, go through this cross access easement, fuel up and do whatever. Then their choice is one of two, to exit off of magic view where there is no light or turn and come back this way to avoid that turn and come back down, the back of our neighborhood, 24 hours a day. That's exactly what will happen. I'll submit to you if you will look at the other two site plans, that is not obvious, and I'll submit to you if you look at that one it's not real obvious either as to what the changes are. But, that's what the changes are. The final thing I want to discuss is the basic concept of, is the tail wagging the dog here? I have a great concern about that and the people in Greenhills have concern about it. Quite frankly, I think the applicant has great ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNL.lL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 20 concern about it. This body is the final body, you are the arbitrators, you're the people who decide land planning decisions in Meridian. It's not the Nampa/Meridian Irrigation District, it's not the ADA County Highway District, it's not anybody else, and before-someone through reaction or however this is being done by ACHD, imposes on all of us a four or five lane road that exists in none of the plans, has never been discussed in the comprehensive plan and gets improved. I submit that fairness and due process in the very least requires some determination by this council as to what kind of land use plan we are going to do. I see in the record that it's been suggested to planning and zoning that the only use for this property is that which is proposed. The only thing that we can do there is put a McDonalds and a Chevron gas station and last time it was a Meriott Hotel and now a credit union. I suggest to you, if you go to any major medical facility, such as St. Luke's has built out on Eagle Road across from this, and walk a six block or ten block or a 1 mile radius around here, you won't find it just peppered with gas stations and credit unions. You'll find doctors offices, you'll find clinics and that's exactly what you will find. That's exa~tly what our petition says, we understand that there is going to be some growth in that area, we didn't come here to whine at you that we would like it to be fields forever, we understand that's not going to happen, we would like it to happen, but we know it's not going to. We think for all of us, for our comprehensive plan, for our city, for our southern entryway and we just really don't need another gas station. You are going to sa an exhibit in a few seconds about how many we have got. Certainly some 8-5 type of professional semi-professional office space is the appropriate thing. The things that will do for us, not only to enhance the entryway into our city, it will also provide non-minimum wage type of jobs and people who will support programs that have been important to an awful lot of us. Little league baseball, little league youth soccer, optimist football, those are the type of people and organizations that support those things. It's not the applicant and it's not the applicant's employees. I think you have the ultimate decision to decide for the all of us, what our city is going to look like and we implore you not to decide that this is the only choice that you have, it's an extremely bad choice and it should not be made by the Ada County Highway District. Corrie: Any questions from the council? Is there anyone else in the public who would like... yes, sir. RICHARD L. MOOREJ 3050 MAGIC VIEW DRIVE, MERIDIAN, 10 83642. SWORN IN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Moore: Well, I have heard a lot of people talk about how long they have lived in Meridian, I was born here and I'm 67 years old, so I've been around for a day or two. When I grew up, Meridian was probably 1 ,500 something like that, if that much. Graduated 50 years ago from high school, our class was about 93, I have no idea how many is in the school now, but it's grown a little bit around the area anyway. I'm not saying that I'm proud of the growth, but I think it is inevitable that growth is coming. I Jive probably the closest to anybody to the current station out I MERIDIAN CITY COUNL.LL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 21 there, I live just across the street from Texaco. Yeah, they come in and dump gas, I smoke, I'm not proud of that, but I don't stop smoking when they are pumping gas and so far I'm still here, I haven't blown up yet. I don't think that is a real problem, what I'm saying. I'm out there, I'm not in the City of Meridian actually. All of these people from Greenhills are not in the City of Meridian by choice, in other words, the City of Meridian should have the choice, not the non- residents really. I'm for that and I can also speak for at least 11 of the 22-5 acre subdivision, or tracks out in the subdivision. At least 11 I have talked with and they are all for it, thank you. Corrie: Thank You Mr. Moore. Anyone else who wishes to give testimony? JOHN JACKSON, 3500 COMMERCIAL CORP, MERIDIAN, 10 83642. WAS SWORN IN BY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Jackson: Members of the council, I'm not here to contest this development, I'm not here to impede competition, it's a very fierce business that we are in and I've accepted that a long time ago. What I am opposed to is this proposed road and what it's going to do to the traffic in that area. That definitely impacts our location. The-I'll move over there to kind of explain it a little bit better, initially as I understand it and there has been several changes that I've had difficulty keeping up with on this site plan as well. It's going to be the road as you see it there, five lanes that goes basically to the edge of their property which leads to nowhere else at this point in time, what happens after that, no one seems to know. That's going to give a huge advantage to a new competitor over an existing business, I don't feel that's fair. I'll try to explain some of the problems that I will have. Right now, we have-this is our only access off of Eagle Road is Magic View. We have two curb cuts, one which is in line with our first one here and one that's down beyond our property line. All of our traffic comes in and out of these two curb cuts. They'll also have this access, but they will also get a signalized-which is initially a curb cut about a $400,000 tax payer curb cut I might add, that eventually will perhaps become a 22,000 car per day road. That's a signalized extra curb cut that makes it much more convenient to get into and out of their property, cars can come in here, come through and exit out. Ours, you have to come in do a 180 and come back out. That's a lot more convenient. Our business is a very convenient oriented business, it's extremely sensitive to accessibility and if you are not as successful as your competitor, you are going to be hurt very badly. That's just a fact of the nature. It would be a severe handicap for us. I also see, I think this is even in the testimony of the P & Z, not this last go around, but the time before about a lot of our customers are going to want to use the signalized curb cut initially, particularly if they are heading north. What are they going to do? Right now there is no other way to get there except to drive through this property, so we've got 5,000 trips a day or so right now and a lot of them are going to start going through this property to get to the intersection. That seems crazy, but it's what they are going to do to get to the light, so they can make a left turn, including trucks. I know they aren't set up ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCiL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 22 for trucks, we weren't either, but they come. There is nothing you can do to stop them. They are there, there's food, there's room and they are going to show up. We didn't want them ourselves, in fact, they started tearing up our landscaping breaking our curb cuts, so we went in and made some changes to our property to provide a little more space for them, because we couldn't stop them. Yau just can't stop them. We put them behind our store, got them out of the way and buffered them from the rest of the traffic and gave them room to get out of the way of vehicular traffic. You know, in a truck you can't see people, particularly pedestrians, they are walking to and from the store. This store has a lot more emphasis on food than ours, but they have less parking around the store. So that surplus parking is going to park around the perimeters of the property. So, you are going to have pedestrians walking from the parking to the store, with trucks going up and down-they used to practically-this also being with this version of cross easement agreement, is also going to be an access point, which on the current landscaping plan right here, which threw me, you can see, this is the one that is part of the application now as I understand it, there shows a dumpster there and no access. Now it's obvious, they are going to expect people to go north and south here, and here. I think their trips per day are estimated at around 6,000. So, we have about 11,000 people coming and going, how many of them are going to start using these as streets, and how many pedestrians are we going to have in overflow, parking over here, crossing in front of these two internal streets that are going to be created, including truck traffic. Which trucks as I say, you can't see people, particularly little kids, that's why they have mirrors in front of buses, because you run over, you can't see anything there. I think it is a very extreme hazard. The advantage that they would enjoy with the signalized curb cut soon to be intersection is going to put a severe hardship on us, and you know, I'll get back to my notes..~ well, the other thing, I think I can talk about it from here. The first curb cut off of Eagle Road, if that is a 22,000 car a day, count that it's something like 50 feet from Eagle Road. Twenty-two thousand cars a day, require a tremendous amount of queuing, in most instances, several hundred feet. You are talking a huge intersection here, like a Fairview and Cole. As you know, at peak periods those cars back up 1,200 feet sometimes. You are talking way back. Most of the time, an ACHD would never allow a curb cut that near. In fact, there was a (Inaudible) in Boise that pulled out of this market because they couldn't get curb cuts even on their own sites. They were trying to push them back several hundred feet. They couldn't get access, but here we've got two of them right in a row, on a 22,000 car a day street. I don't understand the logic there, because there is no queuing, there is no stacking. People will stack up on that street, people will be trying to go north and south on these new de-facto in-turn streets on this property, it's just chaos. It's very unsafe, it's very unorganized, and then you throw the trucks in there and it's going to be a nightmare. The testimony that I think Terri Little gave during one of the proceedings about magic view, he said that with the four cornered signalized intersection at this new road that is going somewhere will provide enough breaks and interference in the Eagle Road traffic, that Magic View Drive would be able to operate adequately and safely for many years to come. As you ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCiL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 23 ( can see, this road on the applicants property is bent in toward Magic View, our property just to the south remains in and stays in and then it queues back out, it's designed for deceleration and acceleration and it's not even being used. I submit that could be used at very low cost and increase the safety of Magic View Drive, which the break that we have with the light now, I don't think this road is necessary, and the safety figures substantiates that. We have had four reportable accidents, no fatalities in five years at this intersection. One of them I know for a fact, was a truck that pulled out of Magic View, got off the pavement slightly and there was a big drop off to the dirt and it was a top heavy load and it simply flipped it over, there was no collision. I don't see that there is a hazard here, I see a huge hazard internally, the internal circulation between properties, but I don't see the problem with Magic View, even without the acceleration and deceleration lane, which like I say, seems to me it could be utilized to enhance safety even more. Also, I would submit that this proposed road as it is now, you can't call it a road, it's just an access, signalized curb cut access, ITO would never allow another curb cut there, if it weren't for a purported road. This is a controlled access highway, you don't just get curb cuts they don't allow them, they like to keep the traffic flowing. So, without the officious of a road there, there would not be a curb cut. They would never allow it, but that's what we have because of the proposed road. You know, I want to reiterate some of the things there were said. When we built our store, ACHD had some written comments. Nothing was ever said about proposed road. There wasn't any plan as was pointed out to you in the Meridian Camp Plan that's in 20.10.15 (sic) ACHD long range plan, all these different plans, it was nowhere to be seen, including our written report form ACHD. Well, six months after we open the door, here is a new proposed road. Where is the good faith in the government there. To me, I was being misled and I'll ultimately be suffering a severe hardship by this, which, at least I could've been told about it. I could've made a call whether to go in there, under this kind of condition ultimately, which I wouldn't have. You don't go up against somebody at a severe disadvantage. As I mentioned we're extremely sensitive to access and if you have a handicap access compared to your competitor across the street, they will kill you. People, they don't like traffic, they don't like the hassles, they are going to go to the easiest place. I guess, I will close with the fact that, I think this comment was even made at the last time the Meridian City Council heard this project, I think it was an opening statement by one of the gentleman, I don't know who was on the council at that time, who ultimately voted against it as the rest of the council did. He made the comment that he thinks this sort of development should be on the other side of the freeway, on the south side. I would agree, that's what we did on Meridian Road, we didn't go next door to Chevron, we went on the other side of the freeway, where there wasn't housing we were going to devalue, or we weren't going to impact the quality of life of the neighborhood. We went to the other side of the freeway, and it's doing fine. There is no stations over there, there is no fast food restaurants over there, there's nothing over there, there is no duplication. I could see maybe a need, which is one of the things that is supposed to drive something like a conditional use permit and show the need. I don't see the need ( 1\1ERIDIAN CITY COUNC.LL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 24 here. I'm speaking, maybe I'm biased, I'll admit that. Practically, at least there is nothing over there. My words are substantiated by the point that, that's what we did on Meridian Road. I think that is about it. It seems like there was one other point, but I probably taken enough time. I'm available for any questions. Corrie: Council? Anyone else issue testimony in the public hearing. Is there anyone else? Okay, Ms. Butler. Butler: Thank you Mayor Corrie and council members. I'll try to respond to some of the issues that were raised. Many of these are conditional use issues, as you know. ('If try to address them, but make it short because I know we are going to hear the conditional use in just a minute. I apologize if this is a little disjointed. Based on the forecast that Meridian, through it's work with APA, Idaho Power Company, and others, the statisticians that you worked with when you put together you're comprehensive plan. You decided at that time that Meridian needed to support its economic development by designating those commercial activity centers in the city. The comprehensive plan states and I quote "the comprehensive plan map represents a compilation of input and ideas expressed by citizens, community groups and local leaders. You set those areas, and you said that, for example, that medical facilities should be encouraged to locate within or nearby those commercial activity centers" that is on page 39 of the comprehensive plan. In fact, that's exactly what you did-what happened. You said in your comprehensive plan that we want to set these commercial activity centers in a certain location, we want to encourage medical facilities to locate in or nearby them and that's what has happened. I'll quote a few more things from the plan, because the comprehensive plan has obviously been an issue. Mr. Foley is correct that the applicants are requested by the city to respond to each of these statements, the standards and the comprehensive plan standards and the ordinance standards, and in fact, we have done exactly that. The plan says that retail, commercial and office development are frequent partners within commercial activity centers, in order to support residential and industrial developments, areas shoulq be set aside... (END"OF TAPE ONE) Butler: ... has guided through a very long and extensive review, our development. From the original development, what came before the P & Z was a unified cluster development that's promoted by your comprehensive plan. It fosters the policy of Meridian for compatible land use and design, including the extensive landscaping that you require along gateways and into Meridian. I'll quote again from the plan or take it-the design of Eagle Partners project does recognize the importance just like you do in your comprehensive plan, to maintain and attractive and desirable living environments and close proximity to work, balancing neighborhood interests with business interests. Meridian through it's comprehensive plan strives to arrange major land uses to preserve both the integrity and emanates of residential neighbors and the economic vitality MERIDIAN CITY COUNl~ JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 25 of commercial activity centers. The land use element in the comprehensive plan of Meridian is based on the objective to provide mixed planned uses along 1-84, which you state "must be attractive and compatible with high volume corridors", which is what you have here. Eagle Road is specifically addressed in your comprehensive plan, Mr. Foley was just incorrect when he stated that. Page E28 of your comprehensive plan, Eagle Road is specifically addressed and says that the 1-84 corridor that is compatible with high volume corridor as well as the Eagle road corridor, must be a planned mixed use development and that is what you have before you tonight. In addition to the commercial land use policies, this project conforms to Meridians Comprehensive Plan Land Use 1-84 Mixed Use Policies; which apply to all of the areas adjacent to 1-84. I'm quoting from the plan "these areas are unique, they're surrounded by arterials immediately adjacent to the freeway, are relatively level in topography, have a distinct linear shape and are greatly effective by contiguous industrial, residential and commercial land uses. In order that compatible land uses and efficient use of the land might occur, this corridor is anticipated for a variety of planned compatible mixed uses, probably mixed uses for these areas could be commercial, combined medium to high density residential, ppen space uses as a means to buffer highway noise, tourist lodging, industrial, office, medical and related land uses." Y au have striven within this commercial activity center to set the stage so you can provide good mixed uses throughout this area. We have been working diligently with the city to ensure that the character-and I'm quoting from the zoning ordinance now, some of the areas that Mr. Foley commented on the zoning requirements that we have to meet "to ensure the character site improvements and type of development is harmonized with previously developed land in the areau and because it is located adjacent or near existing residences or residential areas, the project has been designed to be harmonious with those residential uses. The Eagle Partners have made all reasonable efforts through the long planning process with your staff to reduce the environmental impact on residential areas, including noise and traffic reduction. Your Comprehensive Plan goes on to say "because these areas are near 1-84, high quality visual appearance is essential and development and proposals in the area are subject to design review guidelines and conditional use permitting processes and that is exactly what we have got. Through staffs work, we have extensive conditional- conditions of approval placed on this project, we have to enter into development agreement, which the planning and zoning commission has recommended to you, to ensure that we develop this project in a way that is compatible with the area. I'll try to, again, just comment on a few of the comments that were made here earlier. It was suggested that the project should be denied by something other than land use issues, which is what the city has to decide on, the land use issues. What did you do in 1993? What did your comprehensive plan say? Are we in compliance with that Comprehensive Plan? Do we meet your zoning ordinance? Do our conditions of approval set by the city ensure mitigation of potential problems, because remember conditional use is an allowed use, it is an allowed use that the city has already decided in it's zoning ordinance. You will take the opportunity to look at hard and put on it conditions of approval, to ensure MERIDIAN CITY COUNl.LL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 26 (/- - any possible negative effects will be mitigated. It was suggested that this council should make a decision on something other than land use; that you should try to regulate the market, you should not determine whether or not we meet your Comprehensive Plan, but whether because there are existing service stations in the area, that is your decision. As you know legally, that is not your Bailiwick, you are here to work on land use decisions. As I was sitting in the back row listening, Tracy Eddie who is very, very active in running the Chevron stations in and around the Treasure Valley with her husband and Eagle Partners, came up to me and said things like "but we don't pay minimum wage, but we do support baseball, but we do these things. We carol during Christmas time, we go and chant for people, we are not bad people, why are they saying these things?" You know, these are people that have worked very hard during their lives to put up a very good business. They deserve the support of the city because they took the time to look through your ordinances, to look through your Comprehensive Plan, to work with the city, to try to build a quality development that leads into Meridian. Several people talked about quality of life and Meridians Comprehensive Plan dwells on quality of life. It's very hard to say what quality of life is so I'm going to offer something, quality of life is the equitable or the fair sharing of the burdens and the benefits of urban life. You spent a lot of time this past year working with ADA County to set your urban services planning area. You are an urban area. You are extending your services into this area. You have said that we don't want to necessarily just help residential (Inaudible), who benefit from residential development, we're saying that we need to protect all of our citizens and residential development does not do it. We need a broader tax base, we need commercial development and we need industrial development and it was very hard for you in 1993 to set those areas that would be commercial activity centers, but you said we want to provide mixed uses, we want to provide people easy access to work, to play and to their homes. A couple of factual points. On the plat, this is not a subdivision, there has never been a lot split on this parcel. ACHD has indicated that it will not make a decision on the road. It has given two alternatives, both at the north end of this site, and won't make a decision until this City Council makes a decision on this particular project. As you could hear, many people are upset, I think Jess with our project, but with ACHD's proposal one of a couple to extend the fourth Jeg from the light at St. Luke's. It was not our choice, we worked very long and very hard with ACHD to have Magic View- move the light to Magic Vie. It was not necessarily ACHD's decision either, they were working very hard with ITD who, as I understand it, did not want a light at Magic View so close to the interchange. So, it appears that, although they haven't made their decision that the roadway would go the fourth leg from the St. Luke's light. That is not a subdivision, that's a local government taking our property, something that we're not real happy about. It's made our neighbors upset with us, when it really isn't us. I hope the council will work with ACHD to- if that road is what is causing the neighborhood the negative effects work with ACHD to provide mitigation along that northerly boundary, berming, sound wall, whatever ACHD can offer up to the city. Mr. Williams mentioned the 1997 Findings of Fact that were made in connection with this property, but not this I MERIDIAN CITY COUNL.lL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 27 ( project. I was not involved with the project at that time, but you did make a decision involving this property, but not this project. It's a new project, something that people went back to redesign based on the Findings. You have to hear this new again, in light of this Comprehensive Plan. The other thing about this plan, somebody said we're not sure what plan we are dealing with, so let me clarify that, you are dealing with the plan that went before the Planning and Zoning Commission. The plan that is mounted there, as I understand it, Byron Smith asked at the hearing to make a correction on our plan, they talked about the fact that it seemed like we hael an over abundance of parking and that they thought our count was wrong and they asked us to clarify that and we did clarify that on the plan by counting out the spaces and changing the count on the plan and submitted that on the staff. Somebody talked about an access between McDonalds-or the credit union and the Chevron site. That was a working concept that was not before you, but when we redid the count of the parking the architect didn't take that off, but the only reason that plan came over to staff was to correct the parking issue. So, the only plan that is before you is the plan that was before Planning and Zoning Commission. I could address-well I'll just briefly say the issues of noise, smells, and so on, that are conditional use issues that are addressed by conditions of approval-and appreciate somebody's acknowledging that when they lit their cigarette they didn't blow up from fumes. Noise and lighting issues are clearly things we will address in the conditions of approval. At the Planning and Zoning Commission, George Kyler from McDonalds, who will probably speak in a little while reminded the commission that it is not a 24 hour McDonalds, that they have state of the art re-circulating equipment, and I'll have him speak to that, but there are no fumes. He invited the commission to come to any of his locations so that they would understand that. Somebody mentioned that water quality is a concern. That is clearly a concern for Meridian too. That is why you set your urban services planning area and why you are trying very hard to extend your services throughout the area of impact and your urban service planing area, so you can avoid water quality problems. The central district health and the DEQ require extensive regulations for all the uses on site, much more extensive regulations than those that presently effect the wells in the area, because all of Greenhill Estates as I understand it and other areas are on septic, individual septic. I don't know how long they've been in existence, but I can only guess that it will be much better when centralized sewer and portable water, not from individual wells is extended into this area. I guess at this point, I think I've responded to some of the questions, and I guess I'll summarize in this.annexation and zoning section of the hearing to say that we have pointed out each and every standard and how we fit the Comprehensive Plan in our written submittals. I apologize having read so much to you. I know that you will be able to look at that at your leisure. I do want to set a tone that this not a slap/dash proposal that people didn't think about the ordinances and Comprehensive Plan. We are respectfully asking that the Council grant the annexation and zoning, that you have been trying to do for years out there. Thank you. ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNLLL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 28 Corrie: Thank you, Any questions form the council at this point? Council, discussion, questions, staff? Rountree: The lateness of the receipt of the proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions from the applicant as they indicated was something they provided us to be factored into our current Findings of Fact and decision, coupled with the testimony this evening, are we in a position-at least I fee, that new Findings of Fact need to be drafted, for the annexation question. Prior: That is entirely up to you folks. Obviously, for the annexation and zoning we do need to prepare Findings, if that is what you are asking. Corrie: Any other comments from council, questions? Rountree: Just a general comment, I would like to see all of the testimony, including the additional information that the applicant has presented to us in their draft Findings of Fact and Conclusion, compared and/or resulting in a revision of the Findings of Facts. I guess that is my position on that, in the way of discussion. If the hearing is still open, I'll hold comments till it is closed. Corrie: Any comments? Anderson: I was just wondering if Mr. Little would like to comment on ACHD or anything, is here? Maybe he can explain the roadway and why that proposal is there. TERRY LITTLE, 5876 WEST DRAWBRIDGE, BOISE, 10. WAS SWORN IN BY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Little: The collector road that is on the diagram there. I did provide a schematic to the Planning and Zoning Commission of a couple of alternatives and left copies of those and showed those last time. I didn't bring the transparencies with me. I don't know if Larry Sale has those, he is here tonight as well. I would point out that there is a note on the 2015 long-range plan map. The first footnote says ACHD determines the location of collectors and developing areas, so there is very much authority for that, unfortunately, I wish we would've had that in place. We are playing catch up in this county as you know trying to get ahead of that. We do have an item in our budget this year to go out and preplan well ahead and get ahead of Mr. Jackson and others before they come in. What I said at the planning and zoning with regard to this collector road was that we were not intending in any way a straight shot. We had two alternatives, one in which, turned along the west side of this parcel that is proposed for development and the second one, that goes farther west, but comes in at the first street to Magic View, west of Eagle Road, so it just goes to approximately to the next property line as I recall. We have three levels of planning, one is just with this property. ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 29 (' One is with the short three lanes at the intersection and one would come out into five lanes. The long term-I would point out that the through capacity of the road is a three lane road, we are just talking about widening out to five lanes where it comes out to Eagle Road. A lot of times a five lane road will widen to 6,7,8 lanes at an intersection. We are talking about a three lane road that would widen out as you approach Eagle Road. The only reason we would go to more lanes would be if one of the adjacent properties wanted to pay the difference and get access, we could put a turn lane somewhere perhaps on that north south segment or something like that. It's really a three lane capacity road it widens out to reduce the congestion at the Eagle Road. As I said, intent is not in any way to be a straight shot to the west, but to bring it around. The right turns would continue to go out to Eagle Road and the vast majority of those-so a good percentage of the-as much as a third of the traffic would continue to use Magic View, in our opinion. The road again, also would be about a 30mph road, we're not talking about highway 55 through Eagle, which is a 55mph road. We're talking a very low speed road, it's a whole different matter when it comes to noise and mitigation issues to have a collector road that widens out when the traffic is going as slow as this will be, compared to a through arterial or rural highway, such as 55 character of it up in Eagle. As you see, the concept is fairly sharp turn curve in the road. We've went through the technical reasons, I think, for not moving the signal with the council and a joint meeting with our commission, I won't belabor that fact. It's my understanding that they have issued us a permit for the roadway on the west side at St. Luke's driveway. That is Larry's understanding as well. So ITO has, it's our understanding-it's already issued us a permit for that. So, that battle we believe is over, we feel like that is the way it's got to go there. The traffic range, I think somebody else came up with 22,000, I didn't dispute it at the Planning and Zoning, certainly is a range, it depends on what you approve for uses out there, what the traffic will be. I think that is in the high range of what you can expect out there given that Magic View will continue to function for the right turns coming from the freeways and the left turns in the gaps that will be created by the signal and will be created even more so by the signal with a fourth leg on it. I think I pointed out at that meeting, we looked at similar situations which we've got. In Boise, for instance, on Vista with about 25,000 a day and we require a road like this near Target (sic), we found no one going up and making a right on the road during the very peak of the peak hour there. Costeo is another example, where there is horrendous traffic on Franklin, and yet, people make a right turn out of a driveway without going back to the signal, in the gaps that occur. That was the main thing, I think Larry could address maybe some more of the details of the road and those kind of things. I could try to answer traffic questions. Corrie: I think you have done great, thanks. Prior: Mr. Mayor, may I impose on the council and ask a couple of questions of this particular gentleman, with your permission. Sir, I have a couple of brief questions. On the right hand side of the particular drawing, it shows a berm and { \ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCiL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 30 ( that statement on there says "berm by others at this time." Since ADA county high way district is proposing to take over the road, I believe on that side, is that my understanding then that you will be maintaining that berm as-are you committing to maintaining that berm on that side of the property abutting the residential neighborhoods. Little: I will defer that question to Mr. Sale, he has written and corresponded with you on that and I will let him answer the question about that, if I could. Prior: That will be all Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Thank you, Terri. Larry would you like to comment on that question LARRY SALE, 3505 LINDER DRIVE, BOISE, 10. SWORN IN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Sale: Mr. Mayor, members of the council, with regard to the previous question, there is a saying about the county that ADA County district maintains landscaping with roundup, and unfortunately, we aren't in the business of maintaining the landscapes. We are hopeful that in this situation, that regardless of the standard of the road, which is ultimately constructed the standard of that road will depend entirely upon your land use decision. We have determined that there is, and my memory fails me now, as to how many feet exactly, but I think it's about 35 feet from the property line of the adjacent subdivision to the sidewalk of the five lane proposal. That is surplus area that could be devoted to a berm and landscaping. While no decision has been made by the highway district commissioners, it's staffs opinion that the highway district would require that land, make it available to the city or a business owners association of the properties that may develop within this overall Magic View area or be dedicated to the homeowners association of the Greenhill Estates subdivision. Highway district, I think, and again, this is staff speaking, highway district staff would be in favor of providing the materials for construction of a berm or whatever landscaping facility the city would determine is appropriate. Then making those materials available for someone to put them together and assume their maintenance. Any other questions. Prior: Mr. Mayor, may I have a follow up on that please. If I understand what you are saying, you folks aren't going to maintain the berm and either ask the homeowner association to maintain it, or the city to maintain it, is that basically what you are saying? Sale: That's correct. Prior: One other question if I may Mr. Mayor. ACHD Commission has not made a final decision on any of these things is that correct? { MERIDIAN CITY COUNCiL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 31 ( Sale: Mr. Mayor and MR. Prior, it's good to meet you- Prior: Finally. Sale: We've talked a long time and written letters back and forth. There was a reference earlier I think by Mr. Foley that we shouldn't let the highway district do the land use decision here. Particularly in this case, the highway district has the figuratively bit our lip to avoid making comments to the council that may sway the council one way or the other, with regard to the land use decision. The highway district has informed the city that the highway district will not take action on the conditional use permit application, until the city makes a determination on the land use issue. So that conditional use is being held in abeyance at highway district office until City Council decides the land use issue and then highway district will review the conditional use permit and forward it's recommendations on to the city. Rountree: Now that your up here, I was going to get you up here in the next hearing, but that's okay we'll get it out of the way now. Sales: Mr. Rountree, Somehow over the weekend I encountered an ear infection and I can't hear anything out of this ear, can you speak up, I'm serious. Rountree: There was an illusion, I guess, that the applicant is dismayed that they would loose this property to a county entity in the way of a road. It would be my assumption that they would be compensated for that road by ADA County Highway District, what is the situation in reality? Sale: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Rountree, that's correct. The highway district would pay the developer for the right of way that's dedicated, including the surplus area north of the proposed roadway. To make a fine point, there was a comment earlier that this would be a tax supported construction. It may be a fine point, but the money expended will not be from tax revenue, the money expended will come from impact fees that are paid by developers in this area that would use the roadway. We are all tax payers, it doesn't matter, but in this case, the funds come out of a different pocket. Anderson: The projected traffic volumes in the range of 22,000 ADT are based on an assumption on ACHD's part I believe, did you do the projections or were those provided by- Sale: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Rountree, I did not and that's one thing I didn't bring with me tonight, I don't know if Terry did. We did a set of, I think, five development scenario that-for exemplary purposes for the city. If you classify the land and these fashions, then this is what the trip generations will be. I'm not familiar with those, I can't recite them from memory. Sorry. ( Anderson: That's alii have~ Corrie: Any other questions of the council? Rountree: I would have a question for Ms. Butler. Butler: Councilman Rountree. Rountree: A question has come up about the berm, which is part of the buffering. A landscape area, if you will, an element that we see as a buffer between dissimilar uses. You've indicated that the land is going to be there, but on the plans to be, apparently developed and/or maintained by others, my question is in this good faith effort on the part of Eagle Partners, are they willing to accept the responsibility of that buffer and the care and feeding of it for perpetuity. Butler: Councilman Rountree, I think there are-the answer specifically to your question, would take me talking to my client. Let me tell you a little bit of history on this project at one time, the neighbors and I don't know if that was collectively or several individual neighbors had said that they would prefer to have that. There is a canal that runs by there and some people did indicate that they would just prefer to have their lot lines extended, if not held by the homeowners association don't know that there is actually a homeowners association, but a group that would be made up of the association to hold it in perpetuity. Mr. Little. or Mr. Sale, whoever mentioned business owners in the area, possibly getting together to take care of that berm is one way to look at it. It has happened in- the only one I'm aware of is Boise City. Mr. Little and Mr~ Sale would know a bit more about how the Broadway and Park Center Corridors and the medians in there work, but I believe there is some arrangement in that area between ACHD and the city on how that's maintained. So I'm not answering your question specifically on, will this particular property owner maintain something, if this road does extend further west before it turns at the next property line. Clearly there is going to have to be a cooperative effort. So, I think this is something that would take discussion amongst the city, ACHD, other land owners in the area, both business and the residence; we are certainly willing to do that, because as I said, I'm not quite sure how the residents still feel about them wanting to take this over. I would be willing to try to mediate some kind of way to take care of that. Rountree: You are correct in that you have addressed, but not answered one half of my question. The other half is, would the applicant be willing to develop this parcel as a berm? Butler: If you would give me a few moments and since that will be a conditional use issue, we can talk about it during the next portion of the hearing. Rountree: Thank you. ( I\.ffiRIDIAN CITY COUNCiL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 33 (- Corrie: Any other questions, discussion, council? Rountree: None. Corrie: I will close the public hearing and invite the council's pleasure, as far as the annexation and zoning request. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, my pleasure would be to take a look at the testimony received tonight, the information again, I pointed out that we received this evening from the applicant as far as a draft Findings of Facts, that information be incorporated into a new findings. I would like to have some time to think about what I have heard. .Yet again, some 18 months or so from the past, I would like to review the previous findings as it relates to the previous application and make sure that I'm comfortable with any decision come to at this point. Corrie: Willi entertain that as a motion then? Rountree: I don't know what the other folks want to do. I guess the question I have is, do we keep the hearing open or have a continuance, if that is appropriate. Prior: Mr. Mayor, if I'm understanding President Rountree's comment, at this time it would be appropriate to, if that is their desire to table it at this time, the council can gather all of the information. As far as a personal preference, there has been a considerable amount of information-new information that has been provided. If I'm to do findings, I'm going to need an opportunity to basically go through all of this myself, but if I understand Councilman Rountree, you would like some time to absorb some of this and spend some time going through all of the information and new information that has been submitted. The proper procedure would be to table this and allow you the time to consider and absorb this new information and the proper procedure would be to make a motion to table this, based on that. Rountree: I'd like to have a time certain with that as well. I have a question for council, what is your timeline in terms of generating a new Findings of Fact? Prior: Obviously I'm looking over the shoulder of the City Clerk and I see a stack there-there are a considerable number of pages and I think it would be who of all of us, that I read through everything that's been made available tonight. I will make a commitment that I will read through everything that has been made available. In light of that and the fact that I'm presently the only attorney with the City of Meridian at this time, I'm going to need a little bit of time, maybe a little more than what is usual, but obviously if you direct me otherwise I'll do whatever you tell me to do. ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCiL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 34 ( Rountree: Okay. Foley: Mr. Mayor, I apologize, I wonder if we might have the opportunity to also submit some proposed Findings of Fact. We didn't know that the applicant was going to do this. Prior: If that is the desire of Mr. Foley, Mr. Mayor, the public hearing will need to be reopened to allow the submission of other information. I know Jo Ann he's closed the public hearing, the City Council may open the public hearing if they desire to do so, by motion. Corrie: We've still got another public hearing on this one next. Prior: On the conditional use permit, but not on the annexation. (Inaudible) There would need to be a motion to re- Bird: We've got an outside firm retained, can't they help do it. Rountree: They could. Bird: Give it to them. Corrie: They would have to read the materials, they would've be able to- Bird: They've got more people to do it than we've got, evidently. Rountree: Whatever, if that's your pleasure. Bird: I don't have a problem either way, this thing has been dragging on and dragging on, let get it decided one way or the other. Corrie: Either the 18th or the 1 st of September. Bird: I'm not for either one of those days, lets go for the 1 st meeting of the month. Corrie: August 4th or August 18th? If you make the motion, you pick the date. If I make the motion, I pick the date. Bird: I'll make the motion then. Rountree: Make the motion. Prior: I think I like your date better. Bird: I just think it's gone on long enough, but I do want to see all of this stuff come through and have time to look things over. We've got this stuff from the ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNC.lL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 35 applicant just tonight, just before the meeting, we need to read that over. I would make the motion that we table this until... Prior: Councilman Bird, do you desire to allow Mr. Foley to provide his own findings on this as well? Bird: I don't know, can we-we haven't opened up the... Corrie: The public hearing has been closed. Bird: The public hearing has been closed. Corrie: The council can open if you desire so. May I ask a question here Howard, is this in reference to the annexation and zoning? Foley: Yes. Corrie: Normally we don't do that, but it's entirely up to the council. Bird: I was going to say, we close the thing, we would have to reopen. We've got the thing taken care of, this same thing. These applicants have been put through this procedure three or four times already, the same testimony that they heard at Planning and Zoning, no, let's leave it like this. I make the motion we table this until August 4th. Corrie: Okay, I need a second. No second. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I would move that, even though the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law issue was pointed out by Ms. Butler at the opening of the public hearing-to reopen the public hearing for the purposes of receiving the Findings of Facts from the-from Mr. Foley and once receiving the Findings of Facts that have been prepared, to close the hearing. Anderson: Second. Prior: Mr. Mayor. (Inaudible) Corrie: Motion by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Anderson to reopen the public hearing. They quit discussion. All of those in favor of the motion say, aye. MOTION CARRIED: Two ayes. One nay. Corrie: Reopen the public hearing. Mr. Foley, I believe you wanted to testify. ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNL.LL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 36 ( Foley: I just make the request that we be allowed to submit proposed Findings of Fact and .Conclusions of Law, also. Anderson: Do you have those prepared now, at this time? Foley: I do not, I would have those within a week. Prior: Mr. Mayor, the law and Ms. Butler correctly pointed out to me that the applicant is the one who is permitted to submit Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on these projects. Mr. Foley can submit any other information. The public hearing is open at this point. What would be required is that the public hearing be continued till the next available date to allow Mr. Foley provide that information. He can not provide, as Ms. Butler pointed out, Findings of Fact, Mr. Foley can provide additional information that he would like this council to consider. Anderson: Do you have additional information? Foley: I would have if given a week. Rountree: I would, given that the information is not available this evening, I would move that we close the hearing. Bird: That was in the original motion was to give the information and close it, so that was taken care of already and loaded. It's closed. Anderson: I'll second it. Corrie: Alright the motion has been made that we close the public hearing. Butler: Can I ask a point of clarification, Mr. Mayor and council members? Point of clarification, the public hearing has been closed, the public hearing has been reopened for somebody in opposition, in turn to submit further information. Do we have the opportunity to rebut that information. Prior: You do. Bird: You do. Butler: Only at the public hearing, will we be given that information in enough time, prior to the hearing to rebut it or should we just take the time at the hearing. Rountree: Point of information, I think my motion just closed the hearing, it did not extend the public hearing. Prior: They did close the public hearing, Jo Ann. ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNL~u.J JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 37 Butler: It's just a point of clarification. (Inaudible) Prior: They withdrew their motion to open the public hearing and now they have closed the-we're turning this into a circus here. Basically, at this point the public hearing is closed and what has been submitted is what's going to be considered on this annexation as of right now. Butler: Okay, I'm sorry... Bird: The original thing we voted on 2-1 was we open it up for those one facts and then we close it, so it's over with, we don't have to take another vote. With that motion you open it up for the one facts, which was not allowable, and we close it at the same time. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I (Inaudible) question. Corrie: Motion has been made to close the public hearing, any further discussion? Oh, there can't be-All those in favor say Aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we direct City Council with insistence that he may need to review the information received this evening, the previous findings presented by Planning and Zoning and redraft Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for this application for annexation and that we table this item until August 18th. Anderson: I'll second that. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Anderson, to request new Findings of Fact and be tabled till August the 1St". Further discussion. Bird: It's going on the 18th, are we going to settle on the 18th? Corrie: All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONALUSE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE, MCDONALD'S WI DRIVE-UP WINDOW AND IDAHO POWER COMPANY CREDIT UNION WITH DRIVE-UP BANKING BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC. MERIDIAN CITY cOUNL.I.J JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 38 ( Corrie: ... remind the council that we can't usually do a conditional use permit request until after we have the annexation and zoning, is that correct, Mr. Counselor. Prior: Yes, Mr. Mayor, we can listen to the public testimony and have the public hearing open, but a final decision will need to be delayed or deferred until the annexation has been processed, that's what the code requires. Corrie: I will open the public hearing at this time for Item #8 and invite the applicant to report first. BILLY RAYE STRITE, 1087 RIVERSTREET, BOISE, 10. WAS SWORN IN BY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Strite: I think one of the first things I might like to do if it's acceptable by the council, is maybe define for you why there are five plans up there on the board. First of all, I appreciate Mr. William's and Mr. Foley's interest, because I had totally forgotten until such time as ADA County Highway District did come back to us and if you will recall, I believe the date was April 5th, this council met with the ADA County Highway District Board of Commissioners. It was at that point that the 1 08 foot right-of-way was agreed upon as a concept. It was not however, until April 9th this is the road study that Mr. Little and Mr. Sale made reference to, unfortunately, I only have one copy, and I'm going to hold on to that dearly. There were five different scenarios requested of this independent engineer, relative to types of land use on the 120 acres that are west of the site in question. If I might just briefly, they went thusly: Scenario #1 was leaving the existing gas station/convenient store Jackson's presently has, develop the five acres as proposed in this application and the remaining 110 acres to be nothing but single family residential development. Scenario #2, Jackson's, Chevron, the remaining 110 acres, 60 acres of single family residential, 30 acres of multi-family residential, and 20 acres of commercial development. Scenario #3, the remaining 110 without Jackson's and this present application, a combination of office, residential, commercial, 60 acres of multi-family residential, 30 acres ot office, and another 20 acres of commercial development. Scenario #4, Jackson, Chevron, as such, 75 acres of office, the remaining 35 acres commercial development only. Scenario #5 the remaining 110 acres to be anticipated to be a business park for land use based on the previous four. I can submit to you here that all five scenarios including the 120 acres of solely single family development required a 108 foot of right-at-way for the new road. It was at that point, we said, reluctantly, we're going to have a road here. So we're going to have to decide how we are going to put this road together. That if you will-and if I might use some of the provided documents which are better mounted than ours incidentally. These were the plans that came before the city when w first discussed the issue. This was prior to your April 5th, I trust that's the hearing date, I think it was very close, that we had discussed with staff. Once the 108 foot of right-of-way was requested of us, we came back, had an informal MERIDIAN CITY COUN~.lL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 39 ( meeting, if you will with Mr. Foley and one of the neighbors. We requested others to be there, they chose upon themselves not to attend. We had an informal breakfast meeting, Mr. Foley suggesting he represented the neighborhood, or suggesting he did not represent the neighborhood, made a suggestion that would we be prepared if the neighborhood so desired to provide a break in here. That is plan, I'm getting confused, #3 or #4. So we said, sure Mr. Foley, if the neighborhood would like to have that, I think we could probably live with that. It's probably not the best land use design, it's probably not the best for accessibility, it's not the best for automobile maneuvering. In fact, in my testimony, north bound traffic based on the studies done and the signalization, by virtue of the fact that the closest this commercial development is, to the closest residence is almost 300 feet, just shy of one city block. So, I did think the automobiles going north, assuming that ADA County Highway District was going to take the berm as we had proposed it 4 feet high, landscaped fully, that that would be an issue. We then asked and we sent out notices to everybody in the neighborhood that we had a meeting at the Luke, again only two people showed, neither Mr. Foley or the individual who attended the other meeting. We wanted to discuss this issue, nobody was there to discuss it with us, so we assumed since Mr. Foley was not representing that neighborhood didn't care whether that access was in there or not. So for us, it didn't make a lot of sense to have it there, we chose to remove it. That gets us to plan three, during the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing, this plan as you see it tonight, this is exactly what was proposed. It did in fact include the parcelization. There was a question raised, I believe it, I don't believe it was Byron, but I know there was a question raised whether we were in fact allowed to split this parcel. I found it in the minutes, unfortunately I can't recall who asked it. I did know at that point, because this property has been in place for 25 years that we were allowed one split, the state law allows, public takes, both by ADA County Highway District and the resulting take of ITD, to allow us still the one time split. That got back to plan #4. Plan #5, it's in here somewhere, was at the request of Byron Smith, he suggested during that hearing process that our parking counts needed to be corrected, actually he made the inference that we were over parked, what we had shown in plan #5 was the fact that we always in our counts use the under canopy space as total car