Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 11-19• ~ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1996 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 6, 1996: (APPROVED) TABLED AUGUST 20, 1996: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: (TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 18, 1997) 2. TABLED OCTOBER 15, 1996: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT GENERAL BY WAYNE & KAREN FORREY: (APPROVE FINDINGS; APPROVE RECOMMENDATION) 3. TABLED NOVEMBER 6, 1996: FINAL PLAT FOR BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION N0.3 BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 4. TABLED NOVEMBER 6, 1996: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A JOHN DEERE DEALERSHIP BY CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT SUPPLY CO.: (APPROVE FINDINGS; APPROVE DECISION) 5. TABLED NOVEMBER 6, 1996: REQUEST APPROVAL FOR PROPOSED MERIDIAN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH: (WITHDRAWN FROM AGENDA) 6. FINAL PLAT: BRIDGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS BY BOISE VALLEY CONSTRUCTION: (APPROVED) 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-G AND I-L BY DOUG TAMURA AND ARTHUR BERRY: (TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 3, 1996; CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE NEW FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY DOUG TAMURA AND ARTHUR BERRY: (TABLED UNTIL DECEMBER 3, 1996) 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-G BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC: (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL DECEMBER 17, 1996) 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE, MCDONALD'S WITH DRIVE THRU, AND A HOTEL BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC: (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL DECEMBER 17, 1996), 11. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: A. SHARI STILES, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: 1. MORNING GLORY NO. 2 SUBIDIVION PLANTING STRIP: 2. HIGHLANDS- RANCH SUBDIVISION: 3. MERIDIAN SENIOR CENTER BID RESULTS: (APPROVED) B. CHARLIE ROUNTREE, CITY COUNCILMAN: 1. POCKET PARK UPDATE: 2. ST. LUKE'S LEASE CONTRACT: C. MAYOR ROBERT CORRIE: 1. JOINT WORKSHOP WITH CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR DECEMBER 18, 1996: • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 19, 1996 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Robert D. Corrie at 7:30 P.M.: MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Tolsma, Charlie Rountree, Glenn Bentley, Walt Morrow: OTHERS Pf~ESENT; Wayne Crookston, Will Berg, Shari Stiles, Bruce Freckleton, Bill Gordon, Wayne Forrey, Joann and Don Mazzi, Monica Johnson, Erika Newberry, Rick Seger, Rose Maloney, Pat Maloney, David Turnbull, John Anderson, Charles Eddy, Doug Tamura, Robert Morrison, Billy Ray Strite, Craig Jamison, George Kyler, Richard Williams, Howard Foley, Kent Brown, Ann Bowen, Chuck Horel, Dick Moore, Dennis Nielson, Brian Diamond, Rod Truax, Steve Brown: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 6, 1996: Corrie: What do you wish to do with the minutes? Bentley: Mr. Mayor I make a motion we accept the minutes of the previous meeting as written. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree that we accept the minutes and approve them as written, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: TABLED AUGUST 20, 1996: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Corrie: Council, you have a request by Mr. David Turnbull that he would like to have that delayed for another 3 months to wait for the meeting I guess with some of the Council members and also Nampa Meridian Irrigation. What is your pleasure? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we table the Ashford Greens Variance request for 3 months from the second meeting in November which would make it second meeting in February, do we have a date on that? February 18 please. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley that we table the variance request for Ashford Greens until February 18, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 2 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow: Mr. Mayor, as a point of update the (inaudible} first meeting this coming Monday, that is contingent upon being able to get those that are interested in working on that committee all together. Corrie: Are you working on that committee, you are heading it (inaudible) ITEM #2: TABLED OCTOBER 15, 1996: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNEb UNIT DEVELOPMENT GENERAL BY WAYNE AND KAREN FORREY: Corrie: I believe Council that we requested that the Attorney give us an opinion as far as can the City place a condition upon a planned unit development general that no residential use shall be allowed. You all have the memorandum from the City Attorney on that opinion. Any questions of the attorney? Morrow: Mr. Mayor I have some questions of the attorney. I have read your analysis of the situation, I guess my questions are with respect to the last paragraph it says that it is my opinion that conditions may be placed on the conditional use of a planned unit development general. They cannot be used to restrict use of the property (inaudible) in this case if noise from other light industrial uses is or could be of concern sound barriers could be required. The difficulty however is that the City does not know what other possible light industrial uses might be. I guess my question there is that how does other possible light industrial uses impact a residential use from the standpoint if we are going to grant a residential use as part of this application then it is safe to assume that common sense would (inaudible) light industrial zone would have every kind of light industrial activity and those associated noises going with it. It seems to me that if that is the case then the sound barrier might require a (inaudible) mitigate normal sounds and activities from the light industrial area that totally surrounds this project. Crookston: Knowing that you are trying to protect a residential development from unknown light industrial uses that is a much easier problem to resolve as far as what needs to be down as far as let's say sound as I mentioned in the opinion so you could require that substantial sound barriers be done. Because you know what use you are trying to protect at first impact from, the hard part is you don't know what light industrial uses are going to be there but I think you consume, it is very difficult to assume what uses could be there. There are many light industrial uses, some that produce a fair amount of sound and some that do not under our zoning ordinance. But you can place conditions that some type of sound barrier be constructed. It is hard to say what is necessary, but you do know that you are trying to protect a residential use from the impacts. So, you have to assume that you have to be, I would assume that you have to presume that you are protecting a residential ! i Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 3 area from noises from light industrial uses that may be of significant impact. It is different then trying to figure it out when you say that you are only protecting a commercial use from which I don't think you have to be as protective of. It is really not an easy question because you don't know what uses are going to be there. Morrow: Well it seems to me that from my perspective is that you have land that is zoned and annexed as light industrial it is a safe assumption that you are going to have a broad array of uses in a light industrial zone. Within the context of this application we have a situation where there is an attempt to put a senior citizens residential facility surrounded by some commercial and then the immediate area around it is light industrial. You have existing now Builders Masonry Products and it appears to me that probably the reality is that there is a flaw in our zoning and development ordinance that allows any type of a residential uses within a industrial, light industrial area. It seems to me that if we are going to press forward with this then that the burden of protection be placed upon the residential uses so that 15 years from now or ten years from now or five years from now we don't have senior citizens coming in complaining about surrounding industrial noises and get into a situation with a council at that time and the legal folk can't resolve the situation because we made a bad decision. Even though it is a legal one it is a bad common sense decision in terms of residential within a light industrial zone. So from my perspective if in fact that is going to take place then the burden of protection belongs with the residential and not future light industrial users. What you are indicating is that we can require sound mitigation barriers that protects the residential portion from the light industrial remainder of ground, is that correct? Crookston: That is correct. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I have a same question in the same regards, let's change the situation and say Mr. Forney isn't building his project there. And somebody with light industrial comes in and wants to build on the same lot, you have the same noise problem that is being imposed on the current homeowners there on the adjacent lots. Are we going to tell the homeowners there that they have to but up the sound wall there. Morrow: Actually Mr. Bentley the ordinance is very clear that the requirement of the sound protection would be the light industrial person to protect the existing neighborhood. So in that situation the burden would be on the light industrial user to provide that mitigation to an existing residential area. The two are really apples and oranges. We are talking about an existing neighborhood with zoned ground and in application they would have a requirement to do the buffering and landscape buffering on the property line. So that is as I see it. Cowie: Has Council read the memo from Mr. Forney of the meeting I had with Mark Smith Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 4 • of Builders Masonry Company and Karen and Wayne Forrey in relationship to the questions that was raised by Builders Masonry. Where Mark Smith has agreed that they would like to have them as neighbors just some of the conditions they asked that the 8 foot fence along the south property line be the first phase and limited residential to the front 630 feet on Pine Avenue and then of course I think Mr. Tolsma made a comment about the acknowledgement of accepting the complaining of others that they won't be complaining about the industrial was addressed. Have you had a chance to read that? Morrow: Mr. Mayor if I might address item 2 in that letter, it says that (inaudible) construct an 8 foot high wood fend along the south property line adjacent to the railroad right of way as part of the first phase development.. Very candidly wood fences have a real short term life span in terms of this type of project. This may be a sound wall mitigation taking a lead from ITD and ACHD (inaudible) that type of sound wall ought to be a block wall and landscape area so that it has a permanence equivalent to that of the life span of the building of the project. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I would agree with Mr. Morrow's expectation in terms of the type of wall and landscaping. But you have to keep in mind that you get 100 feet plus or minus a few feet from the noise source. Unless you encase that noise source or the receiver any barrier is going to be ineffective. I think we are not looking at this in terms of noise protection on the exterior realistically in this situation. I don't think it can be done, what could be done is insulation of the buildings, triple pane glass and that sort of thing to make sure that any high pitched or noise of such frequency that would be disturbing on an interior would !~ taken care of with construction materials. From and exterior point of view there is really nothing you can do. To point that out Hoffs cyclone facilities off of Franklin, that would be very difficult to baffle that noise and barrier that noise from the neighborhoods. Morrow: That is true (inaudible) Rountree: That type of noise would be mitigated for some 100 feet behind the wall but beyond that you are not going to perceive a measurable difference in the noise level. Corrie: Council there is also a buffer of professional clinic buildings, parking lot and trees that is involved in there too which is considerably, I don't know how far that is. Wayne would you do me a favor, I am not very good at looking at maps here, what is the distance from the corner that you are talking about and then to the fence and any other buildings? Forrey: I believe Mayor it is approximately 570 feet of additional buffer between the south end of the property, about 570 feet north would be the office ware house buildings, the green house facility and the professional office, plus all of the landscaping. So there is that • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 5 much buffer from the south property line and then it is another 200 feet beyond the south property line to Builders Masonry. I might add Builders Masonry is happy with the 8 foot wood fence. It would be, our maintenance program is ongoing. I know wood has a shorter life span than block but our maintenance program would be for perpetual maintenance and replacement. Rountree: Remember that would require a variance. Forrey: The 8 foot fence, in an industrial zone an 8 foot fence is allowed. Rountree: Okay, then we won't have to see it. Corrie: Thank you Wayne, any further discussion or questions? Rountree: Mr. Mayor, given the fact that we are in this situation because of what apparently is a flaw in our ordinance I am not particular keen on the idea of the residence in this land use area but there doesn't appear that there is much we can about this application. I would certainly hope that we would take a quick look at that in our ordinance and remedy that in the future. Given that I would make a motion that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law that were prepared for planning and zoning for this proposal. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion is made and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Meridian Planning and zoning, any further discussion? Roll Call Vote ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - No, Bentley -Yea, Rountree - No, Tolsma -Yea, Corrie - Yea MOTION CARRIED: 2 No, 2 Yea, Tie Breaker -Yea Corrie: The recommendation? Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that the City of Meridian City Council approve the conditional use request by the applicant for the property described in the application set forth in the findings of fact and conclusion. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we approve the recommendation, any further Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 6 discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED:. 1 No, 3 Yea Morrow: Point of question, I would assume by the motion then the Council has not chosen to have any mitigation in terms of adopting the letters or that kind of thing? Corrie: Counselor? Rountree: I believe a considerable amount of that is in the findings, but specifically to that letter Crookston: The findings have already been approved, you an reopen it and request that letter or those letters be included in the findings and adopted within those findings. Rountree: Just by motion without Crookston: You would have to bring it back up. Rountree: Well I can't bring it back up because I voted against the findings, but I don't have an objection to it being brought back up. Corrie: You can bring it back up and we can vote to put the comment of Mr. Forrey into the Bentley: So moved, I make a motion we bring that back. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Tolsma that we incorporate the three conditions (inaudible) Masonry company to be put in the findings of fact and conclusions, any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: TABLED NOVEMBER 6, 1996: FINAL PLAT FOR BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION NO: 3 BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Morrow: Mr. Mayor, questions in our packet, the only information we had was a letter dated November 1 from Shari talking about Bruce Freckleton and she had met with David Turnbull and Mike Tanner on October 16 to discuss our comments and concerns regarding the above referenced plat. The main issues are the pedestrian pathway, Nampa Meridian Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 7 Irrigation (inaudible) nor have we received a revised plat. I would ask Shari to bring us up to date and Bruce up to date with where that is. Stiles: Mayor and Council and Councilman Morrow we did receive response to our comments, also in your packet you should have a proposed sketch for the pedestrian pathway. Morrow: Is that the one that is dated today that was in our box tonight? Stiles: Yes, that is what they are proposing to do. They are showing the pathway on Finch Creek property. While it would not be the preferred pathway it is at least something. John Anderson from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District was in here, I don't know if he would be able to comment on it. The major problem that I have with that proposed layout is the 90 degree turns, people maneuvering bicycles perhaps. I wouldn't have any problem if Council approves of that layout as shown as long as it is conditioned on all staff and agency comments, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District approval and the property owner approval. I have no indication from the owner of that parcel that they would allow that walkway to be part of their lot. Morrow: Bruce, issues that you had? Freckleton: Coucnilman Morrow, I believe that the rest of the questions that we did have were answered with the written response. So this I believe is the only hang up we have. Morrow: The pathway? Freckleton: Yes Morrow: And the issue there is the owners permission in the Finch Creek area? Freckleton: Yes that is true, Finch Creek Subdivision is a recorded subdivision on record. There is a house under construction right now on the lot that this pathway would cross. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, can we have a response to those comments by Mr. Turnbull who is a developer of Bedford Place please? Turnbull: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council my name is David Turnbull, we did meet with Shari and Bruce back in the latter part of October and discussed some remedies. I guess when we went through the revised preliminary plat of Bedford Place Subdivision it wasn't brought to our attention that there was a pathway stubbing in from the Finch Creek Subdivision. In either the case the pathway that was proposed in our revised and Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 8 approved preliminary plat versus the one that we have here now, neither one of them exactly lined up with that pathway. So we have gone back to the Borup's who are the developers of the Finch Creek Subdivision as well as the people to whom they sold the lot which is under construction now. Suggested some revisions which we met with Shari and Bruce ebout and they were all in favor of those revisions. It does make a lot of sense for the neighbor in that the wide arc swing of the Finch Lateral is straightened out they are able to reclaim more of their back yard. So there would be less of a no man's land back there that is really not usable to anyone. They were interested in having this revision made. Also, the place where the path does jog actually covers and easement or at least it is an outlet for the storm drainage for the Finch Creek subdivision. So it goes right over that underground piping and seems to make sense to everybody involved. So if you have any other concerns or questions about it I would be glad to answer it. I would note that Shari I think still has an interest in continuing that pathway along the Finch Creek lateral. I don't know if that would ever come to pass but if it did then this would probably make an excellent connection in that respect since it straightens that area out as well. With that I will answer any questions you may have. Rountree: You indicated that you had discussed this with the property owner? Turnbull: Yes with both John Anderson of Nampa Meridian and the adjacent property owners. I talked with Shari this morning she wanted to receive some sort of written confirmation and I said we are happy to provide that and it would be acceptable to us to have the approval of this final plat conditioned upon us providing those kind of license agreements and written confirmation from the adjacent property owner. Is that correct Shari? Stiles: Yes, and I wanted to make sure that if this doesn't work out that Mr. Turnbull you are aware that you may be providing that through that present lot that you show there. Turnbull: It may have to come back but we have had those discussions with the adjacent property owners and Nampa Meridian, I think everything is in order. So we will go ahead if this final plat is approved and get that written confirmation and provide it to Shari. Corrie: David, that fence over the Nampa Meridian Irrigation easement, that has been okayed by them? Turnbull: Yes I believe so. Corrie: So you have that in writing as well? Turnbull: There is a license agreement already in place regarding that fence. • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 9 Corrie: Any further questions? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I noticed that John Anderson is here now, can we have his comments with respect to that issue in terms of Shari's request? Anderson: I was outside, on Bedford regarding the entrance and exit? Stiles: Mr. Turnbull just indicated that he had a license agreement in place for that fencing as it is shown on his proposal? Anderson: That is true, I don't believe that is (inaudible) we have all the details worked out where I am satisfied that (inaudible). Once the Board signs it I can't second guess them I can't see any reason why they won't sign that, probably at their next meeting. Stiles: So John that pathway will not just run straight into that inlet structure? Anderson: No, the plan is to run the, where the inlet structure is now is to box that all in and run the pipe line on the Finch Lateral south slough up another 50 feet. It will go behind a fence in the gate so nobody will run into that. It shouldn't be a problem. Stiles: So you are satisfied safety will be met there. Anderson: If it is all done yes, if it is done just like the plan says. Morrow: Thank you Mr. Mayor, thank you John. Corrie: Any further comments from Council? Entertain a motion on the final plat. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the final plat for Bedford Place Subdivision No. 3 subject to written confirmation (inaudible) Mr. Anderson has alluded to and other staff conditions and requirements as required by our staff and ACHD and other staff. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that the final plat for Bedford Place Subdivision No. 3 be approved subject to the conditions of the motion, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 10 ITEM #4: TABLED NOVEMBER 6, 1996: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A JOHN DEERE DEALERSHIP BY CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT SUPPLY CO.: Cowie: Council do you have that in front of you? Morrow: Mr. Mayor if we could, City Attorney Crookston handed us a revised findings upon coming to the meeting tonight, could you have him briefly or could we have him briefly explain the difference between that and the findings we had prior to this? Cowie: Mr. Crookston? Crookston: Certainly, Mr. Mayor and Council, these, the difference between what you had previously had is that this relates, the changes relate to basically an agreement that has been proposed to the Council in my discussions with the applicants Counsel John McCreedy and myself and Gary Smith who I informed of the representations that had been made by Mr. McCreedy. It relates to the sewer line coming across the freeway. That it was agreed subject to the Council's approval of course that there would be no requirement immediately that the sewer line be placed at this time. That they would connect to the existing sewer connection that is in the playground on lots 2 and 3. CESCO proposed to develop on lot one that they would have five years to try and do that. If they connected, if someone came across let's say just another third party or a 6; 7, 8 or 20th party decided to combine and get that sewer line across the freeway that they would connect to that line as soon as it came to them. If however that sewer line was not constructed by someone else in five years CESCO has indicated that they would place that line, put the line in. I have told them that it is an 18 inch line underneath the freeway then goes to a 15 inch line from the point where it ends on the south side of the freeway to where it connects to Overland Road. Then it would beaten inch line going west on Overland Road so they are informed of that. They have basically entered into an agreement that is certainly subject to the Council's approval. With #hat connection to the exis#ing sewer line in the Playground that they could operate for up to five years after the time that they obtain their building permit. So it likely is longer than 5 years from today or whenever the proposal js agreed upon. We are still working out the development agreement. Mr. McCreedy and I have discussed it somewhat. So there are still some questions some minor questions that still need to be (inaudible) and agreed upon. Ultimately we would come back with the development agreement and ask the Council to approve that assuming that CESCO also signed that development agreement. The real difference is in that the original findings said that CESCO had to put the sewer line across the freeway from north to south and take it to their property. Morrow: Thank you, I have no further questions. u Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 11 Corrie: Any further questions of Council? • Rountree: 1 believe one thing we talked about on this was that at the end of that time period as it was established that there may be an option to extend that as opposed to being a drop dead kind of clause. I don't have any problem with the way this is written, but I believe that was discussed with CESCO when they were here last. Crookston: I am sorry I am not understanding you. Rountree: Well in the end, in this case five years it says they will build the sewer line. I believe when we discussed it it was at the end of whatever time period we prescribed then there may be an allowance for that to be extended. Crookston: You are right Mr. Rountree, that was discussed, the five years came out basically as a proposal if I recall correctly in our discussion. I met with Mr. McCreedy and two representatives of CESCO on a week ago today and we discussed it and the five year period came out in that discussion, but you are correct. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we adopt the. revised findings of fact as given to us today 11-19-96 for the CESCO Contractors Equipment Supply Company. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma that we accept the adopted revised findings of fact and conclusions of law, any further discussion? Crookston: I just have a point, as I am sure you noticed these findings I delivered tonight do adopt the Planning and Zoning Commissions findings, so these are not the only thing you are dealing with. Corrie: Any further discussion? Roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow: Mr. Mayor, the Meridian City Council of the City of Meridian hereby decides that the conditional use permit for the property set forth in the application should be approved under the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Those of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. If the applicant is not agreeable to these findings of fact and conclusions and those of the Commission and is not agreeable into • • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 12 entering in a new and amended development agreement the conditional use permit shall not be approved. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded on the decision, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: TABLED NOVEMBER 6, 1996: REQUEST APPROVAL FOR PROPOSED MERIDIAN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH: Corrie: Is there anybody here from the Presbyterian Church tonight? Berg: I had a conversation with Paul Hoffman and he verbally requested that this be dropped from the agenda. They are seeking several options one of them including an annexation route. But at this time he doesn't feel there are any more things he needs to address the Council with. He didn't have time to give me a letter, fax me a letter today but he said he would follow up with that so it doesn't drag on. He requested that it be withdrawn from the agenda. Morrow: I guess my question would be is what else could we do for those folk. We have had a preliminary discussion with them as to what the requirements would be and so on and so forth. I would suggest that we or would move that we drop the item from the agenda and subject that motion to receipt of a letter from Mr. Hoffman requesting us to do so. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley to drop the request of approval from the agenda and request a letter from the representative, that the Presbyterian Church is requesting to do so, any further discussion? Rountree: Mr. Mayor, as a point of guidance or direction to staff, I would suggest that the City of Meridian through staff track this application. If it ends up in Ada County Planning and Zoning and Ada County's action and (inaudible) city requirements are incorporated in their plan. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I think I would like to amend the motion to incorporate Mr. Rountree's statement. Would that be agreeable to the second? • . Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 13 Bentley: Yes Currie: Okay, the motion has been amended to incorporate Mr. Rountree's comments to staff, (Inaudible) any other discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: FINAL PLAT: BRIDGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS BY BOISE VALLEY CONSTRUCTION: Morrow: Mr. Mayor, is there someone here representing Bridgewood Condominiums? Eddy: Charles Eddy with Pacific Land Surveyors. Morrow: Mr. Eddy, I have a question, in our packet there is a letter dated November 15 from Bruce Fredcleton and Shari Stiles with comments regarding the final plat, are you in receipt of that letter? Eddy: Yes, we received the letter and responded November 18 to Shari. Morrow: You are in agreement with all of the comments and conditions that were addressed by both Shari and Bruce? Eddy: Yes we are (End of Tape) Currie: I guess t have one for the Counselor, have you read the CC&R's yet or did you just get them, Mr. Crookston? Crookston: Quite frankly I haven't seen them but I probably have them. Currie: Any further questions for Mr. Eddy? Rountree: I have a question for staff? (Inaudible) response to the November 18 letter, are the responses satisfactory? Freckleton: Yes Councilman Rountree, I don't have any problem with the response, the only thing I wanted to make sure of was that legal counsel has a chance to review the declarations. • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 14 Rountree: Shari, do you have any additional comments? Corrie: Other questions or comments of Council? Hearing none I will entertain a motion on the final plat. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the final plat for Bridgewood Condominiums by Boise Valley Construction subject to the review and acceptance by City Attorney Crookston of the proposed covenants, conditions and restrictions. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded that Condominiums with approval of the motion, Opposed? nre approve the final plat of Bridgewood any further discussion? All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-G AND I-L BY DOUG TAMURA AND ARTHUR BERRY: Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite a representative for the annexation to come forward. Doug Tamura, 499 Main Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Tamura: We recently purchased the Madden property located at the corner of Locust Grove and Franklin. What we are doing is requesting an annexation and rezone of the 38 acre parcel. Currently the, which is this parcel right here, Franklin is right here, Locust Grove is right here. To the west is Builders Masonry, to the north is a newly subdivided light industrial, Layne Industrial is right here and there is another industrial park that is located right here. What our concept is to develop a four phase light industrial commercial planned unit development. So the four phases would be here, the commercial here and again light industrial up here. Our intent is to go ahead and develop a planned unit development where we have control over all of the light industrial buildings. What we did is over the last 3 months we worked real closely with the Ada County Highway District on platting out the future of the roads for this parcel. The section line falls right through the middle of the parcel and it is the Highway District's policy to develop major arterials on each one of the mile section lines. So their intent is to go ahead and relocate the existing Locust Grove to the center of this property. We have agreed to work with them on a dedication of a ~ foot right of way fora 5 lane facility there. We are going to dedicate another additional 5 feet off of Franklin road to provide the right of way fora 5 lane facility • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 15 there. Part of that will be a lighted intersection at Franklin and Locust Grove. In the future in the ten year plan with the State Highway Department there will potentially be another bridge that will be located over the top of the freeway that will extend Locust Grove over the freeway. The other thing that the Highway District wanted to include was the extension of Lanark Street where it will tie in and dead end into Locust Grove. So Lanark will extend from Locust Grove at some point in time clean over to Eagle Road. At the time that happens what they also would like to do would be to vacate the northern part of the existing Locust Grove street because I guess under the conditions that they have the rail road they can only have one rail road crossing within a certain distance. So the main rail road crossing will fall on the section line here. We are here mainly to answer any questions. Rountree: No residential Tamura: In discussing with the Highway District I think what they are saying is that Franklin Road at some point in time is going to become a secondary Fairview Avenue as far as the amount of traffic capacity that it could potentially carry. With the extension of Locust Grove that is going to be a full five lane facility. So we could see that in the future this intersection could potentially be like what Locust Grove and Fairview is now. I think it is our belief that what we would like to do is move real slowly, be sensitive to the existing land uses around the area but take our time and make sure what we develop is something that is going to be done right. We could see with the Eagle corridor development, the amount of trafFc that is going to flow into Meridian and especially down the Franklin Road corridor that we would like to make sure and plan this right. Our intent is to do this first but then do each phase in a conditional use so that Council and Planning and Zoning has their input as far as what we do. Even though we are showing a concept here it is really not cast in stone until we have further development as far as what road and the area (inaudible). Rountree: I know one shouldn't speculate but can you give me an idea of what we are talking about in terms of build out and potentially for the extension or relocation of Locust Grove? Tamura: In talking with the Highway District, I believe we are in the second year of their five year plan. Right now I know that Franklin Road is a fairly high priority road but at the same time it is an unfunded section of that Five year plan. So in both Franklin Road and Locust Grove is in that five year plan so we are assuming that it potentially could be built in the next four years. So it would be the six year of the five year plan Rountree: How about the timing for your development? Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 16 Tamura: Our intent is to go ahead and start phase one this next spring to do that portion of it and then see what the market bears. I guess as far as the phasing we could see that potentially this would be the first phase, we could see that maybe this potentially would be the second phase. We would like to do some kind of office building on this facility. When that tenant comes along then we will resubmit a plan for what this quadrant will look like. Then once, we probably won't do anything on the ~mmercial part of it until all of the roads are completed. Morrow: Mr. Tamura, you have reviewed staff comments and preliminary findings and those issues, do you have any problems with any of those things? Tamura: Councilman Morrow, the only thing that I talked to Shari about is the potential that we may come back at a later date to fence the ditch in lieu of piping. I was talking to Mr. Anderson, I think that is something that we need to price out the cost difference if we were able to use that right of way or whatever. Other than that we concur with the findings of fact and conclusions. Corrie: Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony in this public hearing? Robert Morrison, 3841 Woodmont Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Morrison: I am opposing the annexation of this property due to the fact that I have gone through the City and tried to find out why Meridian has such a variation in their water pressures and the availability of water. I have had the City come out and put graphs on house which was well below the State standards that they require for fluxuation of the water. I contacted Mr. Rountree and he looked at them also. They said that they were going to add a new well at Ten Mile and Chevy Lane and then they wanted to put a grasp on another house which they put on 1980 Incline. The fluxuation after that new well I am assuming they put on was so great we still could not operate our sprinkler systems and Bud Milner's toilets wouldn't even operate. With any additions of subdivisions or building permits until this water situation is cured I think I would like to ask Mr. Crookston can the City Council even legally put any more houses on the line if we don't meet State standards. And you gentlemen I don't know if you have looked at them but the graphs are in the City Engineer's office and I had them put another test on house after all the water usage was stopped. From the summer watering and stuff. There was only a variance of about say 12 to 18 pounds of variation after the use had stopped. I asked him at that time wasn't there too many houses on the City of Meridian's water system. He said I don't know I will have to make a study. I don't know I would appreciate it if you gentlemen would go in and take a look at those graphs before you approve any more of these things because Meridian is going to grow and should grow. But we should take care of the people that are here and • • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 17 the tract that I live in some of you people up there know this tract has been in service for some fourteen to eighteen years. We shouldn't be doing without water or be able to operate our equipment because of the fact that Meridian can't keep up with their water supply. Thank you. Bentley: Mr. Mayor I have a question for him, is that subdivision on pressurized irrigation? Morrison: No, yes, no, it is on pressurized irrigation but it is by the City. Bentley: It is on City water. Morrison: It is on City water. Bentley: Isn't there a requirement for that area to be on pressurized irrigation from the irrigation district? Corrie: (Inaudible) Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony? John Anderson, 120 North Locust Grove, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Anderson: I live at 120 North Locust Grove Road which is located on the east side of Mr. Tamura's project. The plans that I got sent to me in the mail indicated that they were going to put a tree or buffer zone completely around all of the whole project. I find it quite funny I am the only residence and right in front of my property they skipped that, I had a lot of concern with that. Mr. Tamura walked out there (inaudible) he said that wouldn't be a problem but I am still concerned about that. The irrigation water that comes through the Tamura property or the Madden property is a main line that comes out that Nampa Meridian's Barker lateral, I am real concerned that be taken care of and addressed right from the start. If they have problems down in there during construction we can't shut that off probably in less than 2 to 3 hours. So it needs to be addressed, I would be more than happy personally or occupationally it is not a district facility but I use it myself and that needs to remain open the whole way through construction time. It sounded like he addressed the concern with light since that is in the plan, I won't go over that. I covered that in my letter here. I was curious about the type of buildings that you guys are going to allow in there. Since we do have a residence there is this going to be a McDonalds neon light type of businesses or is it going to be 9 to 5 kind of things. I have a real concern with that, I don't want a lot of flashing lights in my bedroom windows all night and I was hoping the City Council would be understanding to that or at least they could address that. Can anyone answer that? (Inaudible) will I have an opportunity in the future to comment on that? u Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 18 Corrie: Yes you will, and we have a room full of them here too. Anderson: The construction time, that was another concern that we had. I don't know if the City Council places any kind of time frame on them but we all get home from work, I would like to see something along the from 10:00 o'clock at night until 6 in the morning that they not be allowed to do construction. Once again for my family's sake so we can sleep at night. I am not opposed to this project. I guess that is all I ,have to say and thank you for the opportunity to talk. Corrie: John there are ordinances and things that we can rely upon too. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, just in response to some comments that John made, or a question to him. A lot of the comments and issues you raise are issues that will be dealt with in the next hearing that we will open for conditional use. My question to you do you want your testimony presented here applicable there as well? Anderson: Yes sure, I don't want to miss anything. Do I need to come and speak at the next one also? Rountree: It will be in about five minutes. One other point is this project is being proposed with requiring conditional use permits for any activity or any development that would occur on a parcel which themselves would be subject to a public process. This won't be the last time. Corrie: Anybody else from the public that would like to issue testimony on this annexation request? Council, questions? I guess I have one, City Engineer I guess Bruce, do we still have a problem with that legal description on item one of annexation and zoning? Freckleton: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, our original review in June this year we reviewed the legal descriptions that were submitted for annexation they did not include half right of way of Franklin Road or right of way of the Union Pacific Railroad. We have been requiring that and that was the just of my comment. We need to get new legal descriptions prepared for each zone that include those right of ways. Typically what we have been doing is annexing two center lines so that the parcel on the other side of the street we butt up at the center line. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, hearing that I have a question for Counselor, is it appropriate to adopt P & Z's findings of fact and conclusions given the fact that we don't have a correct legal description or do we need to table pending (inaudible). Crookston: It would be appropriate to table until we get an appropriate legal description. Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 19 r~ The legal description is not a particular problem because we are talking about rail road right of way and the Ada County Highway District right of way which we can get permission from but we do need their ~nsent. If they didn't want to give their consent we could annex it anyway. For the City's procedure we generally have always required that they consent to that. Rountree: And also include a revision to the findings if that is the case to include Mr. Anderson's testimony. Crookston: If you desire to have the findings change with regard to Mr. Anderson's testimony we can do that. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move to table the request for annexation and zoning to C-G and light industrial by Doug Tamura and Arthur Berry pending the receipt of a proper legal description. Also to instruct the City Attorney to incorporate within the findings of fact and conclusions the testimony tonight by Mr. Morrison and Mr. Anderson. Bentley: Second Corrie: The motion is to table to the third of December pending receipt of the legal descriptions and incorporate into the findings of fact, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: So I will continue the public hearing until December third, correct me if I am wrong Counselor but I am going to close the public hearing so that you can do the findings of fact amended? Crookston: That is fine. Corrie: I will close the public hearing on the annexation and zoning. ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY DOUG TAMURA AND ARTHUR BERRY: Corrie: I will open the public hearing now for request for conditional use permit for the Commercial Planned Unit Development by Doug Tamura and Arthur Berry and invite Doug if you would like to come up again on that. -__J Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 20 Doug Tamura, 499 Main Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Tamura: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council what we are applying for is a conditional use on our first phase of our annexation and rezone. What we are proposing to do is to building three 20,000 foot tilt up concrete warehouse buildings. With the configuration of our property and with the future road potential what our thought is that at the point in time that we build them this next year that it will be used as more light industrial warehousing but we are designing them so that they will have a show front entity to it that we could see where they will convert into more of a retail element four or five years down the road as Locust Grove is developed. So more or less this is our concept is to do a real clean concrete tilt up color coordinated project. Our intent is that as we develop all of this light industrial property that all of the buildings will be all coordinated as far as type of construction design concept and landscaping. We pretty much concur with staffs findings of fact and conclusions of law and requirements for development. Any questions? Corrie: Thank you, any body else from the public that would like to issue testimony on the conditional use permit? Robert Morrison, 3841 Woodmont Drive, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Morrison: This man thinks I am going to be mad at him because I am going to oppose everything he puts up and I think he should be able to come in. But I have owned property in the Sunburst Subdivision which has a pressurized irrigation system which I think is a good deal and it was turned over to the homeowners association and absolutely no information was given on how to operate or where it was or what it done. I tried to go through the business hours of the City to find out this. I went to Mr. Corrie twice and have gotten nothing back on it. So they elected me as one of the members of the water board of the subdivision. So we started searching it out and (inaudible) buy the developers and made sure that the City (inaudible) where the pressurized irrigation systems are and how they are operated, how to turn them on and turn them off. Which I wasn't able to get any information from the City whatsoever and yet the City mandates that we must have them and must have it and the public isn't given any information of how to find it operate it and this condition we finally found the man to put the system in and ask him about repairing it and he refused because he said the equipment was sp bad in five years that it wasn't worth repacking. And yet when I have been out here in the audience watching what is the difference between the public irrigation system and the golf course irrigation where there is stainless steel out risers and stuff. What I understand Mr. Morrow saying was going in, the way I see it is the public is paying for it out of their sewer fund and has to take the gap for years to come until it is paid back. But yet when the area I bought a house in the gentlemen says you think this part of the system is bad go look at the last one put in. I am fortunate enough that I bought in that last one. It has a flexible white pipe that I had never • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 21 seen with a white ball cock on a pressurized system. Is this standard for the City of Meridian? How do we get some of this stuff taken care of? Corrie: Okay, Mr. Morrison, I appreciate your comments and we will take them under advisement but what does this have to do with the conditional use permit for this commercial? Morrison: Because they have other people come in and buy and stuff so that they can use his stuff they are not getting the cooperation of the City Council to see that they are taken care of before all of this other stuff is taken into consideration. I am trying to stay within my three minutes limit and I see I have two more chances that I can get up here before the night is over. Thank you gentlemen. Come: Thank you, any other testimony from the public on this conditional use permit. Hearing none, Council? Hearing none I will close the public hearing. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, this would also need to be tabled to December 3, we can take no action on a conditional use permit until an annexation has occurred. So I would move that we table until December 3, request for the conditional use permit for a commercial planned unit development by Doug Tamura and Arthur Berry. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we table the conditional use permit for a commercial planned unit until December 3, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we take a five minute recess. FIVE MINUTE RECESS ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-G BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC: Corrie: I will open the public hearing and invite the representative from Eagle Partners LLC to begin the public hearing. Billy Ray Strite, 1087 River Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. i • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 22 Strite: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council I am here tonight along with the applicant user the Eagle Partners in support of this application. We also have amongst us a couple of people that I would like to have testifying here at a later date. Obviously you are going to hear a tremendous amount of testimony tonight. What I would like to do is semi- orchestrate our side of the testimony and make it very brief. We come to you this evening with what we believe to be a positive findings of fact solely in support of this application. I think one of the things that is interesting throughout this entire process we started this in May as you probably well know. The latest being the Ada County Highway District deferral until December 4 I believe for what reason I am not exactly sure. However I think what I would like to concentrate on to make this brief is the items that were really in the findings of fact that we were questioning and as you know in a letter presented to Council here last week regarding the Eagle Road landscape buffer, the signage, the drive thru window, and the masonry wall. I would also like to discuss if you will give me a few minu#es and perhaps more appropriate during the conditional use hearing that traffic study we have received and the proposed road on the north boundary of this site. Discussing the signage here tonight will be Craig Jamison of Idaho Electric Signs. The drive thru window we have George Kyler from McDonald's and Eagle Partners counsel is here Steven Brown. I think from my standpoint if I might in support of these exhibits on the wall it might be easier if I hand these out if I might. Alt of these documents have been as I understand it given to the neighborhood and also to Mr. Jackson. These were also made part of public record at the Ada County Highway District Commissioners meeting last week. I think where I would like to start if I might on the items that we feel most important relative to your findings of fact is the landscape buffering along Eagle Road. We have proposed along Eagle Road a fifteen foot landscape strip with a berming height of over 3 feet. We believe that in our mind the idea of beautifying the entry way if you will to the gate way to the City is better done by raising the berm which would then be a deterrent to looking into the asphalt areas and automobiles being parked there. As Apposed to perhaps having the 30 feet of non- undulating landscaping which in effect certainly is a beautification technique, however in our opinion does not accomplish what I believe the intent of the staff is in the extent of the ordinance which is to buffer those automobiles and that asphalt that sits behind the berm. The second item that I think I would like to discuss if I might is the masonry wall. It was reference made to providing a full I believe it was a 6 foot high masonry wall along the west boundary and along the north boundary. Quite frankly in your own comprehensive plan this site and the site adjacent are designated commercial uses. Further these sites to the west and the site to the north is in what your own ordinance refers to as a mixed use area. I think it would be shameful to go in there and build a 6 foot high block wall along the west boundary prohibiting us is you will to jointly use the westerly sites in a future development that may in effect allow for less access points and have good access within the sites as well as this wall along the North boundary if in fact the neighbors would prefer a wall as opposed the four foot berm that we are providing at 30 foot of width. 1 think that the applicant would be well served and certainly would entertain having that wall along the Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 23 north boundary. However I would question the wisdom of putting in a block wall again along the west side. I think temporarily we have no problem with putting in a fence of same sort. I think the idea, at least as I understand it from staff and as we would normally consider it as an effort to buffer this from those parcels to the west. We are providing 10 foot of landscaping it would appear to me that with that 10 foot of landscaping a 6 foot high wood fence may be appropriate that in the later dates when and if this site to the west develops and we have common access agreements which is another requirement of Ada County Highway District that perhaps that wall would then be pulled down and used again with the extent of additional landscaping provided by the westerly property owner in an effort to create a little cleaner, a little softer buffering. I think also the idea of providing that fence along the west and the north is an effort to try and mitigate if you will the noise, the light, the sound that may be coming off onto adjacent properties. We believe that this particular use which is a low intense use motel in itself along with some 125 foot of setback on the north boundary that in itself creates the open space that is referred to in your ordinance as an ideal way to buffer neighboring properties. I think that the last think that I would like to bring up before I ask Craig to talk about the signage is perhaps the buffering technique to the north. This particular 30 foot of buffering we have determined that either way we go with this parcel if we have the road where we don't have the roadway we still have the ability to provide the 30 foot of landscaping. We are suggesting that with plans we have submitted that whether or not that roadway is in effect constructed our project can go forward as designed and as shown on the site plans without further disruption. The particular road in question and I am not sure if any of you have had the opportunity to read this traffic report, but the traffic study is suggesting that the better alternative out of three would be not having that road there and actually moving the traffic light from its present location to Magic View if in fact that is the case our secondary plan is identical to the first only in that the acxess road has been replaced by a driveway and additional landscaping. I think what I would like to do if it is appropriate (inaudible) back at the conditional use stage and I am almost more certain that I will be back here in rebuttal so I would suggest if you have any questions of me I would be happy to answer them and if not I will turn it over to Craig Jamison regarding the signage and then ultimately we would like to have a McDonald's representative discuss the drive thru window and its location as it is noted in your findings of fact. Corrie: Any questions from Council at this time? Craig Jamison, 6528 Supply Way, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Jamison: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, I appreciate the opportunity to come before you. Once again my name is Craig Jamison I am with Idaho Electric Signs. I guess the good news is this is the last item on the agenda, the bad news is we still have a big crowd here and I don't recognize a lot of the people so I am sure they are not here to • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 24 testify in favor of the project. I have been asked to address some of the signage issues that pertain to this project. To be perfectly honest with you I am not really familiar with the overall background of this project. I understand there is some concern about the signage as there is concern about signage in just about every city we deal with. I am sure you would understand that being in the industry that we are in we are very cognizant of people's concerns about these things and know that there has been some changing attitudes particularly in the City of Meridian that has been getting a lot of press lately. It is my understanding that the recommendation of the staff are that the signage be limited the free standing signage be limited to an overall height of 18 foot. Now where that comes from I am really not sure if that is an arbitrary number. From what I can understand in terms of reading the paper and in terms of discussing this item with a number of people that I am dealing with there is some concern that is probably directly related to the sign that is currently existing directly south of the proposed project. I think if you look over at the drawing that I have over here I have got a, I don't claim this to be an exact rendering but a fairly accurate rendering of the sign in question. So what l think I would like to do is I would like to perhaps draw some comparisons between what the McDonald Chevron project is asking for in terms of signage and what is currently existing there. Which I think probably has a lot of people concerned. Frankly it is the existing sign at the Texaco station is a substantial sign. I would classify it as a truck stop type sign. It is bright and it flashes and it blinks and it is absolutely nothing I believe that can be compared with what we are trying to propose here. I think first of all I did take an opportunity and if I could I would like to present these to the Council. I have some photographs here of the signs in question and then also other signs that can be found in Meridian and along the interstate which to the best of my knowledge have never generated any type of concern. If I could I would like to pass these out, (inaudible) I don't know whether or not that has brought up any concern. The existing Texaco sign, the JB's sign, a KFC sign, here is the Best Western sign that went up in the last couple of years, a Shari's sign that also went up in the last couple of years and a McDonalds sign. I think if I could Mr. Mayor and members of the Council I think the difference is that we are talking about signs here on the later examples that I have given they are freeway oriented signs designed to attract traffic on the interstate, but at the same time to my knowledge have not generated any controversy because they are not flashing, they are not bright, they are not really what I would call an obnoxious kind of sign. I think that is the same type of sign that McDonalds and Chevron. is trying to present for this particular project. If you look at the comparison between the two signs and I would like to state that this is not being submitted as a signage application. So this is a proposed sign that would be along the lines of what they would ask for if we get to that point that we are allowed. Both signs being equal in height the Chevron and McDonald's sign is roughly equivalent in square foot to the two lower panels on the existing Texaco sign. We are talking in the rendition that I have here depending on how you were to calculate the square footage. We are talking of a total of about 302 square foot on the proposed sign versus 784 square foot on the sign located next door to it. As I say the Chevron and McDonalds • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 25 would be roughly equivalent to the (inaudible) down there. That is a big message center and that is I am sure at least 50 watt bulbs that are glaring and flashing and attracting a lot of attention. You don't see that in the sign that is being proposed by Chevron and McDonalds. That sign in itself the message center is taking up over 30% of the overall sign. I think we are dealing with a much smaller sign, we are dealing with a much more subdued sign, a sign that is designed for identification off that interstate. The folks from Chevron and McDonald's have chosen the site specifically, I know I take Eagle Road coming home from work every night. There is a lot of traffic on Eagle but certainly they want to reach the traffic on the interstate. There is a lot of pride and loyalty that is involved here. I happen to carry a Chevron card I have carried one for years, I happen to prefer Chevron gas. I am sure Texaco gas is just as good. But in my mind it is isn't but they need for that type of identification the same reason McDonald's needs that for that type of identification. I think getting a sign to that height actually if you look at the way the interstate is laid out one of the concerns about signs has always been well does it create a traffic hazard or doesn't it create a traffic hazard. We want to let people know as soon as possible before they get to the off ramp that this is where they can go to get Chevron gas, this is where they can go to get McDonald's food. That way they are not waiting until the last minute if they do see it with a lower type of sign making a wild cross across the interstate trying to get to that exit. So in actuality the height (End of Tape) I think you would find it to be a much more subdued sign, you would find it to be in line with the signs that have already been approved most notably along the Meridian exit which as I say to the best of my knowledge have not generated any public concern. But certainly to compare it I think it is being unfairly compared to the existing sign that is going to be immediately south of it. I really don't think that is a fair comparison I think what we would ask is that the conditions of the conditional use permit be adjusted to reflect that the sign would certainly have to go through the application procedure would certainly have to be reviewed by staff but we would ask that it be limited to no more in height than the existing Texaco sign which is necessary for the identification. We would ask for no more square footage than an absolute maximum of 500 square foot. Which although there are no plans for it at this time would allow for the hotel that is going in there. Frankly have no idea what they are going to want, but still a 500 square foot would be at least a 1/3 less in size than the existing Texaco sign. We would also agree that no electronic message center could be incorporated into the sign. With that I conclude my testimony and would be glad to answer any questions. Corrie: Council any questions? Thank you George Kyler, 5000 SW Lake Meadows Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon, was sworn by the City Attorney. Kyler: Mr. Mayor and Council members, I was at almost all of the prior hearings to this and • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 26 I was in amazement when I read the facts and findings that we couldn't have a drive