pounds. We had 16 cars provided underneath this canopy, when we realized that was a concern with him, because he was looking, if you will, at nothing but total numbers, he was probably correct. So, we went back, revised the parking numbers, came back to staff and resubmitted that site plan at Mr. Smith's requirements-his suggestion. The cross access easement was part of the negotiations and it's probably still ongoing, I'm not sure it makes a hill of beans whether it's here or not. This is a mixed used development that's going to have cross access agreements throughout. So, it's not going to make any difference whether it's here or there, as a matter of fact, this one will have to be there at some point in time. If that is in fact, the wish of this council for us to bring that back before you, we would be happy to do so. I think that will give you an update on where we are on our plans and now maybe I can get into some of the more substantive (sic) issues, I'd like to do that. First of all, as I just noted. f MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JULY 21~ 1998 PAGE 40 This particular site, which is just a little shy of 4.5 acres, is now being separated by some 300 feet to the nearest commercial use. It was our belief and we still strongly feel that a real buffer or transition, if you will, might be a nine to five operation, that is a very low traffic generator. This particular credit union is not like a bank, in the sense that all of it's members are only those employees of Idaho Power Credit Union. So, the traffic numbers are extremely low, that was one of the things that interested Eagle Partners in this particular applicant. It also interested the credit union in the fact that they realized that even though their constituency is small in numbers, still need access. When you combine the fact that, contrary to some of the comments made today, Eagle Road presently has 35,000 cars a day on it. ITO has told us that 1-84 has 40,000 plus cars a day. To me, it becomes rather obvious in the sense of whether this is an adequate location or reasonable location, and as Ms. Butler has already pointed out, certainly is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, at least into the economic development portion, as well as the policy set by the intent of the interchange development. Now if I might, I'll move back over. So, even though we had no reason to, nor did we ever want to have that roadway, that roadway becomes really the deciding factor on how this particular site was going to ultimately develop. Also, I think one of the comments that the Comprehensive Plan makes and also does the Findings that must be found for conditional use, is that this is a gateway. This gateway, as you can see there through the landscape plan-we have a 35 foot landscape buffer, the total of which in terms of total landscape and paved area is a little better than 300/0. Is far in excess of what is required by the ordinance, in thus, we feel it meets the findings in that respect, as well. The comment relative to smoke, noise, that sort of thing-I might suggest to you that right now with ADA County Highway District taking the 108 feet. Similarly ITO has expansion plans as you can see on the plan that's going to move that property line and actual street improvements, if you will, somewhat westerly. I'm sorry, I'm bouncing back and forth on plan #5, this particular line moves the wellhead, if you will, closer to the 35,000 cars a day, by 300 feet, than it does to where the gas tanks are located. If there is in fact a problem, I would suggest that the problem might be on the existing roadway system. Similarly, probably and importantly, and although I'm not a geologist and will not try to play one here, there is a large water movement through this area, right here. So, if in fact, there was some sort of spill, the containment might be unfortunately on the wrong side of the road, and that the wellhead, if in fact that is a concern, may be more influenced by the highway than certainly any development here. Secondly, I think it should also be noted that, it is my understanding that all this residential developments is on septic tanks. So, I think what we've attempted to do here is provide what we feel is an adequate buffer by virtue of providing a low rise single family approaching development, in terms of the Idaho Power Credit Union Building. We feel that this particular building, not only in itself and it's mass, but allowing that not only do you have the mass of that building you have the additional 15 foot of landscaping on the north side of it, 15 feet of landscaping on the south side of it; and now by virtue of what we hope to be the 30 foot of landscaping on the north side, which incidentally and 1 will at this particular point ( MERIDIAN CITY COUN(;l.L JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 41 in time answer Mr. Rountree's question, since I did talk to our client. The Eagle Partners are prepared to design, construct, and maintain that 30 foot that is north. I trust that unfortunately the ADA County Highway District development services, Mr. Sale he has left but I trust that we could do that through a license agreement, perhaps Mr. Little can elaborate on that, but we would be happy to do so. So, I think in closing, my comments that I feel strongly that the Findings of Fact that have been provided by the applicant, that are in your packet tonight, strongly suggest that this in fact conditional use should be approved. Planning and Zoning Commission did in fact approve this. We would ask that you do the same. I will open it up for any questions you might have of me. Anderson: I had one could, could you go over that lower cross through for me again, did you say you originally didn't have that in and they wanted that in. What was the deal on that? The drive-thru that cuts through the... Strite: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Anderson, the access on the east side, if you will, we were requested at an informal meeting would we entertain closing that off with a gated system that would be closed, I believe after 10 o'clock, Mr. Foley I'm sure is going to remember this, I think it was after 10 o'clock. We had no opposition to it, however, him not representing the neighborhood, we felt it would probably be more important for us to get the entire neighborhood together, do they want it? That would be fine with us. Well, nobody showed up at the meeting in which that was on the plan, so we chose to take it out. We find it to be a little redundant, it really didn't make a lot of sense, but certainly it wasn't a deterrent to stop the project in our minds. Anderson: Is that a necessity to have that cross-thru down there? Strite: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Anderson. Yeah, I think it's an absolute necessity if you are talking about cross access between the two units, certainly. I think for synergy not only for this project, the traveling public, I think it's absolutely critical and quite frankly, I think there should be one to the west side as well. Keeping in mind that what's going to happen here ultimately when the Moore property develops, which is the adjacent parcel to the west. Alternate B which is the selected and basically, unfortunately not approved as you have already heard at this point, the alternate that has been suggested and favored goes to the west end of the Moore property, it turns and goes south so it aligns with the loop road that is presently the Magic View Loop, to get a four way intersection again. Once that is in place, if we don't have cross access within the parcel, we're forcing traffic out and around. As Mr. Jackson aptly mentioned, we wouldn't have that easterly access under any terms of the development policies of ADA county Highway district, unless #1 they wanted the 108 feet, but #2 and most importantly, at the time that road is punched through to the west and turning south to meet Magic View, there is going to be a raised Meridian, so that the access that you see on the east side, which is only 50 feet as Mr. Jackson has mentioned from the intersection of Eagle Road, will be a right in and right out ( \ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 42 only. So, in my mind, it would be better planning, if in fact, the westerly access, which is all movement, would allow access throughout the entire project without forcing traffic back and into the neighborhood and doing the entire loop again, as I just mentioned, to get out back to Magic View. That was very convoluted to answer your question, but I think the point is well taken. That access is important and in fact, I think there should be a secondary, quite frankly, access between the two users. Corrie: Any other questions? Thank you. Strite: Thank you. Corrie: Does anybody else wish to testify? Yes sir. MICHAEL ROACH, 2465 SPRINGWOOD, MERIDIAN, ID 83642. WAS SWORN IN BY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Roach: As Mr. Williams said, there has been a lot of support just in the petitions and that sort of thing for people who are against it. As the gentleman just talked about the lack of attendance by meetings, I am on Springwood and I'm not-I don't know what kind of record or how the mail was sent but I don't have any recognition or recall of receiving that. I don't know if you sent it out certified mail, but I don't have any records so I kind of ask how-what his record is, because I think our petition speaks for itself, if you have 80 signatures that, that's pretty well represented. I would kind of just ask about that, what his-who-how he got the number of two. I also just wanted to be a part of this, I guess it relates back to the last subject, that our neighborhood is a very family oriented. I think that obviously your not going to do anything tonight on this, but I just wanted to voice my lack of-I didn't really want to-I wanted to request that you not honor this conditional use permit. I just wanted to say that I was another member of the Greenhills Estates neighborhood and that-voice my opposition. Any questions? Corrie: Thank you. RICHARD WilliAMS, 3133 AUTUMN WAY, MERIDIAN, ID 83642. WAS SWORN IN BY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Williams: First of all, I would like to introduce a letter from Ann Bowen, who lives at 3067 Autumn way, regarding this conditional use permit and application. From the standpoint of time I will not read that letter, I would like to also incorporate my appeal on this conditional use permit into the public record. A couple of questions, #1 this is a map of Meridian, the red dots represent gas stations, we have the highest number of gas stations of any town in Idaho right now, I guess we need some more. Somehow it doesn't strike me is the fact that gas stations and McDonalds constitute economic development, I guess that is a matter of definition. I would feel that high end offices, professional offices in that area ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 43 ( would-which we know would go in there, I know for a fact would go in there, would be a better utilization of that land. A better utilization for the city. Some things that have not been addressed, what is the signage? I don't see anything on that. What is the height of the canopy? I think that the canopy of this proposed development, will probably be higher than the credit union, which means it will light up the neighborhood. The credit union conditional use permit with the drive-thru window, I'm sure that they will have an A TM, there will be 24 hour access there. So, I really don't understand that being a buffer, when you have access 24 hours a day, cars, small trucks driving through that area. I venture to say none of you would want that in your backyard. Again, the-those are major areas that have not been addressed at all. I don't find attractive living with the Chevron and McDonalds in their backyard and I dare say that Mr. Eddy would not approve if a Texaco went into his backyard and a Taco Bell. I doubt that very much. I really don't have any other things. I know we have been here a long time. A lot of testimony has been taken and I would ask that you-I know Mr. Bird said we'll we got a give the applicant and get them going, well we have a 123 homes over there that are effected by this too, Mr. Bird. We would like consideration on this also. Corrie: Anyone else from the public? HOWARD FOLEY, 2875 AUTUMN WAY, MERIDIAN, ID 83642. WAS SWORN IN BY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Foley: Mr. Mayor and council, I would like to ask that the public testimony as well as the record that was submitted at the zoning/annexation hearing be incorporated into this record. Does that come by motion or am I just... Prior: You've just done it. (Inaudible) Foley: I appreciate Mr. Littles testimony, I wanted to read some of what I think is a pertinent part of the concerns I have with this driveway, I want to address that issue and then I will be done with what I have to say. Mr. Borup in the Planning and Zoning hearing asked this question to Mr. Little "so either way then the road would turn to the south and over to Magic View and not continue along the property lines of the subdivision. I mean none of your showed that, so." Mr. Little, "Right, we are not envisioning staying on that line, we could see the possibility that it could come somewhere down between and be double fronted by commercial property or something like that. What typically happens is the first person in the door at the street, we end up having to set an alignment, the next person comes in and there is a little more flexibility. Often times cost wise, it's a different participation, corporate drive is an example where the developer is pushing the construction of it and he's carrying it." I think he is saying that may not be our plan, but future development will decide how this road aligns and what ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCiL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 44 direction it goes. I also hear Mr. Sales saying, I apologize I was unaware of the five scenarios and whatever else, but it sounds to me like I guess what he is saying is, whatever land use decision is made will dictate the traffic count. It may not be 22,000, it could be something less than that, significantly less than that. If the proposal that is before you is approved, then it will be 22,000 or some larger number because there is more traffic flow going in and out of 24 hour businesses, than there are 8-5 or 9-5 type of businesses. The concern I have is, it sounds like kind of what's going on here is that ACHD has decided and had a lot of discussions, but is just simply saying that we have to have a road there. We don't care what you develop, what the land use planning decisions are, you have to put a road in. I don't think that you have to. I don't think that sounds like a land use planning decision by ACHD, as much as they protest that it's not, it is. I think that it's inappropriate for ACHD to make that land use planning decision or impose it on everyone, the applicant, us, you, everyone else, under any kind of conditions and then say but we're really not going to give you any plans as to the specifics of it. I think this puts you in a position of adopting future conditions by ACHD and I think that's an improper delegation. It's as if~ they say make the annexation and zoning request decide some of the land use planning around what we have already decided for you and then we will tell you what the road count is going to be and we'll tell you what kind of road we're going to build. I don't think that's their job. I think you could make the decision as to what's appropriate. What is appropriate here is not 24 hour businesses in our backyard. It's simply not. What is appropriate here is office type of businesses that are 9-5 that provide that buffer and avoid a lot less vehicle traffic counts. Corrie: Any questions? Next? Anyone else wish to (Inaudible) testimony in at this time? Okay, Billy Ray you have one. ROD TRUAX, 3091 AUTUMN WAY, MERIDIAN, ID 83642. WAS SWORN IN BY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Truax: It would like to clarify a couple of points. One is, I'm one of the homes that's in the highly impacted area to which the City of Meridian feels obligated to send me a certified letter every time there is one of these meetings, which I appreciate very much, thank you. Mr. Strite eluded earlier that we had all been notified about the one meeting to discuss the entry way and I was not notified of that meeting in either case and several of my neighbors have also expressed that concern. Of this scenario, there were five submitted, of those scenarios everyone included the Jackson and the Chevron. I would submit a sixth one that does not include the Chevron and 110 acres of single dwelling residential be considered in that traffic flow and would conclude that that would not be needed to have that three lane road there. Those are the only points that I have. Corrie: Thank you Rod. Anyone else? John? ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCiL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 45 JOHN JACKSON, 3500 COMMERCIAL CORP, MERIDIAN, ID 83642. WAS SWORN IN BY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Jackson: Very quickly, I just wanted to make a couple of points that I had missed. Again, this is regarding the internal circulation problems that I'm seeing with this design. They talk about this being a low traffic business and I don't know what the projection, trips per day are. I do notice that there are three individual drive-thru spaces, so they are developing it for some sort of capacity. I understand that is 24 hour ATM type business. I just wanted to throw in that one scenario, in addition to the two defacto streets that we are creating here, that are going to be running north and south from my business and their business, back to the signalized intersection, which everyone is going to want to use. We're going to have a circulating traffic on the end of it as well. So, all of this is going to kind of converge at this point. It's just an additional factor that I forgot to note. Finally, on the road itself, the 22,000 cars a day or whatever number you want. I have heard one scenario as high as 27, extremely high traffic counts but again, that is driven by the land use and that is your decision, not ACHD's. I think in fact, there could be scenarios that would not require that road. As I mentioned Magic View has deceleration lanes that are designed into the road that aren't even being used very, very little accidents, less than one per year currently. I really question that need for that road. Depending on the land use, it may not be necessary . Corrie: Anyone else? GEORGE KYLER, 5000 S MEADOWS RD, LAKE OSWEGO, OR. SWORN IN BY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Kyler: Mayor Corrie, councilman. I've been coming here for probably two and a half years on this issue. I've seen it evolve into a much better project taking all of the consideration in that we have had from all of the parties. I agree with Mr. Jackson, that we are a convenience business, driveways make a lot of convenience to customers, we go where the action is, we don't create our own action. The fact that he ended up going on the other side of the highway is irrelevant on the other interchange. I'm the culprit that suggested the easement in the rear of the credit union, because I see from the Corporate Center Drive that they are going to put a median down there and now it's going to be very difficult for cars to go into Steve Eddy's Chevron station. So planning in the future when such time occurs as they put in a Median down that street and block off full turn movement on the curb cutwe have closest to Eagle Road. At such time, we have already moved the trash corral which is probably a $7,000 or $8,000 dollar relocation to do and created an easement with the adjacent -? neighbor, to accommodate us for a full turn intersection still. Do you see what I'm talking about in there. That is something we are planning for in the future that is there. That would occur at such time as we are forced to do it. It makes good business sense to have direct access onto that road, instead of how Mr. Strite ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNC.lL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 46 was talking about cars exiting Magic View and going all the way around to take a left turn to the north. So, that is how that evolved is based upon the ACHD requirements for full turn intersections, etc. Just to go over a couple of things, being in the convenience business, we divert traffic, we don't generate traffic. I think all the people at ACHD know that. Our peak hours are not the AM and PM rush hour traffic, it is lunch time traffic, people going down the road at that time of day. Our peak hours are not the same as the peak hours of the traffic, so we are not going to be putting on generating a lot of traffic when, in fact the-to increase that peak flow that these roads are geared for. We are not a 24 hour operation. We'll have a standard McDonald's restaurant here that has shared facilities inside with the Chevron gas station, which is probably better from a customer standpoint, they can park the car at one spot and ending up having fuel, getting some food, using the telephone, what have you and continue on. That probably holds down trips. I don't know where, how much business the Texaco does, but 5,000 trips a day, I can't get out of a gas station for under $20 bucks, that's a $120,000 dollars a day in business. That's a three in a half million dollar facility and I don't know of any convenience gas stations that are doing three in a half million dollars a year, in gas, or in gross sales. That is huge numbers, I don't know where these traffic counts are coming from, we're talking 120 acres in the rear of this property. I don't know how many years it is going to take to develop out 120 acres. That is a lot of acres to develop. Some of these scenarios 60 acres of multi-family, I don't know what the density is, but this is a twenty year build out that is going to be here for a long time to come, in terms of what the council will approves as the market warrants the approval, so I think ACHD has done a respectable job by saying, you know what, you can't get the roadways appropriate to accommodate traffic in the future unless you take them as parcels and develop initially. So they came in and took the 108 feet now, because once something is developed you can't get it later. Should the council decide that there will be different uses back there, what have you in the years to come, they're set on the access point than on the throat on this road. That is up to you as to what's done. We are not putting a play place in here or outside here. We have no truck facilities, that we have long vehicle parking to accommodate over the road trailers, other than trucks that come from deliveries. There was discussion about noise and odors, etc. from McDonalds and I'm here to tell you that the drive-thru windows are not near the homes, there is plenty of buffer to the residential units. The road, the decibel level on Eagle Road is probably going to be, already is I should say, much higher than any decibels coming from our restaurant, in terms of customer traffic. I don't see any cut through traffic in the residential development, that was something that was mentioned, I don't know where that came from. I'm opposed to putting a gate in. There was that gate that was put in there as a suggestion from one of the neighbors and I don't think it makes any sense to gate something off after a certain period of time. When you are talking about a business that does little league and football, and we pay for grades at our two Meridian restaurants. We've been in town for ten years, or maybe a little bit over now on the one restaurant. Right today is a Ronald McDonald children's charity golf tournament that's being put on in the Portland ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCiL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 47 region that Mr. Darmony is at and a few other operators from the Idaho market. They have 401 K's and health care for managers, they give money out for grades, they give collage scholarship of $500 a semester for your high school years when you then go to a college. We are family oriented, I don't know that it's anything other than a good story with McDonalds and what they bring to the community and what they give back. There were comments made that I have to comment on, because it bothers me when somebody talks in somewhat innuendoes and talk about the illegal subdivisions and the questionable site plan and you know, the unclear testimony Terry Little gave last time, and the truck and three rig trailers coming in and up to fuel up, I don't believe there is any diesel tanks at the Chevron station. We could live with reasonable development agreements or conditional use on there regarding that. If you would like to make that an overlay zone and ban truck traffic and electronic reader boards, because I don't think that's what you want anyway. So, if you want to grandfather in electronic reader boards at some point and turn that whole facility into a nicer gateway, we'll have 35 feet of landscaping. There was-I think Mr. Jackson said in the five years he's been there, there have been four accidents and then six months after he got there we started to talk about this road. So, there is a little bit of math problem here that doesn't add up quite yet, so I haven't figured all of that out. I would like to say that we are excited to coming to town, we think we have a very nice development here, that obviously has some market demand. If you have any questions as it pertains to McDonalds, I would like to address it. GARY SKEEN, 333 N 13TH STREET, BOISE, 10. WAS SWORN IN BY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Skeen: I heard a couple of comments about traffic flow and use of the credit union would have, that bothered me. There was a statement that these were A TM machines, these are not A TM machines, these are drive-up windows. Short term we project one lane, long term two, possibly three. Long term we're talking five years from now. Our office hours currently are 9-5:30 and in our office down town. We're projecting at this facility, we'll cut the office hours back. The drive up will remain open till 5:30. Also, there was a statement about traffic volume made. Rush hour to us is 60 cars a day, 50-60. A hundred we are overwhelmed, we have 1200 members in the Boise Valley and about 700 in Meridian, West Boise area. So, I think that the credit union here represents the type of low impact, low traffic flow use that you would really like to see, or at least I hope it does. Once again, I don't see the traffic flow problems that I heard expressed earlier with the credit union side. Are there any questions? Rountree: You don't have any ATM's and you will not have those at there. Skeen: Long term we may have A TM's. Rountree: So it's a possibility. ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCiL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 48 ( Skeen: It's a possibility in the future. As far as those drive-up windows, those are not A TM's, those are projected drive-up with a person waiting on them. Corrie: Any questions from the council. Okay, thank you. Anyone else? JO ANN BUTLER, 607 N 8TH STREET, BOISE. WAS SWORN IN BY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Butler: Just a couple of comments before Mr. Strite comes up to answer questions. I would like to speak real briefly to the appeal issues on the conditional use that you will be reviewing, there were four issues. The first one was that the decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission and that is the positive recommendation by the P & Z to recommend conditional uses, not supported by the record. Mr. Prior is right, there is a lot of stuff sitting at Mr. Bergs desk. I think that with the testimony you have had and the testimony that the P & Z has, it couldn't have been more exhaustive in terms of a record before you. Where the commissions and the councils findings comply with the Camp Plan and the City ordinances and supported by that substantial evidence on the record as a whole, even though Mr. Williams, for example, in his appeal may have reached a different conclusion, it is your conclusion that counts. The second appeal issue was that the CUP permit was inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan, regarding location, that has been addressed. The third appeal issue was that the use was not harmonious and consistent with the surrounding residential area, neighborhood. This property is not surrounded by residential, it is surrounded by a commercial activity area. We are striving to work to be harmonious with the area and Mr. Strite will speak to that as well. Finally, appeal issue number four was that the CUP requires a necessity, that is not a requirement of your ordinances. I think we've spoken to the fact that it is appropriate and Mr. Kyler spoken very eloquently to what this use offers. This is not a popularity contest, I know that you have 123 petitions in front of you, and you all know that whenever something comes up before the city, you get a lot of petitions from the people in the immediate neighborhood. The true issue comes down to, who showed up in 1993 when you were putting together your Comprehensive Plan. As your Comprehensive Plan states, you had the collective input of the community and this city is striving to think about where it's urban services planning area is going to be? Where it's area of impact is going to be? Where you are going to grow into and how Y9u can provide those urban services to provide for all of the citizens? An issue about the signage came up that was an issue, and I was glad somebody brought that up to remind us. We talked to staff after P & Z put out it's findings, it was our understanding from staff is signage is a condition of approval, we have to meet your sign ordinances as a condition of approval. So, we will have to go through that. Lights in the area, Mr. Strite will address that in a minute. Our engineer reminded me to remind the council that the distance between the homes and the projects includes the road, the berm area and also, a 25 foot easement in the backyards of the residence, which I believe is a settlers canal easement, that separates this area as well. ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCiL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 49 With regard to the diesel, there will be a diesel pump there for cars. Diesel is not provided for trucks, however, it is not subsidized from a tax perspective, so trucks will go elsewhere. I understand in going by the Jackson site, we have a banner up there now that says you can lease space for trucks. Trucks run all night, typically. Somebody mentioned noise, if anything, this particular use may be a noise buffer from the trucks that are running on the site just a little south. Those are all the comments that I had, I know Mr. Strite will answer a couple of others with rebuttal. Mr. Mayor Corrie. Corrie: Yeah, are you thinking about signage, you mentioned going besides Jackson's at this point. Butler: Oh no. Prior: Mr. Mayor, if I could interject quickly, Ms. Butler there is a little bit of confusion here. Actually on the annexation and zoning it's part of the requirement, one of the conditions of the development agreement, and I can quote from the actual Findings of Fact that I prepared that the permission and approval of all signage plans including but not limited all signs, reader boards, banners and atc, specifically any golden arches, any type of signage associated with the McDonalds and any and all signage associated with the Chevron gas station, will be submitted prior to the annexation taking place. So, basically what I have done for these folks is if this thing is approved, if they don't submit the appropriate signage, then basically, we will de-annex the land, and the game is over. Jo Ann knows what I've done here and that's appropriate because of the Texaco and the situation there. The issue of signage has been adequately addressed and if this thing goes through, Jo Ann and I will be sitting down and going over the development agreement and drafting all necessary protections for the city. Butler: Thank you. Corrie: Anyone from the public that hasn't testified before. John? Jackson: I would like to make a quick clarification, we do not have truck leasing, for lease space sign, that is a false statement. We lease, parking for vehicles, so we can control them, because there is a lot of people that park there. We absolutely do not lease truck parking. Corrie: Anybody else to testify, now you have already-I'm going to stop that, we could get into a kicking contest here, it's getting late and I'm getting tired too, I'm sure you are. Anybody else have testimony that hasn't given testimony at this time. Strite: A brief rebuttal to some of the comments made and if I might, I would like to use the other microphone for an exhibit. This particular plan was that that was ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNL.u_-, JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 50 used at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing at which time you will find in your minutes we did make comment that the roof height... (END OF TAPE) Strite: ... at the Planning and Zoning Commission level, however, in going back through the minutes, I though I would bring that up. Secondly, I apologize for those who did not get their mailings, we have a postage audit, a 118 mailings went out and I think somebody mentioned there was only a 120 some odd in the neighborhood, so if we missed one, certainly I will not take credit for it, because I didn't do the mailings, but the applicant unfortunately must have mis-mailed, because he does have a postage of a 118 mailings. Also, I would like to talk if I can very quickly that there was a comment made about the drive-thru, the drive- thru's we located is again a testimony you will find in your packet, the drive-thru's were relocated from the original plan, so they would be on the south side of each of the buildings, to specifically force traffic around any and all drive-thru traffic would be on the south side opposite the units and furthest away we could get those from the neighborhood. Secondly, there was a comment made to the ATM, that was also in my original comments Planning and Zoning, the ATM that is presently planned for the credit union is a walk up ATM. It's located in this corner of the entry of th~ building. Again, I'm trying to hurry through this, but. . . there was a comment made relative to the fact that if this particular development was not here, perhaps a 22,000 cars would be considerably less. did just a real quick analysis, I want to make it very clear that I'm not a traffic engineer, I did talk to Terry just briefly about the traffic movements and the fact that 110 residences require a level of service that is D, which is not acceptable. Pulling that out and adding 5 acres of additional residential in this section, right here, would in effect, add less than 5% cars to that, so that the roadway in it's self would be required if this site did not even exist. It was clearly stated by ADA County Highway District and you'll have that in your minutes as well, that this particular project, was not the driving factor for the roadway, but in effect, this particular project had access without this roadway. Hence, my conclusion from that is if this developed at 10,000 cars a day, which it doesn't, they had access here, they have access here without the road. So, I think Mr. Truax also brought that up and I think they are good points however, they were incorrect. I think the final comment I would like to make is regarding the land use issue. Whether you in fact are making the decision or is ADA County Highway District making the decision. I think it's probably safe to say and again, going back to your April 5th meeting, that there was a decision by the two bodies to consider what in fact could be done in this area. Well, it wasn't done by ADA County Highway District, according to the subject draft copy that I received by MK Centennial Engineers, their land use decision were based upon your Comprehensive Plan that designates the 110 acres to the west as mixed use. That's all I have. Are there any questions? Corrie: Any questions from the council? ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCiL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 51 Rountree: I have none. Corrie: Council, correct me, I can close the public hearing and to continue this tabled, is that correct? Prior: You can close-do not continue Mr. Mayor, you close the public hearing and then we can table this item until consideration of the annexation and zoning. Mr. Mayor, until the public hearings, I believe we have one other person who would like to speak. Williams: One time, one minute. Again, on my appeal of the CUP, one of the items is necessity, you have to consider a necessity in granting a conditional use permit and my appeal is based primarily on the fact that there has not been any demonstrated condition that this is a necessity. Thank you. Corrie: Okay, thank you. Is there any comments from council, questions? Rountree: I have no more questions. Bird: I have no more. Corrie: At this time, I will close the public hearing. Entertain a motion for table? Anderson: I make a motion we table the request for a conditional use permit until after the annexation is approved. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we table Item #8 until after the annexation/zoning is approved. Further discussion? Rountree: I guess there is one bit of information that I think is significant that should be reflected in the Findings of Facts that is not presently there, and that is the commitment on the part of the applicant to design, construct and maintain the berm buffer adjacent to the roadway. I would like that to be included in the Findings of Facts. Prior: What's probably going to have to be done is-it's going to be difficult if that property is sold to ADA County District, it's going to be difficult short of a license agreement to do that, Jo Ann is aware of all of that. What may have to be done is that the roadway may have to be sold to ADA County Highway District, and the berm itself would have to be kept as part of the development and made a condition that they maintain that berm. They may not be able to give them the full length to the residences if that is going to happen, it's going to be difficult to enforce that because that may constitute what would be called off site, in that regards. I'm going to have to look into that a little bit more. I understand what ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNLiiJ JULY 21, 1998 . PAGE 52 you are saying councilman Rountree and we'll address that if need be, I can assure you if this thing goes forward, one way or the other Eagle Partners will be maintaining that berm. I can assure you. Corrie: Okay, thank you. Does that take care of that, Mr. Rountree? Rountree: I'm satisfied. Corrie: Any further discussion? All in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. (BREAK) ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING:REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 121.897 ACRES TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED THOUSAND SPRINGS SUBDIVISION BY FARWEST DEVLEOPERS AND MARTY GOLDSMITH - NORTH OF VICTORY AND WEST OF EAGLE ROAD. Corrie: I'll open the public hearing and invite the Farwest Developers or Marty Goldsmith to testify or representative. BECKY BOWCUTT, 1800 W OVERLAND, BOISE. WAS SWORN IN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Bowcutt: Since it is so late in the hour, I'd just like to, if it's okay with the council, just do one presentation and under the annexation, incorporate that testimony into the preliminary plat application, which is the following application, just save some time. The project that you see here is called Thousand Springs subdivision, some of you may recognize it originally three years ago, something to that effect. It was Highlands Ranch, it came through the process, it looked considerable different than what you see here. The project that you saw as Highlands Ranch at least on this eastern portion consisted of about 512 dwelling units per acre-which is around-or 512 dwelling units total, which is about 4 dwelling units per acre. What we are proposing here is 2.71 dwellings per acre, these are all single-family dwelling lots, we are a requesting a R-4 designation. All lots meet or exceed the 8,000 square feet, most of them exceed it, some by quite a bit, all the lots you see meet the frontage requirements as outlined in the ordinance. The property itself is 121.227 total acres, we have 328 buildable single-family lots. Twenty four common lots that are spread throughout the development with landscaping along the collector street, we have provided two collectors, this one that comes off of Victory Road, it's a collector up to this center section. We have another collector that comes off of Eagle Road and it intersects here or terminates here and transitions to a local street, right there at that intersection. We want to create a boulevard effect, we've got 40 feet of landscaping along Eagle Road which will give us adequate area to do good size r MERIDIAN CITY COUNLJ.L JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 53 . berms, heavy landscaping to buffer those homes from Eagle Road. We've provided a minimal of 20 feet adjacent to the collectors through here and then 30 feet adjoining Victory Road on our south portion. As far as the total common area, welve got 8.4 acres of common area, it's spread throughout the site. One of the things we have to take into consideration is drainage, so we provided these as you can see, these common lots that are placed strategically throughout the site. Those will be landscaped, sprinklered, we'll use them as retention ponds, bioswells is pretty much a necessary item under the ACHD requirements that we have to deal with. We have this little park area right in here at the entrance, one of the things that I wanted to do was make sure we didn't have as the traffic comes in, have a backing motion directly at that intersection. It also provides for a nice visual aesthetic view as you enter the development. We have this area on the north side of the Ridenbaugh Canal. In past conversations with the city and school district, it was indicated that that area would like to be set aside for a future elementary or park site, to be put together with the existing 2.4 acres in Los Alamitos, the four acres just north of that in the old Sundance project, and then another four acres front would be received from the parcel, there's. a 40 that runs out to Overland Road. With all those portions placed together, there would be enough area for a future elementary. If the school district decided they didn't want that, then it could possibly be a park. My conversations with the school district is that they believe they are going to accelerate their plan for an elementary in this vicinity and that they are starting to make some overtures, as far as trying to get all of these parcels put together, so they can get some type of bond issue passed here in the near future and get an elementary site built there. I have been in contact with this property owner here, in fact, we're working on a record of survey at this time and I faxed out a copy showing a four acres that would match up to the Sundance property and back up to this. So, hopefully that can facilitated. This parcel here is 2.56 acres on my application I think it said 3.56, you may be asking why is there a difference, the difference was the Ridenbaugh Canal was shown as an easement and not as a separate lot. So, that is why that was reduced in acreage. We added additional area to this school park site because in the original application, I had two lots here and the city, one of staffs comment was to match up this lot line and doing so we had to widen that lot, therefore we dropped a lot and opened up a corridor here for pedestrian access. So, in reality as far as the usable area of the park/school site, it has increased. I provided a micro-path here on the west end, that will connect to the micro-path provided in the Sherbrooke development that we got passed through the City Council here, six or eight months ago. ACHD has requested that the developer put in trust funds, $16,500 dollars for that pedestrian bridge. Sherbrooke had to put in, I think $15,000 dollars and that bridge is subject to NampalMeridian Irrigation District approval. I have been meeting with Nampa/Meridian on a regular basis, discussing these pedestrian bridges. I think we're getting them to warm up to the idea that it is an important linkage, where we have that natural barrier of the Ridenbaugh Canal. I have another pedestrian access that runs through here, goes to the north, this is an undeveloped 80 acre parcel that runs all the way to Overland Road. The { lvffiRIDIAN CITY COUNL~L JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 54 ( highway district has asked us to put $16,500 dollars trust fund in reserve for that future pedestrian bridge also. These are requirements by the highway district. The staff report that we received kind of read like we would have to trust fund with the city. I just want to be on the record, that we'll have to do that with the highway district and we can provide evidence that we have trust funded for those two improvements. We propose a vehicular bridge across the Ridenbaugh here. As you can see, this is the center section line of this section, which is I believe section 20, so we have located it basically right here, in the middle of the section, which will allow traffic to feed up to the future high school site. The 54 acres that came out of the Sundance project and then would allow linkage, or vehicular linkage and pedestrian linkage to the future elementary. The bridge based on our phasing plan will be built in the second phase of the project. That's what we anticipate because we will be bringing sewer and water service through Los Alamitos. At this time it's a dead end street with a temporary turn around, which is a T and will extend this direction. The sewer that is right there is 16.2 feet deep, we've also got access to sewer through Sherbrooke Hollows at this point here, it's 20 feet deep. We have done sewer profiles all the way out to Eagle Road, it can be sewered, without having to fill the property. We have provided a well site right here, that side is .32 acres, that's 100 X 142. The staff asked us to put a micro-path or a common lot, it doesn't have to be a micro-path, the city doesn't want it to be, but at least a minimum of common lot, so that that water line can run right through here and then link up to loop the systems. Your closest well is over at locust grove and your staff indicated that they wanted a well site along this Eagle well corridor. They had hoped to have one possibly here at the intersection, however, it was stated to me that if we could get one over somewhere along Eagle Road, that that would be acceptable, because the distance between the wells would be approximately one mile. We provided a fire station lot, that is 1.41 acres, it's 182 X 269 up here on it's shortest point, and 376 here over here on it's west side. The configuration of that lot was based on our past experience dealing with Whitney fire on a future fire station lot for them out south of Boise. I talked to Ken Bowers out in the hallway here a couple of hours ago and asked Ken if he had taken a peak at it to see if it was acceptable in it's width and depth. He took a look at it and said it was larger than what they have now. We believe based on the standards that we received from Whitney, that it will be acceptable that your trucks could pull through. The well lot, the fire station lot, and this future portion of a school site, those will be deeded to the City of Meridian at no cost. I'll just probably head to the items that we discussed in this-that were addressed in the staff report that we wanted to address. Majority of the item 5 were acceptable, staff and the developer were in agreement. One of the questions that the staff had was pressurized irrigation. We've been working with NampalMeridian and they have recommended that we come up with a regional pump station for the Thousand Spring site. Since the developer intends to turn the system over to Nampa/Meridian for maintenance and ownership. Sherbrooke is putting a pump station right here at the Ridenbaugh Canal, we already have that system designed and approved. Nampa/Meridian says that their preference would be that we, instead of building that just to \ . MERIDIAN CITY COUNCi.L JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 55 service this one stand alone subdivision that we should build it as a regional pump station. Just like with anything else, when you do things on a larger scale, the cost ot maintenance replacement, etc. is a lot less over time. The cost to maintain those systems is obviously passed on to the residence, they are charged a $50 per lot-or per annual fee per lot. In the event that they have to make some major repairs, that price may fluctuate, and that is in addition to their water assessment. The developers have came to an agreement on their cost sharing and now we are in design for a pressurized system that would service all of this development, plus Sherbrooke Hollows and then an additional Sherbrooke Village, which just went through the Planning and Zoning Commission. It's a little six acre add on to the Sherbrooke Hollows project. The pump station like I said will be located here. This location is an excellent location because we have an overflow to the Nine Mile drain, in the event that water usage decreases or problems do arise, that water can go on down, because Nampa/Meridian does not allow us to put it back in Ridenbaugh Canal. The secondary source is going to be a shallow well. We've already received a permit from department of water resources for the well as a secondary source, it would also service this development. Staff indicated we originally-or they indicated that they wanted a change to the plat, the original application showed the Ridenbaugh Canal as an easement only and the lots went back to the center line ot the canal. We met with the irrigation district and their comments to us were they really don't want to maintain the area that is on our site of the canal bank. The access road is on the west side and then the canal is here and then it's just kind of a dead space. They said all we get is complaints from the neighbors, when they-because we don't mow our weeds or if we try to come through and do something about the weeds, then they complain about that. So, our preference would be that you locate the top of the bank, you offset a fence five feet from the top of the bank, which in your staff report I think Gary Smith indicated that if the district would let us encroach that would be acceptable, but a fence could be no closer than five feet from the top of the bank. So, on this drawing that we submitted to you last week and the one you see here, it reflects here is the easement that runs along here and then this line would reflect five teet from the top of bank, and that's the fence line. So, we would have no interference with NampalMeridian and their maintenance, we'd have no conflict as far as people moving their fences out into NampalMeridian area because that fence line is their property line. That is one problem that we have had in the past with developments if we have an easement. In the staff report it did indicate which lot and block numbers those pedestrian bridges between which lots that it would be constructed. I think there was an error in reference, it should be lot 36 and 33, I believe and then this lot or this separate lot right through here and I believe lot 46 and 43 and a separate lot right through here. Those are the places that were stipulated by Ada County Highway District, as far as the location of those pedestrian bridges. One problem that we did discuss in length at the Planning and Zoning Commission was the issue of our street. Our internal streets have a 50 foot right-at-way, they'll have a 36 foot from back of curb to back of curb. That's based on ACHD's new stands, they go into effect as of July. They said that we could go ahead and start { MERIDIAN CITY COUNCLL .JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 56 designing at their new standards, the previous standard was 37. However, we want to have an off set sidewalk from the back of curb to create a four foot landscaped area. This is the look that the developer wants in his development, what you see right here. You see the street section, the curb and gutter, back of curb, then a four foot landscaped area, and then a five foot sidewalk. That would run straight adjoining that. These are decorative trees that are typically planted in there, you don't plant Oaks or anything that gets quite large, because it you have ever been on the north end, as those trees get mature, they make the sidewalk kind of buckle. So they plant ornamental trees, like flowering crab apples, flowering plums, etc. They don't get that large, their root span is not that great. It's sprinkled and landscaped and typically the developer goes in and plants a couple of trees per lot, is usually the standard. As you can see as a neighborhood ages, this is the Bayhill Springs, if you guys have ever been out there., we did this development, you get this nice canopy of trees, it gives you a nice boulevard effect, aesthetically it's very pleasing. In studies, traffic studies on roadways like this, they find that people speed less, as far as how fast they go, because it gives the illusion that the street is narrower, with the canopy of trees. So, it's one way from a planning perspective, we keep the traffic slowed down, it also gives you a beautiful visual effect. When you put that asphalt and you put the five feet of concrete on both sides and it's attached, it gives you kind of a real hard look, more stale look and so, we are looking for a little softer, trying to create a more neighborhood effect. How we have got this design with that, the four foot landscaped area, then the five foot sidewalk, we have an overhand ot the sidewalk by two feet on each side. In staffs comments, staff I think stated that we should increase our right-of-way, I believe to a 37-or a 57 foot right-of- way, to accommodate the sidewalk. My response to the staff was we have done this on four different subdivisions, where the two foot overlap has been on an easement. ACHD in their staff reports stated that we may do it on an easement or we may deed it as right-at-way, our past experience is, if we can minimize the right-at-way, that's the best thing. The neighbors maintain that area in front of their lots, it's just part of their mowing, it's on the pressurized system, we have a two foot overhang. One of the questions that was brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission, it you have a home and say the home is set back 20 feet from the edge of right-of-way. So, if you have a sidewalk that encroaches by two feet you-from the edge of the driveway to your garage would be 18 feet What's the largest vehicle that would -would a vehicle hand out into the sidewalk and create a hazard for per say a p[pedestrian or bicyclist. So, we went out and we measured pretty much the largest, you know personal vehicle they make, which is a suburban and a suburban is 18 feet long, so a suburban can be parked in front of the garage, it'd have to be close right up close ~o it, but it's bumper wouldn't hang out into the sidewalk. We just think that- Anderson: It's 19 with a trailer hitch. Bowcutt: That's a big trailer hitch. I didn't measure the trailer hitch. I MERIDIAN CITY COUNLLLJ JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 57 Anderson: I've bumped my shin on it enough. Bowcutt: But we think anyway, getting back to that, we think for the aesthetics, the neighborhood appeal that you're going to have with it, the two foot sidewalk easement, that's granted to the highway district, not the city, to the highway district, is not a big deal. If we expand the right-at-way that just reduces lot size and decreases peoples backyards. It's functioned very well in the subdivisions that we have built, they've all got 20 foot front yard set backs. We've done them in Edgeview Estates, the Legends, Bayhill Springs and another one, I can't think of at this time. It's worked well, I think the city would be very happy when they see the aesthetic appeal. Second to the last item, staff made comment that all lots needed to be 90 feet, I think my response to the staff was, we'd like to discuss that cause it's not in the code and I've always thought the way that's measured, it's not stipulated in the ordinance, it's left to interpretation. I still like to go on the record that the I think the City Council should look at that, if they want you-if we do a lot that's 89 feet wide, then staff makes us put an arrow and face the lot, or home on the short side of the lot, which makes it difficult to market the lot, because the side yards become the large yards, the rear yard becomes very small. We don't think that's appropriate, if the council thinks otherwise, then we recommend that the ordinance be modified to put some type of definition on how one is to measure frontage, the 80 feet of frontage, because we are only allowed to take half of this radius right here. It just-so every corner lot has to be 90 feet. It causes problems for us, I would just like to go on record. This particular plat, when we went in and revised it, we jumped all of the corner lots up to 90 feet, which means they may face on the appropriate direction, but we think it's something that should be dealt with. Lastly, I would like to state that we did have a neighborhood meeting on this project, because that was one ot the comments that your staff gave to me and in the minutes as it came through as Highland Ranch, the biggest criticism by the adjoining residence was that they did not have any opportunity to talk to the developer or the representative, see the plan and make some comments and just felt like they were short changed, before we submitted to the city on March 9th of this year, we've notified everyone within 300 teet. We held a neighborhood meeting at the Sandman Hotel, we had about six residents turn out, I received a couple of phone calls and I received a couple of letters. I would just like to get those items into the record, I did put them on my applicants narrative. We got a letter from Southerland Farms that asked us to align our Eagle Road entrance with their Girdner Lane, which is private lane that they intent to develop in the future and would like our street aligned with theirs, so they didn't have an offset problem. We have aligned with Girdner Lane, it's aligned perfectly. Secondly, we had the fire station at this location here, Mr. Harris who owned this property asked that we please move it to the other side, and we did that. Third, the representative of the Morgner Family Trust has asked us to put the right to farms statute on our final plat, because they own the farms south of us, they had the same request for the Sherbrooke Hollows subdivision, which we did comply with and we have agreed to do that. I got comments form Mrs. Glick, she owns the property right here, I { MERIDIAN CITY COUNLllJ JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 58 think there is a couple of acres in here, her house sits back here. We showed a stub street to her property in the beginning, she asked us to please remove that, we moved it, ACHD said we could go ahead and move it to the north. There is a parcel here that has no frontage1 I don't know how-it must take access from an easement and they said yep, give these people access if she does not want access. We have done that. She also asked for substantial landscaping here, we-the minimum di.stance here is 32 feet and then it widens out as it comes up here, we have agreed to landscape and berm that. She also asked for a fence along that berm and she stated that she did not want standard dog eared fence. We have agreed that, if we put in like a wood fence, that we would put some type of cap across the top, a decorative cap, so it doesn't look like your standard dog ears where they start bending and warping. Comments, we got anther comment I think from the Fritts they asked if we would be willing to put wrought iron fencing adjoining the Ridenbaugh Canal like they've got over here at Los Alamitos and we have agreed. We will have wrought iron so that we'll have a non-combustible fence adjoining the Ridenbaugh Canal. One issue that we kind of got stuck with at the Planning and Zoning Commission was-I though they got kind of wild on us, they asked for single story homes all along here. I talked to the developer about that and his comments were "but those are some of the best lots, they're right on the rim and to limit that whole corridor to single story would be a travesty" and I guess, I tend to agree. We did go out and took some pictures of the homes that are out there from Victory Road. This is the Hanson's house, as you can see there are some trees up there and you can see, this is beyond the trees, that's the property and that's where those homes would sit, right up there on the top of that bank. The thing that I recommended to the developer, can you come to some middle ground here. The Fritt's home, here is a picture of their home, they're right next door. These homes do sit low, the Hansons is about 250 feet from the east side of the Ridenbaugh and the Fritts about 350 feet west of the Ridenbaugh. I don't want to disrupt their view corridor, and from the pictures, I talked to Mr. Fritt and he says out his back window he can see the Boise front, but from the pictures, I can't see the Boise Front. I'm not sure. If we can get back to his window, may be a different story than from Victory Road. I'd like to designate a couple of lots in that view corridor for the Hanson's property as single story, and do the same for the Fritts a couple of lots here to give them a view corridor, in a NE direction. But to make all of those single story, I think that is inappropriate. If one wants to build a one story or two story, I think that is a right, not a privilege, it's never been regulate. I just don't think it's appropriate and just because there is two house down there, to go ahead and limit them or restrict them to one story all along that corridor, I think that's overkill. We would be willing to figure out that view corridor and designate two lots side by side for each one to create some corridors, so they have a break there. Is there any questions, it's getting late. Anderson: On the fire station lot, it's 182 foot deep, is there plans or what's the right-af-way there for ACHD, if they widen the road, what will that do to the depth of that lot? t MERIDIAN CITY COUNC.lL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 59 ( Bowcutt: I have already taken that right-at-way off sir. It's 48 feet from the center line ot Eagle Road and I have already lopped it off of both the well let and the fire station lot, so it would not effect it, to answer your question. Anderson: The other two questions I had was perimeter fencing and you've already answered that with the wrought iron, so you are going to put that all the way around on the Ridenbaugh Canal? Bowcutt: Yas, yes it would match the same that we have at Los Alamitos, on the other side of the canal. Corrie: Becky would you have that grass area between the street and the sidewalk, is that going to be a CC&R's would that have to stay grass? Bowcutt: Yes, it is restrict-it is stipulated also that if the trees are to die, that they have to be replaced within a certain period of time. That it is the responsibility of the homeowner and it would have to be in the CC&R's, yes. Corrie: I have one question up there in the cream, that little, I think it's #58 lot, what is that a home lot or-what is that? Bowcutt: Which one? Corrie: Right up there where the green is-the parkside. Bowcutt: Oh, right here? Corrie: No, where the other side1 the white (Inaudible) Bowcutt: That's a lot. Corrie: That's a house lot? Bowcutt: That's a residential lot, yes sir. It's right next to Los Alamitos. Yes it is on the other side of the canal. (Inaudible) Bird: This is all part of that development. She explained they go right up there and, n (Inaudible) Bowcutt: The property line comes up there... ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCiL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 6Q Prior: Why didn't you just include that in the deed to the city? Corrie: I donJt want to get greedy, but yeah, good question. Prior: I guess I'm out of line Mr. Mayor, but why didn't you just deed that to the city, number that lot. Bowcutt: Well, they could, I guess they could. Prior: I guess they could, couldn't they? Berg: Mr. Mayor, councilman. Becky, my question was that that lot is with the development that is on the southeast side of the Ridenbaugh... Bowcutt: It adjoins Los Alamitos, Berg: is there any other lot that is on the... Bowcutt: No. Berg: So that's a lot sitting by itself that is part of the homeowners association or whatever ~ . . Bowcutt: This one Will? Berg: No. The island. Bowcutt: That one? Berg: Yeah. Bowcutt: Yeah, it's on the other side. It would be on the other side of the bridge. So, really it's next to Los Alamitos. Berg: But it's not part of Los Alamitos. Bowcutt: No, it was never part of that property. Berg: To me it seems like it's isolated and it should probably be colored green and given to the city, but that's beside... the other question is, the corner where the line comes straight south from that lot, that comer of Los Alamitos that crosses the Ridenbaugh-if you would just follow that straight down. Bowcutt: Oh, this little zig right here? ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 61 Berg: Yes, how is that going to be maintained? It seems to go past the easement. Bowcutt: Right, what I recommended to them, I told them it would be really goofy to put a fence like that. This-on there side I did a common lot for Los Alamitos and that's part of the common lot, so once this area here is plated, they want to do a lot line adjustment and bring it flush. I have already brought that problem to their attention. I can't do this at this time until that is plated, because you can't... Berg: you put it on the side of the Ridenbaugh that it belongs on. The other question is just to comment, I think, Gary can correct me if I'm wrong, in the well lot in Los Alamitos did the developer landscape that lot? Bowcutt: I don't know~ I didn't do the well lot! that was in the first phase. Berg: Did the developer landscape the lot? Smith: I don't recall. Berg: Okay. Just admit the conformity of what the landscaping was done. That's aiL Corrie: Any other questions form council? Okay. Thank you Becky. Anyone else from the public like to issue testimony on this? TERRI KAWAKAMI, 2583 S. BRANDY'S JEWEL, MERIDIAN, 10 83642. WAS SWORN IN BY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Kawakami: We purchased our house after the meeting that I guess they had for all of the people in the impact area, so I wasn't able to attend that and I surely would have, had I been there. Our house is this one right here, it looks out on the area that is going to be developed and we know we are not going to stop that probably but what we do have questions about is the road that leads into our subdivision. We are a subdivision of about a 130 homes, this is three times the size of our subdivision, yet they are going to funnel traffic through our subdivision. It goes right in through our subdivision, this is a quite cul-de-sac area and traffic-this part will funnel through to get to Overland, it'll just happen rather than go all the way out and back and around. So, I don't see a reason for that road. I know there is going to be a school, I'm a school teacher in the Meridian School District and there would be lots of other ways to get access to that, than run a road through our subdivision. It could go over and have direct access into the school and come right back out and in of the same subdivision. The high school is also planned farther down on the corner, again, great deal of high school traffic, they're not going to walk, they're going to drive and they're going to come right through our subdivision. This is 330 homes times two, could possibly be 600 cars passing through there and he's shaking his head, but could ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCiJ.J JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 62 possibly-never say never. We've got a lot of traffic that can come through. The other thing is the foot bridges, our houses right along here back up to the Ridenbaugh and have the access road. We'll it is our responsibility, we own from-well, actually to the middle of the canal. So, it is our liability if anything happens on that road, we're held accountable for it. It's already become a green belt, you put those foot bridges over, it's going to become even more of a green belt, and it's not, it's private property. As much as I like the community effect, I see it as becoming a problem-it's already a problem in that it's-the ditch riders have already told us that we are to call the Sheriff for all of the foot traffic. Anyway, we have already been informed that we should be calling the Sheriff for the cars and things that are on that right-at-way or that easement that shouldn't be on our property. Actually, I kind of like the idea of it being accessible, but since I've lived there and seen how much traffic has already been on it, I've changed my mind. It's not fun, people let their dogs run, they run up to the fence, - - they don't control them. We've had people on motorcycles zipping up and down the road, it's becoming hazardous and it's not a public road~ it's private. If any accident were to happen on our property, we would be held accountable. I see a foot bridge be causing even more of a problem to the houses that will go up against that road. Most of all, the road leading from there-I really don't see the reason for it and I haven't heard a good reason other than to connect the high school and I don't see that taking that much traffic through a small narrow- streeted subdivision to provide traffic for high school students. Also, commuting traffic to Meridian, they need to go out to the primary road, which would be Eagle and Victory. BONNIE GLICK, 2860 E. VICTORY ROAD, MERIDIAN, 10 83642. WAS SWORN IN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Glick: As Ms. Bowcutt indicated, I live at the southern entrance into this proposed subdivision, right to the right... (END OF TAPE) Glick: ... right there beside the entryway off of Victory Road, at the south. To the east of me are acreage's three to seven acres, and then the Hansons, of course and Fritts live down below there and have acreage's and so, I just have to put on the record that, in the Comprehensive Plan it does say under rural areas, that when we come out into those rural residential areas that the plan was to do transitional densities and comparable lot sizes. I guess I have a problem with R- 4, she states that she thinks it's going to be 2.5 residences per acre, but I look at that and it doesn't look like 2.5 to me, maybe when you take out all the roads and everything, but when you squish all the houses together, it's like here I am on my 2.2 acres and then I've got chunk, chunk, chunk, chunk yuppie track housing right next to me. That doesn't preserve my way of life, I mean, the quality of life that we have out there is a rural residential quality of life. When you bring a housing development like this up next to us, it completely changes the flavor of - - ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNC.LL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 63 ( where we live, where we garden, where we ride bikes with our kids. So, that's one of my big concerns about this development coming in here. I know that it's encroaching out from Meridian and Los Alamitos and all of those have come in, but I still say-across the road from me is wide open country and I guess I want to preserve our way of life and I don't see this kind of development doing that. I'm a little concerned about storm drainage, I don't know that much about it. Originally, there was a drainage lot very close to my place there and I have a domestic well~ which would be about 100 feet from that. So~ I don't know-I'm concerned about storm drainage and possible contamination to our domestic well water source. I did talk to the department of water resources, they said that can be a possible or probable contamination source. I talked to Ms. Bowcutt about the landscaping on the strip, if they are going to-with the entrance right there by my property and I think that's pretty much on the record about landscaping and berm that we want and fencing that isn't just your cedar dog eared fencing. One other thing that I wanted to bring up is lighting on that entrance. I don't know what kind of lighting that you guys are going to put down there, but I have a concern about a whole bunch of flood light shining on my property, coming in that entrance, all the way up there. I don't know if they can cap those away from my property if they are going to put a bunch of lights there. I guess I would want them to consider that if that's possible. The only other thing I want to bring up is those of us out there have domestic wells that are shallow wells. I mean 60-100 or 150 feet and if they use a domestic well source or a well as back up for their landscape irrigation, I'm a little concerned. A number of people, a number of my neighbors have had to re-drill their wells, because they'v~ gone dry. So, I don't know how we can protect the domestic well water sources around there, but I ask you to consider that in considering the pressurized irrigation system and using a domestic well to, use for landscaping in the subdivision. Thank you. Corrie: Anyone else? NANCY HANSEN, 2460 E VICTORY ROAD, MERIDIAN, ID 83642. WAS SWORN IN BY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY~ Hansen: First of all, I wanted to say thank you to the Planning and Zoning Commission members who requested that they be single level dwellings on south boiling road or street, whatever that's called. I would also to recommend the councilor your Meridian Comprehensive Plan on page 30, #6.7U that says "existing rural residential land uses and farms, ranches shall be buffered from urban development expanding into rural areas by innovative land use and planning techniques." I don't see any innovative land uses or planning techniques between those properties and ours. Number 6.8U says "new urban density subdivisions which abut or are approximate to existing rural residential land uses shall provide screening and transitional densities with larger more comparable lot sizes to buffer the interface between urban level densities and rural residential densities~ We have four acres and there will be it looks like 12 lots, that abut our property and they are 80 X1 00 feet average. So, I don't think MERIDIAN CITY cOUNLu JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 64 ( those are comparable sizes and I just would remind you about that in the Comprehensive Plan, I would like you to consider that. Also, when Ms. Bowcutt showed you the pictures of the trees across the canal from us, there are some Elm trees there, I believe they probably will be taken out by the developers, because they are past that five foot bank. They are just kind of diseased elm trees, I doubt that they will leave them in there. We have never contended that we have a view of the mountains or of Bogus Basin, all we worry about is having a view of two story houses. We don't-they will be sitting up above us and we just don't want to be looking at the back of 12 houses right next to us that have probably have upstairs balconies and maybe looking down at us all of the time. So, that's our concern is that they would just be looking down at us. It's not our view out, we just don't want to look at those houses all of the time. I wanted to also remind the council that three years ago when the Highlands Ranch subdivision was proposed that you did recommend that our two zoning be - - approved to abut our property and that you did approve or suggest that it be single level dwellings that would abut our property to keep in line with the Comprehensive Plan. I think that's on record. Finally, I just wanted to say that we live in this property, we've been there for nine years, we're just here to continue with our quality of life as much as we can out there. The developer does not live there, he's there to make money and so-all we're asking is that you take out six of those houses in that 330 so that you can double those lots and that would help us a lot. You know, that's all that were asking is that you just look at it to be larger lots and single level dwellings. The final concern is our well, and we said that before-so if you would just consider that in your recommendation also. Thank you. Corrie: Thank you. MARVIN HANSEN, 2460 E. VICTORY ROAD, MERIDIAN, 10 83642. WAS SWORN IN BY ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY~ M. Hansen: I don't want to drag it out, I just want to go on the record that I agree with everything that my wife said. There is too many houses there, I do request single stories for the houses that do go there. This part about the canal, the right-of-way, I always understood that the right-ot-way for the canal was 50 feet. I don't know, but I'm going to find out who is liable up there, because now that it's hot, almost every night we have kids from ages 2-3 years old with adults, with swim tubes swimming in the canal, we have motorcycles buzzing up and down the canal. It I'm responsible tor that, somehow I want to have it blocked off, because I don't want to loose my house and everything I've got because some kid drowns in the canal and it's on my property and I didn't realize it. I don't know if the City Council has anything to do with that, probably NampalMeridian irrigation is who I have to contact! I don't know, but I just want to go on the record that I wasn't aware of that. I don't know if Becky is aware of this or not, but down on the very corner like at the end of the triangle on our property, I believe that the developer owns a little bit of that. Right next to where the canal meets the road, ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 65 that used to be Sally Martins property. So, the developer could be liable right there also, which means the access that the public is using to get up to the canal is on his property. If so, I would like to have him block it off. We have vehicles up there every night, motorcycles, kids. Now she knows~ she's shaking her head. We have kids up there this tall jumping in the water and somebody one of these day is not going to make it out and somebody is going to be liable and I don't want it to be us. Thank you. BOB FRITTS, 2384 E VICTORY, MERIDIAN, 10 83642. WAS SWORN IN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY A TTORNEY~ Fritts: I want to just talk about what Becky had to say over here. Okay, first off, we didn't ask to have all of these house single story from here, up to here. So, first off I appreciate the P & Z doing what they did, but these people are in subdivisions so I don't think it's going to be that big of deal for them, but for those of us who have a view, we asked for 12 houses, which is like 3 ~ 0/0, very few. You know, if these few houses as we asked about are just these twelve houses, it isn't going to make a big impact on this whole entire place. Then my question to Becky is, is this part of the 121 acres, this school site. Okay, well it's the same old thing then. Her 2.5 houses per acre on the 121 acres, if you take out the school, the well, and the site for the fire deal in the one park, then you are back to 3.4 houses per acre, which is more than, right here at Sherbrooke. I said that to P & Z last time and they agreed. So, I don't know why she is back to the 2.5 that's not there. That includes all of this. They are including that, it's not 2.5. The fence we never asked for a wrought iron fence, the fence we would like to have is what our good neighbors at Sherbrooke subdivision is going to do, they are going to put in a chain link with slats that's what we would like to have here. We never asked for wrought iron. I think the other kind would be cheaper. The neighbors we're going to have hear at Sherbrooke they agreed to the same story homes, that is exactly what we wanted. We would like our neighbors here to do the same thing, which P & Z has already approved. We would like you guys to keep it that way. Our privacy is very important. Becky, where did you take these pictures that you showed these guys? Were they taken at 9 o'clock this morning? Then P & Z hasn't seen these pictures, have they. So, I don't think these pictures should be admissible. They've never seen them. I asked Becky to come to my house and take pictures from my chair looking out the window. What I see, I see Bogus Basin at night time when they're skiing, I have a very good view of the snow and everything. A shot from the road that is 200 and something from the road is 200 something feet from my chair isn't representative of what I see. I have asked for them to come take a look at it and they won't do it. So, if you guys want to come to my house take a look at it, that's what we should do. That's it. Corrie: Anyone else from the public? Becky. ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNLLU JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 66 Bowcutt: I will just answer some, one of the questions Mrs. Glick had on the lighting. For the record, the city requires that we install standard street lights that shine dqwn, with the cap on the top. As far as coming up with our own lighting, we have standards that we have to meet and the city dictates the distance between lights and so forth. Anyway, so I just want to go on record that these are standards street lights that shine down. So, you wouldn't have anything that strove out. Secondly, Mr. Fritts comment on our density, the density is always calculated on the gross acreage, it's been done that way forever. That's the way it's done, you don't minus the street, you don't minus the landscape, you don't minus everything out and figure out what your density is, that's not how it's done. The density of this project is less than what Sherbrooke was. It's 2.71 and Sherbrooke was 2.87. We are not, this isn't hopscotch development, you are seeing a continuous pattern with Sportsman Point, Salmon Rapids, Los Alamitos, now a high school is going to go out there, now they are looking to construct a grade school, then you had Sharbrooke, everything is moving as that sewer and the water lines are constructed, it is moving in an east, southeasterly fashion. This property is contiguous with other R-4 property. It is an acceptable zone under your Comprehensive Plan. We have put lots in here that are larger than 8,000 square feet. These lots that run along these perimeters range around 15,700, these are 11,000, we have some that are 10,600 and 13,900, the ones within the interior are a little smaller they range from 9,000 something all the way-some of these out in here are 11,000, these are 15,000 and 14,700, they're not the slammed in 8,000 square foot lots. The developer intends to create a market with a little nicer homes, these aren't your little 1400 square foot houses, they are going to be larger homes, by the amount of landscaping that you see at the entrances, he is going to have a considerable amount of money in this development. With the offset sidewalks, that construction cost is greater, the landscaping, the tree planting, all of those cost are accelerated, therefore the cost of the lot goes up. We feel that this development is compatible with what has been approved in the area. I understand the area is changing, but that Eagle Road corridor has been going through a transition over the past five years, with the St. Luke's and the utilities going out there. The developments that you saw earlier this evening, that is a major travel way, with fast access to that interstate. This is a prime location, we feel that it's a good project and that we can be a good neighbor. We spent a lot of time working on this project. In my opinion, it has improved considerably from what was proposed originally. Proposed originally, they had things like townhouses and patio homes, along the perimeters, with very little disregard for what was existing out there as far as some of these larger lots. We are providing services-the comments about the shallow wells, as so forth. These people, one positive factor is they will have access to sewer and water. We have provided stub streets, there are two here and one here. Those services will be in there. We'll have services coming down here into Victory Road. So they will have the option in the future, if they have problems to connect. Our storm drainage, we've done 11 test holes out on this property all of our results have been good. There were a couple of points along the canal bank, where there was a little bit of ground water that was shown, ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNLliJ JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 67 however, according to the soil scientist who did the analysis it was from the irrigation drainage, it was not something subsurface that was perking. As you know, if you have been out in this area, this property sits up quite high. We've got good sand loam and gravel, subsurface. Our storm drainage, obviously we can't put storm drainage against Mrs. Glick, because it's going to be a berm. Can't put storm drainage in the berm. Depressed areas would have to be over in this area here. That's why we kind of increased the green area here and then we've got this area here at the end of the street. We think that we can be a good neighbor here. The one story issue, I think it's kind of getting blown out of proportion. We've agreed that we will try to create some view corridors. I can't- some of those houses may not end up two story, there may be more one story's along there than we anticipate. You don't know what people are going to build. I think it is wrong to dictate that that all be single story. The people that were there before those houses were built didn't dictate that those homes had to be single or two story and I think it's just wrong, it's inappropriate. In everything I have read as far as your Comprehensive Plan, this project does apply to a T. It's a good quality project that the city can be proud of. Thanks. Fritts: The issue here isn't the view. It's the privacy, it's just that I'll loose my view plus the privacy. So, doing a corridor, dictates how they are going to build a house. It's no different than telling these people that there is all single story right here, so what's the difference? If you tell these three lots right here, you have to be single space story, then you are dictating what they do. So, all it does is give me a view and saves you there. All this does is just take away my privacy, so I'm still sticking with the P & Z's thing of-to have single story only. I don't want a corridor, I want privacy. I get my privacy, I'll still have my corridor, doesn't matter, that's what we want, we want privacy. That's why we are out in the country, been there all of my life. There is no question what we are looking for isn't the view of the mountain, I mean it's there already. So, I want the privacy, it's not the view. Corrie: Council do you have any more questions? Council do you have any questions of anybody that's testifies and staff? Rountree: I have a question for Gary Smith that relates to sewer and water. Smith: Yes sir. Rountree: Have you reviewed this project and have any comments relative to the impact it may have on city infrastructure. Smith: Well, from certain water stand point, it definitely will have an impact and we're trying to deal with that and that's one reason for the well lot. Ultimately, that well will have to be constructed to help service the subdivision along with others in that area. The nine mile trunk sewer line will need to be-for service to it-will need to be extended to serve this. Part of the subdivision in the facility ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 68 ( plan was destined to serve to the