thru window on the south side of our building because to me it was never discussed or I never heard it discussed. If you take a look at the floor plan of our building which I have set up here to your left (inaudible) we have pump islands at Eagle Road (inaudible) the facts and conclusions that were found was that we could only have a drive thru window on the south. When you take a look at what staff had approved for us was that we have an order point on the north end of the building on the back and then optional another location at the curve for a pay point and then a presenters window on the west side of the building. This being the south side of our building is really one of the front doors of our building this being the other front door for the Chevron customers (inaudible). This is the location here for the pay point for the convenience store, this is all the convenience store in blue with their coolers for pop and etc in the back. Common rest rooms for both facilities and in our restaurant you kind of assemble the order in the rear, you get all the raw product and store it here, you cook it in the kitchen and as it moves up the line you end up with a front counter. Either you had it over the front counter or out the window. So we just don't have an opportunity here to relay out the whole building and flip it around somehow in terms of traffic flow and the way that the building is designed in order to comply with that. I have no idea where discussion of that came from. It is in the facts and findings that we only have it on the south side. So I will be glad to answer any questions you might have regarding the positioning of our building. Corrie: Council? Rountree: I guess my only question is what is the location of the window have to do with whether the City is going to annex this property as commercial? Kyler: It was in the findings and conclusions was it not, I agree with you. To my understanding there was some discussion about putting some restrictions on the annexation that were in addition to a pure annexation of the zoning. And it was approved for the annexation with this stipulation in there, that was my understanding but I could be mistaken. Maybe this is better served in the conditional use hearing of it. Corrie: Is there any further testimony that you need? (Inaudible) Corrie: I will open the testimony for the public, I believe Dick you asked that you could start first with our conversation. Richard Williams, 3133 Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 27 Williams: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council in order to expedite the testimony here today I would like to first, I have been designated the representative for the people of Greenhill Estates No. 1, 2 and 3 and will be talking for them today. If those people that are here for the Greenhills if they would stand up and wave to the Council and give them a big friendly smile. Thank you , as you can see there are a number of concerned citizens here. As you are well aware I was a City Council on the Council and sat on the other side of this table for 6 years. I was the President of the Council that drafted the original comprehensive plan for the City of Meridian. So I understand what you gentlemen are going through. I would like to be able to call a number of people and then testify after them. We are going to try and keep it short and factual to a point and (inaudible). The first gentleman I would like to call is Howard Foley who is a member of the Greenhills Estates subdivision. Just as a matter of record everyone that will be testifying on behalf of this development is a resident of the Greenhills Estate subdivision, we have no hired guns, no people on our payroll. We have no payroll. Howard Foley, 2875 Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Foley: I delivered a letter to the Council and Mayor earlier today outlining some concerns that we have that I guess we cast as procedural concerns and notification concerns: First and foremost we have identified what we think are concems with the notification procedure process. As a matter of history the Eagle Partners Limited filed an initial application and then they withdrew it. They filed a subsequent application and with that they have failed as we noted in the letter to pay the necessary fees that are required both for zoning, zoning and annexation and conditional use. We think those are flaws and we think unless they pay those fees like everyone else is required to pay those fees, they have not complied with the procedural due process requirements. Secondly we have noted that there are flaws with the notification process, we have noted specifically for you that again with the withdrawal of the first notification that the City ordinances are specifically require and require the posting and notification to all interested properties. That posting and notification has not occurred. We think that makes it fatally flaws procedurally for you to move ahead. Secondly we have noted that the Planning and Zoning process and we note again here this evening that the ordinance indicates that notice certainly should be given and required to everyone within a 300 foot radius of the affected property. Then in addition to that the Zoning Administrator is required to give notification to those people who are impacted by the decision that you are asked to make. Certainly by the representation here this thing we have had meetings with the developer also who has conceded and acknowledges that the decision you are asked to make here this evening will impact all of us that live in the subdivision. Despite our request that official notification be given to people who are impacted as required by the ordinance. We specified the specific portion of that ordinance. None of that has been done. Your Counsel certainly can better address this to you than I can. I would certainly suggest to you and warn that if you • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 28 • don't comply with the procedural due process if you don't give us the notice that we are entitled to then any proceeding from this point on is procedurally and in terms of due process flawed. We think at this juncture you should take a look at the issues that we have raised regarding those things. If you determine in fact as we have raised those issues that appropriate notice, appropriate fees, appropriate compliance with the ordinances of the City of Meridian have not been complied with by the gentlemen who have addressed you earlier from Boise and Lake Oswego and other places then they should be required to do so, everybody has to do that, that is only fair that is part of due process. We think you ought to take a few minutes and discuss whether the issues we have raised in terms of those items are appropriate for reconsideration if due process and the notification requirements of the ordinance have not been followed then perhaps the matter ought to be sent back to Planning and Zoning and the requirements followed. So that everything is done legally and appropriately. If you decide that the issues we have raised are not appropriate then we are prepared to proceed ahead and raise those issues someplace else. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, Howard, even though you presented yourself not as a lawyer in your letter it is on your letter and I am going to ask these as if you are a lawyer. I know you are but you said you are not representing yourself. Foley: I don't represent in a professional (inaudible) Rountree: But in your interpretation of the notification process you indicated specifically the 300 foot radius notification and I don't know that you mentioned how that notification is occur and whether or not that did happen. And then you also mentioned that notices also to be provided to individuals that are impacted or affected by the project. What is your interpretation of how that notification is to occur? Foley: The notification as I understand it in City Ordinance 2-7416 E, indicates and I will read that, the applicant shall provide the City Clerk with the names and addresses of property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the land being considered. That is the first requirement. And any additional area that might be impacted by this said application. That is what it says. When we were at Planning and Zoning we raised that issue, we said that notification has not been done. Mechanically the way that is done is by certified mail. There is also required that a notarized affidavit be filed with the City indicating that has been done. My understanding is there has been a signed statement filed that is not notarized. Those are technical issues I guess, but the issue we raised with Planning and Zoning was that there are just more than 3 or 4 homes that border this project that certainly without any question we have met with Mr. Devon who happens to live in Greenhills who is one of the Eagle Partners early on and he said well sure I understand that everybody is affected by this that lives here. Even the developer Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 29 recognizes that we are all impacted by this. But having raised that issue it is not addressed in the findings of fact and conclusions of law and it has never been done. People are not notified, we heard this evening that one of the documents was passed out here and the statement was made that we assume that everybody who is affected has received it. I haven't received it, I haven't seen that particular document. So I think what is going on is the people who are within 300 feet are getting notified but nobody else is. I think that is a procedural flaw. We have heard some discussion if I can elaborate on that about signage and those sort of things and I certainly agree with the gentleman that expressed that. When Meridian Ford put up their sign they are not putting it in the backyard of a residential area. When we are putting up the kind of signs that he is talking about at Jacksons and now where we are going to double the illumination or triple the illumination that is coming out of these signs. I can assure you if you live down there and if you have a back yard we are affected by that. If you look at the roadway that is proposed it is going to double front us and go right down our back yards, we are affected by that. So it is nonsense to say that this is hypertechnical it is not. The notification requirements have not been complied with and we have requested it from day one with Planning and Zoning and they didn't choose to enforce that provision of your ordinance. Rountree: Thank you Kent Brown, 3161 Springwood Drive, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Brown: I live in the Greenhills subdivision also, as a profession I work for Boise City in subdivision planning. I work with annexations and rezones quite often as a part of my job. One of the things that as in looking at this that when I bought in the subdivision I had the opportunity to look all over Boise and finally determined to live in Meridian. I grew up here and played football and went to Meridian High School and wanted the same experiences for my kids so I moved back. When I picked the subdivision I picked I picked it because I figured the City would buffer us with the kind of development that would go in. The statement that commercial is the zone that is supposed to go there I guess I don't believe that and reading the comprehensive plan I didn't see that. I know Billy is doing a different interpretation and he is probably a better (inaudible) comprehensive plan than I am. I am used to looking at Boise's. But I know that in your zoning ordinance it speaks that an L-O zone is a lot better zone for a transition to residential development. In speaking to that is what the residents of the Greenhills subdivision have always recognised. We recognize that there is going to be development on that ground. Taking into consideration that the other hospitals that are in this valley has one and St. AI's there are numerous medical and other facilities that want to locate near those hospitals to the point of buying up some residential properties because they have grown. St. Luke's has made big changes in downtown Boise and have altered a lot of areas so they can increase their expansion. In doing that expansion they have had to have some residential things but as a part of doing Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 30 this to begin with it makes good planning sense and common sense if you will that you don't do this as a commercial zone right now because there are going to be other businesses that are going to want to put medical facilities there. Reading your zoning ordinance facilities such as medical laboratories and research laboratories would not be allowed within a commercial zone. Now unless this is just going to be a spot zone that you are only going to put in this one location then you are kind of setting yourself up here that you are going to have a little bit of commercial right in this one location and I would imagine the rest of that property and those five acre parcels are going to break down. The location of a hotel when we met in the planning and zoning hearing one of the commissioners said that a hotel was a, and Billy said it tonight that it is a good buffer for the residential because it doesn't have a lot of traffic. I imagine that your police chief and everyone else can tell you that the traffic that comes, comes late at night to the existing hotels and motels that you have in the City. The calls that they get come at two or three o'clock in the morning responding to the problems that they have at the facilities that you currently have. I guess my question is is this good planning? I can see why they want the commercial zone they are allowed the uses other than the hotel in the LOD zone or the LO zone but they are required to have greater setbacks, they are required to have shorter buildings and they are required to not use up so much of the percentage of the facility or the development site as a part of your zoning ordinance. What we would like to see is that as this develops it goes to an LO zone, you have doctors and other professionals use this facility next to where St. Luke's is. Thereby meeting one of your comprehensive plan goals of having an upper middle income employment. In the comment that Billy made about reducing the landscaping along the Eagle Road corridor, Boise city has set as a standard that 30 foot is a minimum. When I asked the engineer's where they came up with that minimum it had to do with the height of the berm and creating the slope and that you need the 30 feet and that is how they determine the 30 feet was that to get the height in the berm and get the slope the 2 to 1 slope that you had to have the 30 foot of distance. Speaking to the gentleman that spoke about the sign I was thinking about that tonight as I was driving home and realizing that St. Luke's is going to add on, they have only done their first phase they add on their next quad which would be to the south of their current facility there is noway even if a Texaco sign went in at the same height and brightness or whatever would it be seen from the freeway of any west bound traffic. At its location it definitely wouldn't stop anybody that is coming from the east bound because they have already passed that facility unless it is as bright and as big as the Texaco sign from the. east bound traffic. I imagine that the hotel is going to have to have a similar type of sign so that it can be seen so that it can have that kind of traffic. I think that these facilities can be put in this area .but they need to be closer to the freeway. A hotel could go in this location as long as it was closer to the freeway where people could see it, he could put up his sign that would be of a size and be seen and they could come in off of Magic View or wherever the stop light ends up going depending on what the highway district and the State Transportation Department come up with. That is all I have unless you have any Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 31 questions. Corrie: Council any questions? Thank you Ken for you presentation, (inaudible) Ann Bowen, 3067 Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Bowen: I have been asked to speak today on behalf of all of the mothers and fathers in the Greenhill neighborhood. I would like to start by telling you a little bit about our subdivision. It is a neighborhood with nice beautiful homes, we all are on acre and half acre lots. We have beautifully landscaped yards and most of them are kept up and well groomed. It is a very family oriented neighborhood. There are lots of professionals who live there and lots of employed people who are hard working tax payers. It is the kind of neighborhood that any City would want to have in their, would be very proud to have. I would like to address three major areas of concern tonight that all of us have had. The first is I have a two story home that is backed up to this proposed site, the Texaco which is actually further away from where the Chevron is going to be when it went in it has radio speakers out at the gas pumps. Not only can I hear the constant beat of the base but I can pick up words to the songs sometimes at night because it is so loud. All of the bedrooms along most of our properties face that direction and because we are two stories up we get all of the sound our direction. If we put something in even closer we are going to hear every car door slam, we are going to hear every teenager with their radios blasting. We are going to hear people talking, this is going to go on 24 hours a day. Not to mention the big semi trucks that come in and idle their engines for about a half hour and kind of shake and rattle your house. It is really crucial to me that I get my sleep or I get really onere which probably all of you have experienced. ff this development goes in it is going of make that real difficult for us. My second concern is with the lights, when the Texaco opens I sat down at my kitchen table one night after work it was about midnight, I had all the lights off in my house and I could absolutely fine to read the newspaper because the lights were so bright. I went out to let my dog out and as I opened the door I get hit with this search. light in my eyes that is so bright I can't even tell where my dog went. I can't see my backyard, I can't see the grass. I am totally blinded by how bright these lights are. If you want, really want you to believe this, I would like you tonight when you drive home from here to gq by Fairview to the new Chevron that they have opened up by the Fred Meyer in Meridian. Park your car just across the street and look over at that and think what if this was my front room. What if was my back yard, what if you area 1/2 mile away. They are bright, obnoxious lights and it makes it very difficult to sleep, it makes it difficult to function in a home with that much light. Also the other problem that I see is all the cars that come into this area are going to tum and head towards our houses, so we are going to get headlights going in our windows all night long. The third issue that I would like to cover is that of security. I would like to be able to assume that my children can play in our back yard and be safe. I think that is a fair request of a homeowner in Idaho. With the 24 hour a day Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 32 traffic that this development is going to generate I am not comfortable with the kind of element that it is going to bring in, that adjacent to where my kids are going to be playing. I would also like to be able to entertain in my backyard, but I don't know how I would do that with a 3 story hotel and people waving down at us. It is impossible, a 3 foot fence a 20 foot fence nothing will help if you have a 3 story hotel in your backyard. Our privacy will be gone so will all the neighbors because you will be able to see from that hotel clear across to everyone else. I know that the development of the property is inevitable, we all know that. I have come to grips with the fact that I can no longer look out my windows at the horses that are grazing in the beautiful fields. But we as a neighborhood deserve the right to be able to have a buffer for our neighborhood and to not have a 24 hour noisy, bright, active development such as this. Nobody would want this in their backyard, nobody. I am opposed to this project, I respectfully ask the City Council to support our neighborhood and deny this proposal and in the future to support the type of development which would be compatible with our neighborhood or any neighborhood. Thank you Rountree: A couple points you made I just want for clarification. You talked about the privacy issue and the height of structures in that particular area be it this development or whatever. What would be a reasonable compromise? Bowen: To have something go in that closes at 5 at night or at the latest 9, any kind of development that is not open 24 hours a day causing noise. Rountree: How about height? Bowen: How about height, (inaudible) I think 2 storys maximum that would be equal with our homes that are two storys. Rountree: And this next one is kind of on the light side, you indicated that your neighborhood would be a neighborhood that the City would be proud to be part of the City, then I think the City would be proud that you are a part of us, is that in the future? Bowen: Yes it is, I have to say it is really strange to live in Meridian, Idaho, to have a Meridian address to not get to go to the Ada, I am actually in Ada County. So if I need the police I cannot call Meridian's police I have to call Ada County's police, but if I want to go to Ada County's library I can't go there unless I want to pay $40 a year. I have to go to Meridian's library. I have a Meridian zip code and it is really confusing for all of us. So that whole issue is kind of vague it is an Idaho phenomenon, I have had that happen in other places that we have lived here. Rountree: Possibly something that your homeowners association could bring to the City at some point in time in the future. Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 33 L~ Bowen: I would also like to say if we can't protect our neighborhood nobody in Meridian is going to be safe. Chuck Horel, 3043 Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Horel: Gentlemen, t appreciate the time you are allowing us up here tonight. I am going to try and make this as brief as possible. First off I have a letter from the City of Meridian, the Hub of Treasure Valley, a good place to live. This is just a personal comment, that is really wrong, this is a great place to live. All I can say is if a development like this is allowed to buffer residential properties as know them then that becomes a true statement then Meridian is only a good maybe even a lesser place to live. Because that does nothing but degrade our neighborhood. Anyway, getting on to the crux of the matter here, in the comprehensive plan of 1993 there are some statements in here regarding natural resources. Part of it is water quality policies and hazardous areas. As stated on pages 31 and 33 of the policy 3.1, 3.2 and 5.1 these particular things address water, management of drainage ways and protecting creeks and drains and they protect the beauty and recreational trail opportunities of all Meridian waterways. In conjunction with the comprehensive plan on it I hope that you all have a copy that Howard gave to you which includes the Idaho Wellhead protection plan. If you would submit this into the record please, this is a copy that was really hard to come by from the Department of Environmental Quality. Part of that protection plan states that this plan describes how Idaho will meet requirements of the well head protection program as established by the safe drinking water act amendments of 1986, Section 1428 in the requirements of the Idaho Groundwater Quality plan relative to the Wellhead Protection plan. Guidance will be developed from the policies of this plan which will assist local governments and water purveyors in implementing local well head protection programs. You may or may not know that the Greenhill Estates is on our own water system so we therefore become purveyors of water. With this development being so close to our well head I think this is a legitimate concern that there in the future could become situation which would arise which could compromise that well head. I guess the question that I would pose to you is .that if someone becomes ill or incapacitated due to the source of the contamination or water supply we will ultimately step up to the table and accept responsibility for that. The homeowners of Greenhill Estates which there are which that well supplies are roughly 50 households. In the wellhead protection plan it calls for delineation of the sites around the wellheads and it gives time tables as far as what how far contaminates can go in those delineation areas. Again I am not going to get into this, I will leave that for you to peruse at some more opportune time. Anyway, that basically is what we are seeing is that we know that you ultimately are concerned because you have addressed some of that in the comprehensive plan. We hope that you would take into consideration the well head protection plan that the Idaho Department of Environmental quality endorses and again I would like to reiterate we would like to keep Meridian a great place to live. Thank you for • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 34 your time. Corrie: Any questions? Thank you Williams: I am the last speaker for the group, I would like to make testimony in regards to two areas. First of all I would like to address the comments by the developer, item one, the only item that has ever been given to the neighborhood that I am aware of that I received was the 81/2 by 11 landscape plan that even with my magnifying glass there was no way I could read and that was delivered to me last Thursday. The masonry wall that they are talking about is a new item. This in my recollection and notes has not been previously discussed and I question how a 6 foot high wall will mitigate a 40 foot high lights and parking lights and lights of a sign with the neighborhood. I disagree with Billy Ray Strite it is not a commercial in the plan only in the map, there is one of six elements that are necessary in the comprehensive plan, Eagle Road only addresses, the map is the only thing in the comprehensive plan that addresses Eagle Road at all. He has talked about a driveway if the road on the north end is not approved where the current stop light is, we wonder if ACRD will allow another ingress/egress on that. In fact ACHD has totally table this project until December 4 at which time they possibly will make a decision and a recommendation to this board as to what their site plan in terms of the roadway will be. I don't know how anything can be approved without a site plan approval by ACHD at this point in time. The sign has already been addressed, I know you had the Texaco sign in, I also know that Mr. Jackson from what I have talked to him is not happy with the sign because the only place you can see it is after on west bound after you have crossed Cloverdale Road. I guess my question is if you make one mistake why turn around and make another mistake and put more signs up. If you are travelling east bound on I-84 unless you are specifically looking for that sign you can't see it. If you set one further back I don't know how these people are going to try and address freeway traffic. I just find that incredulous. This is not along the interstate as they referenced other signs. This is along residential property that they want to put these signs up. This property does sit substantially back from the freeway. And the other thing is are you going to let a forest of signs grow up on Eagle Road, we can't log those signs but we can sure take a look and see a lot of signs. The signs now in Meridian I am sure a lot of people would not like to see those the way they have been set up because they are an eyesore. Gentlemen the next part I would like to go through are strictly factual concerns that we have about this proposal. Factual concerns about the findings of fact and conclusions of law, factual concerns about the Comprehensive Plan, factual concerns about the zoning ordinances. If you have in front of you a comprehensive plan I would like to go through some of the comprehensive plan on a page by page basis. This may ba boring but we need this to get it in the record. Page four of the comprehensive plan item B4, mixed use, how does this project meet the following statements. How and where does it get extended to Eagle Road. Again nowhere in these items (inaudible) nowhere at all does this get, is Eagle • • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 35 Road even mentioned in the comprehensive plan other than the map. Page 18 of the comprehensive plan it says development interchange and lists six interchanges. Eagle Road is not listed in your comprehensive at all. Page 27 mixed use areas adjacent to 1-84, again nothing is addressed at all to Eagle Road. On page 3 of the conditional use permit findings of fact and conclusions of law and what we would like to do we will make, we would like all of this incorporated into both public hearings if we could Mr. Mayor rather than to be repetitive. Make it just one fell swoop if that meets with your approval. Page three, B1, it seems as though Planning and Zoning added to the comprehensive plan, there is a different text referenced in the comprehensive plan under section B1 that they added and Eagle Road that term does not exist in your comprehensive plan. In your annexation and zoning findings of fact and conclusions of law the comprehensive plan states the commercial use is in fact the best use for such parcels. Also note the plan notes mixed use that this does not meet the intent of the updated comprehensive plan and is not designated commercial, this is page 8 and 9 item 17 of the findings of fact and conclusions of law for the annexation. Page 10, item F, the applicant's attorney referenced to interchange areas but the comprehensive plan again specifically omits Eagle Road and I-84 in that reference, in that section. Again in the findings of fact and conclusions of law on page 14, B1, P & Z added the words and Eagle Road which again do not exist in the comprehensive plan. Page 26 of the findings of fact and conclusions of law for the annexation, item 15.14, requires a development agreement addressing the concerns of the property owners of Greenhill Estates and Magic View Subdivision, this has not happened. Page 27, 29, incomplete conditions of annexation and there are I think 3 or 4 blank lines in there that were never filled in. Yesterday we had people meet with the staff and review the file and after reviewing the file staff noted that the findings of fact and conclusions of law were not accurate nor was the file complete as of the minutes of 10-8-96 of P & Z were not included nor were the findings of fact and conclusions of law updated to indicate the changes made during the meeting of the 8th which substantially changed the need for the hotel to be built first and minimize the landscaping. However they did note that the required setback from the north is 95 feet whether or not the road stays in the location to the north or is moved south. We would, we are still under discussion with ACRD about that and they have not come up with any recommendation. Back to the comprehensive plan, page 10, the policies, the comprehensive plan should be adopted, maintained and updated on an annual basis. We asked has this been done. Page 18, item 1.4A, details design studies to address development criteria we don't believe that has been done on this annexation. 1.4B on the same page, economic feasibility studies to include analysis of economic needs and problems. We don't believe that was done. Page 19, item 1.8 of the comprehensive plan, it says that you must establish a development review process which will foster compatible land use and design with contiguous developments. We don't think this has been done. Page 28, mixed use policies, detail market studies should be undertaken, we are not, we are concerned that hasn't been done. (End of Tape) Page 74, item 65U, establish land use designs which reflect the character of existing neighborhoods, u Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 36 • this does not comply with that part of the plan at all. 6.6U, adopt and implement neighborhood policy plans to preserve and or improve existing neighborhoods. We feel that this is quite the opposite of what this is going through. Item 1.3 on page 80, require that the Planning Commission budget include detail review of comprehensive plan at least once a year. We feel at this point that the fact that this proposal is only addressed in one of 6 elements that are the key in your plan would necessitate that the comprehensive plan be open for review and update in order to have this or any other development in this area comply with your comprehensive plan. WE do not believe that at this point it does. WE look back to the comprehensive plan and the use of the term plan versus map, you want high quality development, enhance the quality of life of all residents. As Chuck said it is a great place to live, I have lived here 27 years, I know Ron Tolsma was in that picture back there which is good because he is a person that is here, he has lived here his whole life and he is concerned about what is happening in Meridian. It is a great place to live and I don't think Ron or I or anybody else would be here if it wasn't a great place to live. Again we want to look at the past, the present and the future trends. We want to maintain current housing, the quality of life and in an orderly fashion to establish compatibility. Existing conditions of the plan say one of the reasons is the recognized quality of life within the community there are unique neighborhoods. We feel that this is a planned mixed use area and it should be designated that. We feel that whatever decision the City makes regarding this land is going to impact the long term growth of that area and how you do it. We would ask that this development either be tabled or denied and that the City undertake some type of review of this whole area to ascertain what should be developed to update your comprehensive plan to include the Meridian I-84 interchange which it does not address now. There is nothing in here that addresses other than a circle on a map. So you only have one of six elements that you are dealing. with. We don't feel that is compatible with this development. I probably have six or seven more pages, these are major points that we are concerned about. These don't address the secondary issues within the plan that we are concemed about. But we do feel that this is an improper use of the land, it does not comply with the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan doesn't address it. There are words added in the findings of fact that don't exist in the comprehensive plan. If you read this find your references to Eagle Road, there ain't any folks. Again we are not against develop, we are more than willing as a group willing to sit down and spend time and effort to work with the City to develop a plan for this area because this plan is going to affect how people see Meridian from the east.. What is your entrance going to look like to the City. I thank you for your time, if you have any questions I would hopefully try to address them. Corrie: Council any questions? Rountree: Does that represent the groups testimony? Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 37 • Williams: Yes it does and I would like to incorporate it in both public hearings if we could Mr. Mayor. Rountree: I just say thank you for your organization and conduct, we appreciate. Williams: You're welcome, I have been both sides, we would like this brochure that we have prepared entered into the record Mr. Mayor. Corrie: I too would like to thank the audience, there may be some others that want to testify but we are really very happy to have you citizens of Meridian and very well conducted group here tonight. I was a little bit worried like I said to this Council I thought the Chief of police was going to have to protect us. You folks have been very commendable. Is there anybody else from the public who would like to issue testimony at this time? Dick Moore, 3050 Magic View Drive, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Moore: As I said I live at 3050 Magic View Drive which happens to be the property just west of the property we are talking about. I have been out there about 24 years, we talk about this being the eastern edge of Meridian. Before I ever moved out there I was told by the State Highway Department that Eagle Road had been surveyed as a main north south. In other words it is going to bypass Marsing go right straight through on Eagle Road, same thing to the north some day. So I think we have forewarning that something was going to happen there sometime. I have no other comments, I am just saying that I think I had forewarning 24 years ago. So we have had some warning. Rick Seager, 2951 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Seager: Which is just down the street from the property that we are talking about. First off I want to echo some of the sentiments. I have not received anything as far as notification and I did sign and send a letter along with the rest of the residents in the area requesting notification. Particularly concerning the fact that this is being built right on top of our well. Under any interpretation I feel like I am impacted by this. Especially given the fact that these lights are going to be in my backyard as well. In addition to that I have got literally hundreds of questions about this whole exercise and what it will mean to us. I don't want to go through all of that tonight but a few basic ones that none of the plans that I have seen show me where that garbage bin is going to be located outside of McDonalds, where they garbage is going to be located outside of the hotel and with prevailing winds and things that anybody knows those are going to stink. We have used the words over and over again #hat this is a buffer and I am all for a buffer but this is clearly not the buffer that we are talking about. I would like to know how many gas tank trucks, semis are going to be coming through here with diesel trying to make the turn into this literally right on top of • • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 38 our well or right next to it with the adjoining lot. I would like to know how many of those trucks are going to be making that tum. That is a basic one given the number of accidents that happen. I think the record of Chevron ought to be examined. I understand just down the street in Eagle off of Eagle Road one of the Chevron gas tanks developed a leak, fortunately no well was nearby. I don't know if this is going to be any different, I don't know how, I don't know what is being put in place to prevent that from happening in the future. So I have a lot of questions around that, I think McDonalds and their plan. I think everybody is pretty familiar that it has been in the Wall Street Journal multiple times now their strategy of putting McDonalds everywhere they can. I don't know how many are going to go into Meridian or how many you are going to let go into Meridian. The basic point, the most important point I wanted to make is that there is, this isn't a buffer. I think that the eagle properties and the team that has put this together made a real fatal mistake. If we all recognize that they keep calling this a buffer and disguising it in any kind of wrapping they put around it is exactly the opposite of a buffer. The reason I say it is the opposite of a buffer is the worst that can go in. From a mother's point of view and you said things just as excellently as anybody could say them but at 2:00 in the morning when I hear a door slamming and I hear things happening a buffer to me would indicate that in a residential area I should be alarmed. If I hear something going on outside my door I should be alarmed in a residential area. A buffer should prevent the 24 hour kinds of activities that are going to be happening with this kind of a facility. Hotels inherently are where you read about every time there is a shooting, every time the police. are called out I would like to know how often is that to a hotel, how often is it to a quick stop facility like is being put there. The majority of the time it is and the majority of the time it is late at night. I am sorry you cannot have that in our back yards and tell me that is a buffer. I have a real problem with that. In the spirit of keeping things and upbeat and optimistic I want to say I think there is a win win here. There are 110 acres in this facility and there is no doubt that wherever they put McDonalds they are successful, they have said that in all the articles that have been written. Every time they put them up they are successful. And they are going to put up 15 of them in the City if you let them, that has been their plan. Why can't we instruct them to pick out of the 110 acres that are there why are these four acres right next to our houses the ones that are most important. There. are a lot of questions that I have and I think all of us do. And back to the original notification issue I would love to be notified and have a chance to hear out the discussion. If it takes all night, if this is the only forum we have then maybe that is what we should use. But as far as the notification I would like to back this whole thing up and let us have a chance to sit down with the developers and spend more time coming up with a solution that works for all of us. I will make one more comment again bads to the win win solution, let's look for a buffering such as doctors offices, such as something that is a one story facility that can be hidden by a fence or a berm that separates us. All of that 110 acres in there is going to end up all right along the highway. It is going to end up being prime property for commercial development. The City of Meridian is going to get the revenues out of that, it doesn't have to be in this • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 39 particular light. Just coming back this weekend from a business trip to California, I went through multiple neighborhoods with this fresh on my mind looking at how within all the different cities that are just hodge podge together in the Silicon Valley area how did they manage their growth and what did they do. You can see just inherent differences when you drive from one section to another those that did a good job of buffering it is obvious. They kept their signs low, they actually you could see things move down as you get to residential areas. The properties in those areas have sky rocketed yet those properties in the areas that no care was taken those properties are not desirable. Anybody moving into those areas doesn't want to live in there. You don't want to live with a McDonalds and a hotel in your backyard. So I would argue that the best thing for Meridian is a true buffer, the best thing for our developers is to be closer to the highway, not next door to us where they are going to have a resentful group of people next door to them.. And they are going to see property values decrease. They are not going to see the whole Meridian area be the kind of Mecca and magnet that they want it to be either. Everybody would benefit from a clear buffer. And so I appreciate you taking the time to hear me out and I am sorry for rambling a little bit. It is an urgent issue to all of us. Corrie: Any questions? Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony? Dennis Edson, 376 Ravenswood, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Edson: Again, I would like to stress that in this area we really need a buffer zone rather than a commercial type of application that is going in there. We realize the development does need to be made in this area it would be good for us and it would be good for the city. But if it was something more in the order of an LO zoning that would provide for doctors offices and professional offices in that area. That would be a help the neighbors they would have medical facilities that would be close by. They would have lab and Xray facilities that would be next to the St. Lukes facility that would be convenient for everybody. Why do we need another gas station on the same side of the road. If we are intent on putting another gas station in there why shouldn't it be on the other side of Eagle where it serves the north bound traffic, why do we need two gas stations serving south bound traffic. Why do we need a McDonalds two minutes down the freeway there is a full size McDonalds that can serve everybody a lot better. Why do we need another motel, two minutes down the freeway there are two motels there already in a very commercialized area that the Meridian exit. It would seem to me that something more on the local office where it would provide a true buffering between the commercial areas and the residential areas would be much more desirable. Thank you Brian Diamond, 3134 Autumn Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Diamond: I am here tonight to represent a special interest and I am holding him, he is very CJ Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 40 • special to me and I think the decision that is made regarding this development will affect his life as he grows up living so close to it. I think you have seen from the response of the very eloquent people tonight that we are not a bunch of wild eyed fanatics. We basically have accepted the fact that there will be development there. All that I would ask and I think most people here would agree with me is that it be an LO type of development rather than the one that is there. That is all I have to say. Corrie: Any further testimony from the public? Rod Truax, 3091 Autumn Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Truax: If I might reference this drawing over here for you, (inaudible) water quality as well. If I might point out, this is the lot where I live right here and I have a (inaudible) this last summer we would go swimming there quite often under the stars, the Texaco star. I don't (inaudible) Chevron shield either. I enjoy the privacy that I have had and I feel that this (inaudible) everything that is going to be there is inappropriate especially with my water quality concerns here in my backyard. With that I have other concerns regarding this roadway (inaudible). If there are any tankers hauling gas (inaudible) it is going to develop cracks in my pool and destroy my pool eventually because of the road traffic there. Those are concerns that I have as a personal property owner right there in that residential area. (Inaudible) this is where our well is located just right in that junction right there. (Inaudible) almost in line with this arrow (inaudible). I might also point out that half of this area here is also irrigation easement already. So (inaudible) any questions? Corrie: Any questions? Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I have a question, you mentioned the irrigation easement and question or information has not been provided. Do the homeowners in your area utilize that irrigation water? Truax: We pay rights on that but I don't know of anybody in the area that actually uses it. It is (inaudible) Rountree: Apparently some do for the record. Corrie: Any other testimony? Hearing none, anybody from the Chevron for rebuttal? Steve Brown, 707 N. 8th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Brown: I start with two strikes against me, one is I am an attorney which is a career choice that I regret but I just turned 50 and it is too late to change. The other strike against me is • • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 41 that I am from Boise and that can be witnessed by one of your members who was in my graduating class in high school, I won't name him because I don't want to throw a dark cloud over his political career here in Meridian. I will say that my Grandmother did graduate from Boise high school in 1912 also so I don't feel like a complete carpetbagger here in our valley. Crookston: As I recall you did go to the University of Idaho law school. Brown: That is true, I went out of state to (inaudible). I wanted to address a couple of points that Mr. Foley made, and particularly with regard to the posting of notice, it is up to Council to determine whether those notice requirements were complied with but we believe that they were. First of all the requirement in the zoning ordinance is that notice go out to people by certified mail to people within 300 feet unless the Planning and Zoning Commission makes a determination that additional notice is warranted. What occurred here kind of at the last minute or close to the time that we were under the deadline for posting notice Mr. Foley did deposit a letter with the City which is on file requesting that notice be to several additional subdivisions that weren't within 300 feet. I believe in fact, I am sure that Mr. Johnson took this up with the staff and the decision was made not to post the additional notice. I would also point out that if we conceive that an annexation and a rezone does affect a large number of people there is another provision of the ordinance that Mr. Foley did not mention and that is the provision immediately following the 15 day mailing of notice within 300 feet. What it says is when notice is required to 200 or more property owners or residents then in lieu of mailing notification notice of the proceeding and hearing required may be given by publishing the notice for two consecutive weeks in the official newspaper of the City of Meridian provided the second notice appears ten days prior to the public hearing. Now my understanding is that there was notice of the initial public hearing published in compliance with this statute. I would expect Council could check that but if we can see that this could affect more than just people within 300 feet then that part of the notice requirement has been complied with. Now as to the posting requirement there is a requirement that the applicant go out and post the- property at feast 7 days prior to the hearing, this was done. There was an individual who was employed by BRS architects named Drew Ebright who posted the property. There are photographs of him standing there posting the property because the questions comes up did this actually occur. It did occur in compliance with the ordinance. What is lacking however is his afFdavit or his statement notarized to the effect that posting took place. We would request leave from this Commission to supplement the record with Mr. Ebright's statement under oath that he did the posting and we will submit photographs of him actually doing that. We can certainly get that in this week and we would expect any decision made tonight to be subject to the requirement that technicality be fulfilled. The other thing in Mr. Foley's letter and this is my reading of the ordinance I am sure I am not as familiar with it as the counsel for the City is but the way I read it is once it is transmitted l~ J Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 42 • to Council I am looking at Section 2-416 F1 of the ordinance. It requires that the Council conduct at least one public hearing following the notice requirements which are described back in the section involving publication and or mail to people, within 300 feet. I don't think there is any requirement in the ordinance that the applicant has to go back out and repost the property. So I would submit that to the Council and to the counsel. In our view the notice requirements have been complied with. There is a question about whether the fees were paid. What happened on this application was that I believe it was in May the application was originally submitted and there was an objection from ACHD staff because they said they might want to put a road or they were going to recommend this road be put in along the northern part of the property from Eagle Road between this property and the subdivision and it was based on the recommendation of staff that the applicant reconfigure the site plan and resubmitted it. There was a month delay in the process as a result of that. I don't think there is any requirement that type of a circumstance requires a repayment of a fee. If it does that fee will gladly be submitted to the City of Meridian. But we were certainly never notified of any need to pay an additional fee for this redrawing of the site plan. There has been a comment about the findings from the Planning and Zoning Commission were inadequate because there were blanks. And although there was discussion at the meeting as to how these were to be filled in the motion that was made didn't actually incorporate into it the conclusions that were reached in the discussion as to the amount of the setback and the height and some of the other things that were involved. The point I want to make is that under the ordinance it is the job of Planning .and Zoning Commission to make a recommendation #o the City Council on questions of annexation and zoning. I think that this body has certainly within it the authority to fill in anything that are not appropriately recommended. In other words it is just a recommendation to you, you can take it or leave it. You certainly have the authority if something is left blank to do what you want because you weren't required to follow their recommendation in the first place. That is why we have a new hearing here and in effect we start all over. This is not like an appeal of a court decision where you have to remand it back to the planning and Zoning Commission. So I don't think that should be a problem. The question of is there a site specific plan here. Our position is as it has been before ACHD that we have already modified the site plan to take into account the possibility of a road along the northern part of this property. Whether that road goes in or not is not going to have any bearing on this subdivision. If the road goes in we have made provision, excuse me le# me back us. What I mean to say is this, it will not have any bearing on where the site plan,. how the site plan is configured on this application. The roadway will certainly have impact on the subdivision and ACRD is going to put that in whether this application or some other application is finally approved by the City of Meridian. But the applicant in this case has done a good job of buffering, whether the road goes in or not. If the road does not go in the property that would have been used for the road will simply be utilized for additional buffering, perhaps some additional parking but it would make it abetter project. That is not within our control, that is ACHD who is going to make that • • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 43 decision. But the project is presented in a manner that regardless of what the decision turns out from ACRD the project can move forward in terms of approval and of course it will have to be subject to whatever ACRD requirements that are made when they make their decision as to whether the roads going in and what ITD decides whether to locate the signal. My final point is as to the comprehensive plan, there has been a lot of discussion about the comprehensive plan what it says, what it doesn't say, there are a lot of aspects to this comprehensive plan to support this development. I think one of the main ones is the general policy in the plan that there will be mixed used and commercial activities around and along I-84. Eagle Road does appear in the comprehensive plan on page 43, there is a definition of aterials and it describes Eagle Road north of Overland as one of the major arterials even though it is not in the City. What that says is that arterials carry a certain traffic volume and they are not intended as residential streets. So this, there are residences adjacent to this street but in terms of the comprehensive plan and the State transportation plan this is a major arterial. The comprehensive plan map does clearly identify this area around the intersection of I-84 and Eagle Road as a commercial area. It is specifically indicated on the map which includes this property. It does sweep over the existing housing which is a mistake, obviously that is not going to be commercial. But what the comprehensive plan says about the map is says that the proposed land use delineations for the impact area are shown on the comprehensive plan map. One of the things is that mixed use plans mix uses along I-84 which are attractive and compatible with high volume traffic corridors should be on that map. It states that the map represents a long range vision of community development in generalized areas. The map represents a compilation of input and ideas expressed by citizens, community groups and local leaders. So I think it is the policy under the comprehensive plan that this area be considered for commercial development with proper zoning and screening and buffering. There are a lot of aspects of the plan that I won't even go into that talk about economic development. Finding jobs in Meridian so that the services can be supported with a more substantial tax base. This project would lend itself to that, this project, the application got underway in May. These people who are local people who are investors and trying to move this project forward would of course like a decision because the clock is running on the interest and we do appreciate your consideration. Are there any questions? Corrie: Any further comments from the developers? Kyler: George Kyler, there have been a lot of comments made about how many McDonalds we are going to have in town and we already have a full service on down the road etc. When you have a State Highway and a Federal highway coming together with the kind of traffic volume that it has you have a hospital next door with 40 some acres that is going to develop into office buildings of their own as well additional expansion of space. And there is a focal point there and it makes sense for a McDonalds to be there because of what is there already. This will be a full service McDonalds, this will be the same size McDonalds Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 44 as there are in other locations with the full menu. I don't plan on any other McDonalds in the City of Meridian. I have looked in a lot of different locations and I am responsible for the one that was just built on Fairview in front of Fred Meyer. I just want to make that clear it is it not our intent to blanket the City with McDonalds. I kind of was taken back when we were in front of P & Z because one of the people said how many minimum wage jobs are we going to create in this town. I kind of took offense to that and so I went to the McDonalds on the interstate down the road and I decided I was going to take a look at what we have as far as an employment base there. With an average salary of $8.26 with over 60 employees there 75°~ of which come from the City. I looked at how many minorities, how many women, how many physically challenged people we have that we employ. I look at the programs we have for how many high school kids we employ giving out bonuses for good grades etc. I am not sure that it is anybody's job it is to figure out what business goes in there as well as it is to figurd out is it an appropriate place for type of business. I believe our site plan is accurate as to what Steve was saying. There was some comments made about we can't look at this any further because we haven't got an accurate site plan. And Steve's point I don't see these building shifting around. I think that they have placed properly on the site based upon input from a lot of different people including ACHD. So regardless of what ACHD does with the main access we don't cater to truck drivers at McDonalds. This parking lot doesn't have any space for people to pull on the property with trailers and trucks and semis. I don't believe that, I can't speak for Chevron, but I don't believe I saw diesel pumps and diesel tanks in the ground for trucks. The turning radiuses aren't set up for other than delivery trucks coming in. The way McDonald's delivers we have, you probably rarely see a truck in front of McDonalds. They come during the hours we are open and there is one semi that has frozen food, refrigerated food and our paper products on the same truck. It is all off loaded at the same time. So we don't have trucks coming on the site at all hours day and night idling there all night long as some of the comments were made. You don't see that at McDonalds, nor do you see that a Chevron. So I just want to make that point to you. If there are any other questions I would love to answer them for you. Corrie: Thank you, I guess Billy Ray, there is one left, do you have any comments you want to make? Jamison: Craig Jamison, thanks for giving us the opportunity to get back here. First of all I would also like to thank all the folks in the audience that were, kind enough to refer to me as a gentleman when they were speaking about me. I don't' get that kind of respect at Boise so that is pretty exciting for me. It seems like a good group and I think this isn't a mean spirited kind of thing. I want you to know that I think everybody shares a lot of the same concerns. I particularly liked the gentleman's comment about swimming under the Texaco star. In actuality I think you are swimming under about 450 stars and sometimes they say liter of coke for .99 and sometimes they say unleaded gas for 1.59. That is really • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 45 I think the big difference in the two signs we are proposing here. I think there is a perception that the sign we are proposing needs to be just as big and just as bright as the one that is immediately south of it. That is the big difference, we are looking at without the message center you have got approximately 450 lamps, 50 watt flood lamps. That is where a tremendous amount of the brightness on that sign is coming from. This sign, I just ask that people when they sit back and compare it to other signs that you will see not only along the interstate but all through the City these signs are being illuminated by 800 (inaudible) florescent lamps. If you go up and down the streets even in Meridian and you look at wall signs canister type signs that are on the walls that light up those are illuminated with exactly the same lamps that are going to be in the sign that is proposed. So really we are not out to get a sign that is as big as or as bright as, we don't need one we just need the identification. We don't have to be concerned with conveying a full message across to people. People recognize a Chevron logo, people recognize a McDonalds logo. That is all we are really trying to accomplish. Thank you very much. Strite: Billy Ray Strite, Mr. Mayor and members of the City Council once again we have all been here rather late. I think that I do have one thing that Mr. Williams and I would agree on and I think in talking with our group I think it would be best served for everyone here that both these applications be heard at the same time if that is the choice of the Council. Certainly we agree with Mr. Williams in that endeavor. I think we appreciate the opportunity of being here, I think that both parties came here in good spirit and certainly with good intent. I guess I will close my testimony by saying that both your staff here and the Planning and Zoning Commission through their findings of fact did in fact believe that this application does meet the comprehensive plan. We have a site on the corner of a major state highway and a major federal highway. It is going to have 40,000 cars a day going up and down it. I guess in my own question to the Council and maybe to the residents what in fact could go here. We understand that the offices is what the neighbors would prefer but I can assure you that most offices can't survive under 40,000 cars a day, probably would not survive and quite frankly my understanding is that St. Luke's has an additional 40 acres on their site which is zoned appropriately. I would suggest to you that would probably tell me that the office market very well may be saturated. So with that I would close my comments and once again I appreciate the opportunity. If there are any questions I would be happy to answer them. Corrie: Questions of the Council? Thank you, Council discussion? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, from my perspective I think there are several issues here that have been raised this evening that need further exploration. I do think that one of the key ingredients to this is the input from ACHD, it is my understanding that their hearing will be on the 4th of December. It would seem to me that it would be appropriate for us to continue the public hearing that we are working with tonight until our meeting the 17th of December • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 46 so that we can incorporate in the findings of fact and conclusions the results of ACHD's study. I do also think that from our staffs standpoint that we need to research the issues of notification so that we can be assured in our minds what notification requirements (inaudible} the issues that Mr. Brown raises and that Mr. Foley raises are both valid issues but we need to determine where that lies. It also seems to me that we need to further explore some of the issues that were raised with the comprehensive plan with both Mr. Williams and by Mr. Brown. So I think from my perspective what I would like to see is that we continue this public hearing to get the benefit of the input to resolve some of those issues between now and our meeting on the 17th. Corrie: Other comments from the Council? Tolsma: I tend to agree with Walt (inaudible) there is a lot of testimony here tonight, there is a lot of conflicting testimony. I think there needs to be some research done on the notifications and some of the legal technicalities that have been brought up tonight and (inaudible). Rountree: I would guess anytime we get two legal interpretations at a hearing we probably ought to get a third. So with that I concur with Walt's comments. I think what this is going to lead to is the preparation of a new findings of fact and conclusions at a minimum. Is that where you are headed? Morrow: I agree, yes we need new findings of fact and conclusions but prior to getting those we need the resolution of the issue that we are discussing thus far. So I would see us having the benefit of that input altogether by the 17th and then on the 17th at the juncture being the public hearing is still in effect that we discuss those issues and at-that time if we are all comfortable with the issues then we instruct the City Attorney to prepare new findings. and conclusions. Bentley: I too agree there are many unanswered questions here and the ACHD issue is pretty important to have. I too would favor continuing the public hearing until we have the issues resolved. Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I have one more comment (inaudible) that is not my picture up there Mr. Williams it is my grandfather. Corrie: I will then entertain a motion then for the continuance of the public hearing in reference to the annexation and zoning. Since we do have another week and incorporate the same thing in the next (inaudible). Morrow: So moved • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 47 Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley that we continue the public hearing to December 17 on the request for annexation and zoning to C-G by Eagle Partners LLC, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHEVRON C-STORE, MCDONALDS WITH DRIVE THRU, AND A HOTEL BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC: Corrie: I will now open the public hearing and invite the public and others to testify. The way it sounded you wanted to coordinate atl those in the same thing. So is there anybody who would like to make further testimony tonight? I will entertain a motion Council? Morrow: Mr. Mayor my motion would be the same to continue the public hearing and thank the public for not offering repetitive testimony we would continue that public hearing also to December 17. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to continue the public hearing for the request for conditional use permit until December 17, any further discussion? Bentley: I would just like to thank the (End of Tape) Williams: Mr. Mayor, what I do have a question is if in the attorney's review of this and the items that we brought up we would like to know what the procedure would be to open the comprehensive plan for amendment regarding the Eagle Road interchange, I-84 Eagle Road in that whole area to address that on a more specific basis then the plan currently addresses it. Corrie: If I could have your attention for just a second, Dick has a proposal he would like the Council to look at. So if I could have you quiet for just a second, Dick would you redo that I am sorry. Williams: What we would like to, if the City Attorney finds that there are concerns about the Eagle Road interchange and I-84 and how it relates to the comprehensive plan. If we could somehow work with the Council to develop some type of plan for that area that we Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 48 don't go through this on a continual basis. Like I said before we would be glad to do that and if the Council would so be interested I am sure that we would be than happy to work with them and the Planning and Zoning Commission to do that. Because we do not feel as we stated that this area is addressed very succinctly within the plan. It is an area of potential growth that we would like to see addressed. Corrie: Thank you Dick, I am going to have a five minute recess and then we will get into department reports. Thank you again folks for coming, we will see you December 17th. FIVE MINUTE RECESS ITEM #11: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council when Morning Glory Subdivision No. 2 was approved one of my comments was that a 20 foot planting strip should be provided along the rail road corridor that is what our ordinance calls for. Mr. Hunnemiler has since installed a fence along the property line boundary along the rail road corridor which would be, you can see where it says Union Pacific Railroad. I don't particularly have a problem with that as he would have an access problem getting to that to maintain it. I just wanted to make sure that the Council agrees that it is okay that he incorporates that 20 foot planting strip as part of his lots. They will have the 20 foot berm easement plus a 10 foot utility easement however he has not done any planting in that. Morrow: Mr. Mayor question, I thought a 20 foot planting strip would be, we have been consistent in the past is that not owned by the homeowners association? Stiles: Yes Morrow: And it is owned in this case by the homeowners association? Stiles: No Morrow: Why? Stiles: He has not shown it as a common lot on his plat and he has fenced it completely in. Morrow: What do you mean by fenced completely in, that is the fence that I see that is along on the rail road tracks which will be short lived because the rail road tracks burn fairly frequently so it will be good bye fence. But that is an editorial comment. So, where is the planting strip in relationship to the fence that is there? • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 49 Stiles: Inside the fence to the north of the fence. Morrow: And it is not a common lot? Stiles: No it is not. • Morrow: So the reality of that is, is that it isn't going to get landscaped by the developer of the subdivision homeowners association, it will be grass or whatever by each individual lot owner, is that what you are telling me? Stiles: Yes, that is what he is proposing. Morrow: Well for the sake of consistently did we not approve this as being a common lot? Stiles: I believe I requested that it be a common lot of 20 foot planting strip to be maintained by the homeowners association. Morrow: And was not the approval of this subdivision subject to staff conditions? Stiles: If you will excuse me a minute I will get exactly what my comment was on that. What my comment was, was that the 20 foot planting strip along the rail road corridor should be designated as a common area. The planting strip is required per ordinance section 11-9-605 G. Morrow: And so what not the motion to approve this incorporating the staff conditions? Stiles: Yes, and Mr. Hunemiller testified at the meeting that he had no problem with any of the comments. Morrow: So are you here for a little reinforcement is that we are talking about? Stiles: One way or the other, I can see his side. Morrow: The other side of the coin is Shari a deal is a deal. If he wanted to put the fence and do something different he should have been here for a variance. Or to ask to have it revisited at the very least to change the conditions. Bentley: It sounds like a job for the code man. Stiles: Well his plat hasn't been signed yet so he won't be getting any buildings permits. Or he can come in and try to get a variance. • • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 50 Bentley: By the way Mr. Hunemiller is (inaudible) Morrow: I guess the issue in my mind is everybody knew up front and that is part of the public hearing process and that is part of the public process. If you are going to go through that process then you kind of know what the ground rules are. Don't come after the fact and say gee I built my fence now I want off the hook. I am not real sympathetic to this change. And so I guess from my perspective I am in agreement with the guys, don't sign the plat and the deal was the deal. Stiles: Thank you very much, I appreciate it. We do have a problem with some people that like to do things and get approval after the fact. Corrie: I think we established that as a protocol for the Council I think they won't stop doing that, I hear the Council pretty well agreed on that. I am glad to see that. Morrow: I think Bob very candidly from my piece is that I am consistent I have always said a deal is a deal. Corrie: I agree Bentley: Then why are we here, if they are going to do what they want. Morrow: Well that is a good point Stiles: His argument was that he just lined the fence up with Merrywood Subdivision. I would like to see if we ever do have a rail system that we are not dealing with the same thing that is staring at a bunch of wood fences along the way. Bentley: (Inaudible) Tolsma: (Inaudible) Stiles: The next item is a request I received today about the Highlands Ranch Subdivision. What they would like to do is withdraw both applications their annexation is currently tabled at City Council. What I have advised them is probably the best and the cleanest thing they can do is to start completely over. They are requesting some consideration on the fees. I don't know if that is up to Council or if it is even possible to not charge the fees again. But 1(inaudible) I would ask. They have paid twice so far. Morrow: Could you refresh my memory, it has been so long since we did a Highlands Ranch deal, refresh my memory where we are really at. They had an original application ~J Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 51 that essentially came to the Council and was denied. Then they came Stiles: Yes, that had the LO portion in it. Morrow: Yes and it had a lot of small lots and so on and so forth and that was a year ago or more. Stiles: Probably two Morrow: Okay, and it was denied. Then from the Council's perspective we have not seen anything since then. Stiles: Not a preliminary plat because Morrow: I mean for anything have we? (Inaudible) Johnson: (Inaudible) Corrie: I would like to see if the Council had that in writing Stiles: They would Corrie: I think at that time the Council could make the decision if they wanted. Morrow: I think from my perspective they have to make a pretty decent argument for that. It has been. so long that I am not familiar with, I couldn't honestly tell you that I could refund funds or fees or not. Because it has been a long time and I don't know what has transpired in the interim. Stiles: So you would like them to make an official request to the Council? Morrow: I think so and support the request with some facts. Rountree: My position on the thing is that their request to drop consideration should go to Planning and Zoning since that is where it is tabled. Stiles: The annexation and zoning is still at Council. Rountree: It is still here, so they have two things that they need to clean up. • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 52 • Morrow: Let me ask you this how can it be on table at Council when we have not had any motions to table in over a year. Rountree: I haven't seen it on an agenda forever. Stiles: It was probably six months ago tabled for six months. Rountree: Does anybody have a record of that. Well I think both things need to be cleaned up. As far as the softening or reducing or whatever on the fees, staff time is staff time and City's efforts is City's efforts has been the same on both of those applications. It doesn't appear to me that they have the clue either time. So I don't know why we should relax any fees for them. Bentley: I don't see any reason for any freebies. Berg: Shari, just a question are they going to come in with the same land area for this application? Stiles: They will probably come in with only the area west of the Ridenbaugh. Berg: So it is quite a bit less than what their original plan was for annexation. Stiles: It would be less, they still control land to the east so they would come in at a future date. Berg: But their initial application is quite a bit less than what they did before. Rountree: Well they could write all they wanted, as far as I am concerned but I don't think I could be convinced that we need to reduce their fees or eliminate their fees for a new application. That is my position. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Bentley: They ought to be able to get done quicker. Morrow: My only interest in seeing a presentation by them Charlie would be that if they felt somewhere along the line that out staff had made a mistake (inaudible) undue duress in terms of the fees. Rountree: That is part of the due process. u Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 53 Morrow: And I think we should at least hear it. r~ 1._~I Rountree: I have no problem with them presenting that to us but my position is (inaudible) Corrie: Okay, have them come make their case. Stiles: Okay, the final issue the Meridian Senior center, I got one bid for the fire alarm and sprinkler project. It was for $60,4073.15 which was about $10,000 over budget. We have met with the seniors and with the Granel and they have agreed to cut some costs. I would like the Council to authorize the Mayor to sign a contract that would be for $55,8073.15. The seniors have agreed to come up with the difference. (Inaudible) $52,000. There is a possibility that number could be reduced by $2250 but I am still waiting for clarification from the State Fire Marshall and our Building Inspector on two items. Rountree: What was our estimate and why the difference? Stiles: Our estimate was based on some bids we got, that the seniors got prior to applying for the application two years. They came in anywhere from $35,000 to $45,000 so we thought we had a little cushion in there. Maybe if we had some competition or mare competition it might have been less. The (Inaudible) just drive them up, they said it was virtually twice what it would cost them otherwise just because of those wage rates. Morrow: Shari, let me ask you this, how was the bid process done? How was the solicitation of bids done? Stiles: I faxed the advertisement for bids to five different companies, it appeared in Intermountain Contractor Associated General Contractor was advertised in the local paper here. Morrow: And, you got one bid? Stiles: One bid Rountree: I need some clarification why Davis Bacon, where is the federal involvement in this thing? Stiles: It is a community development block grant. Rountree: It is the block grant, it is based on the block grant. (Inaudible) we cosponsor? Stiles: Yes, we got an award of $52,000, the seniors have already spent a considerable • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 54 amount of money they thought they were going to get their little storage shed built for $1500 to $2000 and it ended up to be about $15,000 to $16,000 and that wasn't Davis Bacon. Morrow: The point is that any time you take a grant it has so many strings with it by the time you are all said and done there is not a grant around worth taking. Rountree: So what you are saying is the seniors they do have the resources to make the difference between the grant and the bid? Stiles: Yes, and they have committed to that, we have met with their board and they have committed up to $10,000. Morrow: (Inaudible) Stiles: That the seniors are covering. Morrow: (Inaudible) so it is (inaudible) Stiles: And they will actually be covering more than that because there is another $2000 access door and ramp that they are going to cover themselves. Berg: So there is no money out of our pocket? Stiles: Just my time. (Inaudible) Stiles: I have so much time into it how that it is downhill from here. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Rountree: Is there any hope that if it were rebid that we would get a lower bid, does it matter that its the time of year that everybody is busy. Stiles: I think it is partly the time of year, I don't know that it would be substantially different. The seniors have been very patient with me so far and just want to get it over with. Rountree: What are the limits of the block grant, does it have a time line attached to it? Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 55 • Stiles: It does and I have already revised that once to reflect this. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Stiles: There were no drawings, the seniors had an architect on line that was going to donate his services and two days before the application was submitted dropped out and that is part of the reason it has taken so long is I had to come up with all of the contract documents and bid documents myself. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Stiles: There are no drawings, those are all going to be shop drawings that are prepared by the successful bidder. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Stiles: We had apre-bid conference where they came in and inspected and measured and looked at what they were getting into so they could visit the crawl spaces. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Stiles: Uniform fire code Tolsma: (Inaudible) Stiles: The system will have to meet the Uniform Fire Code. Morrow: (Inaudible) Tolsma: (Inaudible) Stiles: If we did it we would have to reopen the bid and start over. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Stiles: They do have to install a dry system all up in the upper area. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Stiles: I don't know what is up there. • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 56 Morrow: (Inaudible) Stiles: It also includes their alarm system which they had to subcontract to someone else. It is going to take connecting to the existing water, ten inch water main I think that is in Broadway while cutting and patching. I didn't want, I made the bid real general because I did not want somebody coming in and lowballing it and then adding on for change orders because we just couldn't take that. So no exclusions were permitted as part of the bid and I think that is another reason why it was so high. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Stiles: Is he a public works contractor? (Inaudible) Rountree: I am uncomfortable with some of the aspects of this, what are we going to gain by waiting, the resources are there and the grant is there to pay for it. Morrow: I guess from my perspective is that I am disappointed in the industry that (inaudible) really aggressive and competitive. Historically on (inaudible) for whatever reasons (Inaudible). Given the Davis Bacon issue (inaudible) I guess this is one of those things (inaudible) although I am uncomfortable (inaudible) Berg: (Inaudible) Stiles: It has to be a legitimate bidder. Morrow: She did everything right she did everything the way she is supposed to do it there is just nothing we can do about it. It is either we accept it the way it is done or we ask for a total rebid. That is the only way you can do these kinds of things with governmental bidding stuff. Rountree: Well just to get this off dead center I will make a motion that we accept the bid and direct Shari to proceed on with it. Morrow: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Morrow that we go ahead and have Shari consummate the program, any further discussion? Morrow: Question Mr. Mayor, Mr. Rountree does your motion include the authorizing the • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 57 Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest? Rountree: Yes Morrow: I will recognize that as my second then. Corrie: All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: Bruce? Freckleton: Nothing Corrie: Chief? Gordon: (Inaudible) i Berg: He is taking it pretty slow though because they were telling me that healing process takes about 2000 calories for this type of would to heal up so he is always eating and always tired because he can't keep his body generated in the usage in the calories but he is doing fine, he is the same Terry. Corrie: Counselor Crookston: Yes I have, I need to talk to the Council probably in an executive session it would be preferable to me to do it as soon as possible about the hiring of some people and office space. Morrow: Would you rather do it now? Crookston: No, I would rather do it tomorrow or the next day. Morrow: (Inaudible) Berg: (Inaudible) Morrow: We could do it at our strategic planning meeting and have the executive session at (inaudible) Crookston: That is fine • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 58 Rountree: Let's do that • Crookston: Next Tuesday would be better, I just found this out this afternoon. I haven't Corrie: I will have some information for you too that (inaudible) Anything else? Crookston: No Corrie: Mr. Morrow, Morrow: Really nothing, the agenda for the strategic planning meeting will be the same as the one in October that got cancelled. With the exception of the Idaho Power guy Corrie: And I won't be here Morrow: That is right, but we will cover that same list of stuff, the Idaho Power fellow won't be here and Bob won't be here. Corrie: I have a meeting with him in the morning and I will give you an update on what he has. Morrow: That is all Mr. Mayor. Bentley: I have a whole list of things. I had spoken to a couple of you concerning procedures on some of these problems we are having with conditional use and development agreements with people violating them. I talked to some of the City Council from Boise and talked to their code enforcement officer and he sent me some information. He sent me a procedure that he said they use over there that works rather well. They notify the people when they have made, a code officer does when there has been a violation. They give them 10 days to correct it, if they don't correct it then they take and start a revocation hearing on their permits. Then after they have revoked their permits then they turn around and turn it over to the attorney to file in court and they said it gives you an extra step in showing the courts that people have failed to Comply and then secondly their permits have been pulled