north and the Five Mile trunk area. I don't know if that's a big impact on the Nine mile drain trunk line. Rountree: Any other comment? Smith: Yes I did. I had a couple. Concerning the right-af-way width and we've tried the property line, property pins under the sidewalks before in Chateau Meadows subdivision and it got us in trouble. Sidewalk easement, it didn't work. I think the setback requirement for the driveway is needed for vehicles to park. The second item I want to comment on is the frontages on the corner lots, this process that I established some years ago of splitting that, used to be the curve of the property line at the street intersection and now it's a cord distance. Splitting that and allocating half of it to each side of the lot as a frontage seemed to me to be a fair way to do, to arrive at a front. There has been argument in the past. There's no doubt about it. As Becky has brought up, it will continue I suspect. That's a policy that I established and the council has gone along with me in the past, it's your decision, however you want to approach it. We've found that-and Malcolm McCoy sits on this fence variance committee with me-we found that during the fence building months, we have at least one fence variance request every month and sometimes as high as three to four, to move a six foot fence into the side street setback area just because corner lots aren't big enough to give folks a backyard. This splitting the curbed or that curb at the intersection allows them to, or requires them to put a little bit more frontage on those corner lots. I think that we've talked internally, staff has in the past, about requiring corner lots to be eight percentage larger than interior lots so that they do have a backyard when they get done putting a house on the lot. I will issue a compliment to this developer for the work that they've done in Los Alamitos particularly with the parkway, I think it's very attractive and they've done a good job on it. I would like to see the property line at a minimum at the back of sidewalk. The other alternative to that would be to create a 22 foot front yard set back, from the property line. If you are going to bury the side-bury the property line under the sidewalk, then increase the front yard setback. Well, regardless whether there's an offset shown or not-and I don't recall in Chateau Meadows whether there is an offset, but we got into trouble on the front yard set back there. So, I think we need to be mindful of that. That's alii have unless you have other questions. Corrie: Any comments form Shari? You awake back there. Stiles: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Rountree, I guess the only comment I would make is about the bridge to explain that when Los Alamitos was platted that was always planned to be a bridge there. It was well know during the public hearing process for the subdivision that that would be required. Initially, when we had considered this whole area for development, fire marshal and myself, we had wanted at least one other bridge and had requested three bridges to be-to give the interconnection that you need so that you are not routing everyone out onto ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNL.LL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 69 (' the arterial streets to take a round about way to get to the high school. So, it's definitely an interconnection that was planned and is very much needed. As far as the rest of the development, this area-most of it is actually designated as a mixed residential area. They could've come in and requested higher densities. A wide variety of housing development in there, I think compared to Highlands Ranch that we saw previously, it's a nice development. It's not the typical cookie cutter 8,000.00 square foot lots, and I think it's a good development. It would be a good addition to the City of Meridian. Corrie: Any further discussion, comments or questions? I'll close the public hearing on item #9. Rountree: Counselor where is it in the findings that speaks to the single level dwellings? (Inaudible) Prior: Your testing my memory, it's been a considerable amount of time since I've done this project, so I'm at a bit of a loss. Rountree: You could say that about this evening as well. Prior: I don't see it off hand. Rountree: I have not run across it. Corrie: I haven't been able to find it either. Prior: That can be-if it's necessary to amend the findings to include that, we can do that. I don't-I seem to recall putting it in there, I just don't see it. What you can do is just instruct me to ensure that that is included in the findings and be brought back for approval based on that. (Inaudible)...subject to that, whatever your preference. What may have happened, and I'm trying to recall, what may have happened is I believe it was Byron Smith who ~ade a motion that that be included as a condition and they included it by interlineation (sic) (sic) and it may not have been regarded in that regard. I'm just trying to test my memory on that. Oh, and she is correct. I guess that does jar my memory, I guess I got the right commissioner corrected. It does say on these, on the testimony that Byron Smith had this added as part of a (Inaudible) interlineation (sic) had this as a condition in the findings. That be included in and basically hand written in as part of the condition on this thing. Maybe it was not done so. Page 43 of the special meeti ng from the 17th. (Inaudible) ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCJ.L JULY 21,1998 PAGE 70 ( Prior: It was not incorporated in, what he's basically, what he's done is-and what the commission does, is they by interlineation (sic), they include certain conditions and they are entitled to do that. They are entitled to say that as an additional condition I will ask that this be included in the findings. As far as the cities policy is concerned, it's either written in as a condition, hand written in or they're brought back to me and I include it. Obviously this was not put in as a hand written condition in these particular findings. Clearly Byron Smith made it a condition of that. At this point we can have-you can direct me to redraft these findings to include that condition, if that's your desire. It was made a condition of approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission, however. It was just never hand written in, which is generally the policy. So at this point, if the commission desires to do, that they can direct me to redraft the findings and at the next meeting you can approve them with that condition included in the findings. Anderson: Was it just for 12 lots? Prior: It seems to me that the description that I've read encompassed a large variety, a large number of lots along the whole section there, if I recall. I've probably had 25 projects that were in front of me, since I've done this thing, so you're testing my memory a little bit on this. On the south side of Zims Way and Southboiling Springs Way, being no more than single stories, so basically what they are saying is what the testimony and Ms. Bowcutt suggested is that whole corridor through there shall be single story. If you are going to follow Mr. Smith's recommendation. Anderson: The testimony we heard tonight, was that they don't think it needs to be that extensive. Prior: Well, councilman Anderson, if that's your desire, then what you are going to need me to do is to amend these findings and resubmit them to you subject to whatever conditions you decide are appropriate on this particular project. However, my recommendation is that the findings in the future and Will Berg and I have discussed that when these things happen again at Planning and Zoning that I will draft the findings to reflect it rather than doing it by interlineation (sic). (Inaudible) Rountree: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we direct the counsel to redraft the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to supplement what the testimony received this evening and as a condition that in block 14, indicate that lots 14-21 be identified as single family dwelling lots... (- MERIDIAN CITY COUNCiL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 71 ( Anderson: ... Single story. Rountree: Single story, it's tomorrow already. Single story and to reflect the concerns at the city engineers, it relates to right-at-way designation. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Rountree, seconded by Mr. Bird. The request for annexation and zoning the conditions that are set forth in the motion, any further discussion? Rountree: I have none. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THOUSAND SPRINGS SUBDIVISION (330 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 121.897 ACRES) BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS AND MARTY GOLDSMITH - NORTH OF VICTORY AND WEST OF EAGLE ROAD. Corrie: At this time I'll open the public hearing and invite the developer or developers rap? BECKY BOWCUTT, 18000 W. OVERLAND, BOISE, 10. WAS SWORN IN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Bowcutt: Please incorporate my past testimony into the record for the Preliminary Plat. Could I get a clarification on the right..of-way, what was the statement. Councilman Rountree. Rountree: As it relates to property pins and property location, with respect to the two foot overlap on the sidewalks. Having the property lines buried by the sidewalks. Bowcutt: Oh, not to have the property pin buried by the sidewalk. So we could do some type of an offset? Rountree: I would suggest that you work that out with the city engineer because we have problems with that and we need a solution. Bowcutt: Okay. Prior: Before the findings are done please, soon. Bowcutt: Okay, we can get with Gary, get with Gary. Corrie: Anyone else from the public like to enter testimony on the preliminary plat? NANCY HANSEN, 2460 E VICTORY ROAD, MERIDIAN, 10. WAS SWORN IN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Hansen: Can I clarify which lots are 14-21? Rountree: There essentially-it starts two lots north of Victory and goes to Sherbrooke subdivision. Hansen: Oh, it's to the Sherbrooke. Anderson: I think the ones along the tagish (sic) way. Hansen: I think that's what you intended but I'm not sure that that is really what they are. Can we look at the... (Inaudible) Rountree: It stands as it stands. Bird: As it stands. Hansen: I had one other question from the-from Ms. Bowcutt, when she talked about the larger lots. I'm not sure if I can-in this section, ask about that. Where she said the larger lots border the canal, all of those are larger lots. I wondered if that was including that the center line of the canal is where the border of the property is, so it makes those lots look bigger. Bowcutt: No. Hansen: I just wanted to make sure that that was not the case. I would still request that those be R-2 zoning, so that there were fewer houses, single story, thank you. (Inaudible) Corrie: Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony. BOB FRITTS WAS SWORN BY THE ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY. Fritts: This is the map that shows our property. The other map didn't show where our property is. Our house is right there, so when you go to 21, our pasture is out here, the shop is here and the house is right there. So our view is this way. Going from 14 to 21 just cuts across, you know, we're looking at the ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCtiJ JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 73 Hanson's house. Our view is this way. (Inaudible) Is 24 and 22 about the same to you? (Inaudible) Fritts: Okay, then I'll propose that we go to lot 23. That's exactly where would be perfect for us for privacy and for our view. Bowcutt: I'd just like to state that we're in opposition of going any more single story lots. I mean he thinks that those homes are going to be back on that rim. You need to understand those lots are a 131 feet deep, so they are going to set up toward the roadway. It's not like the homes are going to be right back at the canal. If you understand what I'm saying. There's 100 foot easement. And then you've got the lots going 130 beyond that. You've got a 20 foot setback. Most of the homes are set back from the street. In those pictures that I showed you, all you could see was the trees and then that rim. If you look forward, you can't see further beyond there. We are not creating a walled in affect. These people are lower than us but I don't think that the visual effect is going to be what they think, and when you look at the aerials, you can see the Hanson's house is 200 feet from the east side of the canal, and the Fritts' is 380 feet. This is one inch equals 200 feet. This is the Hanson's house. Their garage is behind their house. So if you're here, what do you see? You see the garage. The homes are not going to be back here, but they are going to be measured from the edge of the canal. There's 100 feet. So the home is going to set up in this area right in here. That's 1 00 feet, not back here, and all you can see from here is this area here. There's those trees and you can see those pictures that I submitted that Will has. Mr. Fritts' house is over here. He's got shops and all this behind him. This is his house. It's the brown one on the picture. This is what he sees. When you come in through here, what you're doing is you're taking this area about through this area right in here and you're making those single story. Approximately through that area here. I'd just like to go on the record that I think that's inappropriate. If we start doing that, then anytime we build next to anyone's house, it will be a story. What next? Then they started limiting us that a single story can't be over 15 feet tall? We can't have a 6 12 pitch on a roof or something. I mean it will go completely out of control, and I just think that's not the way the ordinances, the codes, the constitution of this country's written. I just think it's inappropriate. Thank you. Sorry I'm just getting tired, cranky. Corrie: Anybody else? (Inaudible) Corrie: If you want testimony let's get up here and talk. Let's not talk to each other out in the - it's getting late and we need to have this on the record. ( :MERIDIAN CITY COUNC.LL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 74 (- Unidentified: Yeah, I mean this hasn't been presented to P & Z. I just want to see what you guys are looking at because I haven't seen it either. You know none of us have seen it. (Inaudible) Corrie: Anyone else? (End of Tape) Corrie: ... the decision on the preliminary plat anyway. Until the annexation and zoning is done. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, we can, but I would like to hear Gary's comments and Shari's comments on this when we see it again, but not at this point. I just indicated that I would like to have your comments when we see this again. Having said that, Mr. Mayor, I would move that we table decision on the preliminary plat for Thousand Springs until such time as we have revised Finding Of Facts on the request for annexation and zoning and the annexation ordinance is approved, which would be possibly August 18th, 1998. Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion is made and second that we defer decision and table until August the 18th. Any further discussion? Hearing none all those in favor of the motion say aye? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 11: DISCUSSION BY DON BRYAN - FLOODING PROBLEMS AT 2070 N. LOCUST GROVE: Bryan: Well, that wasn't much of a wait was it? For I think most of you folks know why I am here, because I've been coming here for seven years and it's been the same problem. To give the new council members a brief synopsis of what's been going on as I was - my property is on Locust Grove Road next to Fred Meyer development and when they first started developing the land around me in '91, was my first flood, and it came shortly after they developed Mirage Meadows and Chateau Meadows. That was June of '91 and July of '92 was the second flood. I have pictures of the second flood for those who haven't seen them. And I had another flood between then and now, but I had another flood three weeks ago when the big rains came. Each time it floods is a major rainstorm and each time I talk to either Nampa Meridian or Ada County Highway or you folks. Everybody tells me the same comment. Well, that's the worst rain I ever seen around here. And that's what they said this year, and it happened one good flood this year looked like that and there was two other instances that I know of that the water was backed up and coming out my drains. My irrigation drains I have two, one in the corner of my pasture and one in the corner of my orchard and they drain into the system that you guys approved and developed with Ada County, and when it rains and there's an over abundance of storm ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNL.LL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 75 water coming down, it all bubbles out of those drains my inlets and just backs up into my property. When all this started, when they developed Mirage Meadows which is adjacent to me to the north and Chateau Meadows which is adjacent to Mirage Meadows in '91, '92, and then again Gem Park which is to the west in '92, none of these developments had retention ponds. The only thing that I know of for a back flow apparatus is the french drain back up system they have in Mirage Meadows which obviously doesn't work. And we've had numerous meetings over the years with all the people involved. Nampa Meridian, some of you folks, been involved with some of those. Also the developer as they've developed the land, I've kept in touch with every one of them, made sure that I didn't have additional problems. Each time we met with the developers on I guess a dozen different developments, they assured me they would take of it and it would never happen again, and it's still happening. The last time it happened it was June 30th whatever Thursday. When it happened I was very upset and the first thing I did was look for the Mayor and then I looked for Will and both of you guys were gone and I ended up with Gary and he took the full brunt of my frustration. I talked to Ada County Highway District because the first thing you are going to say is it's not our problem, it's the Ada County Highway drain system. I talked with them at length and told them what my problem was and they knew the history all ready and they came out and checked all the collectors and the culverts and they said they didn't see any blockage and it was all free flowing and I asked them to suck it out and clean it out anyway as best they can so I can eliminate that probability, and here I am a little problem that won't go away of all this development that you are just passing developments that keep coming in. So what should we do? Corrie: What would you suggest in this case? Bryan: Well I knew that was what the question was going to be. So what I suggest to fix it, the only thing I can come up is a retention pond somewhere out there to catch all that collector that's not being collected. The problem I believe in my own mind is down stream. I think it's all backing up and coming up to the lowest point, which is my property. Where are you going to put a collection pond or where are you going to divert water? I have no clue. Or you could pass a special bond and buy me a pump to put in my basement to pump out the water when it floods, and I can just hit the switch when it gets backed up. Just kidding. You guys are so serious. Corrie: We're not serious. We're just half asleep. Anderson: Build an arc. Bryan: That's been suggested by Jim Johnson. He got tired of seeing me come down here, so he's not here anymore. ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 76 ( Bird: Don, you think the retention pond would do it. Where could we locate it or how could we locate it? . Bryan: I don't have any idea. Bird: Is the piping and everything of good enough size and everything? Bryan: Well what I got in front of my house I have a 12 inch line and I don't know what's in Avest the Fred Meyer development. They split it up. So I don't know how that water is coming down, but I know it gets split and I can control that water that's coming my way, but when it gets in front of my house along with my irrigation water it's a 12 inch coming in from - with a 12 inch from Chateau and a 12 inch from Mirage Meadows into a 24. And before this all developed it dumped into the Jackson drain or a great big sloped reservoir if you will. It ran the full length of Gem Park Subdivision. They went in there and planted a pipe in the back of Gem Park Subdivision on a Saturday or Sunday. Nobody inspected it. They guessing it was 24 inch I believe and it went down the back of Gem Park and dumped into a 16 at that time, and then it was determined that's where the problem was. It was backing up from that 16, so approximately in '96 they replaced the line the 16 inch line to accommodate the extra flow of water downstream, but evidently it's not helping. And that's about the time I quit coming to the meetings was '96 because I thought the problem had been taken care of. Anderson: Weill guess other than us sitting here in a council meeting trying to guess where everything drains 'and where the lines are, I would ask Gary - he's an engineer to go out and look at it and see if he can come up with some recommendations for us. Bryan: Well to I guess just inform you this has been done in '94 and '94. We've had meetings and we've had designs and we've had drawings, and in fact I've got a lot of them with me that show all the things that are there. The things that are there are obviously not working, but nobody knows how to direct it. Short of it was discussed in '92, '93 about the only way they correct it is go everybody's backyards and buy the right-af-way and redo the line. And that's out of the question. Anderson: So Gary were you in on all those meetings and you're all apprised of it? Smith: I was in on part of them. I don't know that I've been in on every meeting, but we have had a lot of meeting concerning that pipe system. I don-,t know. What I do know is that in Willowbrook, I guess it was in '96, the highway district did a massive storm drain project, run a 30 inch diameter line up Willowbrook to and then to the end of Willowbrook on the east side of that Meridian Place S',.,bdivision and then they went north and tied into this 24 inch line that's along ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNC.1L JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 77 ( the back of Gem Park Subdivision and we all felt that that was the problem because obviously like Don said they had a 24 inch dumping into a 15. I think it was or a 16 inch pipe which doesn't work. So there is either a problem in the pipe along the back of Gem Park or there's a problem where it crosses Locust Grove and I don't know what the configuration of everything looks like at Locust Grove where Chateau Meadows, Mirage Meadows and the Fred Meyer Avest development all drain to the northwest corner of Dan's property. It seems like there a sand trap for Mirage Meadows that part of this water drains through before it crosses Locust Grove. I don't know what Fred Meyer dumps into, but there a lot of pavement, and I don't recall what their storm drain system looks like. It's very possible that the pond needs to be constructed on their property to pick up that much drainage anyway because there's a lot pavement and there's a lot of water coming off of it. I just don't' remember what their drainage system looks like. Bryan: Well if I could interject here. The Avest property I can control that flow. What they got - I don't know what's in that box in the corner of my pasture, whether they've got a flow coming from their lot. Anderson: Well would it be possible for you to get some maps and work with Don and come to a strategic planning meeting and layout some options for us? Smith: Yes, sir. I can gather that information as much as I have and what Don has and maybe we can come to some kind of conclusion. Anderson: Because we're sure not going to be able to solve it here tonight. Smith: No, sir. Bryan: Weill didn't expect to solve it tonight. But the reason I'm here tonight is to make you all aware of it, because I've been through this before with different councilmen and council members, and I've gone through all engineering. We've gone through all the previous platting and we've gone all the previous floods, and we decided that it should be working or it's not ever going to work. But nobody knows how to direct it, and that's like I say that's my frustration. I don't have the answer. Anderson: I don't either. I appreciate you bringing it to us, and we'll see if we can work out a solution. That's alii can offer. Bryan: I appreciate you trying, and I can work with you. I can get all the information, but we've been there. Smith: I guess maybe my thoughts right at the moment would be to hire a consultant and just sick 'em on to the project and find out what's wrong. Tim Burgess here, Civil Survey, has been doing some storm drainage studies for ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCiL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 78 ( ACHD within the City of Meridian, and they are involved in one right now for them. So maybe with their background on what's going on in other parts of the town, they could swing over there and take a look at that and give us some guidance. My problem is my time. I just - I'm submerged. Rountree: My -problem is and I don't want to pass the buck on this thing because Don is right. It's been seven years, but we've accepted plats, engineering, storm drains, stamped by professional engineers that they'll work, accepted by ACHD in the records of the County we have a problem and what they've certified is going to work doesn't work. To me there's a case for errors and omission insurance. Probably never happen, but somebody messed up somewhere. Storm drainage is the responsibility of ACHD. I think we need to put the heat on ACHD to say okay let's sit at the table with the city and Don and come to an agreement that we are going to hire Burgess Civil Engineering or somebody to come and put together a solution which ACHD is willing to accept. Because there again, whatever is done they are going to have to prove again they are going to have to agree to maintain again, so I don't think we can do it individually and get the solution. We've got to have them involved and I guess what I'm saying is they should accept some responsibility in this thing as well. We rely on them to review those things. We rely on them for consistency for transportation and storm drainage, and if they accepting something that is not working then we need to put the heat on them and get it worked out. So I agree with what Ron is saying, we need to sit down and do it with - I know your time is limited Gary, but maybe you can facilitate getting this going and the next thing we do with ACHD is get somebody hired to get it taken care of. I don't think we can just ignore them because they say it's not their problem, because in my opinion it is. Smith: I think part of it is. I think we're also dealing with irrigation water here just dumping into this same ditch. It's a combined flow. Bryan: That's the problem. Corrie: Is Nampa Meridian part of that? Smith: I believe it is Nampa Meridian, yes, sir. Bryan: And they are on record saying they had - they did not certify the line behind Gem Park in previous meetings. They don't know what's in there unless they've since discovered what's in there but they had nothing to do with that because it was done kind of after hours. Rountree: They apparently accepted it. Bryan: After it was done? Apparently. ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNC.k.L JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 79 (-- Rountree: Somebody did. Well maybe they should be involved as well. Get all four entities together. Smith: Okay, I'll do that. Thank you. Bryan: Thanks for your time. I'm going home and going to bed. Corrie: This long of an agenda happens again, I'm going to hand a city clerk. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, the lateness of the hour and the fact that I think we have two folks left to come before us and by the way of public, I would suggest that we defer the remainder of the items on the agenda to a reasonable hour or maybe tomorrow or the next day unless there's something urgent that staff needs, so we can get to the two folks that are in the audience and get that taken care of. I would suggest that. Corrie: Let's do the agreement, Devlin Place. Does this meet the approval of the council as suggested by Councilman Rountree? Bird: Sure. Rountree: I know you have an appointment at 3:30 this morning to hit the road. Corrie: Who are the two out here that would like to talk? (Inaudible) ITEM 13: AGREEMENT WITH DEVLIN PLACE AND FUTURE PARK LAND BY DAN WOOD: Corrie: Everybody knows what we need to do and we'll do it. Wood: Basically what this is pertaining to the pressurized irrigation system. Do I need to go into detail or is that alii need? Any questions? Corrie: We just need to approve the - hang tight. Rountree: This is for an agreement with Devlin Place for a joint venture on pressurized irrigation pump station? Wood: Right. Rountree: Any comment from Parks and Recreation Director? Kuntz: Well tonight is the first time I've seen this agreement, and I probably know the answer to this, but it appears that all three portions of land will each pay ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNC.LL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 80 ( $11,000. And I know that we have approximately five acres, and there's 12 acres in the middle and 8 acres down below, and I'm wondering if we could just get Dan to comment on why that's that way. Wood: Okay. First off not all three parcels are paying $11,000. It only says two. The reason why the city's portion is $11,000 versus the $11,000 that Prestige is paying is part of the city's $11,000 is also the additional cost to stub the water to the park's boundary. And what I mean by that is with the subdivision that I'm proposing or that's been approved, Devlin, I'm only going to have the pressure lines go to my lots to extend it to the north under Chateau Street. I have to put additional valves as well as the C-900 pipe to protect the water lines so out of the $11,000 about $4,000 of it is for the upgrades to get it to you. The balance of it is your portion for the pump station. The $11,000 that Prestige is paying for basically just stubs the water to their property, and they don't have to go across any streets or anything like that, so that's why it came out that way. Kuntz: And this amount was planned to be taken out of next year's budget once it's approved. Rountree: Gary, do you have any comments? (Inaudible) Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve and authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest an agreement with Devlin Place to enter into - excuse me, staff is yelling things across at me. What are you telling me? Stiles: This agreement isn't even written up to include the city as a partner in it. The city doesn't own the property yet. It's really almost like a deed restriction on the property it looks like. Ballantyne: It will be an encumbrance on the property. Mike Ballantyne representing Prestige Care. Basically Prestige Care will be gifting the five acres to the City of Meridian. Normally the city can't accept a gift that has an encumbrance on it or some sort of debt on it. As the city is not an owner of the property yet, and a requirement of our approvals is dedicating the park to the city we have to - it's a cart before the horse sort of thing that we have to create the encumbrance so that we can dedicate the park to the city so that we can get our approval to move ahead, and Dan Wood can have his construction meeting and start a subdivision. So ifs just a matter of we would actually enter into the agreement. I would recommend that your motion be that the Mayor be able to initial the deed and sign the third party escrow instructions and the initial and the signature be attested by the City Clerk to accept a property that actually does have an encumbrance on it. Rather than free and clear, the $11,000 encumbrance which will be shown on the title report as a lien in favor of Dan Wood, or OW Inc. Kind of complicated, thus it's before the council. You get a ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNC.lL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 81 ( warranty deed from DD&F which is Prestige Care. It would just be - you would assume the liability that Prestige Care had placed on the property with OW Inc. and the whole purpose was so that you could avoid building a $60,000 pump station. Bird: I make a motion that we accept this property with the encumbrance of $11,000 lien and for the Mayor to sign and accept the warranty deed as a third party. Prior: No, just accept the warranty deed with the encumbrance. Bird: Accept the warranty deed with the encumbrances. Rountree: Second. Corrie: Motion made and second. Are there any further discussion? All in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 14: DESIGN REVIEW - WAREHOUSE & MICRO-WAVE TOWER BY AHA ARCHITECTS - CENTRAL FACILITIES COMPLEX: Awes: My name is Morton Awes, partner in the firm of Awes, Hutchison Architects. 1324 W. Idaho Street, Boise, Idaho 83702. The project that you have before you is a proposed warehouse and shop for the Department of Law Enforcement on their campus south of Franklin Road, and you have a site plan that indicates the situation of the project. Generally on the southeast portion of their site. On this larger plan you can see a portion of the driving track here. So this might help orient you that the existing warehouse and the southeast portion and then the driving track and 1-84. When we ran this project by Shari, she indicated that it would be proper to have you look at this on a design review status for several reasons. Not only the building itself but the adjacent tower. There will be a micro-wave tower of approximately 100 feet in height and this shows you a building of about 20 feet in height and a tower next to it, and the intent was to have you look at this and get your comments and hopefully approval that this would meet with your approval. So we're doing that this evening to basically get your comments and any ideas that you might have relative to it. It is on the state property and so the actual approval process is one that's not real clear. We're not obliged to obtain a building permit as you know, but yet thought it would be good for you to see it and entertain your comments. Anderson: What's back behind there? Is that just open field back behind there? Awes: Yes. There is open field here. This is adjacent property and of course the driving track to the south. So and then the open field here for future ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNC.lL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 82 development. There will be a phase two communication shop and building in this area. Anderson: And there's nothing built there now, and the state doesn't own that ground right behind there? Awes: No. This is the property line for the Department of Law Enforcement and the Academy. Well it jogs and (inaudible). A rather straight forward project, but being on the gateway entry into the city and so forth we thought that it would be good for you to see it. Anderson: Is that tower, is that because they plan on moving dispatch facilities out there or - Awes: No, it's for the state micro-wave emergency system that the Department of Administration maintains. Rountree: It indicates proposed phase one. What's phase two, three, four and five? Awes: Phase two will be a building of approximately this size that will be principally offices and administrative support facilities. Whereas the building that you will be seeing very shortly here is for the installation of radios in the police cars (inaudible) and the micro-wave transmitter itself. It will be sitting next to the tower. Rountree: Question for Shari. Is that adjacent lot in the business park to the east or is that the adjacent rural residential? Stiles: Can you show me where that is? Awes: He's asking about this parcel just to the east Shari. (Inaudible) Stiles: And the only reason I had him come to you I would have sent him to Planning and Zoning Commission but things are a little disjointed there as far as they don't know the process either because we don't have a clear direction for them yet. And I didn't want them repositioning all the buildings and asking him why this and that, so it is permitted with design review in this zone and I just asked Mr. Awes to come as a courtesy really to let you know and so when the tower starts going up that there aren't any questions of why that's happening. Corrie: So we're going to be acting as the design review committee. Anderson: What color are you going to paint it? ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCLLJ JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 83 ( Awes: I don't really know what color the tower will be painted, but I believe it will be white. Corrie: You've satisfied the design review on it. Thank you very much. ITEM NO. 18: REQUEST FOR BEER AND LIQUOR LICENSES FOR THE FRONTIER CLUB DAVID AND ERIC SANQUIST. Donesley: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Member of the Council. My name is Brian Donesley. I'm a lawyer in Boise. I'm at 604 N. 16th Street. David Sandquist and Eric Sandquist are people that I've known since 1975. In 1979 they got on a waiting list for the City of Meridian for a liquor license anticipating that some day in the far distant future they would qualify for a license and that time has apparently come. The state is issued, the county is issued. The way the law is written, the state law, it's a little bit confusing, and I will explain the best that I can. The state law requires that a license be placed and that it be used continuously for six month. The license may not be sold or leased for two years. Mr. Sandquist, each of them, they're brothers. David was banker with Key Bank in Pocatello. He's now an independent businessman. He's very successful at that. His brother Eric lives in Arizona. He's in the leasing business and they are long time Idaho residents, have been. They've entered in an agreement with Mr. Alidjani at the 127 Club. Mr. Alidjani has agreed to pursuant to a contract to put his license inactive basically in a back room, let this license go in there. He will operate that as a contract or a contract manager running the Sandquist's concession in the 127 Club for six months or six months to a year. In the background of this whole thing is the Meridian Family Center which you may know more about than I do, but that will be the ultimate placement for this license of course to the city council and the building of that project. I understand that's a substantial project. It's a real estate investment trust. A large interest that wants to build a good project in Meridian. The Sandquists eventually will contract and have contracted to sell that license when the two years has elapsed. This is I think a good project for the city of Meridian, and I can't attest for that project per say, but rather my part of it is to assist for the placement of that license on an interim basis. It will not create new license premises in the sense that there will be new bars opening or restaurants that would otherwise not come before the city council with regard to that projected other project. The application is there before you. I was unable to identify more than two city residents, and I want to bring that to your attention, because I could do that probably if I dug up some more people. Those two persons are persons who David Sandquist has worked with Key Bank. He's on their investment advisory committee. Those are person with whom he has worked. These are both substantial and good citizens. I will offer this to you and ask that you approve this license with that background, and I'm certainly available to answer any questions which you might have in this regard. ( :MERIDIAN CITY COUNC.lL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 84 ( Bird: Yeah, I got a question. Now, if I understand this right, Mr. Alidjani is going to put his beer and liquor license in the back room, and these people are kind of get the use of this new liquor license and beer and wine, and Mr. Alidjani, they are going to hang it at the Frontier Club and Mr. Alidjani is going to maintain the running of the club. Donesley: Yes, sir, under a contract and the Sandquists remain responsible for the state tax commission and administratively for all administrative purposes. Bird: Have you seen this chief? Gordon: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bird, it is legal. Once a license is in operation for I believe 18 months, they can hang it on the wall and no longer sell alcohol with it. They do have to put it into operation shortly after they do acquire a new license. And that's basically what they're doing here. It is legal. Bird: What about on a transfer because that license is only transferred a short time ago. The Frontier license if I remember right. Gordon: Liquor licenses in the state of Idaho are classed as real property. When he purchased it, the license is already legal. Bird: Chief, what I'm asking is the transfer from like Ruth Crow to Mae Alidjani, does that break a continuance in the hanging of the license? Gordon: No. They just have to go through it the one time when they are first issued. Bird: And you checked these out and the applicant is okay and everything? Gordon: Yeah, I have checked them out and I find no reason why we shouldn't issue the license. Corrie: This maybe just a technicality, but it says recommendations, and I think you brought about this six or more residents of Meridian required. There's two here. That's what you mentioned. Is it a technicality that's okay? (Inaudible) have that up there and they suddenly say you can't do it. Donesley: If I may respond, Mr. Mayor. I am not aware, there's no state law certainly that requires that, and I don't believe there's a city ordinance or - Prior: If you want to waive that other requirement, you're welcome to waive that. Mr. Donesley is right. I don't think there's any state requirement that this is - Corrie: Okay, I just wanted didn't want to get there and they have it and all of a sudden somebody come in and say you can't do that. Any further discussion? ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 85 Rountree: I have none. Corrie: I will entertain a motion for the request. Anderson: Mr. Mayor I make a motion that we approve the beer and liquor license for David and Eric Sandquist for the Frontier Club. Rountree: Second. Corrie: Motion made and second that we okay the request for beer and liquor license for the Frontier Club by David and Eric Sandquist. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: Okay, we've got 15 ,16,17,19 the department reports. How do you want to do that? You have something? (Inaudible) Corrie: Oh, waiting for Shari's weed reports. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, we will not be able to have a quorum the remainder of the week I believe. So if there are things that staff needs approved by way of agreements and/or change orders I would suggest we do those and then publish that we've deferred these until an available date next week. Will can we do that? Berg: Mayor and Councilman, if I could suggest that maybe we have a planning session scheduled for next Tuesday that maybe first part of that would be a special meeting to do that. I do have a couple of issues that are pending because of some openings of restaurants. We have a development agreement that we've been sitting on the plat for about two weeks or three weeks that the developer is anxiously - Rountree: So we have a couple of things there, and Gary you've got - Berg: If we could maybe hold them off until next Tuesday that might be okay. Corrie: Let's go into the department reports. Gary? Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I've just got two items that I'd really like to get Your approval on tonight. The first one is this water line joint venture agreement with Presbyterian Church on Ustick Road. Have you had a chance to review that in your packets? That's a sharing of costs for water line installation that the church was going to have to install a six inch diameter line to serve their church ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNLll.J JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 86 ( building, and as part of our tank project, we're going to build a sixteen inch diameter line. So their contractor will build that portion of the line for us. We'll reimburse them for the difference in cost between the two diameters. Anderson: I just had a question. Did they get another competitive bid that was the thing that we were looking for last time. Smith: You know I don't know that I saw those, but they told me that they had received competitive bids on it. This doesn't include the -last time we had an expansion of the project, and we did not have competitive bids on that expansion. This is a reversion back to the original proposal. It does not include the expansion of the scope of the project. So originally they did have competitive bids to change from a six inch diameter line to a sixteen inch. Because of the time factor, I just dropped that expansion of the scope of the project. We'll just go back and reconnect when we get ready to go forward with the tank project. It's going to cost us two forty five degree elbows and a short piece of pipe, and that's all. I couldn't figure out any other way to do it because of the timing that they had to follow that they had to meet in order to get started. Corrie: Any other questions? I'll entertain a motion for the approval of the agreement. Bird: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve the joint venture agreement with the Presbyterian Church and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Rountree: Second. Corrie: Motion made and second that we enter into the agreement between the Presbyterian, Boise, Idaho and the City of Meridian, Mayor to sign and City Clerk to attest. Further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Smith: Thank you. The second item I have is we received a bid for the drilling of well number 20. Riverside Incorporated out of Parma was the bidder. $93,097.00. We reviewed the bid and despite some differences in unit prices when compared to well number 19, we decided that it was a responsive bid and appropriate to accept. And so we would recommend that the bid be awarded to Riverside Incorporated from Parma in the amount of $93,097.00. Corrie: Further discussion? Rountree: None. ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNC.LL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 87 Bird: I have none. Mr. Mayor, I move that the City of Meridian accept the bid for well number 20 for the sum of $93,097.00 Riverside Incorporated of Parma for the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest. Rountree: Second. Corrie: Motion is made by Mr. Bird, second by Mr. Rountree as stated motion of $93,097.00 bid by Riverside hlC. of Parma for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. (End of Tape) Smith: ... change order for Tully Park also? This is change order number five for Tully Park improvements. It and probably Tom is the guy. You're aware of this, right Tom? Well I'll just turn this over to Tom on the dugouts and the - Kuntz: Just two items. One is enlargement of the dugouts. They were originally designed for Little League Baseball. Softball dugouts are larger in size. The change order is for a total $1,760.00 and the other amount was for sterilization of the parking lot so a total change order of $2, 110.00. Anderson: Could you just explain to me what sterilization of the parking lot is? Kuntz: It's so that vegetation won't grown underneath the asphalt and come up and cause cracking. Anderson: So it's something they do before they lay the asphalt? Kuntz: Yes, standard operating. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we accept the change order number five for Tully Park in the amount of $2, 11 0.00. Bird: Second it. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree and second by Mr. Bird to accept this change order number five in the amount of $2,110.00. Further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, could we go to item number 12, development agreement for Haven Cove No.7? Mr. Blaser was here earlier but left because ( \ MERIDIAN CITY COUNLLL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 88 of the late hour. John Prior and I have sat down yesterday and went over the agreement. I made the revisions and got it back to the developer and they returned it today signed. Rountree: So you are recommending approval? Stiles: Yes. Rountree: Mr. Prior? Prior: Yas. Corrie: Any further questions on item number 12? Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that City of Meridian approve the development agreement for Haven Cove NO.7. Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Anderson to approve the Haven Cove No. 7 Development Agreement. Further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Stiles: I hate to get Peggy all excited thinking that something was happening but I do have a development agreement from Nampa. It's their contract agreement for weed, trash and debris removal. They've entered into this. It's been very successful for them. Did you look at this John? Prior: I did. I had a chance to review it. It's pretty standard stuff. Stiles: I don't have the company yet that we have selected to enter into this contract with, and until I get that changed and put the names in, I'll do that at the next meeting for you. We do have a problem out off Chateau. You probably heard numerous complaints about the field where Turtle Creek is being built. It is a mess. We haven't met the notice requirements yet. I don't know if John maybe could help me if there's something that in an emergency situation. I consider it an emergency situation right now. It's a public nuisance. It needs to be mitigated immediately. If you have any time at all tomorrow that we could see if we could do that. Fifteen minutes. Just because I'm going to authorize that work to be done. At least like a 20 or 30 foot strip adjacent to the residents. So legally I don't want to be caught where the auditors are questioning why we were spending public money on private property and then we have no ability to recoup that money. f MERIDIAN CITY COUNC.AL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 89 ( Prior: We can go after them criminally if there's a nuisance there right off the bat. If you'd like to do and that brings up a good point Shari is that at some point city council - I did get an opportunity to send it to Gary about a code enforcement policy as to what we want to do. Obviously Gary is a very busy man, and I know that. Because he sends me memos constantly. He's got to be doing - but at some point when Gary gets done and Shari gets a chance to look at it and everybody else gets a chance to look at it, you folks may want to look at a code enforcement policy as part of that as well. But Shari, at this point criminally we can go after anybody we need to if there is a problem we can pursue criminal charges and as part of that get restitution in terms of any costs we may have incurred in that as part of the - Stiles: If you could set aside just - I know you are very busy. Prior: Why don't we set it up for 6:30 tomorrow morning? Stiles: Okay that would be great. Prior: They are not even listening to us, Shari, just ignoring us. Sometime in the afternoon, give me a call. We'll talk about it. Stiles: So we can get somebody out there. I want somebody out there tomorrow if at all possible. Prior: Gladly. Set an appointment with my secretary. That would be me. Stiles: The second item I'm getting several requests from people on Chinden Boulevard are wanting to buy property on Chinden Boulevard. And I just want to tell you where I'm heading on that. Paula Devaney has asked that we consider a request. She wants to buy ten acres out there and put a warehouse as part of her company, and that entire corridor is single family residential in our comprehensive plan. We also had another request. They want to go to Ada County to get a conditional use permit for a nursery which maybe in the future after we do some revisions to the Comprehensive Plan. It's probably not out of the question to have some commercial there. I can't see it all being single family residential, but in the meantime unless you want to tell me otherwise, I am going to continue to send letters for commercial projects that they are not in compliance with our camp plan unless it's a single family residential development, because all these people are now coming in and they say well, you let the church hookup to United Water. Why can't we and they'll have the whole strip developed as strip commercial if they get a chance. So unless you want to tell me otherwise, I am just going to continue to do that. Bird: On the south side? Stiles: South. I MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 90 Rountree: Continue from my perspective. Bird: Same way with me. Or we can jump around and have a bunch of messes like we've had. Corrie: Chief you want to bring up that memorandum? Gordon: I can your honor. Did everybody on Council get that? Is there any questions on that? What that is that allows all three agencies to have officers operate in each others jurisdiction. Corrie: I can okay so many, but not over ten days. After over ten days, deputizing them they have to be council approved. Rountree: Can we get a chance to read this sometime during the daylight? Gordon: Oh, yeah. This can wait until - this doesn't have to be done tonight folks. Bird: Can we act upon this next Tuesday or something? Gordon: Sure. Corrie: I just want you to know what it is so when you read it. Rountree: I think we talked about this previously. Gordon: Yeah, what this is we're not deputized outside of our jurisdiction, and our people are constantly going to the jailor doing investigations primarily is what it amounts to. And when they follow up leads outside of our jurisdiction, they have no authority. Normally Sheriffs authorize or deputize all certified officers in the county. Well this Sheriff won't do that, so the three cities got together. We have jurisdiction within the three cities but still not in the county. But it gives us a little more than what we had. Prior: Chief, the liability is basically going to be per jurisdiction if I read this right. Gordon: That's correct. Prior: That seems to be pretty fair. Gordon: And it will be strictly certified officers. It will all be certified and off probation. But it can wait. ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCiL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 91 ( Kuntz: I only have about six things. It will take about ten minutes. Actually there's memo that I hope everyone got. It is in regards to a little glitch with the lighting project at Storey Park. It stems from us not being involved in the specifications of those lights. I appreciate it if you would read that over and if you could get me some feedback no later than next Tuesday. Corrie: All right. I guess it's pretty well taken care of it. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Bird: So moved. Rountree: We need to establish a date for our planning meeting. Berg: Probably as a motion too is to say the items that you didn't cover tonight to be on that special meeting on the 28th at whatever time. Corrie: Okay, we'll back up on that adjournment. Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that the agenda items not covered this evening be moved to our planning session July 28th and be discussed at that point as a special meeting prior to the start of our planning workshop at 6:30. Corrie: 6:30, okay. Do I hear a second? Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made and second the motion. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adjourn. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made and second that we adjourn. All in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1 :45 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) i \ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCLL JULY 21, 1998 PAGE 92 APPROVE: ATTEST: ~fi WILLIAM G~ BERG, JR., . III: " ~ , """ii:..l u ~ ~ , :.:.~ ;;: . pIIlj ( \ public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That the property is located within the City of Meridian; that the general location of the property is at 1324 Meridian Road, Meridian, Idaho, and described in the application which description is incorporated herein. The Applicant is the owner of record of the property. 3. That the property is currently zoned C-C, Community Business District. The proposed use of the property is to operate an artificial nail salon. Pursuant to the application, the Applicant agrees to pay any additional sewer, water or trash fees or charges, associated with the use, whether that use be residential, commercial or industrial. 4. That the zoning of (C-C) , Community Business District is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B. 9. as follows: (C-C) COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT: The purpose of the (C-C) District is to permit the establishment of general business uses that are of a larger scale than a neighborhood business, and to encourage the development of modern shopping centers with adequate off-street parking facilities, and associated site amenities to serve area residents and employees; to prohibit strip commercial development and encourage the clustering of commercial enterprises. All such districts shall have direct access to a transportation arterial and collector and be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. 5. The Assistant City Attorney swore in Darlene Jerome. Mrs. Jerome stated that she would like to obtain a conditional use permi t for a one room nail salon. Commissioner Borup inquired FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DARLENE JEROME -- ARTIFICAL NAIL SALON IN (C-C) COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT Page 2 about the cross access agreement. Mrs. Jerome noted that obtaining permission from the adjoining neighbors should not be a problem. Conunissioner Borup inquired about A. C. H. D. requirements. Mrs. Jerome noted that they are requiring a sidewalk. Commissioner Smith requested that the other commissioner's offer input on the signage. Commissioner DeWeerd noted that some type of signage would be appropriate. Commissioner Nelson agreed with Commissioner DeWeerd's assessment of the signage issue. 6. Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer, and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, submitted the following comments on the conditional use application. 