and they are running without permits. They said they had pretty good luck with keeping with getting things settled before they reach the hearing stage. So that might be something you want to consider. Morrow: Well I think Glenn that is really the track that we are on with, that is the point of getting the zoning compliance officer was to do that very thing. The issue was is to, the next step in our process is to get to the point (inaudible) we don't have that (inaudible) and have had that, it is not true, they had (inaudible) but they empowered them to citation • Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 59 (inaudible). Bentley: Doesn't ours have the power to cite? Corrie: (Inaudible) Morrow: I don't know that we have addressed that by, we have to address that by ordinance what he can and cannot site. Obviously he can site (inaudible) a couple of other things he can site (inaudible) the answer is now we can't write a citation for a conditional use violation because we haven't by ordinance given that position that power. So we need to do some stuff to get there, but that is (Inaudible) Bentley: Secondly we got the approval of US West on the tower so we are proceeding with working on that for the repeater for dispatch. We are 200 feet up, AT&T excuse me. That is all I have. Corrie: Charlie? Rountree: I had a session Saturday with citizens, Planning and Zoning, Mr. Borup, myself, Mayor and girl scouts and Dee Hanson on the pocket park. You have a revised concept that was passed out this evening. Keith and I went over and marked out the pocket park area; drove some fence posts. There is some asphalt that we didn't know was there. We put a police line tape so people could understand how big it was. We got some guidance to the girl scout groups who are going to do some leg work on donations and historical interpretation and those kinds of things. So we are kind of going on that. Morrow: My question, did Gary get the survey and that so we know where the exact pins are? Rountree: It is surveyed, the pins are in. Morrow: Good deal Rountree: I don't think I will ever again jump at somebody's offer for something that sounds like a good deal. I have been working on this St. Luke's area for gosh 8 months. We have received a draft copy of a lease from St. Luke's and I mentioned that previously that it had language in it that wasn't satisfactory in terms of some of the language in the lease tended to favor CYSA the soccer group. It kind of gave them some opportunity to tell us how we were going to have them be part of the activities out there. I have discussed that with Wayne, I discussed it with the CYSA people. They have submitted to me another proposal the CYSA group and it is even more along the lines that they want to have a fair Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 60 amount of control to including such language in there suggested a proposal that only St. Luke's may remove one of these parties rights to use the facilities and that is in reference to CYSA or the City of Meridian. I don't find the language in either one of these acceptable. I have been holding off making contact with CYSA until I got some general guidance from this group some shaking of heads that is appropriate. What I want to do is sit down with Wayne, take the reasonable language that is in both of these, craft another lease, submit it to St. Luke's and say this is our bottom line. We are willing to negotiate with these youth groups to use the facility. But we are not willing to have them in our lease. Morrow: I have to tell you that when we are using tax payer bucks there is no preferential treatment of any group for any reason. (Inaudible) lease from St. Lukes (inaudible) in my opinion the lease is between the City of Meridian and St. Luke's and it does not specify any user groups having any kind of preferential treatment in any way shape or form. Be that Capital Youth Soccer, PAL or anybody else (inaudible). Rountree: Anybody else? I will convey that message again and continuously to them. Hopefully Wayne and I can get something worked out and back to them that is agreeable. If it is not CYSA may be the proud owners of a $10,000 maintenance bill, I don't think they want to be in that position but they won't to seem to want to give up much either. Tolsma: (Inaudible) (Inaudible) Tolsma: Well that was the problem we had when we went and they wanted to build all those facilities down there and control was we had the Federal Park Administration that issued the grant for it. We had to conform to an open park and the way we did that is (inaudible) and I think BSU was even using down there part time. We showed we could utilize the field with these three taxpayer entities. That way we got their approval to let American legion to construct the facility. (Inaudible) Rountree: Anyway that is all I had, I will continue on with this and hopefully we can get it resolved. Wayne I need to get sometime with you to do this. That is all I have. Corrie: I have two things, one as you know Mayor Brent Coles is leaving Thursday for Germany and there are two of them that are going and I am wondering (inaudible) Overwhelming votes at the people I ask about the people with the meeting with the Planning and Zoning and the City Council for the meeting and everybody wants it December 18 for the City Council and Planning and Zoning members (inaudible) A Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 61 majority of the people wanted it the 18th. I don't have anything else (inaudible) I will entertain a motion for adjournment. Bentley: So moved Tolsma: Second Corrie: All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:33 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: T D. CORRIE, MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., ``\\\\\\,\\111111i1!ll/l/f/ll,'J`'f~'I LERK $I' ?~ RAM ``\~w ~~ ' ~\ 'f''~,~111iJ1lf! lilll\\11\\ ~~ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 1996 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD NOVEMBER 6, 1996: a~~prdv~ 1. TABLED AUGUST 20, 1996: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: ~~j/~ ~~,tj ~ Fed, /B~ / ~~ ~ h~l~, 2. TABLED OCTOBER 15, 1996: REQl1~EST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT GENERAL BY WAYNE ~ KAREN FORREY: ~J1/Jrave. ~l~ ~ L°~~ ~ ~ ~ ~,b. ~l~,~a: v„-~ ~-~cv-~.-~-en~-Pa~+ ~ ~ / ~j~rv+~c ~e~--aJ` ~d/~an~` 3. TABLED NOVEMBER 6, 1996: FINAL PLAT FOR BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: c~~prov-e w~-~-h_ ~~;~;~.LC/~'~-h.~.l' 4. TABLED NOVEMBER 6, 1996: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A JOHN DEERE DEALERSHIP BY CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT SUPPLY CO.: Cc~7~rotr-e ~/f' ~ C~L 4pprvv~ G~QCd~i~ 5. TABLED NOVEMBER 6, 1996: REQUEST APPROVAL FOR PROPOSED MERIDIAN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH: 2~~Jro/Q ~ wires d`a6v ~~ a~ ~c~ 6. FINAL PLAT: BRIDGEWOOD CONDOAAINIUMS BY BOISE VALLEY CONSTRUCTION: ~,~rov~ 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FORANNEXATIONAND ZONING TO G AND I-L BY DOUG TAMURA AND ARTHUR~E RY: ~.~ u~~ ~ ~'~ ~~~- 8. PUBLIC HE~CRING: RE~UEnT FOR 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVEL PMENT BY DOUG TAMURA AND ARTHUR BERRY: ~~ ~,r ,1~i Z 3~.~ {~~ f~, 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-G BY EAGLE PARTNER LLC: 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FQR 4 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT F~~R A CHEVRON C-STORE, MCDOP~ALD'S WITH DRIVE THRU, AND A HOTEL BY EAGLE PARTNERS LLC: C'ay,~,nu.~ fir'//-~ wr~i 1 ,~~. /7~ 11. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: CTTY OF MERIDIAN PUB~C MEETING SIGN-U~HEET ~~~ 44l~low~= ~ - CITY OF MERIDIAN PUB MEETING SIGN-LTT~~HEET ~~~- 7~~~ ~.~ r rU~~~ ~o ~ ~~S - ~~z ~ ~ ~~~~ g • Q O yL~ Z 1~ ~ o U 4 g ; cl g~ ~~ O ~ ~^~ H ~ /'1 ~ rj~ys6 ~ W N Gf H~ a_ ~ z~~ its _e ^ 1-1 ~ 5 m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m~~ ~ a~ N V U~ a 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ _ $~ I M g CF~ mo, /-' ~ ~ c ~~b~a ~~' ~ ~ ~ A _p ~~~ ~w @ ~ 5 ~ ~ ' • ~ aas e ~ ~ ~ e~ ~s ~~ s ~ R~~~~~~ ~ aw ~~ ~ $~~~ ~ ~~ . ~° ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 8 W~ ~~ ~ A ~~ ~g~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ e ~ 555 ~+~ ~ e ¢t~a; y~ylyyp ~~y ~t~tk~`pyt~~btS p~ y~~ ~ ~ ~~y ~e+E ~ ~ ~o+ fi Ib~3 ~~R ~ ~ ~ ~7 Ap~~~i 1' ~ S ~O~ ~ 9iti N 9~ N 2 Z $ S{~ ~4 Q~ y@~~ Q D ~ ~~ A ~j ^ -. 4~ o R N ! r'~ ~ ~c ~',~ N ! ~ ~. `~ mOC1 ggpp 4~ ~~L 3161 ~3 `'~ ~' y ~a ~ ! ~ °D$r•`~# ~ ~ 461LIOi ~ ^~ ~ e ~ ~'~~, ! , 9 ~ ~ obi r, ' ~ 7 1i~ N! (~ ~ p, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, W / ~ ~. T L~; ~ ~ ~d gq~-.~~gq~~O$ O ~ b ~ ~,~ ~ 3dY~^la ,y d~ '+o_/ ! y1f `w! ~ a-'R1! N v ~ g~ luburo \ W eta aa+ 3 ~q'~+F ~ cY ~e~,, ^ $ '~. '~~$ ~+3'~+a, ~! ' ~.~' o ^ ~ ~~ ~ ~' ~ Sy F J J ~~ "~.dy~ ~ ~ ~ci~t ! ~~ 3~~r ! ~ 64r~ e ~~~ ! N mml 7 ~ ~ ~ Nw~ ^~ ~ ~~z ~-I F ' ~ ! i~ ! '~$~A 4 3p N! 4 . 1Ca aA ~ 5 1O ` .1Ym ^! ~ ~ ~9f~ A L' S ~5 3sm ~.,, i 1DN1 B ® nma ~. W .OPO COO COO aO mi3 ~ ~ ~i ~ d 6 '4~py mm s ss ss gg p ~~ $ °~ rc~ $ ~ f ~b ~~ ~! W8 $4~8 ns S ~ ~ ^~~A n¢b~~% ~! ~ d~ ~~ ~~ ~ 11O C09y CDO .OCt•/ '~PLOC' /'4 • l'SZB 3.1f.Z4dON ~ ~~. ~ VI311 IOLN ~ ~~~~~~~ ._. U a rrcvly ~~~r tc o rvrcrcc~ F. 001 . ~- ~~ _ ~ ~ ~~.. Wayne S. Forrey, AICP Urban Planner and Development Analyst 3045 Thayen Place Boise, Idaho 83709 Telephone (208) 362-9345 Fax (208) 362~9a16 19 November 1996 Cnl'npruhunuive Fl~nnii.p i•:ry R i1~~~~~~n01 Mayor Robert "Bob" Come =1sn Updnln5 and City Council Members c.r;Zr~, City of Meridian Parrlrlr~al~on 33 E. Idaho Ave. Commun~ry Meridian, ID 83642 C.rnwln RE: Pine Center Park II -Three Conditions to Address Concerns of Builders Masonry Men3gemenl Company. Ulan Im~plemcr.Ial~o~ Dear Mayor Come and Council Members: -_allir~y, Annexar~on & Dovnlnr:mcnl rri:J~r~arlr:es On Monday, November 18, 1996, my wife and I met with Mr. Mark Smith ofBuilders Masonry Company and Mayor Robert Come at Meridian City Hall to review our Pine Center CQOO Analysis PBr,k n development plans. During this meeting, Mr. Smith indicated that Builders Masonry °°"~' Company could fully support our project if we agreed to include three conditions in our Oevelo~mt:r•.r Plann~na b Conditional Use Permit aS follows: NUiJUllallOn. 1,~,;~,,;~~r~;y 1. That we agree to limit the residential component of the project to the north 63U feet of Phrtnlns the property (measured from the centerline of Pine Avenue). rlev,rali~anr,n i"tnn, 2. That we construct an eight foot (8') high wood fence along our South property line adjacent to the railroad right-of--way as part of first phase development. Econorrr Cevelo~mnnl 3. That we acknowledge and accept the ongoing operations ofBuilders Masonry community Com an and a ~ovc,oprnu„l p y gree that we will not complain about the operations at Builders Finance Anaiysw Masonry. reseal Imnlirnl~o~r; During this meeting, Karen and I each agreed to these three conditions. I am writing this letter as a commgcment to accept and abide by these three conditions. i uriding Srrero~~os public Pally We request that the Meridian City Council approve our Conditional Use Permit at Fv.,l"'°on tonight's City Council meeting with the inclusion of these three additional conditions in our rror~l permit. tda,agamnni ~~,,,r~n, Thank you for helping us build a quality community development project in Meridian. t'lul'r~ n9 Keep up your good work! Serves.:: 10 ;ili~;G 3 Coumlps t R,es~pectfully, ,~, Wayne~S. Forrey, AICP ~~ NOV 19 '96 14 14 362 9416 PAGE.~1 BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT SUPPLY COMPANY (CESCO) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT LOT 1, BLOCK 1, PLAYGROUND SUBDIVISION EAST OF LOCUST GROVE ON OVERLAND ROAD MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled conditional use permit application was heard by the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission on September 16, 1996, at the hour of 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date and the Commission adopted and approved Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law at the Commission's meeting on October 8, 1996, the Application came on for consideration before the Meridian CITY Council on October 15, 1996, without a public hearing as allowed by 11-2-418 E., at the Meridian CITY Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, the Applicant's representative, John McCready, appearing, and the CITY Council having considered the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Planning and Zoning Commission, the comments of the Applicant's representative, and the matter, the Meridian CITY Council makes the following Amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The CITY Council hereby adopts and approves of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission's Findings of Fact and incorporates them herein; that any statements, findings, FINDINGS OF .FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 1 • conclusions, or recommendations made herein that are in conflict with the Meridian Planning and Zoning Findings of Fact shall overrule the actions of the Commission. 2. The CITY Council hereby finds that Applicant's representative, John McCready, stated and represented, among other things, that the Development Agreement that .was entered into between the CITY and Mr. & Mrs. Clarke needs to be amended; that he has sent a proposed amendment of the Development Agreement to the Meridian CITY Attorney; that the driving range lights would be removed, that the sign for Cesco would be constructed as shown and be low voltage; that with regard to the sewer there is an easement, that the sewer can be enlarged and their engineer, J. J. Howard, states that there is plenty of sewer capacity, that the land was platted all as one .subdivision, that their only desire was to connect to sewer temporarily and that they would help financially to extend the Five Mile Sewer Extension and would pay their fair share. That Mr. McCreedy stated that he had facsimiled a letter to the Planning and Zoning Administrator, on the day of the CITY Council meeting, October 15, 1996; he stated that Page 4 of the Findings of Fact, referring to Finding of Fact 10., subparagraph 2 . , needed to be .changed to reflect that the property does have sufficient sewer service available on a temporary basis to serve the use of CESCO according to CESCO's engineer and that Finding No. 17, regarding the CITY Engineer's statement that he did not know if the sewer line that ran to this property could sewer the property FIAIDING3 OF FACT AAiD CONCLUSIOAiS - 2 • • or not, and that the CITY did not have a dune table for extension of the Five Mile Creek Sewer Line. Mr. McCreedy stated that a temporary sewer connection was needed and that Conclusion No. 5. e., should be changed because it stated that the property does not have sufficient sewer service available and that the Applicant must provide the sewer service at its cost as a condition of granting the conditional use. He additionally stated that the Applicant does not want to have to pay for all of the Five Mile Sewer extension and that in Conclusion No. 7. b. , he would put, "Meet the requirements of an amended development agreement.", because CESCO cannot comply with the existing development agreement that the Clarke's entered into. After the reference in the paragraph below, Mr. McCreedy stated that the Applicant desired to temporarily connect to the sewer for three to five years; he stated that they were willing to include in an amended development agreement a statement that they will pay their fair share for the Five Mile Trunk Extension. That during Mr. McCreedy's last statement, a representative of the Applicant stated that CESCO would commit to assist in financing the Five Mile Sewer project. 3. That the CITY Engineer commented, in response to an inquiry from Councilman Glenn Bentley, that the Clarke's had asked for a letter for sewer to the driving range and he said that they could provide sewer to the driving range and the concession stand, but that he had not told them that there was enough capacity to serve the business; he additionally commented that land on the west FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 3 of the Hunter Lateral goes to Nine Mile Sewer and land on the east goes to Five Mile Sewer; he also said that land could be taken out of participating in the Five Mile Sewer; that it was a policy of the CITY that sewage in a drainage should be served by the sewer line serving that drainage and should not be taken out of the line serving the drainage; he also stated that he did not doubt what Jim Howard had said and that he did not doubt that there is capacity in the line if it was extended. CONCLUSIONS 1. The CITY Council hereby adopts and approves of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission's Conclusion of Law and incorporates them herein; that any statements, conclusions, or recommendations made herein that are in conflict with the Meridian Planning and Zoning Conclusions of Law shall overrule the actions of the Commission. 2. .That since the Meridian Comprehensive Plan states under LAND USE, Mixed-Use Areas Adjacent to I-84, Overland Road and Franklin Road, at Page 28, in Sub-Sections 5.10 and 5.14U, that a) development should be conducted under Planned Unit Development procedures and as conditional uses, and b), all development proposals in this area will be subject to development review guidelines and conditional use permitting procedures, it is concluded that this application for a conditional use should be granted, but that as required and stated above in this paragraph, it shall be subject to development review guidelines. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 4 • 3. That in addition to the Conclusions of Law adopted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Applicant shall also be required to do, and perform, the following: a. Meet the requirements, all at Applicant's cost and expense, placed on the property during its annexation and zoning, except those which pertained to operating and maintaining a golf driving range or related thereto, which will be determined by the CITY. b. Meet the requirements of the Development Agreement that was entered into by Applicant's predecessor in title except those which pertained to operating and maintaining a golf driving range or related thereto, which will be determined by the CITY, all at Applicant's cost and expense. c. Meet the requirements and comments of the CITY .Engineer, the Assistant to the CITY Engineer, and the Planning and Zoning Administrator, all at Applicant's cost and expense. d. Meet all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian, including but not limited to, the Uniform Building Code, Uniform Fire Code, Uniform Fire and Life Safety Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, Uniform Electrical Code, Uniform Mechanical Code, all parking and landscaping requirements, all at Applicant's cost and expense. e. Meet the requirements and conditions of the Ada County Highway District, Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, Central District Health Department, CITY Fire and Police Departments, all at Applicant's cost and expense. f. Meet all of the representations of the Applicant unless they are in conflict with the above requirements or CITY Ordinances, all at Applicant's cost and expense. g. Enter into. the proposed Amended Development Agreement that has been negotiated between the City, but has not been adopted by the City, and the Applicant, or a similar such agreement. The Agreement shall, when adopted and passed by the City and upon execution by all parties, be attached to these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.- The Development Agreement provides for many things, which include that the Applicant shall be allowed to temporarily connect to the existing Meridian sewer line FINDINC~3 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 5 that exists on Lots 2 and 3 of the Playground Subdivision, the temporary sewer connection will provide sewer service for five (5) years from the date of issuance of a building permit to Applicant for the structure that Applicant proposes to construct on the property, the Applicant shall, individually, install and construct the Five Mile Trunk Sewer Extension if Applicant, and/or others, have not installed and constructed it within five (5) years, that if the sewer extension line is not constructed in five (5) years the Applicant shall .construct and install it, and that Applicant shall be allowed to enter into a Late Comers Agreement for repayment of the costs of installing and constructing that sewer line. All construction costs for installing and connecting to the Meridian Sewer shall be at Applicant's cost and expense. h. Enter into an amended Development Agreement with the City. i. Execute and deliver it to the City, if it is in agreement with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, a statement that it is in agreement. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian CITY Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN MORROW VOTED COUNCILMAN BENTLEY VOTED COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE VOTED COUNCILMAN TOLSMA VOTED MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION The Meridian CITY Council of the CITY of Meridian hereby decides that the Conditional Use Permit for the property set forth in the application should be approved under .the conditions set FINDINGS OF 1~ACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 6 • • forth in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and those of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission; that if the Applicant is not agreeable with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions and those of the Commission and is not agreeable with entering into a new or amended development agreement, the Conditional Use Permit shall not be approved. MOTION: APPROVED: ., DISAPPROVED: FINDINaB OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS - 7