1 . Sani tary sewer and water to this facility would be via existing service lines. This site currently is assessed with one water hookup and one sewer hookup. Assessments for sewer and water service will be reviewed to see if addi tional load would justify an adj ustment. Please provide any information that you may have with regard to your anticipated water demand. Applicant will be required to enter into an Assessment Agreement with the City of Meridian. 2 . Handicap parking, associated construction shall meet the Americans with Disabilities Act. signage and requirements building of the 3 . All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 11-2-415 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance. All signage shall receive design approval of the Planning & Zoning Department and should be professionally made. A-frame and other temporary signs will not be permitted and will be removed upon 3 days notice to the Applicant. Sign permits are needed for all signage. 4 . Screened trash accordance with enclosures are City Ordinance. to be provided in Coordinate dumpster FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DARLENE JEROME -- ARTIFICAL NAIL SALON IN (C-C) COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT Page 3 si te locations wi th the Ci ty' s solid waste contractor, Sanitary Services, Inc. Locate dumpsters so as not to impede fire access. 5 . This conditional use permit shall be subj ect to review upon ten (10) days notice to the applicant. An approval of transfer will be required for any new owners/tenants. 6. Provide parking lot lighting plans, if any, to the Meridian Public Works Department for approval. 7 . The Meridian Fire Chief, Kenny Bowers, submitted comments stating that all codes will need to be met. 8. The Meridian Police Chief, Bill Gordon, submitted no comments. 9. The Central District Health Department had no objections to the application. 10. The Ada County Highway District submitted the following comments pertaining to site specific and standard requirements. SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS: 1. Construct a 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk on Meridian Road abutting the parcel. Coordinate the location of the sidewalk with District staff. 2. The existing 19-foot wide driveway located near the north property line is approved with this application. 3. Provide a recorded cross access easement for the parcel to the north to use this parcel for access to the public streets prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits). The District intends to require a similar agreement of the owners of the parcel to the north if they are the subject to of a future development application. 4 . Other than the access point specifically approved wi th this application, direct lot or parcel access to Meridian Road is prohibited. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DARLENE JEROME -- ARTIFICAL NAIL SALON IN (C-C) COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT Page 4 STANDARD REQUIREMENTS: 1. A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined herein shall be made in writing to the ACHD Planning and Development Supervisor. The request shall specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include a written explanation of why such a requirement would resul t in a substantial hardship or inequity. The written request shall be submitted to the District no later than 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for ACHD Commission action. Those items shall be rescheduled for discussion with the Commission on the next available meeting agenda. Requests submitted to the District after 9:00 a.m. on the day scheduled for Commission action do not provide sufficient time for District staff to remove the item from the consent agenda and report to the Commission regarding the requested modification, variance or waiver. Those items will be acted on by the Commission unless removed from the agenda by the Commission. 2. After ACHD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within two weeks of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00. The request for reconsideration shall specifically identify each requirement to be reconsidered and include written documentation of data that was not available to the Commission at the time of its original decision. The request for reconsideration will be heard by the District Commission at the next regular meeting of the Commission. If the Commission agrees to reconsider the action, the applicant will be notified of the date and time of the Commission meeting at which the reconsideration will be heard. 3. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance #188, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 4. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DARLENE JEROME -- ARTIFICAL NAIL SALON IN (C-C) COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT Page 5 ( ( 5. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 6. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 7. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any change from the Ada County Highway District. 8 . Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver /variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. 11. There was no further testimony given at the hearing. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the Ci ty of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property wi thin 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to grant conditional uses pursuant to 67-6512, Idaho Code, and, pursuant to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DARLENE JEROME -- ARTIFICAL NAIL SALON IN (C-C) COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT Page 6 ( 11-2-418 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 3. The property is currently zoned (C-C) Community Business District. The (C-C), Community Business District is described in the Zoning Ordinance, 11-2-408 B. 9 as follows: (C-C) COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT: The purpose of the (C-C) District is to permit the establishment of general business uses that are of a larger scale than a neighborhood business, and to encourage the development of modern shopping centers with adequate off-street parking facilities, and associated site amenities to serve area residents and employees; to prohibit strip commercial development and encourage the clustering of commercial enterprises. All such districts shall have direct access to a transportation arterial and collector and be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. 4. That the City of Meridian has authority to place conditions on a conditional use permit and the use of the property pursuant to Section 67-6512, Idaho Code, and pursuant to that section condi tions minimizing the adverse impact on other development, controlling the duration of development, assuring the development is maintained properly, and on-site or off-site facilities may be attached to the permit; that 11-2-418 (D) authorizes the City to prescribe a set time period for which a conditional use may be in existence. 5. Section 11-2-418 D. states as follows: In approving any Conditional Use, the Commission and Council may prescribe appropriate conditions, bonds, and safeguards in conformi ty with this Ordinance. Violations of such conditions, bonds or safeguards, when made a part of the terms under which the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DARLENE JEROME -- ARTIFICAL NAIL SALON IN (C-C) COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT Page 7 Conditional Use is granted, shall be deemed a violation of the Ordinance and grounds to revoke the Conditional Use. The Commission and Council may prescribe a set time period for which a Conditional Use may be in existence. 6 . Conditional Use Pemi t is defined in the Zoning and Development Ordinance, City of Meridian, Idaho as "Permits allowing an exception to the uses authorized by this Ordinance in a zoning district." 7. This Application for a conditional use has been judged upon the basis of guidelines contained in Section 11-2-418 of the Zoning and Development Ordinance of the City of Meridian and upon the basis of the Local Planning Act of 1975, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and the record submitted to it and the things of which it may take judicial notice. 8. That 11-2-418 C of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian sets forth the standards under which the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council shall review applications for Condi tional Use Permits; that upon a review of those requirements and a review of the facts presented and the conditions of the area, the Planning and Zoning Commission concludes as follows: a. The use, would in fact, constitute a conditional use and a conditional use permit is required by ordinance. b. The use should be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DARLENE JEROME -- ARTIFICAL NAIL SALON IN (C-C) COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT Page 8 c. The use apparently would be designed and constructed to be harmonious in appearance with the intended character of the general vicinity. d. That the use would not be hazardous nor should it be disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. e. The property has sewer and water service available. f. The use would not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and the use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g . The use would not involve a use, acti vi ty, process, material, equipment or conditions of operation that would be detrimental to person, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic or noise. h. That sufficient parking for the property and the proposed use will be required. i. The development and uses destruction, loss or damage feature of major importance. will of not result a natural or in the scenic 9 . As condi tions may be placed upon the granting of a conditional use permit to minimize adverse impact on other development, it is recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission that the following conditions of granting the conditional use be required, to-wit: a . The conditional use, pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, shall not be transferable to another owner or lessor of the subject property or to another property; b. The Applicant shall meet the requirements of the City Engineer's office, the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Meridian Fire Department, Meridian Police Department, Meridian Sewer Department, Central District Health Department, and Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and other governmental agencies submitting comments; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DARLENE JEROME -- ARTIFICAL NAIL SALON IN (C-C) COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT Page 9 c. The conditional use shall not be restricted to a period of authorization but may be reviewed annually, upon notice to the Applicant, for violation of any conditions imposed herein and other conditional use applications; d. All ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met, including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, the Fire and Life Safety Codes, all parking and landscaping requirements. e. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605.M. Plans shall be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. f. Handicap parking, associated construction shall meet the Americans with Disabilities Act. signage and requirements building of the g. All signs must meet the requirements of the Uniform Sign Code and the Meridian Ci ty Ordinance. Flashing signs and temporary signs will not be permitted. All signs are subject to review and approval of the Planning and Zoning Department. Sign permits are to be obtained prior to construction. Upon three days' notice to any tenant, the City of Meridian will remove any unauthorized signage. h . Applicant will provide a screened trash enclosure per City Ordinance Section 11-2-414.A.3. The applicant shall coordinate dumpster site locations with the City's solid waste contractor, Sanitary Services, Inc.; location dumpsters so as not to impede fire access. i. All driveway and parking areas shall be paved, with all driveway accesses approved by the Ada County Highway District. Graveled driveways, parking and access are unacceptable. A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed archi teet or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1- 91) for all off street parking areas. All site drainage shall be contained and disposed of on-site. All driveway and parking stall dimensions shall comply with Meridian City Ordinance. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DARLENE JEROME -- ARTIFICAL NAIL SALON IN (C-C) COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT Page 10 j . Significant changes from the site plan approved under this conditional use permit, as determined by the Planning and Zoning Administrator, will require re- noticing and rehearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council. 10. That all ordinances of the City of Meridian must be met, including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Electrical Code, the Fire and Life Safety Code, all parking and landscaping requirements. 11. That the comments of the Assistant to the City Engineer, Planning and Zoning Administrator, City Police and Fire Departments, Ada County Highway District (ACHD), Central District Health Department, and Nampa-Meridian Irrigation District, must be complied with. 12. The above conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the Applicant shall meet these conditions. 13. It is recommended that if the Applicant meets the conditions stated above that the Conditional Use Permit be granted to the Applicant. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DARLENE JEROME -- ARTIFICAL NAIL SALON IN (C-C) COMMUNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT Page 11 ( APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL CO~ISSIONER BORUP VOTED--+ COMMISSIONER DeWEERD VOTED-+ COMMISSIONER SMITH VOTED+ COMMISSIONER NELSON VOTED /U~ CHAIRMAN MacCOY (TIE BREAKER) VOTED ~ DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Conditional Use Permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law or similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by the City Council and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the Fire and Life Safety Codes, Uniform Fire Code, parking requirements, and the paving and landscaping requirements, and all Ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the Applicant by the City. MOTION: APPROVED: 7-1-98 - Final c;k <<1-- :r1/4- /rc.<3 DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DARLENE JEROME -- ARTIFICAL NAIL SALON IN (C-C) CO~UNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT Page 12 f< i ( APPROVAL .OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUS,IONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and 5p --r ~ Conclusions of Law on this 2 ( day of J LA I. , 1998. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN BIRD COUNCILMAN BENTLEY COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE COUNCILMAN ANDERSON VOTED~ VOTED ~J- VOTED {~ VOTED~ MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED (INITIAL) APPROVED ~ ~ DISAPPROVED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW _ e t( fJ ~~ J/?/LfYh-e- }/a-vf fd~ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, JULY 21, 1998 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ROLL CALL: K RON ANDERSON )C CHARLIE ROUNTREE GLENN BENTLEY Y KEITH BIRD X MAYOR ROBERT CORRIE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS SPECIAL MEETING HELD JULY 7, 1998: ~'f't()V~ MINUTES OF PREVIOUS REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 7, 1998: ~PfJHJt/L/ TABLED JULY 7, 1998: ORDINANCE # 1q6 - TOM BEVAN ANNEXATION & ZONING ORDINANCE: apfJi-tJV~ 1. 2. TABLED JULY 7,1998: ORDINANCE # - ORDINANCE CHANGES WITH CROSS CONNECTION AND BACKFLOW DEVICES: hb&: w~ ~ 1-~. TABLED JULY 7, 1998: APPEAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EAGLE PARTNERS LLC BY RICHARD C. WILLIAMS deC{S-/~ K//~~~ 10 d<<ffs TABLED JULY 7, 1998: APPEAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECISiON ON FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR MAWS SUBDIVISION NO.3 BY TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING: cteC;~/~ tp/~/L/k ItJ dart'" FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLllslONS OF LAW: REQUEST TO AMEND CITY ORDINANCE, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK BY TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT CORP: t-a~~2 ~ IB11=- /h4; REQUEST FOR CONDlflONAL USE tsERMIT FOR AN ARTIFICIAL NAILS SALON BY DARLENE JEROME -1324 MERIDIAN ROAD: ~J?rov.e. -fIF f ell.. ~r()ve..-t:iecl'r/O?V PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.13 ACRES TO C-G BY EAGLE PARTNERS LL~:, ~ . c:::{/rllc.-t" te7a.L ctL;9t: W r.etk~ ,PIF? ell. m /l<<!-Ie ~;n~. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE, MCDONALD'S WI DRIVE-UP WINDOW AND IDAHO POWER COMPANY CREDIT UNION WITH DRIVE-UP BANKING BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC: -frU<.-~ ~ t 2~ /J ~~v..e-cG 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. @ @ @) ( 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 121.897 ACRES TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED THOUSAND SPRINGS SUBDIVISION BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS AND MARTY GOLDSMITH - NORTH OF VICTORY AND WEST OF E1}GLE ROAD: ~ ~/;::f'c/L PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THOUSAND SPRINGS SUBDIVISION (330 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 121.897 ACRES) BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS AND MARTY GOLDSMITH - NORTH OF VICTORY - AND WEST OF EAGLE ROAD: ~~ tv-n.-/1'1 /?zyf / ff rb DISCUSSION BY DON BRYAN - FLOODI~G PROaLEMS AT.~2070 N. LOCUST GROVE: frtee--hTtJ WIlJ.- /JcI-I~1 Nfrl.:fni {}il1j Il)jjr:f~ HAVEN COVE NO.7 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: ~,nwe,- AGREEMENT WITH DEVLIN PLACE AND FUTURE PARK LAND BY DAN WOOD: O-/J,PJr&ve DESIGN REVIEW - WAREHOUSE/SHOP & MICRO-WAVE TOWER BY AHA ARCHITECTS - CENTRAL FACiliTIES COMPLEX: ~ REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF SEPTIC SYSTEM PERMIT BY BRADLEY E. MILLER - 3475 COMMERCIAL COURT: .7~ && S1h h-vf;j-- REQUEST FOR LIQUOR LICENSE FOR EL ZOCALO BY LINDA OLSON: Jldr; ~B dJO - 14v~ REQUEST FOR BEER & WINE LIMCENSES FOR WINGER'S AN AMERICAN DINER BY YICK YEE FAMILY COMPANY: cT~ 28 d7~ ~~ REQUEST FOR 'BEER & LIQUOR LICENSES FOR THE FRONTIER CLUB BY DAVID AND ERIC SANDQUIST: apPrPv-e-. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: 1. SHARI STILES: A. DISCUSSION OF WEED MAINTENANCE CONTRACT. ~a...r a.ree~ B. DEVELOPMENT REQUEST ON CHINDEN BOULEVARD. pi:J' ~ c~fJ ~ p,.ett..-vt..- 2. GARY SMITH: A. WATERLINE JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT WITH PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. ~f7l-rov.c-, B. BID AWARD FOR WELL NO. 20. a-rfJ/pv~ C. CHANGE ORDER NO.5 - TULLY PARK. appj-C1V~ 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 18. 19. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ROLL CALL: TUESDAY, JULY 21, 1998 -7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS RON ANDERSON CHARLIE ROUNTREE' GLENN BENTLEY KEITH BIRD MAYOR ROBERT CORRIE MINUTES OF PREVIOUS SPECIAL MEETING HELD JULY 7, 1998: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS REGULAR MEETING HELD JULY 7,1998: TABLED JULY 7, 1998: ORDINANCE # & ZONING ORDINANCE: 2. TABLED JULY 7, 1998: ORDINANCE # - ORDINANCE CHANGES WITH CROSS CONNECTION AND BACKFLOW DEVICES: 1. - TOM BEVAN ANNEXATION 3. TABLED JULY 7, 1998: APPEAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACTION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EAGLE PARTNERS LLC BY RICHARD C. WILLIAMS 4. TABLED JULY 7, 1998: APPEAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DECISION ON FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR MAWS SUBDIVISION NO.3 BY TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING: 5. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST TO AMEND CITY ORDINANCE, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK BY TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK DEVELOPMENT CORP: 6. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ARTIFICIAL NAILS SALON BY DARLENE JEROME - 1324 MERIDIAN ROAD: 7~ PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.13 ACRES TO C-G BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC: 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE, MCDONALD'S WI DRIVE-UP WINDOW AND IDAHO POWER COMPANY CREDIT UNION WITH DRIVE-UP BANKING BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC: ( 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 121.897 ACRES TO R-4 FOR PROPOSED THOUSAND SPRINGS SUBDIVISION BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS AND MARTY GOLDSMITH - NORTH OF VICTORY AND WEST OF EAGLE ROAD: 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THOUSAND SPRINGS SUBDIVISION (330 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 121.897 ACRES) BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS AND MARTY GOLDSMITH - NORTH OF VICTORY AND WEST OF EAGLE ROAD: 11. DISCUSSION BY DON BRYAN - FLOODING PROBLEMS AT 2070 N. LOCUST GROVE: 12. HAVEN COVE NO. 7 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT: 13. AGREEMENT WITH DEVLIN PLACE AND FUTURE PARK LAND BY DAN WOOD: 14. DESIGN REVIEW - WAREHOUSE/SHOP & MICRO-WAVE TOWER BY AHA ARCHITECTS - CENTRAL FACILITIES COMPLEX: 15. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF SEPTIC SYSTEM PERMIT BY BRADLEY E. MILLER - 3475 COMMERCIAL COURT: 16. REQUEST FOR LIQUOR LICENSE FOR EL ZOCALO BY LINDA OLSON: 17. REQUEST FOR BEER & WINE LINCENSES FOR WINGER'S AN AMERICAN DINER BY YICK YEE FAMILY COMPANY: 18. REQUEST FOR BEER & LIQUOR LICENSES FOR THE FRONTIER CLUB BY DAVID AND ERIC SANDQUIST: 19. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: 1. SHARI STILES: A. DISCUSSION OF WEED MAINTENANCE CONTRACT. B. DEVELOPMENT REQUEST ON CHINDEN BOULEVARD. 2. GARY SMITH: A. WATERLINE JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT WITH PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH. B. BID AWARD FOR WELL NO. 20. ( c. CHANGE ORDER NO.5 - TULLY PARK. ( CITY OF MERIDIAN PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET Cj~ '/-/)/- 9~ ,. 1 ~ 7,- 0Y'(L-- fer, ?:f)s ~ gff 1 - C{ 7 9 9 "g' 7-L(71 ' 1998 JL 30 P;1 i: ~~2 RECORDED - ~C!YllI OF ~~~ fJ(}; A FEE_.V: DEPUT~ ~ 98072920 I~OA COUHTY RECORDER J. OAVlD NAVARRO 8n!SE~ IDAHO ORDINANCE NO. 796 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NW % OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; ALSO BEING A PORTION OF THE EASTERLY 206.55 FEET OF THE WESTERLY 453.20 FEET OF LOT 7 OF PLEASANT VALLEY SUBDIVISION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of said City to annex to the said City real property which is described in Section 1 below: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho: Section 1. That the real property is described as: A parcel of land situated in the NW % of Section 8, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, S.M., Ada County, Idaho, also being a portion of the Easterly 206.55 feet of the Westerly 453.20 feet of Lot 7 of Pleasant Valley Subdivision, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Section 8; thence along the North line of said Section 8 South 89059'16" East 1284.20 feet to THE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence continuing South 89059'16" East 206.55 feet to a point; thence along a line parallel to the Westerly boundary of said Lot 7 TOM BEVAN ANNEX AND ZONE ORDINANCE OF 1.8 ACRES TO C-G 1 l ( South 0019'14" West 455.00 feet to a point; thence along a line parallel to the North boundary of said Section 8 . North 89059'16" West 206.55 feet to a point; thence along a line parallel to the Westerly boundary of said Lot 7 North 0019'14" East 455.00 feet to THE POINT OF BEGINNING. is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian, and shall be zoned C-G General Retail and Service Commercial; that the annexation and zoning is subject to the conditions referenced in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as adopted by the Meridian Council on the request for annexation and zoning and the property may only be developed under the conditional use process. Section 2. That the property shall be subject to de-annexation if the owner shall not meet the following requirements: a. That the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land. b. That the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted January 4, 1994. c. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, 11-9-605 M. which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways, and 11-9-606 B 14. which pertains to pressurized irrigation. d. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the Applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns. e. That the Applicant shall meet the requirements and conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and meet the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. TOM BEVAN ANNEX AND ZONE ORDINANCE OF 1.8 ACRES TO C-G 2 ( ( Section 3. That the City Clerk shall cause one (1) copy of the legal description, and map, which shall plainly and clearly designate the boundaries of said property, to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, Ada County Assessor, and the State Tax Commission within ten (10) days following the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: There being an emergency, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval as required by law. PASSED by the City Council and approved by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, ~d~ County, Idaho, this 21 s t day of Julv , 1998. APPROVED: ATTEST: ~ TOM BEVAN ANNEX AND ZONE ORDINANCE OF 1.8 ACRES TO C-G 3 ( STATE OF IDAHO,) : ss. County of Ada, ) I, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of an Ordinance entitled n AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NW % OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; ALSO BEING A PORTION OF THE EASTERLY 206.55 FEET OF THE WESTERLY 453.20 FEET OF LOT 7 OF PLEASANT VALLEY SUBDIVISION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE" passed as Ordinance No. 196 , by the City Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the 21 s t day of July , 1998, as the same appears in my office. DATED this ~\~J)})~, 1, 998. ", -I of " ~~, ....' ",,--, ~~~ ~ ~, ~ !Q~h ~,~ { ~". ~ \ '~~~~ ~, ~ SEAL /:I> ~ City Clerk, City of Meridi ~. ~_ "dJ', D S Ada County, Idaho ~ '-'C ,~t 151 · $~ $ ~ ';f ,^'- ~ "~.f. COuN'rC....... ,~,,,, STATE OF IDAHO, '1"J1f/lUUU\\\\\\\'" : S8. . County of Ada, ) On thisaii day of July, 1998, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared WILLIAM G. BERG, JR. known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. ...,'1......'.,,, ~'l,...,,:~ ~;\L L. 8:"##" ~#tt~~.... ~.~.........(4t" ~ ~ \-.~. . vr ~ ~.o . ~ = .~ ~CT~L. \ ~ =:> ~.:. = *. SEAC ~ I * : ~ . , - \ '" P ( I ~ 'f "C: I Residing at Meridian, Idaho I' \. ~;.o.$ ~ ~..- ...}.~I My Commission Expires Icll~ dbI'd-.. "##, -1Q>z.~~~~i4nal ###~~~~N ANNEX AND ZONE ORDINANCE 4 OF 1.8 ACRES TO C-G K. D ~"i'.I~. J.a:/J PrlZ&Jt'IJ'ANt:.E AD. 7'110 , ~/ ~.h__ i ~! 1 .~'/7H. D i!)r fi ~\j ~ jj~' I, Ii Ii ::;E tis :I~ --------1------- -- --------- --------- ~__ I :1 : 11 I ;1 I 'I : .:i !l I ',' " . .. I I:! if \'\.. i :ii ~ (---------fr:.~1<iOOiRY!li=r:=r-:--~t~~}r-=.~:h.---:=:.~~~~ it I :' ~ ': 1 f;j : i ..!F/___ --~~ i:t iJ I ~rn:1 i::i I I -<"::.:&i'. )" 1 r- ~S!, a : I r/ ---"";.:::,,:_:~,,,,___.-.~~~....-_} h.,="_~,-:' ~ J~ ~ i [ / --'-'-~-"~~~r) J~~~ L Q ,: ~ I I i II $ '., II - 'r! ~ I I , , II' ,~ ., " '" ~ ~ r - - '" ~ ' . ~ ~::~:;:::~~S~~Jill_:~':_)--- : :il! :11 II :!~ ~ l~i: :Ij I ~ l::: I ~ ,/ IIi , I!!: : ~ I !: ::1 I ; n ::; Ii "J3 ': " I ~ i : ': , H I fi ! !' :~ I ~ " " C): I :' /1; J " " ~ I r '/ .. . ::~ 8: i " , :~ c MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING JULY?,1998 The special meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 6:30 p.m. on July 7, 1998 by Mayor Robert D. Corrie. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Anderson, Keith Bird, Glenn Bentley, Charlie Rountree. OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Corrie, Gary Smith, Wayne Crookston, Will Berg. Corrie: I will entertain a motion that the Council go into Executive Session. Bird: I move that we move into Executive Session. Rountree: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bird and second by Mr. Rountree that we go into Executive Session. ROLL CALL VOTE: Bird, yea. Bentley, yea. Rountree, yea. Anderson, yea. MOTION CARRIED: All yeas. (EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 6:31 P.M.) Corrie: Okay, we'll come out of Executive Session and declare it closed. No decisions were made at that meeting. Do I hear a motion for adjournment? Rountree: So moved. Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion moved and seconded we adjourn this special city council meeting. ROLL CALL: Anderson, yea. Bentley, yea. Rountree, yea. Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: All yeas. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:31 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) r _ '---~---- -.' { " Meridian City Council Special Meeting July 7, 1998 Page 2 ATTEST: ( : \\\~1 UU'fllI/11 ' ,lJ.' .~f"oo -J,/ '....'~~ Of ~J~~A '~A' ~~ ~~ ~' V~~~~~~ .~ % ~ .~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ i ~ SEAL ~ ;.... ~ ~ - ,.~~ .... - ~ ~ '\;: "\ ~ 7" 181 · R .! ~ ~y ~ .L'\'t' !\,-... 4/.,. W ~"'\ ',')-, t .. \ \ 't III \\,... IlltU. tt,n\\