Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 06-18MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1996 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JUNE 4, 1996: (APPROVED) TABLED JUNE 4, 1996: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO.5 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: (TABLED UNTIL JULY 2, 1996) 2. TABLED JUNE 4, 1996: FINAL PLAT: PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO. 1 BY PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: (TABLED UTNIL JULY 2, 1996) 3. TABLED JUNE 4, 1996: REQUEST FOR HOOK UP TO SEWER AND WATER BY DOUGLAS AND SUZANNE STANDLEY: (APPROVED) 4. AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR OLSON BUSH SUBDIVISION NO.2 BY R-2 DEVELOPMENT: (APPROVE AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 5. ORDINANCE #731 - OLSON BUSH SUBDIVISION NO.2 ANNEXATION; TABLED JUNE 4, 1996: (TABLED UNTIL JULY 2, 1996 -NEED LETTER FROM DEVELOPER) 6. FINAL PLAT: TUMBLE CREEK SUBDIVISION, WITH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY ARNOLD STUBBLEFIELD: (APPROVED WITH CONDITONS; DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPROVED) 7. FINAL PLAT: FOTHERGILL SUBDIVISION NO.3 BY JOHN & SARA EWING: (APRPOVED) 8. PUBLIC HEARING: RECONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 74 UNIT PUD FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION NO.2 BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: (CITY ATTORNEY TO MODIFY THE FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VACATION OF A PORTION OF GEM STREET RIGHT OF WAY BY WILD SHAMROCK PARTNERSHIP: (APPROVED; SEND LETTER OF RECOMMENDATION TO ACHD) 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-15 TO C-C BY EVERETT .& ROEN WILSON/ORDINANCE #732: (APPROVE AMENDED FINDNGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW; APPROVE DECISION; APPROVE ORDINANCE #732) 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HONOR PARK NO.3 SUBDIVISION BY WILLIAM HON: (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JULY 2,,1996) 12. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING ORDINANCE #180, TITLE 3, CHAPTER 15, CAN SYSTEM AND POSSIBLY ENACTING AN ORDINANCE FOR THE CABLE COMMUNICATION FRANCHISE FEE: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AMENDED ORDINANCE #180) 13. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SENIOR CITIZEN BOARDING, LODGING COMPLEX BY WAYNE Sti KAREN FORREY: (CONTINUE UNTIL JULY 2, 1996) 14. REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF NON-DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR CHAMBERLAIN ESTATES NO. 1 PHASE 2: (APPROVE RELEASE WITH CITY ATTORNEY COMMENTS) 15. REQUEST FOR HOOK UP TO SEWER BY CURTIS & TONYA GOSSAGE: (APPROVED -STAFF TO WORK OUT OPTIONS) 16. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TREASURE VALLEY WORSHIP CENTER: (APPROVED -STAFF TO WORK OUT DETAILS) 16. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: A. SHARI STILES, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: 1. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN: 2. VOICE MAIL: 3. BALLANTYNE & USDA SITE: (APPROVE HOOK UP TO CITY WATER) B. CHIEF GORDON, POLICE CHIEF: 1. REMAX LIQUOR CATERING PERMIT: (APPROVED) C. MAYOR CORRIE: 1. CITY OF TREES: (APPROVED) MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JUNE 18, 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: Walt Morrow, Glenn Bentley, Charles Rountree, Ron Tolsma: OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Mike Wardle, Roen Wilson, Wayne Forrey, Karen Forrey, Gordon Slyter, Van Elg, Chief Gordon, Larry Gray, John Stubblefield, Pat Dobie, David Turnbull, Mike Cavens, Brian Iverson, Becky Bowcutt, Dan Clark, Robert Phillips, Pat Tealey: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JUNE 4, 1996: Corrie: Any corrections to the minutes? Entertain a motion we accept the minutes as typed. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept the minutes as typed from our previous meeting. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Bentley, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: TABLED JUNE 4, 1996: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. 5 BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: Corrie: Council, you have a letter I think asking that be tabled one more time until the July 2nd meeting, you are all in receipt of that? Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we table the preliminary plat for the Lake at Cherry Lane No. 5 until our meeting on July 2, 1996. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that we table the preliminary plat for the Lake at Cherry Lane No. 5 by Steiner Development until our meeting on July 2, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: TABLED JUNE 4, 1996: FINAL PLAT: PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO. 1 BY Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 2 PNE/EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: Corrie: Is there a representative from Packard Subdivision here this evening. There may be some questions from Council or if you have anything you would like to tell the Council. Tealey: I represent the applicant Ted Sigmont and Ward Edmonds, I want to apologize for the way this application has been handled. It seems all we can do is defer this thing. I don't think it is really your fault most of it is the developer's fault. He isn't here again tonight. However, I would like to make a few comment on the process. We submitted the application and it was accepted, the City reviewed it and we were scheduled for a meeting on May 21st, which was a Tuesday. On May 16th which is a Friday we received some comments from the City of Meridian substantial enough that we could really address them by the May 21st meeting. We did however make comments to the City of Meridian by the 21st for all but two items, our restrictive covenants and deed for the easement of that portion of Hickory Avenue that was to be in an easement rather than a dedicated right of way because of the Dove Meadows No. 2 just lagging a little bit behind this application. I assume you know what I am talking about. At that time we had two items that didn't that weren't addressed. These were left up to the developer to submit to you. It is my understanding it was my understanding that these have been submitted to you. I talked to Shari tonight and evidently they haven't been submitted to you. However tonight at this meeting just as I walked in tonight about a quarter after seven I was supplied with another list of requirement, 8 requirements, seven of which have never been addressed to us before and were not part of the original comments. We can do all we can to fulfill the needs of the City but if we don't know about the comments prior to the meeting we certainly can't address them. Specifically if this thing has been reviewed by the City of Meridian as a planning staff why aren't we supplied these comments in time so that we can at least talk to you about it at least intelligently at the meeting here tonight. I can apologize for the developer not getting his covenants and the easement in here, he assured me that they were here but Shari says they aren't. But to deal me another eight conditions here 15 minutes before the meeting is just a little bit hard to address. I guess we are going to have to defer this thing again. It just seems like a waste of time and money for everybody concerned. I certainly wish we could get all of the comments once address them and proceed. If there are any questions I would be glad to answer them. Morrow: Which conditions are you referring to? Tealey: We originally had a set of conditions that was supplied to us on May 16th, some essentially 2 days before the meeting, the scheduled first meeting of May 21st. We addressed all of those conditions except two, I assume the developer took care of the other two. Tonight I get a list of another 8 more conditions that were not addressed on the first set of conditions. I don't know, maybe it is our fault for not communicating with the Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 3 planning staff better. It just seems like an odd way of going about it especially to be supplied with these conditions 15 minutes before the meeting. I am just making that as a general comment. I guess I request a deferral until the next meeting. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have a question of staff concerning Mr. Tealey's observation about these 8 conditions, were they not covered anywhere else prior to this evening? Stiles: Item one in regard to the landscape plan, this is simply something that is needed prior to obtaining building permits and the bonding needs to be accomplished on that before the final plat is signed. Items 2, 3, 4 and 5 were all addressed on April 6, 1995 at the preliminary plat stage and have not yet been addressed. Morrow: Point of question, April 6, 1995? Stiles: Yes Morrow: That is a year and a month ago, two months ago? Stiles: Yes, as were the covenants, item six is just a question. Seven is a typical comment that may even be covered in what Bruce Freckleton has and eight is just my recommendation. So there is nothing new on these comments. Tealey: We received on May 17th 1996 a list of site specific comments for the plat that said these will need to be addressed .prior to the plat being heard by City Council. We addressed those 17 or 18 conditions that were in here, some of them very minor but we addressed them. And then I come tonight and get these other 8 conditions that I have to fulfill before the final plat will be heard I assume. Morrow: Well I think Mr. Tealey what Ms. Stiles is indicating is that apparently some of these items in prior presentations were discussed almost a year and a couple months ago. And apparently those questions have never been answered by the development team. So I think that is the point that she is making here. Tealey: I believe, again, I got the list this is what you are going to have to do before the final plat will be heard and I have fulfilled those conditions and why weren't these comments on that set of conditions? These comments here are such that you wouldn't approve this subdivision tonight, these are the 8 items and this is the first I have heard of them 15 minutes before the meeting. Again, maybe it is our communication problem and not yours but it just seems odd that this is when we would get. this memorandum. I guess all I am asking for is a deferral until we can sit down with staff and make sure. Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 4 Morrow: To the next meeting? Tealey: Yes Morrow: I don't have a problem with that. Corrie: Mr. Tealey, have you seen a copy of this? Morrow: That would be a copy of the letter from Don Brian. Tealey: No I haven't, that was submitted yesterday? Can I have this copy? Thank you. Corrie: Well evidently there are some staff comments that have to be (inaudible) take until the next meeting. Do I hear a motion. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we table this until the July 2, 1996 meeting the final. plat for Packard Subdivision No. 1 by PNE/Edmonds Construction. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma that we table to the July 2 meeting the final plat for Packard Subdivision No. 1, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow: Did you have a question Gary or Shari? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council on that Packard Subdivision I didn't get any response to the comments written that is they are not in my file if we did get them I don't have them. I don't know that we talked about how the maintenance of the lift station was going to be handled because the property owners in that subdivision are responsible to pay for that maintenance cost and if there is going to be a contractual agreement between the City of Meridian and the Homeowners Association, I don't know how that is going to be crafted. But that is something that needs to be resolved. The location of the lift station is shown on the plat, as far as an easement goes. But that does need to be resolved. I couldn't find anything from ACRD either as far as comments are concerned to know if that access is approvable from them through Dove Meadows. It seems like we did get some comments from the Wingate Subdivision folks and the people living on Chateau Avenue to the west that they didn't want traffic from this subdivision heading west toward Locust Grove because of all of the traffic they are having to deal with as is. So the Hickory, I believe that Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 5 is the name of the street that accesses this subdivision is going to have to be the primary access. That was one of the things that we were waiting for from the developer that Pat Tealey just talked about was a copy of the easement from the developer or I guess from Dove Meadows developer to this developer to ACRD that will provide that accessway. Without that easement this subdivision has only access into Wingate Subdivision No. 2 and that isn't appropriate. So we are lacking ACHD comments at least in my file and according to the transmittal sheet for this final plat they weren't there. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, (inaudible) Mr. Smith it seems to me that when we were having the discussion originally concerning this subdivision which was over a year ago that part of the conditions of ultimate approval were that be dedicated road not easement. The second thing was the issues with respect to the lift station were supposed to be totally ironed out in contractual as part of the final presentation. What you are indicating to me at this point is that we have no evidence of either is that correct? Smith: That is correct. Morrow: And I guess from my perspective we need to get that information to Mr. Tealey or the development team whatever as quickly as possible so they can resolve all of those points. Smith: I will do that tomorrow. ITEM #3: TABLED JUNE 4, 1996: REQUEST FOR HOOKUP TO SEWER AND WATER BY DOUGLAS AND SUZANNE STANDLEY: Gray: Gentlemen, I am Larry Gray I am the owner of record of the property that the Stanley's applied for the permit on. I had a earnest money agreement with them which is now expired. I would like to go ahead and apply under my name to get water and sewer hook up for that house. This is a 100 year old house and it is on the Meridian Historical Register and it needs considerable work on it. It is on existing septic system now and really needs to be changed over to Meridian water and sewer. Corrie: Are you aware of all of the costs and fees and that? Gray: Yes I am Corrie: Council, questions of Mr. Gray? Staff, Gary? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, the, I think the costs that were given out to, I don't know if it was directed to Mr. Gray or to the original applicant's, one thing that fell through Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 6 the crack on that was a late comers fee that is due to the City for the installation of the sewer and water line in Meridian Road at the time that Meridian Road was built. The costs that were given on the sewer and water service, the $1787.40 were for the installation of the service lines themselves from the main lines. I can't tell you this evening Mr. Gray or Council what those late comers fees are, I can't recall, I will have to look that up. Gray: It is in addition to the double fees, you guys are pretty tough. Smith: Well the double fees are of course attributed to the property because it is in the County and the ordinance requires that. The late comers fees are an effort to repay the City for the cost of installing that sewer and water line in Meridian Road when it was done ahead of that reconstruction. These costs on the service lines were costs that were bid to the general contractor by their subcontractors at the time the road was rebuilt to install these service lines. We are just simply passing those costs straight through. Gray: That is in addition to the sewer hook up, I thought that was included in the service line, in the $1787.40. Smith: That is just the cost of installing the service line for the sewer and the service line for the water and the meter the and the yoke and ring and cover. So there is the sewer assessment of $2740 which is twice, the water assessment which is $1000 which is twice the inside the City limit cost and then the sewer and water service line installations plus there is a late comer fee for the sewer and the water mains in the street. Gray: And you don't know what that is? Smith: I can't tell you what that number is but I can let you know first thing tomorrow. It is based on, in those areas that are County it is an acreage calculation based on acreage but we are assuming so many units per acre. So I will just have to get that number for you Mr. Gray, I just don't know what it is off hand. But I did want to bring that up because it didn't get brought up originally. Corrie: Do you still wish to pursue this? Gray: Yes Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the request for hook up to sewer and water by Douglas and Suzanne Standley which has now been taken over by Larry Gray and site him as the owner of record and the applicant. Rountree: Second Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 7 Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR OLSON BUSH SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY R-2 DEVELOPMENT: Morrow: Mr. Mayor, could we have some information from City Attorney Crookston concerning the, all the information that was in our box as of tonight that was generated yesterday apparently. Crookston: Yes, excuse me for being late, what I did was I prepared two sets of findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Council had directed me to change the findings because the motion was because the land was not within a mixed use planned area. That is correct as shown on the original, the planning map that is up there, the regional planning map. However, what is in the comprehensive plan says that it is in a mixed use planned area. So, I did prepare one set of findings that reflects the annexation be approved without requiring Olson Bush to meet the conditional use requirements that was in the findings that I had initially prepared and the Council asked me to amend those. I had an opportunity at that time to go through the comprehensive plan and see what was required in the plan and that is my determination for the second set of findings of fact and conclusions of law. My finding and basic conclusion is that even though the property is not shown on that map, on that map it would be an orange colored area even though it is not orange it is in an area that is a local planned, excuse me a planned unit area. So you have a choice between two sets of findings and it is totally within your discretion as to which one you adopt. Rountree: The one finding marked no CUP required is the result of our last discussion on this? Crookston: That is correct, that is what the Council at the last Council meeting. Rountree: Which is a modification of what Planning and Zoning approved. Crookston: It is. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would like to ask a question of the attorney, in terms of how do you perceive this conflict between the published map and the comprehensive. I can see a case for both. Meridian City Council June 18, 9996 Page $ Crookston: It would be my ppinion that it is the written document that controls over what the map says. Let me add onto that, also, the comprehensive plan is advisory. If it were in the orange and you did not want to require the conditional use requirement you could do it. If the land wasn't even dealt with at all on the map and you felt that it should be a planned unit area you could indicate in the findings and in ordinance that it is a planned unit area. The comprehensive plan is not like a zoning ordinance, a criminal ordinance, it is advisory. Corrie: Any further discussion from Council, any questions? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, since there is no further discussion I am prepared to move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law requiring no conditional use permit. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion is made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that we accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law where no CUP is required, any further discussion? Rountree: I would like about 3 more minutes to get through this before we vote. Mr. Mayor found what I was looking for. Morrow: And what might that be? Rountree: The CC&R requirement and development agreement. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Morrow: Well to answer the question again, the committee that Mr. Corrie and I served on did in fact come up with those designations. None of that has been officially adopted yet Ron because it is part of a redo of the zoning and development ordinances. Very candidly to get that done it is a joint effort between the Council and the P & Z to do that with the input from the staff. The problems that the staff has with the current zoning and development ordinance. The issue is that we did our work a year and a half ago or something like that and we have not yet had the time within our staff for them to do their staff or P & Z. Very candidly as Mr. Bentley and I were talking it appears to me that we need to help our staff get some help so that they have the time to get outside the crisis management that we are currently in and devote some attention at least to the department heads to doing some of these housekeeping things. Tolsma: But those recommendations that you studied a year and a half ago (inaudible) • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 9 Morrow: That would be correct, that is the premise under which we have allowed the light industrial stuff without conditional use permits in other areas where conditional use could have been required. We have approved some things where the original implication was we need a conditional use permit and found out in fact we did not. Corrie: Any further discussion? The motion was made that we the findings of fact and conclusions of law be accepted with the No CUP required, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: Is there a decision? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, the Meridian City Council hereby decides that the property set forth in the application should be approved for annexation and zoning under the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law. That if the applicant is not agreeable with these findings of fact and conclusions of law and is not agreeable with entering into a development agreement and adopting covenants, conditions- and restrictions the property should not be annexed. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree on the decision, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: ORDINANCE #731 - OLSON BUSH SUBDIVISION NO. 2 ANNEXATION: Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for Counselor, prior to any action on the ordinance #731 and so I would like that opportunity to ask that question before we call for a vote. My question to the counselor is given the findings and the decision should we not have written agreement from the owner developer to those findings prior to approving an ordinance of annexation? Crookston: Yes we should. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that table Ordinance #731 to our July 2, 1996 meeting pending receipt of letter from the owners of Olson Bush Subdivision affirming that they are in agreement with the findings of fact and conclusions as adopted by the Council here Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 10 tonight. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree Crookston: Mr. Mayor, that is agenda item #5, do you wish to act on that while you are doing agenda item #4? Morrow: I think that Corrie: I hadn't got to five yet but we will take up item #5 and to be tabled, we just jumped a little ahead of the number here. Five is what we are on now. Entertain the motion Mr. Morrow made and seconded, any discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: FINAL PLAT: TUMBLE CREEK SUBDIVISION, WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY ARNOLD STUBBLEFIELD: Corrie: Mr. Stubblefield would you like to come up John? Stubblefield: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council my name is John Stubblefield, since receiving the staff and other agency comments last Friday we have met with the staff and believe that we have addressed all comments and concerns with respect to this subdivision. We are in support of staff comments and request that you grant phase 1 final plat approval on the Tumble Creek Subdivision subject to compliance with all staff and agency comments and recommendations. Corrie: Any questions from Council for Mr. Stubblefield? Rountree: I have none, I would just like to point out that Stubblefield Companies has responded in writing to staff comments and you are in receipt of those? Smith: Yes we are, they did a good job in responding. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I would like to ask staff if they have addressed the conditions on the well Ipcation lot? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Bentley, Council members, originally we had a proposal for a well lot from Stubblefield development to be located north of Ustick and west of Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 11 • Linder Road. We had requested that a survey map be provided to it showing the location of the property and access was available to that lot. Which they did provide. After reviewing the submittal I decided that location was not appropriate for a City well. The distance from the road, the width of access that was available were two determining factors. Subsequent to that I talked to John and Jim Stubblefield and discussed the possibility of a well lot within their subdivision. More particularly at the southwest corner of their preliminary plat which is outside the boundaries of this plat, this final plat. But it is adjacent to Linder Road, it is adjacent to power, it is adjacent, it is across the street from Five Mile Creek which would provide us an accessway for a drainage or overflow or a bypass. The lot or lots that I am talking to the Stubblefields about excuse me it is one lot it is an irregular shaped lot it has a long north south dimension and about 100 feet east west. I think the thing that the Stubblefields want to do is to enter into negotiation with that and #or that and I will read on page 3 of their response to City Clerk Berg, "we would propose that Exhibit B item 10 read", and this has to do with the well lot, "deed necessary property to the City for placement drilling of a city well as negotiated between the City Engineer and developer." And right now we are talking preliminarily about that lot in the southeast comer of their subdivision, their preliminary plat subdivision. Corrie: Might add to Council that Mr. Stubblefield, Jim and John said that whenever that well site is needed they would be happy to deed it to the City if it is before or they get tot he subdivision platting of that part. So that will work fine: Morrow: Question concerning that Mr. Mayor, for Mr. Smith, that deeding would be in meets and bounds and we should not have a problem with that as a legal from the City standpoint would we, should we need that well site prior to, your comments please? Smith: I don't know that I can answer that question Councilman. The access if we did take a meets and bounds description for that parcel the access would have to come from Linder Road which is could because it is adjacent to Linder Road. All things being equal everything is there that needs to be there in order for it to be a well connected to the City system. But the actual transfer of property, we would have to have ownership of the property and I discussed that with Jim and John Stubblefield both. Because, the State of Idaho requires ownership. Morrow: Are you indicating your preference would be to access it from inside the subdivision as opposed to Linder Road thereby meaning that we would wait until that phase was platted and had a lot and block? Smith: No sir, I think as, when the subdivision develops then yes, we would access it from within the subdivision because the Highway District wouldn't allow us to access it on Linder. Amain access to the subdivision just north of this lot several hundred feet. So at C~ Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 12 the time it develops our access would be through the subdivision similar to what we have on the Vineyard subdivision where we access their main road instead of accessing Linder which is adjacent to the lot. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Mayor, I would like a follow up question with respect to the well lot for the City Attorney. My question is that I am not having a problem at all with the final plat, but what type of verbiage should we use to make sure that those negotiations continue that we in fact do obtain that well site when we need it? Crookston: Mr. Mayor and Council I believe that the proper thing to do so that the City knows that it has that property for a well is to add some type of deed restriction on the legal description for the well lot. That deed restriction be recorded so that there can be no sale of the land without a proposed buyer knowing about the use of the lot for a well. I don't think it is wise to have an agreement that is not recorded state that the City has the right to have that well for a lot. I think that what the City needs is to have something recorded so that the City knows that it ends up with that property. Morrow: I guess my question is how do we do that given the fact that is not the portion of ground that is being currently platted. Crookston: It would have a meets and bounds description of that well lot when it is platted and it is put into the subdivision and is a lot. You could just transfer the deed saying we initially had this property deeded to the City, it is now platted it is not Lot 1 Block 2 of Tumble Creek Subdivision and this is a correction deed. The problem with not having something recorded is that if the Stubblefields desire to sell that may not come out that is supposed to be a well lot and the buyer may not know about it. The City could then be put in a situation where the City has to enforce or try to enforce the deed of that property to the City from a person that has nothing to do with these proceedings tonight. And I think that should be done before the final plat is approved. Rountree: Before the final plat is approved or as a condition of approval? Crookston: Definitely before it is signed. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, question for the Stubblefields I guess my question would be is as you can see this is a difficult issue for us and your thoughts or agreement in terms of us handling this lot for future Councils for future owners or developers that may be involved. Stubblefield: First of all we are in agreement with setting this lot area that we have decided in setting that aside for a well location. It was our hope to do that by agreement at this time whatever we need to do recording the agreement even putting a deed i Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 13 restriction for a couple of reasons. Perhaps the well may be needed next month, it also may be 5 years or 10 years, none of know for sure sitting here today exactly when that is going to take place. In that span of time there is just a number of things that could happen. We were hoping to have the flexibility that should something happen with the City's position not ours but the City's position that they either had a better site or something else came back that this would be able to revert back (End of Tape) identifying it setting it aside for the City, the other thing with time is that if it were not needed by the time that assuming that we could adequately identify it or properly identify it then we wouldn't need to go through the engineering expense today of doing a meets and bounds description that lot will be in the very near future a recorded lot. So that was another thing. We are prepared to set it aside and work with the City in whatever manor we have to. Corrie: Any further discussion? Morrow: As point of discussion, I don't have any problem with the preliminary plat and the staff had indicated that the response by Stubblefield Development to all of the issues has been fine. I am a little troubled by the well lot issue and I am sensitive to the fact that it would cost Stubblefield Development a little extra money to have a meets and bounds description. But I think that the taxpayer and citizen is best served if we know have we have bird in hand. Should, I guess what I would like to see is should we determine at some point in the future that the site is not going to be a well .site that there is a provision that the Stubblefield's would get the property back and dispose of as their design might be at that point in time. So those would be my thoughts concerning this final plat. Rountree: You are indicating then that looking at approving the plat with the condition of having meets and bounds description and deed restriction for that lot prior to the signing of the final plat. Morrow: No I am looking at in terms of a meets and bounds description and receiving that deed and meets and bounds now and no deed restriction we have the deed to the property. Rountree: With a reversionary clause on that property if in fact the City doesn't use it for a well lot. Morrow: That would be correct. Rountree: I don't have any problem with that. Corrie: I will entertain a motion, do you want to give it a go? i Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 14 Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the final plat for Tumble Creek Subdivision and that the final plat not by signed by the City Clerk until such time as we have received deed in meets and bounds for the well lot and also at any point in the future when the City makes a decision not to use that property as a well lot that it will revert to Stubblefield Development Company. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: FINAL PLAT: FOTHERGILL SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY JOHN & SARA EWING: Corrie: John or Gary Lee either one. Lee: Gary Lee with JUB Engineers representing the applicant, the Ewings. The application tonight is for Fothergill Pointe Subdivision No. 3, it is the last phase in this development. It is in an R-8 zone with 6500 square foot minimum lots and 1300 square foot minimum house sizes. About 5 acres and 22 lots in this final phase. The lot sizes in this particular phase range anywhere from 6900 feet to about 12,000 square feet. It is an extension of all City services, water and sewer and also an extension of an existing pressure irrigation system in Fothergill Pointe No. 2. We did receive staff comments today and reviewed those and responded to the City Engineer's office on the site specific requirements. We have no real concerns with the comments and would can address those items satisfactorily. If you have any questions I would be glad to entertain those. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Lee you are in agreement with all of the comments by staff, ACHD, you have no problem with any of those things is what you are telling us? Lee: That is true. Morrow: I don't have another question, I would like to make a point that under site specific comments as authored by Bruce Freckleton, he pays you a very nice compliment and I will read that for the benefit of the audience. "It was a pleasure doing the review for a final plat map, Gary Lee has done a terrific job with quality control." I would like to echo that it is very rare anymore that we get a proposal or project that is even worth a darn and so the staff had recognized that you are doing a great job and on behalf of myself and the Council I would like #o recognize that nice job also and say thanks. • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 15 Lee: Thank you very much it is nice to hear that. Morrow: I have nothing further. Corrie: Thank you Gary, thanks John, any further comments or questions from staff, Council? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I would like to add one comment that the western boundary should be fenced prior to obtaining building permits and see if the applicant has any problem doing that it is all unplatted agricultural land there and we have been requiring plats to have perimeter fencing adjacent to unplatted property. (Inaudible) Corrie: No, his comment was if you want it you can have it. Any further comments of the Council? Morrow: I guess I am not clear on what the answer was, I think that his comment was that Gary Lee got to address the question, do we have an answer for Shari's question? Lee: The developer John Ewing has indicated that he would be glad to put the fence up. Corrie: Thank you Gary, any further questions? Hearing none I will entertain a motion on the final plat? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the final plat as submitted for Fothergill Subdivision No. 3 by John and Sara Ewing. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion is made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley that we accept the final plat for Fothergill Subdivision No. 3, any further discussion? Hearing none,, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: Council, I would like to go back one item, to item 6. We forgot the development agreement along with the final plat. It was in the picket. ITEM #6: FINAL PLAT: TUMBLE CREEK SUBDIVISION, WITH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY ARNOLD STUBBLEFIELD: • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 16 Morrow: I don't think we need to restate the motion, just have a separate motion to approve that. Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the development agreement for Tumble Creek Subdivision by Arnold Stubblefield. Rountree: Second Corrie: We have a motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree and that also includes the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: RECONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FORA 74 UNIT PUD FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Corrie: Mr. Wardle? I will now open the public hearing on item #8. Mike Wardle, 50 Broadway Avenue, Suite B, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Wardle: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, on the 16th of April the Council approved the subject project, Ashford No. 2 which is a 74 lot PUD of detached single family dwellings in a cluster concept development with significant open space. I believe it was clearly the intent of the Council to approve the project as submitted but in the reading of the findings and conclusions that we received after the meeting it became apparent that there were some problems and contradictions that would make it difficult to construct the project based on the findings and conclusions that did not agree with the site plan specifically related to building frontages or lot frontages and set back requirements. We responded approximately two weeks after receiving those findings and just prior to the next Council meeting and it is not seven weeks later to bring this matter back to the Council. I think this was one case where the opportunity to have reviewed the findings and conclusions in advance of that adoption probably would have cut maybe 4 to 6 weeks off of this process and hopefully would have resolved the issue before adoption. Probably at that point would have necessitated a tabling until those issues were addressed. I would like to pass out and I only have five copies but an amended letter that was submitted on, it was received by the City on the 29th and is dated April 26 from Mr. Turnbull. And then additional copies of the annotated findings and conclusions also of that same date that accompanied that letter. There have been a couple of modifications to that that are highlighted and would like to present those for your review. Mr. Mayor and Mr. Bentley you have those but there are two, a wording revision on one of the existing and then one new item to be brought to the Council. So I will give your five copies of the findings and Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 17 five copies of that letter. Mr. Mayor, I think, I don't intend to go through all of the items because items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 13 are procedural relate to just some errors and wording modifications that probably do not change any of the intent. But the others are substantive and I would like to address those. I bring to your attention the fact that we have added a new item #14 at the bottom of that letter and this is all hand written today. As we reviewed what our final comments and concerns were. This relates to a letter that was submitted by Dobie Engineering on items 1 and 2, page 18 and 19 that deal with depreciation funds for private streets and sidewalks. Mr. Dobie is here and will address that. He submitted a letter on the 12th of April to Mr. Berg, he had copies if the Council has not yet received those. I would like to go quickly and respond to questions perhaps as we do this. Item #1 talks in the terminology of the findings and conclusions state there would be some zero lot lines and in fact the entire project is based on concept that there would be and I am going to use the term zero lot line. What we really are dealing with is lots that have a property line between the two buildings with a use easement creating essentially a zero lot line configuration. When zero lot lines products first came onto the market some 20 years ago they in fact did build them on the lot lines. There came to be problems with access because in some cases easements were not granted for the maintenance of a person's own building wall. So subsequently the evolution of zero lot line uses came down to a point where a property would have the use of up to 5 feet of the additional property owners land. that use easement then effectively in this particular case the property line is shown in red the use area for this particular individuals yard actually goes to the blank wall of the adjacent property. So he has the use of a five foot easement for his own enjoyment and activity. That is the concept that was depicted in the technical site plan throughout and this is simply a blow up of that particular issue. Rountree: Mike, the reverse of that is true as well, the other neighbor has the same use of that other five foot on the other side of the property line? Wardle: Correct, so in this particular case, this property owner. uses five feet from this lot, this property owner uses five feet from that lot and so forth. Now there are some variations of this and that is why there is a critical element to both the technical site plan building envelopes and setbacks and there is wording change in item #10 that tries to address that. Because you get to this end parcel and this individual in fact doesn't do that. So it is just the anomaly of having this particular lot being at the end of those little private stub drives and you can't really give this person the same situation. So there are some variations but the combination of the building envelopes and the setbacks are critical to the project. Now, I don't want to belabor the point of the issue but in the covenants and on the subdivision plat, that easement will be noted. So that there is no misunderstanding on each and every lot as to what the individual owns and what the adjacent property gets to use. These are color copies of that particular area site plan and then the blow up of the one just for the record if you choose to (inaudible). So item #1 is simply a restatement and u Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 18 clarification that in fact the project in fact is based on this relationship that is detailed in comment #10. Item 2 doesn't necessarily require any substantive impact on the project or have any impact on the project but the comments made that we have seen in the minutes we did refer to the active adult lifestyle. The project that proceeded us during the hearings was a senior citizen living complex and I think perhaps the two got mixed. We clearly are not trying to identify this project as a senior citizen living complex. Again items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 are simply wording problems that I believe can be addressed by a simply look at those issues. Item 8 on page 19, item 2 the second line, we are asking for the deletion of the term or phrase if allowed by ACHD. And that is simply based on the fact that the Council in its action did approve a private street system hence ACHD will not be involved in the internal street system. Just a little editorial note on that, you did however at the same time require us to construct the streets to ACRD standards and that will be done. Item #9, again, if you use the typical lot width of 46 feet which is the standard designed by the architect and I want to stress the fact that this project is like a puzzle. This is put together with these unit relationships the streets and the little private subs and all working together so that these buildings have a relationship one with another. However, we don't have 46 feet of frontage on all of the lots and that is clearly shown on the technical site plan as well as the preliminary plat. So we simply are asking for acknowledgement of that with the statement modifying the phrasing street frontage shall be in accordance with those depicted on the approved technical site plan and preliminary plat. Perhaps the most critical element of the project is item or comment #10 which relates to the setbacks. On page 19, item 4, the setback delineation in the findings and conclusions are basically a restatement of those that come directly from the R-4 zone. They are not in harmony with what is intended for and were depicted on the plat and this again being the technical site plan where it identified the development standards and this was the site plan that was reviewed and approved. The specific problem is when you get down to the relationship between buildings in the R-4 zone it is 5 feet per story. We are showing that we have a minimum of 10 feet between buildings and we can't construct this project with the standard R-4 setbacks. In as much as this is a conditional use permit it essentially should be a waiver of that requirement and the adoption of these development standards. Now I have noted an error in the written information. The rear yard for whatever reason by the architect was identified as 20 feet, the R-4 zone only requires 15 and in fact the dimensional standard on the building envelopes as depicted on the technical site plan is 15 feet which does conform. So, that is the one correction that needs to be made from what was depicted and presented in the site plan. So we do ask that the Council modify that entire paragraph item 4 on page 19 and this is where we have amended the wording today because we have this relationship between the building envelopes and the setbacks that we have to qualify it by saying the building envelopes and setbacks shall be in accordance with the development standards depicted by and listed on the approved technical site plan/preliminary plat and then as noted. Then item 11 on page 20, item 15 is the restatement of the issue on Interlachen and the terminology that we are asking for Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 19 there is to delete a word and then replace some other phrasing with involving the medium density parcel at the end of Interlachen Way. I didn't bring the bigger site plan with me but you recall that is the other medium density parcel. We are saying that when we get to that one we will deal with it. So this helps I believe keep that issue in front of us in the logical sequence of discussion and decision. to conclusion of my comments I would simply point out that item #14 that I will turn the time to Mr. Dobie to address will speak to the depreciation fund situation for the private streets and pathway system. But I would ask at the end of the meeting this evening that the Council make a decision and then direct the attorney to appropriately amend the findings and conclusions so we can begin the process of design. This has taken much longer than anticipated to bring it back to the Council and we do need to be on with this project. I would answer any questions Mr. Mayor and then would like to have Mr. Dobie speak to the Council. Corrie: Are there any questions of Mr. Wardle? Pat Dobie, 777 Hearthstone brive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Dobie: There was, one of the conditions dealt with setting up a fund to pay for the replacement cost and the maintenance of the private roads in the subdivision. That was sort of a very open condition so I took a stab at trying to nail it down a little bit more. What I proposed in the letter that was sent was a methodology for determining, I have extra copies in hand of that report if anybody needs them. Rountree: Is that the one of June 12th? (Inaudible) bobie: In the approach that I suggested, as to follow a methodology it was developed by the Ada County Highway District incorporated in the study they did called the capital budgeting program. It was a study to try and determine how much of their capital resources should be allocated between maintenance needs and expansion of the system. In that report they identified a life cycle calculation for determining the frequency of road reconstruction for the various types and classifications of roads that existed. In that analysis and the calculations that I have presented to you in my opinion a 50 year life cycle is appropriate for residential street. Now, in addition to that there is a certain amount of annual maintenance that needs that takes place. In addition to snow removal and deicing there is a maintenance cost associated with periodically seal coating the roads, repairing pot holes and that sort of thing. Those costs are included in as the maintenance cost category that was added to the system replacement cost. Also included in there was a calculation of the cost of replacing the trail system. In this case I used a definition of the trail system as being those pathways that are outside of the road right of way. The • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 20 pathways within the right of way were included as the cost of sidewalks and sort of aggregated together into a cost per foot for the construction of a local road. In the accounting approach that I used it was one to estimate the present construction cost of the road, project the replacement cost of the roads and pathways at the end of the life cycle and then to calculate an annual contribution to a sinking fund based upon taking into account a normal rate of return on the invested funds that would be available to the homeowners association and in the mean time the maintenance costs were taken from the ACRD annual report for their cost per linear mile for maintaining all of the roads in this system. Which for the most part at considerably higher than the cost of maintaining residential type streets because there is a much higher frequency of response that is needed for winter snow removal. I have proposed this as a methodology for the City to consider as a way to determine and appropriate amount of money to be paid by the Homeowners Association on an annual basis in order to take care of these long term replacement needs. The cost that I have used in that report were based upon ACHD cost and Ada Planning Association cost for trails. Those trail costs in my opinion are fairly high they include things like the acquisition of right of way, construction of bridges, retaining walls, fences things that really aren't appropriate for the pathways that are proposed within this subdivision. I would trust that once the actual cost of the improvements have been determined and the improvements have been built that those real dollar costs will be plugged into this methodology and with the staffs review you can determine and approve an appropriate amount. Does anybody have any questions about this? Corrie: Thank you Mr. Dobie. David Turnbull, 12426 W. Explorer Drive, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Turnbull: I don't have very much to add other than the fact that we did retain Mr. Dobie's services a former ACHD employee and currently an 2ngineer specializing in this field to review the maintenance and replacement provisions for the private streets. I was interested to learn from Mr. Dobie though at the time in fact Ada County Highway District doesn't have any sinking fund for their local streets. Basically when those streets fall apart it is replaced and an LID is formed of which the adjoining property owners pay into at the time that the street improvements are required. So perhaps you might want to start looking at creating a sinking fund for your public street projects as well. But like Mr. Dobie has said we would like to actually verify the actual construction costs. We will document those as the project is put in. As Mr. Wardle stated before and I have to comri'tend Mr. Wardle and our architectural team, the architectural team is out of Boulder and we haven't flown them up here at our expense to make their presentations here. But they are a very professional outfit and they have done these kinds of projects in Boise, the River Run project was one of theirs and all over the country. Like Mr. Wardle said this whole project is one integrated whole that fits together like a puzzle and when you see this project • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 21 coming out of the ground I think you will be very pleased with it. But it does need to adhere to the technical site plan and the various drawings and preliminary plats that have been submitted here. If there is any question at all about how that works we sure want to answer them. We think we have a pretty special project here and we would like to get it approved and be able to move forward with it fast. Some of these revisions that we have suggested here a good share of the lots would be non-buildable lots. So we wouldn't be able to build the project as proposed. I would answer any questions that the Council may have. Corrie: Council any questions? Morrow: Question, halfway in jest, is this the architectural team from Colorado that refers to this as the dreaded "M" City? Turnbull: No, you are talking about Mr. Klinger? Morrow: I didn't say that. Turnbull: I didn't think so. I think he was referring to Middleton. Morrow: I thought it was Melba until somebody corrected me. Turnbull: Okay, this is a different firm, this is a firm from Boulder. Tolsma: I have a question, on the side yard set backs, if you say you have a problem with the side yard set back the 5 feet for the single family, 10 feet for a two story, you don't (inaudible) Turnbull: We would be forced to go to 65 foot wide lots for 2 story buildings adjacent to each other. This project was conceptually approved at 8 to the acre, we have less than 5 to the acre. Without, we should be able to do better than what we have done here. But the 5 feet per story as we have noted before since there is a zero lot line concept there would not be a fence separating property lines. The concern there is perhaps access for safety reasons, you don't have that fence splitting two property lines with two five foot alley ways that are essentially useless alley ways. Nobody gets any benefit or use out of them. So, we believe this concept is much safer from a public safety standpoint. Tolsma: Fire safety is (inaudible) Turnbull: Well that is the standard for an R-8 zone so I guess it must not be the primary consideration or you wouldn't be allowing an R-8 zone either. • • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 22 Tolsma: I have a problem with that (inaudible) Turnbull: Like I said this plan the way it is submitted with the setbacks that we have proposed even with that we got 5 units to the acre or a little less than #hat. If we have to go to 65 foot wide lots that just reduces the number of units and makes the project unfeasible. We have put in 20% open space into this project as it is. Rountree: One of the conditions in the original findings of fact was the delivery of a warranty deed for the golf course property by May 16, has that been done? Turnbull: We met with the Mayor and Councilman, who was there, Walt you were there and the City Attorney, it was the day before our attorney was scheduled for surgery, I am sad to report that his surgery didn't go well he developed an infection and he lost 40 pounds and our attorney Bob Venice didn't have 40 pounds to lose and he has since been in and out of the hospital for the last 6 weeks. He is just travelled to Stanford University to check in down there to see if they can help solve his problem. Before he left he did transfer all of the information files and disks and everything to Joann Butler and I had a conversation with her today and she will be handling that for us now but unfortunately Mr. Ennis has been incapacitated. Morrow: If I might add to that, was not there some conversation between Mr. Ennis and Mr. Crookston, concerning Mr. Crookston is now going to write the prototype deed, that is our impression that we are laboring under and I have been kind of hammering on him to get that done. Can you bring us up to speed? Turnbull: He related something to that effect and also we had talked in that meeting about some of the previous, the original golf course deed containing certain provisions. We did a title search for those provisions and when I was here about 4 weeks ago I passed a note to the Mayor telling him that we couldn't find those in any of the recorded documents at the County and asked if the City had those in their files and if they could furnish them. I haven't received anything on that yet. Crookston: Mr. Mayor and Council I had a telephone conversation with Mr. Ennis approximately a week to possibly ten days ago. He asked, or he said that he did not have that information and wondered if the City could prepare the deed because as he informed me as Mr. Turnbull stated his surgery didn't go well and he had been in the office for maybe as long as two hours a day and even that was not going well. So I told him that I would do the deed. I haven't yet found the time to do it but it is my full intention to draw the deed. That is going to have to be sent to Mr. Turnbull and he is going to have to approve it because he is signing the deed. That is where that stands. If Mr. Turnbull desires to have Ms. Joann Butler prepare the deed I don't have any problem with that, the City also • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 23 has to accept the deed. Turnbull: I will have her get in touch with Mr. Crookston. And again we had the best of intentions but we knew Mr. Ennis was going in for surgery and unfortunately he developed some sort of infection through the intestinal surgery that has basically incapacitated him. The few times I have been able to talk to him well just last week I think he had to call 911 to get out of his office, he almost didn't make it out. So I apologize for that, but it is something a little bit beyond our control. Corrie: Other questions? Morrow: I wanted to get something ironed out here with respect to the deed. We are in the position where we are pressing ahead with the golf course construction we need the resolution of the deed issue immediately if not sooner. So I would suggest to you Dave and Wayne that whatever it takes to get #hat expedited within the next couple of days that we in fact do that. Because we have reached the point of no return from all different angles and we are just simply out of time. I am very sensitive to Mr. Ennis's dilemma we will take it and between the three of us make sure it gets worked out and going from there. Please relay our condolences to him. Turnbull: I believe that we have most everything worked out in our meeting-and it is simply, we went over it for nearly an hour and I had all the details pretty well ironed out. There might have been a few things that were going to be suggested back and forth but given a healthy attorney that is something that should be done rather quickly. Crookston: I would advise the Council and Mayor and Mr. Turnbull that I am going to the Association of Idaho Cities conference and I am leaving Thursday approximately at noon so I am not going to be around for a day and a half. Just to inform as to what is going on my side. Corrie: Any further questions of Mr. Turnbull? Anybody else from the public that would like to enter testimony at this time? Council further discussion? Rountree: Looking at the comments and the explanation from Mr. Wardle it appears to me that it makes sense to modify the findings and facts. If that is what we have to do for reconsideration. Morrow: From my perspective I don't have any problem with modifying the thing. Basically with the side yards and the setbacks and so on and so forth is a valid issue in terms of generally speaking in these types of projects that is how the side yards and the set backs are done. J think we did this with the intent of having it to be a planned unit development ~, Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 24 that it had some of those things in terms of concessions about private roads and so on and so forth. I am sensitive to what Mr. Dobie has crafted in terms of a sinking fund to take care of the roads within there. The 50 year life cycle seems a mite long to me but on the same token on the other side the funding for the trail system seems a bit strong. And so I think in principal I have no problem with the corrections or the changes to the findings of fact and conclusions. I don't have a problem with the adjusting of the lot cost for the depreciation fund for trails based upon the actual cost to produce those trails. With respect to the $77 for the road cost I am a little concerned about that but perhaps that can be covered in the CC&R's so that is a minimum cost and the homeowners association can make an adjustment upwards from that if in fact that is needed. I offer those for points discussion. Rountree: I would agree with the methodology that Mr. Dobie put forth and I think he is correct he is going to have to adjust, they are going to have to be able to adjust those based on their actual cost but the methodology I think is right on the mark. Corrie: Any further comments? Then you are agreeing with the comments that we were submitted then am I correct that the actions and modifications set forth by Mr. Wardle, is that correct? Morrow: That would be my position Mr. Mayor. (End of Tape) Corrie: (Inaudible) Morrow: Question Mr. Mayor, Counselor, does this take a motion to instruct the City Attorney to modify the findings of fact and conclusions? Crookston: Yes it would. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to modify the findings of fact and conclusions for Ashford Greens No. 2 to reflect the adjustments on items #1 through 13 and also to adopt as item 14 the study as submitted in appendix A and B by Mr. Dobie and the modifier to that be that Appendix B that annual cost per lot would be based on the replacement cost of the actual cost of the past system. Rountree: Second Corrie: You heard the motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree, any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED Ail Yea • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 25 ITEM # 9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VACATION OF A PORTION OF GEM STREET RIGHT OF WAY BY WILD SHAMROCK PARTNERSHIP: Corrie: I will open the public hearing, is there a representative from the partnership here tonight? Mike Cavens, 6874 Fairview Avenue, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Cavens: I represent Wild Shamrock Partnership in the vacation of a portion of Gem Avenue. At this time Ada County Highway District owns 92 foot right of way for Gem Street which we are requesting a vacation of the south 36 feet. The portion which we are requesting to vacate is at this point the Eight Mile Lateral flows across that 36 feet. Our request is to vacate the 36 feet, the the lateral and have an access across the lateral to connect to Gem Avenue. To give you a little history in April of 1995 the First Meridian Plaza was approved by the City and as a requirement on this Eight Mile Lateral flows right here, it doesn't show here but it shows how we would improve it. We would the it for an access point to Gem Avenue and then landscape and take advantage of the extra ground for parking that over the the ditch. There has been a little bit of confusion since Ada County Highway District owns the right of way, how come we haven't approached them. They have a requirement that before we can file an application with them we need a recommendation from the City of Meridian. That needs to be a part of that application to Ada County Highway District. Planning and Zoning tabled this issue the first time through to get staff a chance to get some comments from Ada County Highway District and they were unable to get any response from them. The response that we do have however, like I say when First Meridian Plaza was approved in 1995 they required us to curb, gutter, sidewalk Gem Avenue. That is a condition of our project. So that tells me that they do have plans for Gem Avenue for future use in this area. We have approached Ada County Highway District to buy that right of way the entire thing. They were not open to that. They say it is an integral part of this area for the City transportation. So with that if there are any questions. Morrow: I have a couple of questions, if I understood you correctly Mr. Caven you indicated you were going to over the top of the Eight Mile Lateral do some landscaping and partial parking space is that correct? Cavens: Yes what we do is we tie in our property abuts the right of way and so we have a little extra room on our parcel that we would add to the 36 feet and we would the the lateral and put some landscaping between Gem Avenue and our parcel and then have some parking along that so it would be the north of the edge of our project. Morrow: The point of my question is have you been talking with Nampa Meridian Irrigation Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 26 concerning these plans? We are getting tremendously mixed signals, most recently mixed signals would be that they are requiring anything over a piped lateral to either be fenced on both sides or graveled. I think essentially in my reviewing these documents I have not and the other thing is their requirements are going to be inconsistent. So, based on and that is comments directly from them. Based on that what are there proposals here in view of their new positions or have those been discussed with you? Cavens: Here is a letter that was submitted with the packet, it says Nampa Meridian Irrigation District has no comment on Gem Street right of way. However Nampa Meridian's Eight Miie Lateral courses along Gem Street in this area Eight Mile Lateral has a 60 foot right of way 30 feet each side of the center of the lateral. We have had initial conversations with Nampa Meridian. This requirement does require their approval and we need to submit those to the City Clerk before we can start construction. So yes we have talked to them about the idea at first they wanted gravel they didn't want asphalt over it because if they had to get in there they would tear it up. We understand that is our risk, if they tear that up they don't have to replace it, it is our expense to replace if they ever would have to dig that up. Landscaping, they will accept landscaping of certain types of vegetation no deep rooted trees and things like that. They will allow landscaping over the top of their lateral. Morrow: My second question is with respect to the Meridian Bowling Lanes. As I read through these minutes from P & Z it appeared to me that if granted this action basically means that they lose some parking spaces and their license agreement with ACHD for the use of that ground is voided by ACRD is that impression correct? Cavens: Yes, the bowling alley has a license agreement with Ada County Highway Districted dated 1985. There was a request by Mr. Quinteri for the parking, in that license agreement it says the licensee understand and agrees that should this area become necessary as part of a public right of way for traffic and pedestrian use this agreement will be extinguished and terminated and licensee will have 30 days in which to remove his encroachments on notice of termination. The, like I say we tried to work with ACHD to acquire the piece the right of way so that we could do parking with the bowling alley and do different things. They said no we want to use that right of way. This license agreement does not abut the bowling alley, it is on the other side of the centerline of Gem Street to the south. That is right where the paving of the street is going to go where parking is. Without the vacation if we just forget about the vacation of the Eight Mile Lateral when Gem Street is improved it is going to go right through where his parking is. As required in the 1995 requirement to do the First Meridian Plaza was to improve that street and that is right where his parking is. Morrow: So are you indicating that in either case he loses parking? Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 27 Cavens: Yes Morrow: Thank you, 1 have not further questions. -_..1 Rountree: 1 am just going back in history and the last time I heard testimony on this I was a Planning and Zoning Commissioner and it was my understanding at that time that there was no intention to cross the lateral and connect to Gem Street. Now apparently that has changed and ACHD required that to occur Gary or Mike? Cavens: ACHD has not required that, at the time that we came through with the application we did not know the use for that restaurant pad located here next to First and Gem. It was approved for a drive thru and at that time we said if indeed this ends up being a drive thru that it might be possible that we need this access and we didn't get approval for it at that time and we would have to come back through this process if indeed we decided that it would be beneficial for the site and for traffic flows. Without it we kind of get traffic stuck in the dead end here and they are all trying to get out onto First or back out behind here onto Meridian. So we just felt that for traffic flows we are required to improve Gem Street that we probably should use it. Rountree: I guess my question still is my recollection was that there was no access going to be provided to Gem Street with the original development of that parcel. At what point in time did that become a requirement? Cavens: It is not a requirement, we are here asking for it. At the time we did not request it so there was no action taken on it. We talked about potentially needing it in the future and if we did need that we would come back forward and request it and that is where we are. We are back here to request to get access onto Gem. Rountree: My recollection of the position of the applicant at that time is that they had no intention of having access. Cavens: Because we did not have a tenant for the building that we have acquired. Rountree; The access request is really a request of ACHD not City Council is that correct counselor? Crookston: Yes Cavens: That would be a part of the vacation application, we need comments from this Council before we can go before Ada County Highway District to get any comments from them including the access and the vacation because that all goes together. • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 28 Rountree: And you are wanting 36 feet of right of way vacated as opposed to just the amount of property that is consumed by the lateral? Cavens: That lateral, 36 feet is almost the entire lateral. Crookston: It was just stated previously that it was 60 feet. Cavens: The easement is 60 foot, actual water is (inaudible). From centerline it is 40 feet, from center line it is 30 feet from centerline to the lateral it is 30 foot easement on either side. So we are taking 6 foot more than that is actual in the easement for the irrigation company, Nampa N~eridian. Actual water width is about 20 feet. (Inaudible) So we would just be crossing the center line by about 6 feet. Corrie: Any other questions? Rountree: Do you have a typical section that would show that existing roadway canal easement and what you are proposing? Cavens: This isn't a typical section but it gives you an idea. (Inaudible) Brian Iverson, Bell Walker Engineers, 826 La Cassia Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Iverson: Meridian Road has been designed (inaudible) there is existing curb (inaudible) if you will look at thole the location of the existing ones and the proposed one are (inaudible) come off of those (inaudible) of course when they dedicated 92 feet (inaudible) they got rid of the canal at the same time. That pretty well defines the alignment of this road and so the 36 feet of vacation is predicated (inaudible). This is the bowling alley here so basically any on street parking along (inaudible) both sides. Rountree: It would be available? Iverson: The proposed section now no but with a one way public then it would be (inaudible) Tolsma: ACHD when they were talking about this give any indication why they wanted (inaudible) Iverson: No, this was a three lane section, it was because, provide a turn lane because, Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 29 u particularly over here to get people in and out and over here (inaudible) at least the turn lane (inaudible) Tolsma: (Inaudible) Cavens: (Inaudible) (Discussion Inaudible) Cavens: (Inaudible) my understanding is when we get the permit to do that (inaudible). we go to get the building permit that this (inaudible) Iverson: (Inaudible) Ada County says you abut Gem Street you need to improve it. Our first approach with ACHD was well we don't have access to it we won't get any benefit out of it (inaudible) So they basically said (inaudible) Rountree: So is that the only thing that is driving this request is ACRD said you have to improve it therefore you (inaudible) Iverson: That started it, as long as the improvements had to be borne by this developer than he began talking to the district about tiling the canal and (inaudible) additional parking (inaudible). Cavens: And then on top of this (inaudible) Rountree: So you have desires for that as well. Tolsma: (Inaudible) so they have access to it. Cavens: They have not talked about fencing they have said pave it and we kind of (inaudible) We still need to sit down and work out the fine details (inaudible) have that opportunity (inaudible) Tolsma: (Inaudible) Cavens: (Inaudible) I don't know what the City feels, this is the entrance to their City, know they are trying to landscape it and beautify it I think by tying that, putting the landscape, it does (inaudible) City of Meridian. Corrie: Any further questions? i • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 30 Morrow: I have one, have you read comments by the City Engineer's office with respect to the location of our water main and their concerns that there be at least 4 feet from the lip of the curb and gutter and relocation of that line. And that plan works with that requirement? Cavens: Yes Iverson: (Inaudible) Morrow: I will read you his entire comment, this is from Bruce Freckleton our Assistant to the City Engineer. It says the City of Meridian owns and maintains a water main in Gem Street approximately 15 feet south of the existing centerline. The typical location of our water mains in relation to the lip of the new curb and gutter is four feet. We would like to maintain this standard if possible but under no circumstances would we allow our water main to be under the new curb and gutter. My question is does your configuration proposed for that street allow that to happen? Cavens: I can't say that we have sat down and actually drawn on there from his description from the center line of the street I don't think we are close to getting to the curb and gutter on this water main but that is a condition of us being able to do this of being able to meet that. (Inaudible) Iverson: We do have the 12 inch water line (inaudible) located on this drawing and I had assumed (inaudible) is actually the location and in that case we would be okay but the location we show back to E. First (inaudible) we would have to make some provisions for that. If that was a condition then we would have to either move the water line or (inaudible). Morrow: I would like to have Gary Smith comment on that please? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members we can't have the water line under the sidewalk. Morrow: And this proposal have you (inaudible) Smith: I haven't seen a map of it. Morrow: I have no other questions Mr. Mayor Corrie: Any other questions of the Council? Is there any further testimony from the public Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 31 at this time? Seeing none, Council, comments or discussion? Morrow: Mr. Mayor a couple of comments I guess I would have. It appears that the bowling lane and Mr. Quinteri lose the parking in any case so that was a concern of mine but it not something that we can do anything about. It appears to me, I don't have a problem with recommending or approving the vacation of easement if it can be worked out with ACHD. I am concerned about the condition of the water line being totally accessible and being the 4 feet or a minimum of four feet from the curb, gutter and sidewalk. I do think that they need to work out the conditions from Nampa Meridian and so that we know what those recommendations from Nampa Meridian might be because I would hate to see two chain link fences there or gravel there as Nampa Meridian has indicated to us in the case of some other things. I do agree with the concept that it ought to be landscaped and look nice as a corridor entrance to the City. So I guess given those items I wouldn't have a problem with the vacation if we successfully address those issues. Rountree: Would your recommendation for approval in this situation with those conditions be a sufficient way to get those conditions take care of Wayne or would we need some kind of an agreement first and then enter into a recommendation or do we need findings of fact, where do we go with this thing? Crookston: We do not need findings of fact and conclusions of law, it would be preferable to have an agreement before you take final action but that is totally up to the discretion of the City. They do as I understand it do have to deal quite a bit with ACHD, but I think it would be best to have (inaudible) agreement. Morrow: Charlie, let me ask you this how do you feel about the access to Gem from the site? Rountree: I think it is needed, I was curious (inaudible) and that is why I pointed it out that they had no intention of providing access. I think it is a good think and I agree with the comments that you made. I conceptually it was going to happen either way. If we can condition and make sure that we can meet our water line requirements and get a reasonable agreement from Nampa Meridian on what is going to be done and not end up with an eye sore that I have no problems with going forth with it. Morrow: I think to pick up on the Counselor's advice I would like to see something in writing concerning our concerns and then based on that forwarding to ACHD our recommendation for the vacation if that is what the Council desires to do. Rountree: Want to run that by me one more time it didn't compute? Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 32 Morrow: I think what I would like to see is that we draft up an agreement covering the issues with respect to the water line, the issues with respect to written notification from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District as to what their position is going to be and a commitment to that. And then based on both of those items being acceptable to the Council then we forward and approval of the vacation of the easement to ACHD. Rountree: As a motion and action and getting action so we don't' have to extend continue or receive additional public input (inaudible) authorize any approval it is the receipt of information for the applicant (inaudible). Morrow: I think so Corrie: I think if you are going to have any comments from Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and also from the City on the water lines we need to have it, hold the public hearing open or you can close it with those things and take that (inaudible) go ahead with the request for vacation to ACRD, am I correct counselor? Crookston: Yes Corrie: So you have one of two ways you can go. Morrow: Well I think if that is the case then the resolution of the issue with the water line is an in house deal and that is fairly easy to accomplish. I think that we would like to see the comments from Nampa Meridian and we need to be able to if those are not in our best interest as a City then we need to take formal action as a Council in the public arena. Although I would like to see it done tonight I think probably the proper thing to do is to continue the public hearing awaiting that letter from Nampa Meridian until the July 2nd meeting. Crookston: Mr. Mayor and Council, I did meet this afternoon with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District not particularly on this subject but they did make some comments about what they would like to do when the City requires a lateral or a ditch to be tiled. Do you want me to tell you that now or do you want to wait for Department Reports, either way is fine with me? Corrie: Would it benefit this? Crookston: Yes it could because it is a tiling of the Eight Mile Lateral. They indicated to me that when I asked them what do you require when the City requires a ditch to be tiled. They said that it really depends on what ditch it is and how big it is. Whether or not it runs through the front yards or the back yards they were not real anxious to enter into a w ~ Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 33 statement as to their requirements because they change. I don't know if they change daily but they change frequently and they say that it is all based upon where the circumstances of the ditch that is going to be tiled. They said if it is going to be we were talking basically about a residential area but if the ditch is running through where it is going to be tiled would run through the back yards they thought that it could be left open. If it runs through the front yard it should be tiled. They also have to make sure that they have access to the tiled ditch but they were really hesitant to give us any kind of statement as to what their requirements simply because they say it depends on what is going to be done. So what they said really doesn't help you in this case, but the real point is whether or not they would require the Eight Mite Lateral to be fenced and graveled when particularly the applicant would like to have access over it. It is going to be difficult to fence it along the easement right of way. Cowie: I guess if you want information from Nampa Meridian Irrigation then we probably need to keep it open. Bentley: In lieu of what he is telling us I see (inaudible) no other alternative but to get some input from them that it is quite obvious their plans change depending on the site configuration. So I think we have to keep the hearing open and wait for a response. Morrow: Shari is indicating that she has a comment could we listen to that please? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, the applicant had previously submitted a variance application for tiling of this ditch, that was approved by Council it was also approved by Council that it would not be required to be fenced because it would serve no purpose. I think in this case it is real similar to the South Slough that was tiled in Bedford Place even thought that is a residential subdivision it runs along the front lot line. They have full access from that public street to do any maintenance that we need to do. The one thing that I have a question is what kind of landscaping they are going to allow and if they are going to reduce that 60 foot easement at all. I think those are items that can be addressed before any access is allowed off of Gem Street or further construction is started there. Our problem I think is that this has been such a lengthy process and they are still not at Ada County Highway District if we have some concerns to do with Ada County Highway District and Nampa Meridian would it be possible for the City to approve this and make it a conditional approval and send a letter to Ada County Highway District indicating that conditional approval and working out those details through Ada County Highway District's process because theirs is also a lengthy process and we can't seem to get any details from them before that process is started. Morrow: So you are suggesting that we have a conditional approval based on the resolution of the Nampa Meridian issue with what it is that they might require that we don't Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 34 have any input from the present time. And also that our approval is conditioned on the location of the City water main. Stiles: Yes Rountree: Is that a motion? Morrow: It will be as soon as he closes the public hearing. Corrie: I will close the public hearing at this time, entertain a motion. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that the City of Meridian sends to ACHD a letter recommending the approval of the vacation sought by the applicant subject to the conditions being met that the City water line issue be addressed at a minimum of a 4 foot location from the edge of curb and that the conditions of Nampa Meridian Irrigation be met in compliance with the City landscape ordinance. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion is made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea FIVE MINUTE RECESS ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-15 TO C-C BY EVERETT & ROEN WILSON: Corrie: Is there a representative (inaudible) Roen Wilson, 1567 Leslie Way, was sworn by the City Clerk Wilson: Well, the findings and conclusions that I have a copy of here it says that the CC designation is to encourage the clustering of commercial enterprises. The Planning and Zoning Administrator Shari Stiles commented that this rezone is consistent with the goals and policies of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. There was no testimony at the hearing objecting to our application. I just want to, I am sure that you have all driven by this property and seen what a transformation has taken place in the last few weeks here. It is just looking really nice and raring to go. So I would appreciate your expediting this. • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 35 Morrow: I have some questions, what specifically are you proposing to use this property for? Wilson: I have it rented and it will be a home and garden accessory shop which will fit in really nicely with the (inaudible). Morrow: And what is a home and garden accessory shop do? Wilson: It is retail Morrow: So it is like garden implements? Wilson: No, pretty little things, like ladies go shopping kind of thing. Morrow: So it is a retail type for various goods, how many people would frequent a shop like this? Wilson: We haven't done a count but we have tremendously heavy traffic. Morrow: And my question is in terms of parking, where are the parking requirements for this addressed at? Wilson: Yes, we have a large parking area and that is accessible to them as parking available on the premises as well. So we have plenty adequate parking. Morrow: So you are capable of meeting the ordinance requirements with respect to the off street parking then for this project? Wilson: Yes Morrow: Has the City or anybody been presented with a drawing showing that. I don't find anything in my packet is the reason for that. Wilson: We have a drawing of the, we own the three properties along there and we have a drawing that the City has a copy of some place but it wasn't with this packet of the parking. Morrow: I have no further questions of Ms. Wilson, I do have for staff? Corrie: Thank you, anybody else from the public that would like to offer testimony? Questions for staff? Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 36 Morrow: I have a question for Shari, you did a site analysis on this project, item 4 says provide paved parking and driveway area and striping signs in accordance with Meridian City Ordinance and Americans with Disabilities Act. You have a drawing that would indicate that the base of the traffic load that there is adequate off street parking for this project? Stiles: Councilman Morrow, I am not aware of a site plan that has been submitted on this property. I guess it would be up to Council whether they had any problem with them using part of the parking they presently have that is more than adequate to serve this site as well. Morrow: I guess my question here, is in Old Town with other changing uses we have been pretty adamant as a Council making sure that all of the off street parking requirements were met. In some cases to great expense of the applicant. With the other projects that have been submitted before us that has been part of the submittal so that we can address that. My concern here is that I am not seeing that information. Stiles: That is because they have not submitted anything but a rezone application. They are not asking, I didn't require them to have a site plan with this application since it is an existing urban area and is surrounded or at least most of the uses along East First street are commercial. I guess if you want to make it a conditional application or a conditional rezone where they are required to get approval for a site plan that would be up to you. Morrow: What I am interested in is the parking requirement. Stiles: I wouldn't know until they submitted for an occupancy, that wouldn't come up until they actually applied to get a certificate of occupancy. Morrow: My question then would be is if we waited until that late date and found out that there wasn't sufficient room for off street parking based on the trip generation by the facility then how would we resolve that issue? Stiles: They would not be allowed to get an occupancy for a commercial use. Morrow: And to follow that up then my problem with that would be that they have gone to great time and expense to bring a business up to the point of a certificate of occupancy and then finding out at that time that they couldn't occupy because they didn't have adequate parking. So what my concern here is that shouldn't that be at the very front of that project? Stiles: I would hope that would be their concern at the front of their project before they i i Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 37 applied for a rezone. (End of Tape) Wilson: (Inaudible) the two businesses going now. We have plenty of extra parking space for those to accommodate the store easily. Morrow: My concern here is that we have City ordinances that are very specific in terms of number of parking spaces required by the square footage of the particular building. What I am seeing is or at least it is my understanding that we don't have any documentation that I don't doubt that you have the adequate parking spaces but for our purposes as a Council and as a City we need to have that in my opinion in writing and a schematic that shows that there is adequate off street parking. Wilson: Would it be possible for us to provide that to you and you give us the permit conditioned upon us having that within a certain length of time and something like that.. Because the money has been spent, we are ready to go, and the reason we didn't worry about the parking is because we do know that we have adequate parking. I will tell you honestly that most of our customers are not parking on the street now. None of them would need to because we have plenty of adequate parking for more, not just for the two stores but for the three. Morrow: Well my answer to your question is that is something that we are trying to determine here as a Council is how we want to deal with that issue. I have no further questions Mr. Council. Corrie: Anybody else from the public that would like to give further testimony? Are you ready to make a decision, I will close the public hearing. (Discussion Inaudible) Corrie: I will close the public hearing. Entertain a motion if you so desire. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I would move that the Meridian City Council adopts and approves the findings of fact and conclusions as prepared by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion is made by Mr. Rountree, second by~Mr. Tolsma that the Council approves the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission, discussion? u Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 38 Morrow: Would your motion include and I didn't see any: place in these findings, I understand that it talks about dealing with ordinances and it talks about meeting the staff conditions, but under condition 4 it says provide paved parking and drive way areas, striping and signing in accordance with the Meridian City ordinance. Does your motion include documentation when it is available so that can be complied with. If we are going to link all three properties to a common parking lot then basically what staff ought to be seeing is an analysis of all three properties that parking lot is of sufficient size to handle all three properties based on the square footage of the those buildings. Rountree: I have to take the words of the findings for what they sey to mean and that says that this application upon approval will meet the Meridian City ordinances one of which is a parking requirement in addition to the paving, the driveways, the striping, signage, etc. Morrow: So the intent of your motion is that for that to meet these conditions and on the record that we are saying that it will meet those off street parking requirements for all three buildings if it is a common parking lot that is presented to us this evening. Rountree: If that is how the applicant proposes to meet the City ordinance yes; otherwise either singly or in a group of jointly used commercial establishments if they share parking and that parking space is adequate to meet the square footage requirement on those adjoining businesses. I would be comfortable with that. Morrow: Would you be willing to amend your motion to indicate that? Rountree: Sure Morrow: Because the application that is before us is a change in zoning for one business. The solution to the prime problem was for a common parking lot for three businesses. I am having trouble with the linkage of the three with the application for one business. Rountree: What would the amendment indicate? Morrow: Well, the amendment in my mind would indicate that if the method is chosen for parking to have all three businesses with a common parking lot that staff simply confirm that is a doable parking system. Rountree: Which would require an amendment to the findings as well in the motion. Morrow: That is correct. Rountree: I withdraw my motion. Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 39 Tolsma: Withdraw the second. Corrie: Motion and second have been withdrawn, is there a new motion? Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that the Meridian City Council approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared by Planning & Zoning with the addition in item 9 page 3 that a condition be placed in the findings of fact and conclusions that the parking requirement would be met by a common parking lot that will be reviewed by staff for compliance with the City ordinance for the three adjoining retail businesses. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Tolsma to approve the findings of fact and conclusions with the amendments, any further discussion? Roll call vote ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: The decision Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that the City Council approve the rezoning requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions as modified and in addition that the property be required to meet the comments of the Meridian departments and other governmental agencies. Tolsma: Second Corrie: You have heard the motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Tolsma on the decision and recommendations any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: Alt Yea Corrie: Entertain a motion for drawing up an ordinance? Crookston: Mr. Mayor I have as I explained to the Planning and Zoning Commission I have a conflict on this. Planning and zoning basically waived it because they didn't think it was that significant. I just want to inform the Council that I had prepared and ordinance, it is up to the Council what they want to do. I do have a conflict of interest. Morrow: It is? Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 40 Crookston: It is that it is my understanding that the proposed user is the wife of John Fitzgerald II who is in and was in the same office as I was and am. Morrow: I don't have a problem with that, that could be a good fight between the two of you. Corrie: Okay the Council has no problem with that Mr. Counselor, you say you have prepared an ordinance already? Crookston: Yes I have. Morrow: We need an ordinance number. Corrie: I suppose we could make it #732. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that the Meridian City Council authorizes the Mayor to approve and the City Clerk to attest ordinance #732 for the requested rezone with the suspension of rules. Bentley: Second Corrie: Okay, Ordinance #732, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING AND CHANGING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS THE SOUTH 1/2 OF LOT 16, 17, 18, 19 AND 20 AND BLOCK 1 OF AMENDED PLAT OF F.A. NOURSE THIRD ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, FILED IN BOOK 7 OF PLATS PAGE 299 RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY, IDAHO AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the ordinance that would like to have this ordinance read in its entirety? Hearing none I will entertain the motion that I have, and the second, any further discussion? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, in asking City Attorney Crookston in body of the ordinance we should insert the word amended in front of the findings of facts and conclusions of law as adopted by the Meridian City Council on the request for the rezone. That would be in paragraph 5, just above section 2. It says this rezone is subject to the conditions referenced in the "amended" findings of fact and conclusions. Corrie: Any further discussion? All those, you have heard that Ordinance #732 be approved with the suspension of the rules, roll call vote? ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 41 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HONOR PARK NO. 3 SUBDIVISION BY WILLIAM HON: Van Elg, 1111 S. Orchard, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Elg: Mr. Mayor and Councilmen, this is the current phase of Honor Park Subdivision located just to the east of the Meridian Speedway. In your packets you probably have some drawings that indicate that it is a 19 lot commercial subdivision. However, let me come over to our drawing here. Due to some access problems some alignment problems with ACRD and to simplify the whole issue. We originally had seven lots up here along Franklin Road. ACRD was only going to allow us three access points in two of which have to align with 5th Street and 3rd Street and then one floating access in between. It seemed easier for us and better for these lots to resolve this access issue by reducing the number of lots. So we have a total of 17 lots commercial lots zoned C-G that complies with the comprehensive plan and has the appropriate zoning already established. We have met with staff at the request of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Becky Bowcut and Stan McHutchinson of our office met with staff today to resolve any outstanding issues. I believe that those issues have been resolved. I would open myself up for any questions at this point if you have any. Morrow: So essentially what you are telling us is that the seven. lots that you had before and in our packet now has gone down to five packets. The land there of the 7 was consumed in the five so that the five are just bigger lots? Elg: Larger lots yes, each of the lots is approximately an acre or larger in size. There is one lot that is .94 but in looking that the plat today I believe it might even end up being a little bit larger once we make that alignment. They will probably all be right at an acre or larger. Corrie: You have two accesses on Franklin Road that you didn't have before is that correct? Elg: Correct, there will actually end up being three. (Inaudible) Morrow: And did your lot configuration take into account the expansion of Franklin Road in terms of width? ~ s Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 42 Elg: Yes Morrow: Do you want to talk a little bit about the issues with respect to, I noted in the minutes from P & Z there was discussion about fences and protecting the existing uses of the baseball park and Fuller park and, I am sorry not Fuller Park, Storey Park, can you discuss those issues? Elg: Sure, Mr. Mayor and Councilman Morrow, I believe what the P & Z indicated to Ms. Bowcutt at their hearing is that they would leave that issue up to the individual lot owners from what I understand. There is an eight foot fence that exists around the ball park here but it stops somewhere in this location here. There is a great deal of if you have been out to the site there is quite a bit of tall vegetation, tall trees that exist right here south of that fence about an 8 foot fence. The Planning and Zoning Commission suggested I guess that perhaps in the interest of the people that own this that perhaps our client would consider putting a fence in for site obscuring to protect the vision of what might be going on here. One thing that we might suggest is either that to leave it as, well to leave it as it is with the existing trees and vegetation. Perhaps we could come back in and plant some small hedges there in between the trees if you would like, that might be an option. Perhaps the owner could furnish those trees in lieu of fence and the City could plant them an their side. The trees are separated by about 10 or 15 feet I believe from the property line they are about 10 or 15 feet to the west. The other option that I think is more desirable is that prior to the issuance of a building permit that staff be able to review the proposed use and make a determination as to whether or not a fence would be required due to the nature of the use. If It is going to be some sort of storage yard or something perhaps they can require the individual owner to put up a fence for vision concerns if necessary. I don't think we would have any problem with that. Morrow: My next question would be with respect to, how do you visualize handling the landscaping requirements and particularly along Franklin Road? Elg: Apparently in the Planning and Zoning Commission it was also discussed and met with staff I believe the owner has agreed to put in a landscape berm there along Franklin. I assume that we will review that with staff for compliance although you don't have the design review committee, I would hope that you could empower staff to review that and approve that berm. The owner has agreed to that and has agreed to place it in one big swoop rather than piece meal so that is improves the aesthetics of the entire project. Morrow: My question would be is that typically in these types of subdivisions we have been requiring a business owners association and the maintenance and ownership of those common landscape areas that fall within the management of the business owners association. You are prepared to do that? • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 43 Elg: Yes, I saw that in the P & Z comments also Mr. Mayor and Councilman Morrow, and I believe the owner is agreeable to doing that. Morrow: (Inaudible) landscaping is as per a separate lot.. Elg: Oh I see what you are saying, I don't know that we planned on putting it in as a separate lot, I believe we planned on putting it in as an easement but it would be included in the maintenance, the maintenance would be included as part of .the homeowners association covenants. Morrow: Very candidly what we have approved most recently in terms of these kinds of projects has been a requirement for that to be a separate lot in terms of the common area landscaping. Elg: Mr. Hon is here, the client and Stan McHuntchinson of our office (inaudible) If it is alright with you I will yield the floor to Becky Bowcutt who was handling this to start with. Becky Bowcutt, 1111 S. Orchard, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Bowcutt: We did discuss the landscaping along Franklin Road, I don't believe the issue of whether it was an easement or separate lot came up in the discussion based on my memory and of course that was 4 or 5 weeks ago. The issue did come up of maintenance and what I stipulated was the policy over the last year has been that it not be done in a piece meal fashion that when the first lot gets ready to go under development at that time the entire stretch of that landscaping that 20 feet will be played in. Therefore complying with that landscape corridor requirement in the ordinance and the comp plan. I don't think we discussed it as a separate lot. Morrow: You are aware that other projects that we have worked on have been required to be separate lots? Bowcutt: Yes, one of them was mine, I had hoped you had forgotten. Morrow: I know, I have no more questions Mr. Mayor. Rountree: Would you just go into the issue of compatibility of the existing uses in the park with the potential uses particularly in lots I can't see them any more, that adjoin the park. Bowcutt: Right through here? Rountree: Yes, there are probably 6 lots that would be critical. • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 44 Rountree: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Rountree we had probably a 15 to 20 minute discussion about uses when we went to the Planning and Zoning Commission. There were mixed comments, I believe one individual commented on the fact that obviously the park is an amenity with most types of uses the parks would be a visual amenity that those users would like to take advantage of. Say for example if there was an office of something along that line. However there were a couple members of Planning and Zoning Commission that wanted to address what if the uses were more industrial in nature. Say it was a like a Silver Creek In'igation Company or something where they had so called storage yards. What would the impact of the storage yard be on the park and obviously the City's image a lot of people go to that facility and utilize it. There were comments that they would be reviewed, one gentleman indicated why don't we review them use by use if it is a use that some type of storage yard that may be considered unsightly therefore we would require landscape buffering or fencing buffering. However it was say a small office building we would not. Some of the members found some problems with that and I don't think that we could get a real consensus. At one time they wanted us to landscape the whole 20 foot easement that the sewer lies in. After our discussions with the City Engineer he indicated that won't work because of maintenance of that line. You put in a lot of deep rooted trees and we are going to have some severe problems. His thoughts were if there is any landscaping done that we request that it be done within the park obviously at the applicant's expense if that was required. I did go through and count those trees there are approximately 50 trees along this east perimeter and then there are 12 kind of conifer trees along the north portion of the park here. The trees are kind of, they are quite large but what you visually see is the trunk so you can see through the trees even though they provide a buffer when you get about 10 feet up. There is that 8 foot chain link fence and one of the thoughts that I had looking at that today was you could plan some ivy along that. fence and it would climb up that chain link fence and create a very nice almost look like a hedge if you had a use. I can't tell you what the uses are going to be, I do know what we have here, there is the Zamzows, there is an office building, I believe a construction company is in there and then there is a day care. So the uses would be whatever is allowed under the principle permitted uses of a C-G zone. I hate to put in something that is going to block a nice amenity if it is not necessary because their use is compatible. I just, I don't know how to get over that and the Planning and Zoning Commission kept wavering back and forth and I think they kind of left it that well something needs to be done in the event that we do have a user that we don't want to look at from the park's view. Did I answer your question? Rountree: You went around in circles pretty well. Bowcutt: Well I can't tell you what is going to be there, I wish I could. Rountree: Well I can see some conflicting uses and I don't know that there is a solution. • • IVleridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 45 (Inaudible) Storey Park ball field could have 60 plus foul balls in any one of those adjoining lots. Bowcutt: I would say it is most likely to happen in this area based on where the back stop is located and then the trees. There is a gap in this corner where there are no trees and the trees begin here and then they begin right in here. Rountree: Those trees don't do a lot of good for foul balls. Bowcutt: They are pretty tall, they will go right over it? Rountree: Oh yes, very high, very fast and very hard. Bowcutt: We kind of joked around at the Planning and Zoning Commission about putting in a gate there so they could get the foul balls. Rountree: I don't know that is necessarily (Inaudible) windshields, (inaudible) spectators that might be there and the other kinds of uses. I don't have. a solution, it is an issue. Bowcutt: I guess all I can recommend to my client is they make sure that whomever is purchasing those lots is fully aware of the potential for that type of activity and the foul balls do go over into that area. Rountree: Probably not a real good place for window storage. Corrie: Any further questions? Thank you Becky, any further testimony from the public? Council, comments? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I don't have any problem with the plat as proposed, I do think we need to deal with the issue for the sake of consistency of requiring the common areas be designated lots and deal with that as an issue. I do think that somewhere within the business owners association or somehow there ought to be some information regarding existing uses and compatibility issues so that at least buyers have a fair chance at understanding that the neighboring uses could have foul balls and window damage and so on and so forth and that is kind of the risk they take in locating there I guess. I would be interested if staff had anything to address and concerns of either one of these issues from Gary or Shari? Stiles: Councilman Morrow, Mayor and Council. The issue is the uses that will be adjacent to the park and what was the other one? • • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 46 Morrow: The other one was the common lot designation such as we have done on all the other projects that are similar to this. The requirement for a business owners association and a common landscape lot that is owned by that association and maintained by them. Stiles: I would prefer that to be a lot to be consistent with everything else that we have required. As far as the uses that are going to be there any even a permitted use can be required to go through a site plan review either before the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Council. If you would like to leave it up to staff that if one of those uses comes up that it is automatically sent to you for a site plan review that could be done. Some of the uses that would be offensive I think would require a conditional use permit in that zone it is not an industrial zone it is a general commercial zone. One other issue that hasn't been brought up came up at Planning and Zoning Commission they are proposing 40 foot wide private streets and both the public works department and my department feel that should be a 60 foot right of way that we require for all commercial development. I believe ACHD's new policy is 58 feet. Partly because we don't know the uses and partly we don't know what kind of traffic will be on those streets 40 foot width is significantly less than we have even approved on some of the private residential streets. So I wanted to make sure that you acted on the issue of these private streets and the width of them. What Planning and Zoning had done was just to, their decision was that the width of the streets be negotiated with the City staff. What we would ask is that meet ACHD requirements with curb, gutter and sidewalks and the full 58 foot right of way. I believe Gary has issues on the sewer easement. Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council, I did meet with the applicant's engineer and land planner today. I don't know that we resolved access to the sewer line, we did talk quite a bit about it. My main concern as it has always been is that we maintain access to the manholes, uninhibited access to the manholes. I don't know that the little lots the 20 foot wide lots extending from the culdesacs to a manhole connecting this sewer line is the correct approach. Because you are going to have a 200 foot alley that may not be the right way to handle it. I don't really know at this point what is the best way to handle it through this development. I am not so concerned about the sewer line itself, I think we can access that if need be. It is an interceptor line, it is 18 inches in diameter and we probably won't have to access it because it is large enough that most things that are in the sewer will flow on through. But accessing the manholes I want to protect that. I am not sure by this plan and Stan didn't have the information when we met where our existing manholes actually are. They have showed the new manholes somewhere between the south and north boundary of this subdivision and I think there are two manholes that exist out there. So we are going to have to figure out how the City can get to those manholes. I think that, Stan's suggestion as far as accessing the sewer easement was that we make a deed restriction on each lot affected by the sewer line easement. So that the property owner knows by deed that easement is there and that it is a protected easement, restricted to development • • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 47 on the easement. I don't care about pavement or gravel, I did suggest that any landscaping to be done be placed on the park side of the fence as a way of providing the screening by landscaping and not clouding or occupying the sewer easement. So we haven't resolved the problem of how we get to the manholes, that still needs to be done. We have talked about it. The other thing that we talked about is the pressurized irrigation. Whether or not that would be required in this development and how it would be required or provided. I think those were the main issues that we didn't resolve. Morrow: So that amounts to a total of 6 of 7 issues then that need to be resolved according to my notes. Smith: Well, the width of the culdesacs, the private streets, the access to the sewer manholes along the back property line of those lots, pressurized irrigation, Morrow: Separate lots for common areas, landscaping issue that you talked about, business owners association. Thank you. Smith: The applicant has been trying for several days maybe even a week to get a hold of me to meet with me so we can discuss this and I haven't been very available. I don't' think that there is a problem in working these things out, just however you feel about leaving it in our court to resolve it. Morrow: Well I am comfortable with the staffs capability to resolve these issues but I think that in a public hearing and a public arena that certainly because we have 6 or 7 fairly major issues it is appropriate that the resolution of those be part of a presentation for the public record, it seems like to me. So I guess having said that what I would like us to look at at the July 2 meeting take a couple of weeks to get these things resolved and then make the presentation for the resolution of these issues. I don't have a problem with anything else concerning this plat except I would like to see those things resolved. And that would mean continuing the public hearing in my mind. Rountree: I agree, I think we need to resolve it, let staff resolve the issues so when we do act on the plat that they are resolved. Corrie: I will entertain a motion to that effect if you so desire. Bentley: So moved Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma to continue the public hearing Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 48 to the July 2 meeting to further comments for staff, any further comments or discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING ORDINANCE #180, TITLE 3, CHAPTER 15, CAN SYSTEM AND POSSIBLY ENACTING AN ORDINANCE FOR THE CABLE COMMUNICATION FRANCHISE FEE: Corrie: I will open the public hearing at this time. Dan Clark, TCI, 8400 Westpark, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Clark: Good evening, respecting brevity I will simply say that TCI appreciates the cooperation that has taken place up to this point with the Mayor and City Council and staff and TCI. With that I would entertain any questions. Rountree: I have a question related to my wanting clarification of what a surface was (inaudible) previous discussion with TCI and Council. Had you worked that out with TCI? Clark: We have not talked about it I am afraid. Morrow: That was the definition of (inaudible) Rountree: Yes what was meant by surface. Clark I will reassert our agreement to the theme of your concern and I will certainly entertain any language or recommendations. Rountree: I guess for the record if surface would include such things as landscaping then I would be satisfied. Clark: (Inaudible) Corrie: Did you get that down Mr. Counselor? Any other questions from Council? Morrow: I guess a point of the follow up of the surface thing that is all inclusive of landscaping and asphalt whatever, concrete, is that the definition of surface? Crookston: I would not imagine that is included in a definition of surface, I think it could be included as what is required. I don't think it is any part of the definition of the surface. i • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 49 Morrow: So I guess landscaping is part of the definition. Crookston: No it is not. Rountree: Not as it is defined in the agreement and that was the question. Morrow: So his question is and my question is that if we are going to define surface we are going to define it to and including landscaping and asphalt and concrete and those kinds of things is that what we are after here? Crookston: If that is the desire of the Council yes. Morrow: I believe that was Mr. Rountree's desire. Rountree: That was my desire initially. As Mr. Bentley points out it does talk about fixtures above ground. I don't think that might include a fence but does it include somebody's effort to landscape their back yard. That was the only issue I had with the agreement language. Morrow: What did you think in terms of the, never mind, that is discussion, we will discuss it after the public hearing. I have no further questions. Corrie: Thank you Dan, anybody else from the public that would like to offer testimony on the public hearing. Seeing none I will open it for discussion from the Council. Morrow: I guess my discussion (inaudible) three points, one was I share Mr. Rountree's concern about the definition of surface. The second item was in my perception it ought to be a five percent. A third item would be it was a fifteen year maximum reaffirmed in five year increments is how I think that we ought to press forward with this agreement. Corrie: That five percent is that through the 15 year? Any further discussion? Bentley: Yes, I concur that the rates should be raised to 5% but I would like to see a percentage set aside for parks and recreation. Rountree: Mr. Mayor I too concur with the 5% rate, I think the agreement as written allows the City to review that on a five year increment and I believe that should stay. (End of Tape) Rountree: Thought I don't disagree with Councilman Bentley in terms of need for recreation I would be hesitant to earmark any money at this point in time until we get into • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 50 a budget situation and at that point in time I think we can earmark the money we need for recreation purposes. I have a major difficulty with that. Corrie: Any further discussion? Morrow: If I might Mr. Mayor, the question in terms of ear marking funds I have a problem with that in the short term. One is from a budgetary stand point to look at need, but secondly is that this is a revenue that is generated by the general public and any benefit from that tax which is what it is is a tax ought to be to the general public. I would think that the Council and future Council's ought to act very carefully to make sure that if it is going to assign parts of this revenue to a specific issue it is something that benefits the entire population of the City as opposed to some sort of isolated or special interest use. So I would think that we would want to consider that very carefully before we assign any funds other to the general fund in the beginning. Corrie: I guess my question is to the Counselor, could this not be done on an annual basis of that percentage at budget time, the Council at that time can designate 2% to fire or 2% to police or whoever they want to at that point. Crookston: That is very true, the funds are income to the City. Where they are distributed is totally up to the City. Rountree: I guess my point is that is general revenue to the City and we should recognize that in terms of estimate of additional income to the City and (inaudible) we may need and we know that we need police and fire services, we know we need recreations services. I think we have to balance those as opposed to say so much of these particular taxes are going to these areas. Morrow: I think Mr. Rountree we are both saying the same thing there. Corrie: Any further comments? Do you wish to close the public hearing and amend the ordinance or consider amending the ordinance? Rountree: Is that the action we need? Corrie: Ordinance prepared by the City Attorney so I need the approval of the Council of the amended ordinance #180 prepared by the Counselor. Morrow: Do you want to close the public hearing. Corrie: If you are ready to do that. I will close the public hearing at this point and entertain Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 51 a motion. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare an amending ordinance #180, Title 3, Chapter 15, the CAN System an ordinance for the Cable communication franchise fee. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree, the ordinance #180. to be amended, any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #13: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SENIOR CITIZEN BOARDING, LODGING COMPLEX BY WAYNE 8~ KAREN FORREY: Corrie: Mr. Forrey? Forrey: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, about a year and a half ago my wife and I began looking for a retirement center for our grandparents, they reached the age and time in their life when they needed to make a transition from both of their homes and we began looking in Meridian, my family has been in Meridian for almost 100 years and both of grandparents wanted to remain in the community and wanted to find a nice retirement complex. We looked and couldn't find much by way of a retirement community, a retirement campus. That lead us to really think about the need there and how to fill that need. Our family made a decision to go ahead and develop and elderly retirement campus in this community. We looked at the zoning ordinance to find out what type of property would lend itself to an elderly campus. We looked at the Western Health Care Facility on the west side of Pine and we found that was approved as a planned development general through the conditional use process. We looked at Crossroads development that was approved by the City as planned development general through the conditional use process. I spoke with various City officials and learned that the City preferred planned development general when there was a mix of uses. So we began looking for property that would lend itself to planned development general so that we could develop this project. We found a piece of property on East Pine Avenue right where Five Mile Creek crosses Pine. It is right by Maws Addition Subdivision and Danbury Fair, it is the Bedelco property. We are purchasing 12.75 acres and it is an ideal site for an elderly campus. It is very nice and peaceful in that neighborhood, compatible to this use. The neighbors that we have talked to all are in favor of this development. The Meridian zoning ordinance allows the planned development general by conditional use permit when you have a mix of uses. In our proposed project we definitely have a mix of uses. Two major uses residential which • • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 52 we have 114 living units and then we have a substantial amount of commercial uses. I am going to list those for you. We are proposing a commercial cafeteria, which would serve on an average week day 370 meals for residents and also for invited guests on a compensation basis. That is the equivalent of combining EI Zocalo cafe, the Kowloon Restaurant and the Vina restaurant, in fact those 3 restaurants combined come up to about 350 meals per day, Sunrise Cafe is about 300 meals per day so we this commercial cafeteria that we have is larger than those 3 restaurants put together. We are having a commercial dining hall and banquet room, that would be available to the residents but also to the community for use. We are planning a chapel for resident and community use for worship and weddings and blessings. We are planning a recreation center which would also include health facilities. A commercial laundry facility and that would also take in work of the community. And education center which has satellite down link and up link services, computer technology learning center and again that is for community use as well as resident use. Van transportation service for compensation to the residents or by compensation. A 24 hour maintenance and security service management residence and on site management offices. The federal regulations under Americans with Disabilities Act and I will site it for you it is federal regulation 28-CFR Part 36, classifies our project Pine Center Park as we have submitted it to you as a commercial facility not a residential project. That is because we have a higher level of ADA compliance and that is a result of our commercial kitchen, the chapel, the full access and van transportation and also the educational facility. The Ada County Tax Assessor classifies our project as a commercial tax base for the City of Meridian. The project we have submitted to the Planning and Zoning Commission and onto the City Council is a mix of uses that are commercial and residential and it qualifies as a planned development general just like the other planned development general projects that the City of Meridian has approved. We are not a residential development, we are not an apartment complex. Our project requires unusual design flexibility to achieve a completely logical and complimentary conjunction of uses and functions. We have got easements on three sides of our property, we have residential uses on three sides of our property but because of planned development general we are able to blend in with that and create a commercial project that blends in with the neighborhood and provides a tax base to the City of Meridian without impacting parks or schools. Some of our features are that we have 114 living units for elderly and retired. Full elevator access and full ADA compliance. Your planned development general requires 10% open space and we are in excess of that. The project will be fully fenced and landscaped with gardens, creek pathway, an overlook over Five Mile Creek with safety handrails. We are proposing a sound barrier wall at the south edge of the conditional use permit site with extra trees as requested by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Builders Masonry. We have already covered the Snyder Drain, you might be familiar with that as you drove up and down Pine Street and saw the large open drain, you might note that has been covered now. $25,000 has already been expended just to cover that drain. In planned development general the ordinance requires that anything approved would go • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 53 through the design review process of the City so there is yet another opportunity for City staff and the Council to have input on the final design and the architectural design of this project. We have incorporated buffers into the site design. We have met all of your City requirements, we have acted in good faith. $25,000 has already been expended just on the drain to open up the site for development. We have even pre-ordered landscape materials which we have had to do because of the Olympics and there is a shortage of landscape materials. We have a waiting list of people for occupancy in Pine Center Park. We know this project will be a success and it will help elderly people in Meridian. It will be a very good enhancement to the local tax base and good for that neighborhood. I would like to request two specific things of the City Council that you make a decision tonight that our Pine Center project is in fact a planned development general and secondly I would ask that you instruct the City Attorney to prepare new findings of fact and conclusions of law to reflect that we are a planned development general and also to prepare a list of conditions for our conditional use permit. I would also like to incorporate my 12th of March, 1996 letter which 1 prepared to the Planning and Zoning and incorporate those into the findings of fact and conclusions, the new ones. Because that letter addressed all city comments. At the Planning and Zoning commission public hearing, I had a nice slide presentation showing renderings and artist drawings of the project. Has the Council looked, that is in the public record, have you looked at those? I have some photos that I will hand out there, it is not every slide that I showed but several slides and I reproduced them in photographs so that you could see that. I will hand those out and then also I retained Mr. Robert Phillips, Robert is a very good attorney. He is with Givens, Pursely and Huntley attorneys at law. He is a real estate attorney and Robert is helping us through the approval process developing construction contracts, the license agreement with Nampa Meridian, those types of issues. Robert wanted to make a few comments here tonight. So i will hand out the photos and Robert can make some short comments and then we will take questions. Phillips: There were some questions at the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding the planned general development. Mr. Forrey asked me if I would look at those issues, I have prepared a hand out to quickly summarize I know it is late to quickly summarize those legal issues with some addendum's you can look at real quickly so we can cover those. I will hand those to you know. There are seven copies. On the top I put some notes that I made for myself for this presentation with the addendum. The first issue that came up was there was some confusion they said at the Planning and Zoning Commission regarding planned general development, they weren't sure if this would qualify in that category. Basically they left it up to City Council to decide, they made no decision. In fact the recommendation says let the City Council decide that issue. So I just want to reiterate the process that I went through to discover that this was indeed planned general development. The first thing is the Pine Center park is zoned I-L light industrial and therefore the next step you must look at the City's zoning code which is Section 2-409C i Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 54 C~ for the available uses for industrial uses. That is exhibit A. If you look at A you will find that on the first page, but on the second page that you have planned unit development slash general is an accepted use in the industrial context. So the next question that comes to your mind is what is planned use development general. And keep ih mind that the Planning and Zoning Commission said that if you find this (inaudible) planned unit development you should approve the conditional use permit. The next question, what is planned use development general that is defined in exhibit B, I have made some markings on that. It says a development not otherwise distinguished under planned commercial, industrial, residential developments or in which the proposed use of interior and exterior space requires unusual design and flexibility as Mr. Forrey mentioned to achieve a completely logical and complimentary conjunction of uses and functions. This PD classification applies to a essential public services, public or private recreation facilities, institutional uses, community facilities, or a PD which includes a mix of residential and commercial industrial uses. So now that we know what that is the question is does this apply to the Pine Center Park. Just to reiterate some of the things that Mr. Forrey mentioned there is quality living space which obviously is residential, there is a chapel which would qualify as a community facility, there is van transportation for cost which would be commercial, there is a dining facility and a banquet hall both for use of the residents and for the public which is commercial. A laundry which is commercial, a recreational facility that is private that would qualify as a private recreation facility as mentioned before as one of the qualifications for planned development general. Educational facility, not listed on there are some other things that he mentioned, management offices, there are the ADA requirements, American with Disabilities Act and the fact that this is taxed as industrial. Also, actions taken in the past by this Council have been entities of this type, nursing homes or organizations of this type like he mentioned the Western Health Care Corporation, have been zoned under planned use development general. The next item is Roman numeral number two which is, this is not a residential zoned commercial zoned property, there was some confusion at Planning and Zoning relating to that. But even if you are to look at those schedules they provide for those type of uses, they also include planned unit development general. So if you were to look at those they allow for this. The only other comment I had was there was some confusion about the amount of land, Mr. Forrey mentioned he is buying 12.75 acres, but only 5 have been requested for this facility. So the conditional use permit is only for five acres and there is a letter attached here that clarifies that particular issue. I would ask if there are any questions? Crookston: I just have one and that pertains to the confusion that I had at P & Z as to whether or not the application was for a planned unit development ton 5 acres or on 12.75 acres. Phillips: It is on five acres only. • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 55 Crookston: I noticed that in your cover sheet under item #3 it just sounded like in the initial comments of Mr. Forrey he started talking about the one particularly indicated to me that he was talking about the 12.75 acres was the sound barrier that would be adjacent to Builders Marketplace. Is that sound barrier going to be put in when you are only talking about developing the five acres? Forrey: As I mentioned Counselor, Mayor and Council, the sound barrier wall would be placed at the south edge of the conditional use permit site which would be the south side of the five acre site, does that help. Crookston: Yes, I did not understand that when you presented it. Corrie: Other questions? Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I just direct a question to staff to see if their concerns have been addressed with this application for Conditional Use, or do you have any other concerns that might be relevant? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I have no problem with the conditional use permit application as it is submitted and I look forward to working with the applicant as (inaudible) firm up some of the details and get it on line. Rountree: I think I have a question for Wayne, reading the record on this Wayne at one point in time there was some concern from the Building Masonry folks about noise and compatibility of around the clock operations on this kind of site. You have addressed that somewhat with the sound wall, have you discussed that further with them and come to a solution? Forrey: Yes Mr. Mayor and Councilman Rountree and Council, we absolutely have no problem with Builders Masonry, want them to expand and hope that they grow to the point that they need a 24 hour shift. Between the elderly campus and Builders Masonry is about 1000 feet. We want to build some nice office buildings between Builders Masonry and Pine Center Park so that would further buffer and provide a transition and I believe that is the best thing to do. Rountree: So at this point you have conceptual plans for the remainder of the parcel. Forrey: Yes and that has always been acceptable to Builders Masonry. Morrow: I have a question Mr. Mayor, with respect to exhibit B of your letter to Chairman Johnson and Commissioners, you are answering essentially some questions here by I am Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 56 having difficulty finding the questions that were asked. Like some 15 questions, I don't see in my packet where the 15 questions were generated. Crookston: I think the 15 is part of an addendum to his conditional use application. It is in his application. Morrow: Well I don't think that the application is part of our packet? Crookston: I don't know if it is or not. Phillips: I have a copy if that would be helpful. Morrow: So then this is just a response to those questions I see. I have a question for City Attorney Crookston, based on your memorandum you raise several points in your memorandum, have those been answered to your satisfaction? I note that with the issue of light industrial. Crookston: Those are questions that really pertain to our ordinance. Morrow: How does that relate to his application? Crookston: Just to show that there is confusion in the ordinance and that the City have a recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission as to what should be done with the ordinance and then have it approved and dealt with by the City Council. That is part of the reason why the initial findings of fact were not done in front of P & Z at the next meeting after the public hearing because I was having a real problem deciding on what do we apply, what way does it go. Because you can say it is this but no it is really this. As to what or as to the way the Ordinance deals with it. I presented that memorandum to the P & Z Commission at the time I submitted the findings to them so they would be aware of it: Then I submitted it to the Council so that you also would be aware of what I envisioned as items that needed to be corrected within the ordinance. Mr. Forrey, we had to deal with his application even as difficult as the ordinance is in applying it. Morrow: So then the bottom line here really is that we have to make a determination if this is a residential use or if this planned general development is the appropriate use within a light industrial zoning classification is that what you are saying? Crookston: That is one of the questions that you need to decide. In the residential zoning if I can remember this off the top of my head it says that a residential planned unit development is allowed and then it has just a hair difference ira language and says that a general planned unit development isn't even addressed in the residential section as I Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 57 remember, I would have to look at the ordinance. And then you go back to the industrial and the general planned development is allowed but would have or could have residential, could have commercial, it could have industrial. That is quite a variance of uses when you are dealing with land that is zoned industrial. Do you want to have a 50 unit condominium as part of a general planned development that is within an industrial zone? That is allowed under the ordinances. Corrie: As a conditional use permit. Crookston: Yes Rountree: Well given that it is allowed under the ordinance as far as this application goes I think we have (inaudible) Crookston: That is correct Rountree: (Inaudible) Crookston: Yes, the idea behind the memorandum was just to bring out the items that I felt needed to be addressed and if possible corrected. We have to deal with Mr. Forrey's application under the ordinances as they read now as best we can. Rountree: It would be (inaudible) the general planned unit (inaudible) Crookston: If he puts in the uses that he said he is planning, that is correct. Corrie: Mr. Forrey, just for my edification, could you tell me again, it is getting late and I am getting tired and (inaudible) you mentioned you wanted to have new findings of fact and conclusions. Would you give me that one more time? Forrey: Robert will help me if I get this wrong. The findings of fact and conclusions of law we received from Planning and Zoning Commission asked the Meridian City Council to make a decision that our project was planned development general. And if so the recommendation is to approve our project and then develop the conditions That is what we are asking you to do. The second thing is that we believe that we would need then new findings of fact and conclusions of law. That is my thoughts that would put all of that in writing. Phillips: I think that the findings of fact and conclusions of law are fairly accurate until you get towards the end. And then I noted in particular paragraph 13, 16, 14, and 17 that may need to be modified because they ask questions and seem to indicate is this more Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 58 residential than planned unit development general. There are two different types and this is planned unit development general is what we are asking. So that (inaudible) findings of fact and conclusions of law would need to be amended to state that this is indeed planned unit development slash general. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, as a point of discussion here, I am having a real problem dealing with all of this information and trying to come to that particular conclusion at the present time. I think what I would like to see is we continue this public hearing and have a discussion, continue this to our next meeting and have a discussion of. I am not even prepared to discuss what conditions might be and so on and so forth at this present time and staff information. Asking about new findings of fact and conclusions. At this point I don't know what those issues would be that we would be discussing in there. But it seems to me like in my case based on the testimony that we have received tonight plus the written information that we have I would like to think this through before we take any further action. Rountree: I guess I would like to see a cut at a draft of the findings of fact to include the information the applicant has provided this evening the request to include the conditions and comments that they have provided the City in response to the application and questions they have been asked. And I don't think I need, at this point, I think it is as clear as it is going to be to me that the planned unit general definition fits this project as it has been presented this evening. Morrow: And I don't particularly disagree with that. I think from my perspective I need to get straight in my mind how this ties together and how the findings tie together to that and change the findings and conditions and certainly I am in agreement with seeing a rough draft of something as to where we are headed here. I think the bottom question is does the planned general development belong in a light industrial zone when you have uses as intensive as Builders Masonry and those potential kind of uses. So that is also something that I need to think about but that is not a major problem for me right now. Rountree: It certainly could affect your decision on conditional use permit approval or denial. I think as far as the applicant's request to approve and then have findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared t don't think that is something we want to do. I think we want to have the findings of fact before us so that when we do approve those that is the decision. I am in general agreement that we table this item until we have draft findings prepared and in Walt's case some additional time to contemplate the issue that he brought up about industrial use versus this use for consideration at our next meeting. Morrow: Second the motion. • • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 59 Rountree: Well I would make that a motion. Corrie: Motion has been made by Mr. Rountree, that we continue this request for a conditional use permit and second by Mr. Morrow to the July 2 meeting, are we requesting the findings of fact be drawn up from this? Rountree: We are requesting draft findings. Corrie: We are requesting draft findings of fact and conclusions of law, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Forrey: Will we be able to see the draft findings of fact and conclusions of law prior to July 2 so that Robert and I can Corrie: As soon as we see them you can see them. Crookston: You can probably get them as quick as my secretary pulls them out of the printer. But they are not always very legible at that juncture. ITEM #14: REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF NON-DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR CHAMBERLAIN ESTATES NO. 1, PHASE 2: Corrie: Wayne, do you want to explain what all of this is? Crookston: What I have given to the Council is just my comments on the release of the Non-Development Agreement. I just think that there needs to be a little more added to it. Corrie: In other words if we add those provisions that you have added in here by hand you wouldn't have a problem with the non-development agreement is that right? Crookston: That is correct. Corrie: I guess it is the Council's pleasure to add those in there as part of the release of the non-development agreement, discussion? Rountree: I didn't see any problem with it. Corrie: Shari, do you have a question or comments? C~ Meridian City Council June 18, 1 X96 Page 60 Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I went out to visit the site today on Chamberlain Estates, their development agreement required them to have perimeter fencing in place prior to their obtaining building permits. They have roughly I don't know at least 10 houses going up out there right now with absolutely no fencing and I would like to make sure that prior to them getting any more building permits they have that fencing in place. Morrow: Question, is that ten houses going in what, in phase 1 of Chamberlain? Stiles: Yes Morrow: And they are requesting that and what you are asking is that we don't release the non-development for phase 2 until that fencing is in place? Stiles: I just want to make sure that they know, I have already asked the Building Inspector not to issue any more building permits. A lot of this non-development agreement area was perimeter. I just want to make sure that they realize that there are not going to be building permits issued until that fencing is in place. I guess if they have anon-development agreement in place they can't build a fence out in those areas though. Corrie: Entertain a motion to have the Council (inaudible) with the suggestions of the Counselor or Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we go with the counselor's suggestions and have them re-write the non-development release. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion is made by Mr. Bentley and second by mr. Rountree that the release of the non-development agreement be drawn up with the comments of the City Attorney, comments added to the present one, any further discussion? (Inaudible) Crookston: I guess the question that I have, if the applicant changes the development agreement as suggested in my comments are you also approving that the Mayor and City Clerk sign it? Corrie: Do you want to make that as a second motion then after we get through with the first or add to the first one. Morrow: I think the intent here is that we don't it before us again. So if I understand Mr. Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 61 Bentley's motion is that he wants it rewritten in that manner and then wants it submitted, the Council has authorized the Mayor to sign. Bentley: That is correct. Corrie: Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea (END OF TAPE) ITEM #15: REQUEST FOR HOOK UP TO SEWER BY CURTIS & TONYA GOSSAGE: Gossage: I don't know what information you have but Central District Health , do you have any letters from them? Corrie: No, all I have is your letter I guess. Gossage: Well they had, I guess they had drived by and saw that our drain field was failing. And then they wrote us a certified letter saying that they were requesting us to hook up to City sewer and gave us 30 days to hook up. They said we couldn't do anything with our drain field we had to hook up to City sewer. Corrie: So there is (inaudible) you are also requesting monthly payments to do that to take care of that, with your letter here or all at once? Gossage: Yes to make payments. Corrie: Does the Council have any questions? Rountree: I just need to get straight what went on with Central Health, in your letter you indicated that you had asked to fix your drain field and they said since the sewer is by your house that you must hook up. I am not sure that is necessarily appropriate on the part of Central District Health is it? Can they mandate that to either a private individual and or the City of Meridian. Crookston: I don't believe that they can, where is your property. Gossage: It is on the corner of South Locust Grove and Overland, the front of our house faces the back end of that R.V. Park. • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 62 Morrow: I don't know if Central District Health can do it and get it away with it or not but in our industry they seem to do it plenty. Gossage: They had a hearing that I went to and they sat me down and told me that, they gave me 30 days. They had called, his last name is it Berg, Will somebody, you, they said to call him and come down and talk to him he would set up a payment plan. Berg: I said I couldn't hook you up you had to request that of the Council. Gossage: Yes, just this last week that you said that. They didn't tell me that I had to go through all of this to have this done. They told me they would have their attorney that represents them to file a suit against us or something if we didn't follow through with this. Crookston: Are you aware that the fees are double because you are not in the City? Gossage: Yes, no, we don't, we wanted to see if we could get our drain field fixed and they were telling us that we can't that we had to hook up to City sewer because we had a failed drain field. We had two estimates come out and say they can do something with the drain field. Crookston: I don't know what the procedures are of Central District Health I just wanted to let you know that the City does require double connection fees and some other double fees so that you are just aware of it. Morrow: Well if that is the case wouldn't it be in her benefit to be annexed in with her property to eliminate the double fees? Crookston: If that is what she desires. It would cut the connection and other fees in half. It is about a 3 months process. Tolsma: If she is outside the City limits of Meridian how can Central District Health tell her that we have to approve the hook up, if we deny the hook then she has (inaudible) fix the drain field. Crookston: That is correct. I don't think that Central District Health can tell us that we have to connect her if she applies. I think it is really a matter of trying to cooperate with everybody, Mrs. Gossage and Central District Health if we can. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, let me ask Gary, what is your experience here, with Central District health, do you have any experience here? Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 63 Smith: Mr: Mayor and Councilmen, I don't know that they have the authority to require the connection to the City system. It is our system not theirs and this property is not within the City limits. I have had experience with Central District Health when septic tanks have failed or drain fields have failed and it would be an economic hardship on the property owner to connect to the City system because they were far enough away, perhaps that and I wrote a letter to Central District Health stating that, that Central District then allowed the replacement of the system. Morrow: I think in her case she is indicating the hook up fee in her letter is $2400 and then $1000 to $1500 for the work to do that actual hook up that would represent then pretty much $3500 to $4000. That includes the double fee correct and so, I guess what I would like to see from at least my standpoint is that if they don't have, if Central District Health can't force them to hook up and their system can be fixed with an alternative drain field site or rehab of the one that they have for less then we ought to help in that manner. The other side of the coin is if that is not an available solution to the problem then I don't personally have a problem with the payment plan and getting them up and running whichever direction we have to go. I am not sure that I am liking Smith: The only thing that I have seen is the letter that Bruce Freckleton wrote to the Gossage's based on a telephone call that he had from Tom Schmalz at Central District Health. I don't know of any other correspondence that has taken place between Tom Schmalz and the City of Meridian requiring this connection be made. All he is saying is that according to the letter that Bruce Freckleton wrote is that there is a sewer line in Locust Grove Road in front of this property and there is one in Overland Road on the south side of Overland Road alongside of this property that is available for connection and that they want to connect it rather than replacement of the system. And I don't know the legal or the jurisdiction that Central District Health has, I bow to Wayne on that, I don't know what their powers are. Crookston: I don't believe that they have power over the City to tell the City what to do. Bentley: Well why don't you call them up and tell them. Smith: I think what they are trying to do is to get the sewage out of the ground out of the absorption field into our sewer system for treatment. I think they try to do that in every case that they can to get away from the nitrates that flow out of the septic tanks and into the drain fields and ultimately into the shallow ground water. Morrow: Let me ask you this, how much property do you own there, how big is the lot? Gossage: It is right around 2 acres. u Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 64 • Morrow: There is plenty of room there for an alternate drain field site. (Inaudible) Gossage: No, we are right where the big trees are and then it is Robertson's kennels. Morrow: I think if I might Mr. Mayor to move along here that this is an issue that staff can handle and that the guidance that they would need from the Council would be that if it is not resolvable with Central District Health than it is okay with us for them to hook onto the sewer our sewer system and to arrange a payment schedule prior to that hook up, that is acceptable to both the City and the applicant. Bentley: Is that a motion? Morrow: So moved Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that staff determine whether they should be on the system or not and if so we will work out a payment schedule for you as they have so determined that, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Gossage: I have a question, is there someone I can meet with and maybe talk further with about this? Morrow: Well I think I would direct you to Public Works Director Smith. Smith: Are we talking about details of connection or are we talking about details of payment? Gossage: Connection. (Inaudible) ITEM #16: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TREASURE VALLEY WORSHIP CENTER: Corrie: You have the development agreement here, is there a representative here? • • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 65 Slyter: I am Gordon Slyter. Corrie: Council any questions, do you have any questions? Slyter: We are in the process of beginning to seek approval to develop this .piece of ground, we submitted our plans to the building department and they made their way to Shari and she pointed out to me that we did not have in effect a development agreement. So, she drafted this and I looked it over and found that there is one change that will need to be made and I have mentioned it to Shari and gave her a copy of the wording. But that is that the party of the second part myself (inaudible) should read, I can give you the wording now or she will probably be making copies available to you, but it should read International Church of the (inaudible) California Corporation duly represented by myself, Gordon M. Slyter pastor of the Meridian Four Square church which is (inaudible) Treasure Valley Worship Center. Basically I (inaudible) one Board of Directors for the entire United States handles that for the demonination, they are the owners but I am their local representative. (Inaudible) insert a statement saying this agreement shall not be effective until approved by the Board of Directors of the International Church of the Four Square (inaudible) I can sign it but then we would have to forward it to them for their approval. So those are, other than that the development agreement you have before you (inaudible) in fact I already have my signature here on one copy with the notarized affidavit. (Inaudible) I am sure very obvious to you. Number one by my signing this agreement am I committing myself to develop this property regardless or rather am t saying if I develop this property I will do so in accordance with these terms? In other words until I get my demoninations final approval I am not going to develop it. (Inaudible) Crookston: I believe that to state I believe what you want it to state it needs to be typed in the document that your signature is authorized to be signed but that the document is not binding until it is approved by your demonination corporation.. It should be stated right in the agreement. Slyter: That would probably be covered then by my suggested wording above my signature on page 7 and the wording would be this agreement shall not be effective until approved by the Board of Directors of the International Church of Four Square Gospel, correct? Crookston: Yes Slyter: The second question, once we have complied with all of the stipulations in this agreement does the City release its lein? ~ J Meridian City Council June / 8, 1996 Page 66 Crookston: I didn't know we had a lein. Slyter: What page is that on, page 5, item 15, developer agrees to hereby grants a security interest in the land. Crookston: You are talking about item 15? My note is that needs to be removed from the document, that number 15. Slyter: Great. Crookston: There are a couple other changes that I just marked in. Slyter: Could I ask what those are? Crookston: On page 2, my comment is it really pertains to I assume items 2 and 3, it says my comment is do and state what they are doing. It has been awhile since I have looked at this. I have some things crossed, number 4, some things crossed out in number 3, I agree with 5, 6. There is, on the document that I have there is another five, I have no problem with that. There is a change on number 7. I can certainly give you a copy of this. I have 15 marked out Rountree: You have two number fives? Crookston: In the document that I have the second number 5 is on a separate sheet of paper. Corrie: Maybe we had better have this thing rewritten so they are all on the same page. Stiles: Mr. Mayor, I guess I am curious, you are looking at something that says Treasure Valley Worship Center on the bottom of it with the date of June 14? Crookston: My document says December 1994. Stiles: What precipitated the need for this development agreement fo be done now is a building permit application has been submitted. Prior to that building permit being issued this will need to be recorded. Morrow: Needless to say (inaudible) Crookston: I think what I need to do iS to review the new agreement. Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 67 Morrow: Mr. Mayor, if I might suggest here this is an issue that having been brought before the Council I am comfortable in allowing or making a motion that the document be written by City Attorney Crookston, subject to negotiation between he and Mr. Slyter and that we authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest once that agreement has been reached between those two parties with input from Planning and Zoning Director Ms. Stiles. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #17: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: Corrie: Shari, you have a couple three, do you want to do the Ballantyne request, it is not on here bu# they are still here. Stiles: Mayor and Council did you all get copies of this letter with the attached small site plan? I guess rather than going through this myself if Mr. Ballantyne would like to come up and make a presentation regarding the USDA building. Ballantyne: I am Mike Ballantyne, thank you Shari. Mr. Mayor and members of the Council last fall Mr. Jim Balllantyne was approached by Don Northrop who is the gentleman that builds the USDA office buildings and provides buildings on long term lease to the USDA to sell a small portion of this 40 acres on Franklin for a USDA office building. At the same time Mr. Ballantyne was in the process of having the property annexed and rezoned and platted to be a 40 acre business park C-G and L-O zoning. Mr. Ballantyne agreed to sell the property to Northrop as long as Mr. Ballantyne would bear no responsibility if the sell couldn't take place. It was determined through the County that we could sell the property, a small lot out of the front of the property because the property was eligible for a one time split through the County and that the R14 zoning allowed a USDA office building through the conditional use process. So Mr. Ballantyne or Mr. Northrop made application to Ada County to have the one time split done and have the conditional use permit issued. At the same time Mr. Ballantyne was taking the property through the entitlement process and had a preliminary plat which showed, let me just give you this real quick. Originally on the Ballantyne Troutner Business Park. The road was going to be located along the west property line of the north edge of the property. This lot it was a real simple one time split that would split this lot off so that Mr. Northrop could .build the USDA office building. Unfortunately actually fortunately the road was relocated to the center of the frontage on Franklin in order to accommodate Hoff Building Supply, we didn't want to • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 68 have challenges with those trucks getting into Hoff. That changes plus another of other changes requested by neighbors or Ada County Highway District or by staff changed the plat significantly enough that this Council voted at the last meeting to send the plat back to Planning and Zoning. We are requesting that Mr. Northrop be allowed or get a letter from the City stating that he would be allowed to have temporary water service until such time that the property was annexed into the City with the rest of the Troutner Business Park and zoned appropriately and given all city services. The County has said that they will issue a building permit for this USDA office building as long as Mr. Northrop has a letter from the City saying the City will provide temporary water. Our plan is to run the water line down five feet in from what will be SW 5th Street and then as it comes down to the wide part of Mr. Northrop's property the water line would eventually just drop into SW 5th Street there being a permanent easement there where the water line is not in the street. So the water line would never need to be relocated. There would be a temporary road into Mr. Northrop's property until such time as SW 5th Street was put in. Hopefully that makes sense, I was rambling there. Cowie: Any questions? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, question with respect to sewer service? Ballantyne: Sewer is located I believe about 800 feet to the east and a few hundred feet to the north and so it would not be able to do sewer service. They could do a septic tank a holding tank in the interim until he is able to have City services, City septic. Many of the properties in that area are already on septic tanks with the understanding that he would be required to hook up to City water or City sewer when the property was annexed and sewer was in SW 5th Street. Which he is fine with. Rountree: How long is temporary? Ballantyne: Well the sewer would be built according to Central District Health standards so it would, I think the standard life on commercial sewer is 15 to 25 years. But Mr. Ballantyne has resubmitted his application back to Planning and Zoning and so this is just temporary until such time the City Council approves a final plat I would guess. You could also put I guess a restriction as to how long Mr. Northrop would be allowed to use septic. That if once the street had been improved the street being Franklin Road was improved to Five Lanes the sewer will be improved with that. That if the Ballantyne Troutner Business Park wasn't developed and SW 5th wasn't in place Mr. Northrop would be required to bring sewer from Franklin Road down to his property. The push doesn't come from Mr. Northrop it comes from the USDA there. They are in a rush to get this building up to service the farmers in this area. They feel that their current facilities are inadequate. This building is designed to provide circulation for trucks with horse trailers and that sort Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 69 of thing. The USDA employees can go out and look at stock and that sort of thing. It is kind of natural fit with the vet clinic which is directly in front of it. Corrie: Any other questions? Any questions from staff? Morrow: Mr. Mayor I have a couple of questions for Gary Smith, this project if approved i the format that they are asking would no way impact the other project in a negative manner, the overall business park at the point that it would comeback to us. I guess I am asking is we don't have any hidden pitfalls here that back us into a corner in terms of the bigger picture? Smith: When I got a copy of Mike's letter I responded to the Mayor in the request of site plan so that we could see how they were going to access the site. I just saw the little 8 1 /2 by 11 tonight that showed how they were going to get from Franklin Road into the site with an access road. The existing alignment of that SW 5th I believe it is, I guess it would need to be worked out with the access to this property. Although I think the access to the property is outside of 5th Street, I believe what property they are selling to USDA is actually what is shown on the preliminary plat as a lot, building lot for the building and then there is a lot out to Franklin Road. So everything that would take place for this USDA building would be outside of the right of way of SW 5th is that correct Mike? He is nodding yes. Ballantyne: That is correct, this site plan matches exactly the preliminary plat that has been submitted to the City that shows lots 1, 2, and 3 of block 2. So we intentionally has the road stay within the property line and the water line stay within the property line so that no easements would be required. So that it wouldn't affect the insertion of SW 5th when the time came. Smith: And the only other thing would be the size of the line required to provide fire sprinkler service or whatever the fire safety requirements would be. I don't know what that is but their architect would have to work that out. The location of the septic tank and drain field on the property for the building they would have to work through Central District Health for those requirements. And like Mike said when sewer was available if it is part of the City then they would be required to disconnect to the sewer and pay the appropriate fees. So, they would need to plumb their buildings such that was easily done I would think. Morrow: Thank you, I have no further questions? Corrie: (Inaudible) I guess we need to decide if we are going to allow the City water hook up and of course the road will have to be built to ACHD standards for the Fire departments • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 70 and all of that. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Morrow: It would be as per our ordinance. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Ballantyne: It is important to note that is a private building so the City would get the tax base, it wouldn't be a government building, it will be owned by (inaudible) to pay for those parks. Crookston: Except it is not in the City (inaudible) so the City wouldn't get the benefit at all (inaudible). Morrow: Mr. Mayor I am prepared to move that we approve the hook up of this building to City water subject to staff conditions, ACHD conditions and the necessary fees as mandated by City water and sewer ordinance. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that we approve the (inaudible) based upon staff and ACRD and double fee hook up according to the ordinance, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: Does that require a letter Mike? Ballantyne: Yes that would require a letter to take to Ada County. Corrie: Shari can you hold on just a minute, and Chief I am sorry these people have been waiting very patiently. Gordon: Mr. Mayor and Council last year Re-Max had a parking lot dance in the Northview Plaza area. At that time it was on a trial basis and there were some problems that arose for the police department. This year they have, are going to have the same dance over again and applied for a catering permit to serve alcohol from Bill-n-Lynns tavern. I denied the permit because of the problems of last year. Today 1 was contacted by a Ken Sorels from Re-Max who is sponsoring the dance and has made several offers on how to solve some of the problems that we had last year. I still hold in the denial the alcohol in that area ~J Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 71 of Meridian on Fairview between First and Meridian Street is the worse in town for traffic and traffic accidents. The problems that we had last year was that Northview parking lot is a small parking lot to start with. When they block it off for the dance it caused all the people to park their cars over in Albertsons parking lot and the J walkers were just, the traffic was a crawl all the time it was through there. The patrol officers advised me that there were problems with juveniles on bicycles riding up and down the middle of Fairview. I saw a couple of them, I saw a couple of skateboarders out there. The traffic is the problem. Mr. Sorrels is one of the solutions that he has come up with is a snow fence along the north boundary of the Northview parking lot and to restrict the traffic or the pedestrian traffic from getting out into Fairview and posting signs on the Albertson's side asking everybody not to J walk and also to have the band announce on a regular basis not to J walk. Due to the lateness of my denial on the alcohol permit which didn't allow for any appeal I assured Mr. Sorrel that I would bring it up to the Council tonight. The dance is scheduled for this Friday night. So I guess I am proposing the appeal for Mr. Sorrel, Re- Max on the catering permit. The dance will take place with or without the catering permit. Rountree: Explain the dance to me, this is a public dance for all comers? Gordon: Yes it is open. I don't have a problem with the dance, I have a problem with the area. I explained that to Mr. Sorrel, if we could move it over to Payless parking lot or the City park. The problem is it is right next to Fairview Avenue and that is just a bad place in Meridian for us. We can't control it, we can patrol it. I don't think that I need to explain to you gentlemen what the traffic flow is up there. Morrow: So the issues are really two issues here, one is that last year you had a problem with the traffic and pedestrians and that was a dance without alcohol being involved. Gordon: No there was alcohol involved. Morrow: There was a catering permit? Gordon: I believe so yes. Morrow: So then the request for this year is that it is essentially for the same two things, the dance to take place and a catering permit to go with it. Gordon: Yes sir Morrow: And this is really what you are presenting is an appeal of your own decision? Gordon: The lateness for my denial did not allow for an appeal. Like I said Mr. Sorrel was • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 72 • scrambling long and hard all day I think my telephone was probably used 80% of the time by our conversations. So in all fairness there is an appeal process and my denial has not changed. But I felt that in fairness I would make the appeal for him. I am not selling his program or his dance, I don't have a problem with it. It is the area that I have a problem with. His response to that was the flyers have already gone out the advertisement, all the advertising is done. The location is set. Rountree: Just for my own information is a permit required for a dance? Gordon: No sir or I would deny the permit for the dance at that location. I can't stress enough I don't have a problem with the dance and I don't have a problem with the alcohol at a dance. It is the location that I have a problem with and I can't stop the dance but I can stop the alcohol or I can deny the permit, I can't stop it. Tolsma: Do you think that has a major effect on it? Gordon: No but I think it will have some effect on it. What I can, the problems that I can foresee with the pedestrian traffic last year especially when the sun started to go down it is going to be right in the drivers eyes and the pedestrian traffic we are not talking one or two people. The one time I went through there there were 25 to 30 people in all stages crossing that street and not at the intersections. Kids on bikes were in and out of the cars, traffic was down to a slow crawl when I went down through. I just, I think the alcohol would possibly contribute. I don't think it would contribute to the success of the dance. Tolsma: Do you think the snow fence the length of that block in there will slow that down and force them to go back. Gordon: We talked about that, I think it would keep the traffic the pedestrian traffic from going north, but I still think the people that park in Albertson's are going to cross wherever they feel like crossing. So we would probably limit some of the traffic, pedestrian traffic with a snow fence. Rountree: I guess you could have a field day writing J walking tickets. Gordon: That is part of the problem Councilman Rountree because I don't have enough officers to control the problem. This was one of our conversations that I had with Mr. Sorrel is that the lateness of the application and we should have been working on this months ago to solve some of these problems and possibly (inaudible). He assured me that next year evidently they plan on having it on a yearly basis, we will do that we will start earlier, whether that ends up in a new location or what I don't know right now. So I guess Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 73 • Tolsma: Another question, there are already two businesses that sell alcohol in that complex. Gordon: That is correct. Rountree: Three Gordon: Counting Corona Village, the pizza place and White Water. (Inaudible) Gordon: I am just guessing a this but I would guess that the permit would allow them to be out in the open air which would- give them the primary proprietorship on the alcohol. It would be easier than walking around the corner and going inside the bars. (Inaudible) Gordon: That is parade day it won't make any difference. Bentley: So you are going to have a situation where liquor is going to be available, beer, one way or the other. Gordon: Yes sir. Corrie: Is there just one way in and one way out as far as your fencing is concerned. Or is he putting the fence on the north side and the east to west is opened? (Inaudible) Sorrel: We are going to tie a line from the east side of Bill-n-Lynns to the north side of the sidewalk. That way there are businesses that are there that are still open, Chicago Connection, Corona Village, the laundry mat, they are going to be open. We are only having a party from 7:00 to 11:00, immediately after the parade to 11:00 and then we are out of there. So that will all be roped off so people can park over there but mostly for those businesses. People can park down near the White Water, they will park at Albertson's and they will park at Payless. One of my concerns that I didn't really get to talk to the Chief much about is out here on First Street where the race way is people park all over there, there are two events going there, there is a race and they are selling beer and people walk anywhere and all across it. They J walk, we do want to try and monitor this because we do want to comply with the Chief here. • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 74 Rountree: Do you have available to you a group of volunteers that (inaudible) crowd control? Sorrell: Yes, there is a group from Bill-n-Lynns and there is a group from our office last year and I confirmed this with the Chief today. We had not one incident, we policed ourself, we were going to make sure that there is no trouble. We had all age, little kids and parents out there dancing together it was wonderful deal. We have had tons of people come up to us and say have this again, Meridian needs something like this. This is the first time they have had anything this fun in this long time. That is why we tied it in with Dairy Days this year. Just trying to promote ourselves and Meridian. Crookston: Excuse me, I am just trying to remember just exactly what happened last year, as I remember the (End of Tape) Sorrel: We filed a plat map, a lay out with the State liquor commission and ,this, Ted Hepper he signed this. This is what we had to present to the State Liquor Board and they said that was fine. Crookston: I just wondered because Sorrell: Well last year Ted Hepper did know because last year I did go and personally talk to him. Crookston: I don't think he knew when the request for the catering permit was requested. Sorrell: That might be true. He knew when the party was going to be so I would he knew both. This is something that we are trying to promote to have a Customer appreciation day and the biggest part our event is held during the day light hours. It is anon-profit thing for us we are throwing it for the people. We have advertised this and Bill-n-Lynns bar is a big sponsor of ours, there is a big cost to pick up on something that is given away that is free like this. So they have helped a lot, they have helped me pay for the band, they have rented a lot of equipment already as far as tables and chairs. We didn't have any problems last year so I don't see why we would have any this years. We are going to really police ourselves, I told the chief that we will set up a barrier or whatever he says, we could put the tape across there, we could put a fence across there. We even thought about getting crossing guards, hiring some teenagers to be crossing guards to make sure they helped shuttle people across Fairview. We are willing to work with you guys but we have gone to a great expense on our advertising and hiring a band and sending out our flyers and posters. (Inaudible) two days until the party. The add has been running since the 13th of this month. Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 75 (Inaudible) Sorrell: It was a great party last year and I think it is really good for Meridian too when we have such a response that this is the greatest thing that has happened to Meridian in ages they haven't had a street dance (inaudible). When you stop and think about you have the race way out here we aren't doing anything worse then they are. Although we are giving something away free. Corrie: I think the primary thing the Chief has problems with is where it it. You might want to work next year if you are going to have it a little ahead of time and where you plan on having it. Sorrell: I knew (inaudible) down to the dead line on this and I didn't mean to. But next year when we do have our annual Meridian Party we will be working with. the Chief a lot earlier. (Inaudible) Rountree: You are going to have a problem with or without the beer, right? (Inaudible) Rountree: I guess my question would be for counsel, what is the City's liability position? Since we don't permit the dance what is going to go on but we do permit an activity that could result in an accident associated with this? Crookston: The City has exposure not matter what we do, it just depends on what exposure is greater or less. It is within the discretion of the Council, there are certainly problems with it because of the traffic. Because it is Dairy Days that is the day of the parade, there are going to be a lot of people there. There likely is going to be a lot of vehicles there. Either just going from north to south, east to west. The exposure is there, this is a greater exposure than just having the dance, the City allowing a dance. We don't have anything that pertaining to having a dance outside, we don't allow alcohol generally to be served outside. I think that Paisano's now has, do they serve alcohol on the sidewalk don't they? Sorrell: Bolo's does too. Crookston: t don't know, that could very well be. I am just not familiar with that. Sorrell: I believe there are two restaurants that serve beer outside now. Crookston: It is just a matter of how much exposure the City has, the City has it if they Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 76 approve anything. Sorrell: I don't think the exposure is going to amount to more than (inaudible) Crookston: Well, a restaurant they cannot allow people to walk outside Sorrell: I understand that, but I saying the same person has a permit to sell it inside the doors what is the difference of 10 to 15 feet outside the door. Crookston: The possibility of losing your license. Sorrell: (Inaudible) Bentley: I myself would be inclined to go along with the Chief in denying this but I see a problem where you have four outlets for beer right there when the outdoor permit is denied they are just going to go inside and drag it and bring it out with them. I have to agree with the Mayor that we need a little better planning for the next time around, a little advanced notice a little more cooperation. Sorrell: Well we are trying to cooperate but some of it did get out of hand I will agree with that. But we were approved last year we didn't see a problem (inaudible) state approval we didn't see any problem that is when we started our expensive advertising, why we rented things, that is why we hired a good band. Because we did it last year, didn't have any trouble whatsoever. (Inaudible) Rountree: So last year you were granted a catering permit. Sorrell: Yes (inaudible) Rountree: A question for the chief, were there any alcohol related incidents reported? Gordon: No sir Sorrell: Like I told him we monitored it real good last year we didn't have any problems and were policing our ownselves (inaudible). Rountree: Well I guess my position based on the last response from the Chief I understand where he is coming from and I think he has to hold fast to it. I certainly see that there is potential exposure to the city by permitting the catering license. But if we have an • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 77 established mini-history that if it is not provided as has been mentioned we have at least 3 retail establishments that are going to serve it on site and across the street we have a major distributor that came come over in boat loads out of the back of cars or whatever and with probably more potential with problems with minors would be my concern. So I guess my position is to allow the catering permit. Corrie: Is the Council ready to make a motion? Bentley: Would that be the motion? Rountree: Well I am just offering that for discussion, I will offer that out as a motion that the Council allow the catering permit. Corrie: Motion has been made by Mr. Rountree, is there a second? Tolsma: Second Corrie: Second by Mr. Tolsma, any further discussion? Morrow: I think my only discussion would be is that I am going to vote in favor of this but only because there is no way of putting a stop to what is going on. My advise to you would be is next year you will eat your advertising if you make the same mistake. Sorrell: We will make sure that we are covered next year. Morrow: Just so we understand each other. Sorrell: (inaudible) fun to see them out there dancing together and having a good time. Corrie: But you understand the real problem of where it is and the traffic. Sorrell: I understand, we tried to have it in the park last year but there wasn't enough parking availability either according to the City. (Inaudible) Sorrell: Well that wasn't even a factor at the time when we tried to have it there wasn't enough parking. Corrie: Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 78 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea • Rountree: One suggestion I would have for you is that you do get your volunteers out there and you make sure that they are in orange reflective gear if they are out in the street. (Inaudible) Rountree: Your problem is crowd control and keeping (inaudible) (Discussion Inaudible) Gordon: The problem is the people, cars would just keep cars out people are still going to get around the cars. (Discussion Inaudible) Gordon: (Inaudible) special events ordinance, the way we are growing I don't think this is the last of the (inaudible) we have one for parades they are required to fill those out X number of days prior to. I think we need a special events, anything over 50 people or 100 people. Corrie: Do you have access to some ordinances? Gordon: I can round some up, I know Couer d'Alene has one and I know Post Falls and I know Boise has one. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council because it is so late I would just like to briefly touch on the two items I had there. The capital improvements plan, Mayor Corrie and I met with Paul Tishler 2 to 3 weeks ago. He is interested in working on our Capital Improvements Plan if we would elect to go out for proposals. I have also had someone else come in and visit me that is an economist that is also interested in doing that work. Both of them have seen what exists in our comprehensive plan. It is to say the least grossly inadequate for a Capital improvements plan. I think in order for our impact fee ordinance to proceed without being challenged not just the parks I am not just worried about the parks but everything, the sewer and water and everything that is involved with it. I am interested in it, I would love to do it but in between 30 and 40 phone calls a day I don't have time to even go to the bathroom most of the day. I would like to have that put on the agenda for the strategic planning if we have some space available for that. Morrow: I guess my question for you is do we want to have a discussion in terms of in the short term and short term in this case is probably the next 5 to 10 years we are not going Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 79 to have any in all probability won't have any impact fees for anything other than parks because there is simply ndt enough monies there. So what did you see the capital improvements plan that we currently have doing other than the park and recreation issue.? Stiles: The City is required to have a capital improvements plan for other items just besides what they have an impact fee for. Paul Tishler also brought up the fact that what we have been charging for sewer and water assessments may in fact be an impact fee and illegal. Morrow: Well sewer and water assessments that we are doing are done by the ordinance and the requirements of the ordinance. Crookston: Yes, (inaudible) Stiles: It is the way that they are being collected and the way it is structured that he thinks is a problem. Morrow: Well and the fact that they predate by literally dozens of years that the impact fee legislation has no bearing on this. Stiles: Predated? Morrow: We were charging sewer and water hook up fees and so on and so forth for tons of years before impact fees were authorized by the legislature. We haven't changed that procedure any have we? Stiles: No Morrow: Well it is certainly a topic for discussion that is what you are suggesting. Stiles: That is all I am suggesting. Corrie: He made some good points and I think (inaudible) Stiles: The next item that I have is voice mail. If I am not going to get any more help I have got to get something that I can get messages reliably and accurately and that people at least think that they are at least getting close to talking to me. This morning the minute I walked in the door there was somebody standing up there, somebody in my office, I had an appointment waiting and three phone calls being buzzed back to my office by 3 different people at the front desk. I returned, I call and get 3 at the same time. Jim was a big help in answering some of the calls when he was here but he is gone. It is going to be at least another month before I can get somebody on board. I think most of the other departments Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 80 would like to see the same thing and I think it would be good for the Councilman and the P & Z if they had a voice mail system where they could pick up their messages and not be constantly interrupted at their work. But I don't think there is one department head that wouldn't be able to use it and I would also like to bring that up again on the strategic planning meeting. Corrie: I might add that Will was checking the cost of that (inaudible) I agree that voice mail might be a good point, we still need it to the point where somebody answers the phone and says she is busy would you like her voice mail and they can do the message at that point. I still think we need somebody answering the phone at City Hall first. Morrow: I have to tell you guys based on my history government employees misuse voice mail worse than anybody I have ever been around, they hide behind it. The issue is that from my perspective and other people in my industry voice mail is our biggest enemy because we go sometimes 2 and 3 days before we get calls back and we will have repeated calls in. Basically what ends up happening with voice mail and the frustration is you can never even get to talk to a live person. What ends up happening is it becomes a screening mechanism for those who have got it. So, I think that very candidly in your case a large part of what we are going to be looking at in terms of budget time with respect to several departments I think that, I am committed to fund as this years priority positions within the infrastructure departments heavily, meaning the Treasurer's departments, Clerk's department, P & Z department, more in the Public Works Department. Very candidly so that you folks can do the jobs that you are supposed to be doing in a reasonable time and in a reasonable manner. It is, we can't even, the Chief's example of the ordinance thing, those things are tough to get accomplished simply because we are under crisis management all of the time in terms of our people and they simply don't have time to do it. We have talked about the zoning and development ordinance and the question that you brought up is very appropriate and Gary brought up, when did you want us to find time to do that. Well the reality is that any time left. So I think from my perspective I have to tell you Shari I have real jaundiced eye towards the phone answering system, the voice mail that you are talking about. It would have to be under the strictest of controls. But I am looking really favorably upon funding more folk. Now it is contingent upon the 5 of us to figure out how the heck to do it, where the heck to put the people and solve those problems. I think that we are capable of solving them and we will work very hard to start solving them in this budget year. That is as i see this issue. But there again in fairness as a topic for discussion and we can discuss it at the next Tuesday strategic planning meeting next Wednesday. We have several things that we are going to discuss but they are going to take a lot of time (inaudible) Stiles I will try to have more information available (inaudible) Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 81 Corrie: I understand where Walt is coming from but not everybody hides, a lot of them do. Stiles: I am hiding anyway, I have to hide. I have another item that I didn't have on the list there. Cesco is purchasing the property that is now the driving range. I have been real torn on what to require of them. They insist that it is a permitted use in that zone. When the Clark's annexed that property it was very specific what they were going to do, they came in for the zoning and said we are putting a driving range and RV park and it was very specific and the ordinance and the findings said that they would meet the representations made at the public hearing. Now they have an attorney working for them that says no way we are absolutely not going to do a conditional use permit but would be more than willing to come in with a site plan and let Council review it. They have a nice plan, I think it is a nice use, Cesco is the John Deer manufacturer, sales and service. They are being kicked out of Boise I guess and I know we have a site plan review. We can require a site plan review but the last time I sent a site plan review to P & Z I wasn't there and they looked at it and said well what do we have this for and they just did nothing. So, do you want me to have that go to Planning & Zoning Commission or do you want me to have it go to the Council for a site plan review? Morrow: What is the original zoning on the ground? Stiles: It is general commercial, it is a permitted use in C-G however all of the public hearings that we had they were very specific about what they were putting there. There is a development agreement in place and recorded for the property that says there will be a driving range there. It is more mixed up Corrie: They are going to get rid of the driving range and put this in there? Stiles: Yes, they are hoping that their sale of this lot will help them to make other improvements. Morrow: To what? Stiles: To the RV park, they want to put in a swimming pool and supposedly they do want to develop the miniature golf for bumper cars or something. Morrow: Let me ask you this, apparently when the property transfers and the use changes does all the development agreement and everything cease to exist? Stiles: No Morrow: Is it suppose to run with the land forever? l~ Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 82 Stiles: It runs with the land. Morrow: Forever? Stiles: Yes, unless it is amended. Morrow: If that is the case then that is ordered by the Council would not somebody with a new application have to do something other than a site plan review? Crookston: They would Stiles: Is that what you are telling me then. Corrie: (Inaudible) Crookston: That is probably very true, I believe that we can. (Inaudible) Stiles: I don't want to believe that we can, I want to know that we can. I have another attorney and he is insisting that no we are not going to. I think even if it is a permitted use in that zone I think that the people in the neighborhood deserve to have a public hearing and to be heard and to know what is going on and not just all of a sudden the driving range is gone and they are pulling in a bunch of tractors. Even though it is not going to be anything like Transport Truck and Trailer. (Inaudible) Stiles: I think they are down on Myrtle Morrow: No they are on Commerce, they are plum out of space is what the deal is. Stiles: Oh, they are taking that over for the airport, I think they are needing that for the airport expansion area. Morrow: No, they are sandwiches in between Hardware sales and service. As you are coming west you come to Georgia Pacific then Hardware Sales and Service and then Cesco and then who is on the (inaudible) west side of them. (Inaudible) Morrow: There is no more room Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 83 • Stiles: Another issue with that is they continue to think that they are going to be served by the sewer that went to the little shack even though they have been told repeatedly that is not the case and they think all they have to do is come in for a building permit and they are ready to go. They are planning on starting construction in August and be done in September with no sewer service. Morrow: Well with no sewer service you could probably make that schedule because you don't have to (inaudible). So it sounds to me like what you really need to do is have our attorney and their attorney and talk and discuss those issues. You need some support from Wayne C is what the deal is. Corrie: Just refer them to our attorney. (Inaudible) Stiles: Thank you Corrie: Bill, anything else? Wayne? Crookston: Do you want to deal with (inaudible) Corrie: Walt did you want to bring up those ordinances tonight? Morrow: Yes please. Crookston: I do have an additional comment on my meeting with Nampa and Meridian. And that was on the Fothergill License Agreement they are still very adamant that they did that agreement with Nampa and the City of Meridian did not get any kind of a different deal. However at the end, I got them into the point where there are things that are covered in the agreement where the City of Meridian should not be liable such as a Nampa Meridian worker is out there, let's say he has a weed eater and his compatriots with him and they forget where each other are and he turns around and takes the weed eater and slashes the guy in the head. Under their agreement the City is liable and they said point out these areas to us and we will look at them. If it is appropriate we may then agree with you. So I am going. to tell them exactly what I am talking about. They were very still even after that they were adamant that they need those indemnification clauses in there. I don't agree with all of them some of them are not too bad but they need to change those that I just suggested and they said we will look at it. The other thing I had was on the tiling of ditches, which I have already talked about. That is all I have. Morrow: So it is a stay tuned deal is what you are telling us? • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 84 Crookston: Yes Corrie: Walt? • Morrow: Several items, first on our strategic planning meeting, the issues we will discuss is we will have an update of where CH2M Hill and JUB are with the sewer and water fee stuff that will be coming from Gary, level pay notice. Idaho Power we are having a presentation from Richard Hahn is he still on Bob? Corrie: For the 25th, Tuesday, you were saying Wednesday here. Morrow: Not me, (Discussion Inaudible) Morrow: On last months meeting we had a deferral for one day because of the primary election to Wednesday. Corrie: Richard Hahn is scheduled for 7:45 on Tuesday the 25th. Berg: The meeting is scheduled for 6:30. Morrow: That is our starting time, he can come at 7:45, if you scheduled him at 7:45 we will honor that (inaudible). So we have the sewer and water we talked about that, Idaho Power, job descriptions we will get an update on that. We will talk about voice mail, the capital improvements plan, preliminary discussions with respect to City Hall and building space and staffing and talk a little bit about budget stuff in terms of those deals. That will take care of it. We will also begin some preliminary discussions in terms of talking about Council President and term limitation; Vice President, whether we want to do districts or not for Council people. In part of our discussion we should be talking about in terms of size. of City Half and size of City if and when we want to go to 6 Council people as opposed to four. Just general discussions, philosophical discussions along those lines as part of the overall package. Making what we have got going work better. I also saw in tonight's stuff that I had down here the Idaho Truss letter where we are at with that, I see that you had sent one to Idaho Truss in terms of thanking them for their help. Meridian, do we have a resolution on the Meridian Greens issue? Corrie: They are going to take it over, Bob called me and I called him excuse me and he said they are going to take it over. Morrow: As per the original agreement? • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 85 Corrie: Yes that is what he told me. Morrow: So then we are out of that loop. (Inaudible) Morrow: There was an issue in terms of a gal in the license plate division concerning withholding and being short that was brought to our attention some month or six weeks ago. Corrie: We are trying to get a handle on that (inaudible) we are going back to the computers. The IRS and (inaudible) hopefully since this is (inaudible) and get her an answer. It is just a matter of she has got to pay it. We don't know for sure if it was before January or after January that is what she is looking at now. So I would imagine (inaudible). Morrow: So that will cover those issues, the next issue is the two ordinances that we have been working on we will address the one with the Parks & Recreation Commission first, should be pretty much in final format now after two or three revisions and be in position to be adopted at this point. Corrie: Two or three revisions (inaudible) Morrow: Everybody take a minute to read through it and discuss it. Rountree: One question I would have is for Counsel is (inaudible) capital improvements fund would that money have to be included in the City budget or should (inaudible) Crookston: Yes Corrie: I guess I have a question, where is the advisory committee on this part of the commission and PAL? Morrow: Well essentially this particular, commission by virtue of design is (inaudible) are the designated seats and the general public and then that commission would have the capability of having somebody like PAL or the existing committee assign the function of doing whatever it is the commission desires or (inaudible) subject to the normal ratification procedures and Council approval (inaudible) as they see fit. Corrie: But the advisory committee was suppose to be part of this Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 86 Morrow: It would serve under this Commission. • Corrie: That is not what you said, you said they would be part of this Commission. Morrow: I said that they would serve under the Commission. Corrie: That is not what they are understanding. Morrow: They would serve under the Commission, the Commission would be the lead agency for parks and recreation within the City of Meridian in a development committee such as we have now would advise the Commission on future development of properties here. That would be one of the roles of the Commission not only to develop existing properties but also future stuff. The primary goal of this committee that exists now is looking at development of existing facilities it doesn't have anything at all to do with current facilities that we as tax payers own. Corrie: I think you are setting yourself up for a lot of problems, if you don't have a member of that on this committee. Morrow: Well a member of that particular committee can serve as one of the public at large seats. Rountree: Well currently the Chairman of that committee (inaudible) is already recognized. Morrow: And obviously if that is the case (inaudible) then they elect another Chairman for that committee. He may opt to serve on this commission on not on this other committee. The Meridian Athletic Association has a formal board of officers it would be up to them to submit who it was they wanted to be the designated member to fill the seat. (Inaudible) or any of the other seats. Bentley: Well I still have a problem with the capital improvements plan. Morrow: In what way? Bentley: The fact that (inaudible) premise of Meridian Parks and Recreation facilities as I said before we are still sitting here with this golf course that is not contributing back into the public and now we are going to turn around and fund more tax dollars into the golf course. Rountree: How do you figure? • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 87 Bentley: Just by what you state here, the purpose of the Meridian Parks and Recreation Capital improvements fund is to be used as follows, the third item listed is the improvement of Meridian Parks and recreational facilities which the golf course is one of. Morrow: The golf course is a facility owned by the City but it is leased to somebody else. You have to be aware that we may at some point in the future have the golf course back and need to use City funds. Bentley: I agree if we have it back I have no problem with it. Morrow: Or we may have a recreational junior golfer program through the City rec program (End of Tape) Parks and Recreation Department, the summer rec program and the director of that needs to buy 10 sets of golf clubs for those participants then that is where we budget the money from to do that. Corrie: Well item 3 you could excluding, excluding funds to go to the golf course. Bentley: The thing it says, improvement of, that to me means building improvements. Morrow: That would be everything from playground equipment to facilities to landscaping to whatever. Bentley: (Inaudible) golf course or until the lease gets set up (inaudible) tax payers start seeing some return back into the rec program that I can buy that. Morrow: Well I think that from a practical standpoint I guess the budgeting agency (inaudible) control and those funds (inaudible) mid year at some point totally unplanned and then have to deal with that issue and then have to change (inaudible) to try and be able to deal with it. What I am suggesting to you is that by the budgeting process you have every control over exactly what those funds from this revenue source (inaudible). Corrie: Can that be used to build a club house according to you? Morrow: Can be used to build a club house, I would never vote funds to build a club house by virtue of this. If you had the city golf course back and was operating it as a city entity and the Council at the time decided that they wanted to build a club house then they could do (inaudible) appropriate even impact fee funds could be used build a club house if that was the desire of the council in terms of the (inaudible). You could budget that way whether you had a commission or not. Corrie: I agree with Glenn I think it is a back door approach for the Cherry Lane Golf • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 88 Course to get money. Morrow: t understand what you are saying but Corrie: They are on the board. • Morrow: They are on the board because we own the asset we lease it them. We have them on the board because it is a leased asset and we want to use that facility for things like cross country skiing, junior golf programs, recreational programs in terms of we can get more use for the facility. Certainly the person that we have got that lease to or the corporation (inaudible) needs to be on board and participating to the extent o (inaudible) and having them included with what it is (inaudible) part of the City's recreational facilities even though it is a leased facility. I think the fact that it is leased make even more sense to be included within this commission so that you get the cooperation and the help that you want in terms of a well rounded parks and recreation program. Rountree: I think that issue (inaudible) read item C (inaudible) I know what my position is in terms of the golf course (inaudible) at least from my point of view public expenditures out of this fund (inaudible) But that still has to be identified (inaudible) Morrow: Our current capitol improvements plan doesn't foresee any funds expended at the golf course. (Discussion Inaudible) Morrow: The original lease calls for upon the completion of 18 holes annual payment of $6000 but that was supposed to have occurred in 1979. Corrie: Tell me again where this advisory committee is coming into this commission? Morrow: The advisory committee would report to this Commission with respect to their goal now of talking about new facilities. It could easily be that the chairman of the committee is one of those appointed to the public at large members or might be (inaudible) chosen to serve the public at large position. (Inaudible) Tolsma: (.Inaudible) (Discussion Inaudible) • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 89 Rountree: (Inaudible) Morrow: Charlie a body of that commission can easily be a subcommittee. Rountree: (Inaudible) (Discussion Inaudible) Corrie: Well why appoint why don't you just put one of them in there. Morrow: Because you may not want this committee to be a forever committee and the committee might have a finite task and a finite life which might be a year or so. Corrie: So does Western Ada Recreation, they might be out in a year, so could Cherry Lane Golf Course (inaudible) Morrow: (Inaudible) that they contribute to the thing. Obviously at some point in time (inaudible) does the City get the golf course back, unless it chooses to release (inaudible) Corrie: I just think a member of that committee should be part of that commission well I guess (inaudible) Morrow: (Inaudible) Corrie: (Inaudible) appointed and confirmed by this Commission now if they don't appoint anybody there then (inaudible) we confirm (inaudible) it doesn't say the Council is doing it. Morrow: This commission shall exist of nine members who shall receive no salary they shall be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council and members may in like manner be removed: One member shall be from the Meridian City parks and recreation commissioner who is a Meridian City Councilman, one member shall be a trustee of the Joint School District No. 2 Ada and Canyon County, one member shall be from Western Ada Recreation District, one member shall be from Meridian Athletic Association, one member shall be from Meridian Cherry Lane Golf Course, one member from Meridian Planning and Zoning, three additional members shall be appointed and confirmed by this Commission. All members of the Commission shall be residents of the (inaudible) point is that final confirmation (inaudible) City Council. Corrie: That is not what that says, it says the Mayor and Council will appoint nine members and then 3 other members will be appointed by that committee and confirmed by that • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 90 committee, that is what it says. Morrow: They are in the nine members though. Corrie: What is in the nine members? Morrow: The three open seats. Corrie: I know but they are appointed by the Commission, what if the Commission doesn't appoint an advisory committee member? Morrow: Then we don't approve that advisory member of the commission. Part of the reason with having City Councilman and on the committee is to offer that guidance and direction. What the Council, it goes on to say any action taken by the committee is advisory to the Council only. Corrie: I understand that, but why don't you just make a member of the advisory committee (inaudible) let the others appoint two, what I am saying is the Council should appoint a member of the advisory committee as a board member not the members of the Commission appointing or not appointing. The Council has not appointed, the Council appoints a members from the advisory committee (inaudible) and two members from the Commission. That way the Council has appointed a member of that group. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Morrow: If you are going to do that Ron why don't you just change it from the 3 members shall be appointed and confirmed by the City Council. Tolsma: But you have already said that right at the start, the nine members shall be appointed by the City Council. Bentley: I think that the language is a little bit confusing. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Morrow: Well essentially with the six named seats (inaudible) Tolsma: (Inaudible) Morrow: Well we have the six named seats we have three at large seats. To follow your line of thinking is that if you don't want the committee appointing the three at large seats ,-~ ,.~-~ ~ ~' Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 91 and then us confirming them the easiest way to deal with that is to say the City Council, the Mayor will appoint and the City Council will confirm the three at large seats. Rountree: And that may be the way to go (inaudible) Corrie: That is fine but you want to make sure that there is a member of that committee on that Council. Morrow: (Inaudible) Tolsma: (Inaudible) instead of the Commission. Morrow; And that is what I am suggesting to you. Corrie: So in other words nine members Morrow: There are nine members in total. Corrie: Okay, so the nine is there going to be seven appointed or nine appointed by the Mayor and Council? Morrow: No it is going to be, all nine are, the system works like this, the school district is going to send over a trustee and we are going to have Wally Hedrick be our representative and so we would appoint and confirm Wally Hedrick as their representative. Very similar or identical to what ACRD does with their Citizen's advisory committee. That would be true for those six seats that are asset holders. Then the three remaining seats would be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council as at large seats and that makes up the nine total. Corrie: So the three additional members will be appointed by the mayor and confirmed by the Council rather than the Commission? Morrow: Yes that is exactly correct. That would be as per the procedures that are in the State statutes with appointment and confirmation of members of boards and commissions. Bentley: So there would be a total of nine members on this commission? (Inaudible) Morrow: (Inaudible) the housing commission in Boise that is currently going through the troubles is that in #hat particular deal Ada County appoints somebody, Bone City has the Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 93 Corrie: This wasn't even on the agenda. Bentley: Have a finished product. Morrow: Well I don't know that, I think with respect to it being an agenda item it was discussed under department reports at the last Council meeting that we would be discussing it at this Council meeting. I think that what we are working on here is clearly housekeeping stuff. I don't know that I have an overwhelming feeling either way about it is not a Planning and Zoning document. It doesn't require that type of a reading. I don't have a strong emotion about doing that. I think I would just assume press ahead with the vote and see where we go. Corrie: There is a taxing statement in there, establishes the capital improvement fund (inaudible) taxing 1% six hundredths of a percent (inaudible) does the public want to look at it. Crookston: I don't believe that there is a requirement. Corrie: I am sure there may not be a requirement I am just curious. Morrow: What are your thoughts guys, we are in the discussion phase? Rountree: I guess my only hesitancy is confirmation that we won't have to do this again (inaudible) having to notice this and (inaudible). Crookston: I have to wake up to be able to analyze that. It is a very legitimate question Charlie. I quite frankly do not know the answer. I could go look in the statute books that Will has in his office. Rountree: (Inaudible) Corrie: I don't see anything in here that would require us to do it so quickly, I am not afraid of the public to see it. Morrow: I don't have any fears in that direction either. We just need to get something accomplished and get moving on down the road. Corrie: I think we got it accomplished. Morrow: Okay fine Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 94 (Discussion Inaudible) Morrow: I am withdrawing the motion and the reason that I am withdrawing the motion is that I am not prepared to sit here and wait for Wayne to confirm or not confirm his position with respect to looking through the deals. I guess where I want to go with this now is it is an item under old business on July 2 meeting and in the meantime he can give us the read out between then. It is a specific item by ordinance number at that meeting. There is no public hearing required in terms of this type of ordinance. But it would be adopted at an earlier hour and Wayne would have the answer (inaudible) it has already been noticed, it is noticed for the next meeting on the next agenda and if that was a requirement by virtue of publishing the agenda then so be it. So that solves all the problems. I am withdrawing the motion if you withdraw the second and my instructions to City Clerk. Rountree: I withdraw my second. Morrow: Instructions to City Clerk are to place it on July 2 agenda. Then that way we can have a fresh typed one that doesn't have an amendment to it (inaudible). The second ordinance that we have been talking about is with respect to housekeeping on the Council in terms of budget and audit functions. Has everybody read the proposed ordinance, probably not. Corrie: Basically speaking I don't have a lot of problems and I think that one of the areas that I would ask the Council to change is that on page 2 President of the City Council shall nominate City Councilmen, I think that should be Mayor shall nominate and approved by the City Council and confirmed. If that be the case unless the President of the City Council nominates himself to be the Commissioner in which case the President shall have no vote (inaudible) struck out if the Mayor is appointing (inaudible) Mayor appointing and City Council approving. Again on this page 3 it says the Council president shall assign another Councilman, that should be the Mayor rather than Council President. The, it should also be the duty on page 3 the duty of the Commissioner to sign purchase orders which is fine to assist his department and (inaudible) for ensuing fiscal year that is fine, to (inaudible) monthly basis as best he can, I think that is fine, to approve budgetary transfers within his department budget which is not in excess of $500 I disagree, I don't think that any Councilman should make a decision on his own, it should be made as the body of the Council not as a Councilman, the Mayor perhaps could do that with the approval of the Council. The limits, the money, that is fine, I just don't think that each Councilman should have that ability to do that. I think that should be a Council function and anything over should still be a Council function. Also, an item on page 4, H, to perform other such duties on behalf of the department (inaudible) authorized appropriated (inaudible) for that department, I don't think that should even be in there myself, it is just amini-management type thing. And again it says down there the Council President shall that should be the Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 95 Mayor shall on or before (Inaudible). That is the rest of it (inaudible) Wayne did you check on that as far as what Commissioner or Liaison or call them what you want (inaudible) Crookston: There is nothing in the statutes or the City code that deals with having this kind of a thing it is up to the Council to do it or not do it. I think that it is constitutional and legally valid. I don't think that the changes that you have suggested are a problem whatsoever if that is how you desire to do it. Morrow: I think the issue from the Council's standpoint in terms of this particular do you want to pass these down, this particular ordinance is that it is a housekeeping ordinance as to how we satisfy our statutory obligations. It doesn't fall under the normal boards, commissions or committees positions where you would have a Mayor appoint and a Council confirm. These are legislative issues that we are dealing with. We are making provisions in this document as to how we are going to run our affairs in terms of budgeting and auditing. I see that as a Council function. We are also taking the steps of rotating those positions at worse case scenario every two years most cases hopefully every year. Other issues that we will be dealing with forthcoming with respect to how we run our affairs and I will sponsor will be term limitations for the Council President to the extent that we will debate it and talk about. I am of the opinion that those things ought to be rotating within the Council. And that is strictly a Council function by vote of the Council. I see this as essentially clarifying how the Council is going to meet its statutory obligations with the respect to budgeting and auditing. I think that it is appropriate that it would be done within the Council with the Council President, ultimately we will do a Vice President, I think that makes a certain amount of sense and that is something we will debate about that also and discuss for future Council organization. Cowie: I guess what is your reasoning that President shall nominate rather than the Mayor shall nominate those positions? Morrow: Simply because it is a legislative function, it is Council, it is the Council governing itself. It is the Council assigning its duties to meet its obligations. I think the concept of Mayor and Council form of government when you have boards and commissions and committees that are instituted it is entirely appropriate for the Mayor to appoint and the Council to confirm or not confirm (inaudible). I think that on matters concerning the Council function that strictly a Council function ought to be done by the Council and the procedure for that in terms of statute is that we elect a Council President and that is a function that the Council President would serve. That is how I see that issue. Cowie: (Inaudible) acted as the Mayor when he was out of town or wasn't there, that is what I thought it was for. Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 96 Morrow: That is one Corrie: I guess why are you taking the nomination out of the Mayor's hands it has always been in the Mayor's hands all these years and suddenly I come in office and it is taken out of my hands and put in your hands? Morrow: No Corrie: That is what it is saying here. Morrow: No, it is not a personal issue at all Bob. Corrie: Well why don't you keep it as the Mayor shall nominate and the City Council shall approve, what is wrong with that? Morrow: Because I think it is time that what we do is we redefine the roles in steps for the next growth size. We need to commit and it makes good sense for us to have rules we operate by in terms of what the functions are and how they are filled. Corrie: I have no problems with the functions. Morrow: In terms of the Council I see that as a Council issue and the Council running its affairs. Corrie? And you don't think the Mayor should be involved in the budgeting plans (inaudible) Morrow: The Mayor is totally involved in that from the standpoint of the budget hearings and the day to day administrative issues before the City. This is an ordinance that simply defines how the Council is going to address those obligations that are unique to it, it is a legislative function. Bentley: I am going to have to disagree there, I agree the Council is supposed to legislate and do the policy making but the Mayor is also supposed to be the Chief administrator and I just don't see where this fits in. I agree that we have to over see these departments as far as the budgetary issues go and we need to make sure the funding are applied as it is supposed to be applied. I just don't want to see us get into the micro-managing business and I don't want to see us sit here and start playing the games that is going on down in Eagle it is not going to do us any good. I have no problem with if you want to call them Commissioners, Liaisons or whatever the hell we want to give ourselves for titles because there is nothing in a title anyway. The work is there to be done and I just think that we • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 97 • need to do it and work together to get through it. We have some tough things coming up and we are going to have to deal with them. I don't think that we need to be banging over this. With that I have said enough. Rountree: I am tired Morrow: (Inaudible) in terms of having it noticed for our next meeting and pressing forward so that we don't spend another 35 minutes talking around about what it is we may or may not want to do. We are getting no place because we are not going to act on it until the second anyway. Rountree: I don't have gross differences with what is in the proposed ordinances and there is some stuff in here that is different language than the previous version that I would like to think about. I would like to think about what Wayne has. provided us as well in terms of an analysis. I would like to do that before I stick my foot in my mouth any more at 2:00 in the morning. Corrie: (Inaudible) the ordinance will be on the agenda, this will be under department reports talk it over. Not as an ordinance number, we won't give it an ordinance number until we talk about it and set it up how we want to do it. Unless you want to do this in the public forum. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered by people here and I don't see that we are going to assign a number (inaudible). Unless that is what you are asking (inaudible) Morrow: What I am saying is that the other option is that we can discuss it at our, we can discuss these after we have read (inaudible) discuss it at our workshop. Corrie: I am not going to be at the workshop so I would just assume that you didn't (inaudible) without my input. That is entirely up to you but I think I should (inaudible) since I am the one being marked out of here is the way I look at it. I am going to have to approve the ordinance one way or another. Morrow: I don't think it is fair to say that you are being marked out Bob, I think the issue is Corrie: I do, I do, I think it is wrong that everything else the Mayor appoints and the City Council approves and all of the sudden the President is going to do it. Morrow: No everything else the Mayor appoints and the Council approves are boards, commissions and committees, this is none of the three of those. Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 98 Corrie: But I have just as much responsibility for (inaudible) as you do and we are going to lock heads and knock heads on this thing. We did as soon as I was elected we knocked heads in my ofFce about this damn thing. I told you at that point that I was not going to sit down and let you do that. Morrow: Do what? Corrie: Take me out of the picture. Morrow: No, nobody is taking anybody out of the picture. Corrie: Well that is what you told me you were going to do. Morrow: No you are personalizing an issue that is not to be personalized. Corrie: Well, you brought it up to me as it was, I am just relaying on what you told me. I think (inaudible) the Mayor was making these appointments and then suddenly he is not now. I think it is strange to me. (Inaudible) Rountree: I have one thing that is relevant or important to the St. Luke's deal, St. Luke's wants to work with us on this site use. They kind of got themselves in a bind with Capital Youth Soccer and after the initial exposure to the City apparently we didn't react fact enough they have entertained discussions with Capital Youth Soccer. What Gary Fletcher has asked me to do is to work with them and see what kinds of things they would like to see on this piece of property in terms of usability for primarily a two season sport for soccer. I sat with both St. Luke's and Capital Youth Soccer and St. Luke's they are ready to do it, they are going to do the development. They will level the ground and plant the grass they will buy the irrigation system. All they are asking the City of Meridian to do is maintain it, maintenance cost looks like it will be somewhere around $8000 a year. That was based on an estimated prepared by a landscape architect that has been working with St. Luke's and those are the contract amounts I suspect it might be less if the City moved the water pipe and did the mowing. But the soccer program would like the City to not dedicate but to allow them the use of the approximately half of this land which is just a little over 20 acres. Which would provide them four soccer fields that they would then have available for soccer problems on a two season basis. So they could schedule recreation soccer for Meridian kids, I don`t know all the levels of soccer but they even went so far as saying they would work with and help schedule PAL soccer, take that out of the hands of the recreation department so that wouldn't be a hassle for the City. They would stripe the fields and provide the goals for those fields and it would be something on the order of the 1~ J Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 99 right of first refusal. They would come to the City and we would have an annual agreement with them that this time period you have locked those up you can schedule the use of those areas for soccer programs. That is the spring and in the fall, you can do likewise. They are an impressive bunch they have a lot of volunteers they have a lot of energy, they have a lot of good information. They know how to handle turf in these areas and they know that they have to take activities off of some fields to rest and rehabilitate the conditions so they don't end up with hard packed clay. So they seem to know what they are doing. I did this discussion with them at the request of Gary Fletcher, he would like us to be able to work this out with Capital Youth Soccer they seem to be, they are not demanding they would just like to have this area available to them for their soccer seasons. (End of Tape) Optimist Football in the fall and could handle organized probably T-ball and PAL T-ball kind of activities in the Spring. St. Luke's does not want permanent facilities built out there, they don't want back stops they don't want fences. They want turf and allow field sports to take place out there and have the City manage the activities. They want to enter into either an easement with the City at no cost to the City. other than we would agree to maintain it or work out some kind of memorandum of understanding and agreement for use. That would take them out and we as the City and I discussed the parks and recreations commission with them and said that will probably be something happening in Meridian soon. And that the operation or scheduling of working with youth groups would be taken care of by the Commission and the groups identified with time slots or month slots or season slots or for those activities would go ahead then and schedule their team use of the facility. St. Luke's would like to know if the City is willing to take on the maintenance and budget for that. This would probably come on line no sooner than next Spring but I would anticipate more like next Fall. They want to get going on moving the dirt and plating the grass and getting some water on it probably late this summer. Morrow: Let me ask you a question here and I don't have any other concepts, do we have to worry about and are we not currently doing that same kind of proprietary use with the baseball diamond over here, who plays at this diamond in Story park, what baseball team is it? Rountree: American Legion Morrow: And they have the right of first refusal and I think at Fuller Park Rountree: Meridian Little League used to. Morrow: First right of refusal, so my question is with this, we have done that arrangement with the soccer groups are there any major turf wars going on with these folks that provide this or how do we stay out of those kinds of deals? Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 100 Rountree: We will be in them no matter what we take on because there is so much demand and so many people demanding that these areas be made available to them. Morrow: Is that a fact of life? Rountree: I think it is a fact of life whether we do this or we don't do it. It is probably going to be even worse because there is more demand on the schools, there is going to be more demand on Western Ada Rec's facilities and there is going to be more demand on our City park. Right now we have signs in the City park for people to keep off the soccer field because they have it re-seeded. It is not happening but there are signs over there. They are not playing soccer on it but they are playing T-ball on it. PAL and Capital Youth Soccer as near as I can tell have not been able to sit down and negotiate common interests and common use of areas. But they indicated to me that would be one of their goals. Morrow: With this parks and recreation commission that we are about to do could that commission not go a long ways towards helping solve or at least be a forum for these folks to come and discuss the issues. Rountree: I think it would be a forum and maybe a catalyst for more discussions to take place between these youth organizations. Corrie: There is also a factor of money involved in this thing too (inaudible) Morrow: What does that mean, you are talking to a guy that knows absolutely nothing about it. Corrie: PAL has some $30,000 now from the soccer program, they take that money and put it into fields and regrass and the whole bit. (Inaudible) Corrie: It is a big money thing, I am sad to say that is part of the problem that (inaudible) Rountree: Capital Youth Soccer has 3 full time people they have on staff full time professional coaches, you are talking some big money. Bentley: Then you get into what my daughter is going into is Treasure Valley Soccer each team has, each club has their own, they pay their coaches (inaudible) goes down to sign up in two weeks when she goes down to turn in the papers it costs $100 to start per child. And then they have fees that they have to pay to pay the coach which is probably another ~ • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 101 $150 in fundraisers to help them defer a lot of these costs. Morrow: Well I guess not to beat the thing to death Charlie but I would be totally supportive of us getting in that deal. What do we need to do for you? Rountree: I need at this point probably an agreement that St. Luke's wants to do a news release, they don't Martin Johncox to continue to call me and continue fo call them and ask them what the status is. They want to have their public relations people say we are going to do it we are going to press forth. I don't care about the publicity, Gary can do it all on his own. They are really tight lipped about the fact that they are going to do this in terms of providing the money to do the development. The really didn't want that (inaudible) Morrow: Do we need a motion to Rountree: It is going to be a commitment of resources in our next budget for our rec department to maintain it. It is going to be somewhere between $8000 and $10,000 bucks, probably need an estimate from the Parks Superintendent. Bentley: Is CYSO going to contribute (inaudible) Rountree: At this point that has not been discussed. They are going to contribute, they will survey the fields, they will line the fields, they will rotate use, they will schedule use, they will help schedule PAL and they will provide the goals for soccer. Corrie: (Inaudible) those two together and cut the cost in half. I think it is good I think we should do it. Rountree: I can broach the subject with (inaudible) Tolsma: (Inaudible) Rountree: I understand that, but the dollar amount that I was talking about is I think a reasonable estimate based on getting it done commercially. There are commercial people out there that can take care of this if we wanted to do that. I suppose we could make arrangements with St. Luke's to have them contract the services along with their additional services on their side. And we just pay them to do that and I think they would be open to that as well. Bentley: (Inaudible) Morrow: So what do you need us to do for you now tonight? Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 102 Rountree: I guess let me know that I can tell St. Luke's that it is a done deal that we need to sit down and get our legal folks together and craft an agreement for this use. (Inaudible) Rountree: Gary said that they would have, he would offer his legal counsel to craft an agreement if that is what you want me to do I will take that to him and say get us an agreement and we are ready to go we will maintain it. One other point, they continue to offer the availability of the BCDC building and parking area to the City. They have indicated that they can't give it to us they would be willing to sell it to the City at the appraised value or lease it to the City if the City had some use for it. It is the Breast Cancer Detection Center down on E: 1st, it is a nice building and parking area behind. I don't know that it has much value to the City but the offer still stands. Gary would like some kind of comment from the City. If the City is not interested he would like from the City some kind of direction as to what we would like to see there. He said if the City wants to say okay you sell it to a type of business then that is what they will market it as. Morrow: I think in the short term we had better jump on this chance because the issue is going to be that because we are going to have to add more staff obviously some department here is going to have to move off site because we don't get the license plate stuff for another year. But if we had four or five staff people this fall we can lease a building from them for not much and move the department from there. Bentley: I don't know if you are aware of this but the Sheriff's department is out beating the ground right now looking for a building to move the license department. Morrow: They are not obligated. Rountree: I don't think this building would serve that well, I don't think it would serve a lot of traffic. It is kind of difficult to get in and out of. The parking facility is great (inaudible) I think they would make us a heck of a deal on this. (Inaudible) Rountree: That the City is at least interested in exploring a lease agreement, I don't think we want to buy it. (Inaudible) Rountree: That is all I had. ~- • Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 103 Bentley: Have we thought anything more about some kind of professional help in getting these job descriptions and pay scales put together. Rountree: I think we ought to talk about that Tuesday. Bentley: Okay, I didn't know if that was part of that one (inaudible) Morrow: Well it is predicated on we are going to ask for that stuff then we will have a (inaudible) subcontracting it out because our people (inaudible) and make a decision and go from there. We have a long agenda (inaudible) Corrie: I have one thing, the City of Trees program, I need the Council's approval to continue with that program to become a City of Trees. We did plant a tree out here so what we need to do is, Rick, he said he would be happy to do that for us to take on that responsibility at no cost to get a forester and the whole bit and it is just a matter of filling out the paperwork. He didn't want to do that without the Council's and Mayor's approval that we want to be a City of Trees. Morrow: There is a solution to those liability issues, they suggested that we have no trees, we could cut them all down and then we wouldn't have the liability issue. Corrie: City of no trees, well I don't like that. He has the Mayor's approval. Rountree: I don't have any problems with being a City of Trees, we get those neat little signs coming into town. Bentley: Yes, so moved Rountree: US City of Trees Morrow: I don't have a problem with that is just an administrative deal, isn't it? Corrie: Let's, the application we may have to have Council's approval. So do I hear a motion for the City to approve being a City of Trees? Bentley: So moved Tolsma: Second Corrie: Moved and seconded, all those in favor? Opposed? • ~ Meridian City Council June 18, 1996 Page 104 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Bentley: I move we adjourn. Rountree: Second Corrie: All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 2:15 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE FOR THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: OR ROBERT D. CORRIE ATTEST: ,1+11111 t11lNA! jo `~ T~ 'o WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CI C RK = ~~ _ ~~ ~~~;~ \ A \1 :/` ~~ \ ~. ~.`• ``tea r~~f ,`~~~~ l i l~~ ~~ ~ +~ 1;1,`ti~~~~t ~ ~ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1996 - 7:3a P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JUNE 4,.1996: G~pprov~ 1. TABLED JUNE 4, 1996: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR THE LAKE AT CHERRY LANE NO. S BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: 2. TABLED JUNE 4, 1996: FI~AL PLAT: PACKARD SUBDIVISION NO. 1 BY PNEIEDMONDS CONSTRUCTION: ~.~e Gam.-T;t° ~T'~ ~f ! ~~ k f jaLC re~.r ~ 3. TABLED JUNE 4, 1996: REQUEST FOR HOOK UP TO SEWER AND WATER BY : G~-~ S~ C~~e-~Y a prove ~p I-~~iae~s~ f~-~~wafe-c. Sewer /~.aol~-uo 4. AMEND~D FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR OLSON BUSH SUBD VISION N0.2 BY R 2 DEVELOPMENT: a~Oprove ~~~'~~~~ Qom.-dew 5. ORDINANCE #731 - OLSON BUSH SUBDMSION N0.2 ANNEXATION; TABLED JUNE 4, 1996: ~~u ~T~~ ZN~ ` - reed ~~ ;~Y,~{ro~., ~v~,~y.~. 6. FINAL PLAT: TUMBLE CREEK SUBDMSION, WITH A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BYARNOLD STUBBLEFIELD: a~pprv~•- ~j~,~,Q~~-_~,~ ~ 7. FINAL PLAT: FOTHERGILL SUBDIVI510N N0.3 BY JOHN & SARA EWING: a~pr~v~e ~i3-~Q ~Qat as ~cbr~r~ed~ 8. PUBLIC HEARING: RECONSIDERATION OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 74 UNIT PUD FOR ASHFORD GLENS SUBDIVISION N0.2 BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION:. C~~f a.ffovkey ~ ~oc(.';{y ~~~ ~ etc 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VACATION OF A PORTION OF GEM S~ ~ GHT OF WAY BY WILD SHAM SOCK PARTNERSHIP: ~.Q'~fi~-~v ~~°~iE~O 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-15 TO C-C BY EVERETT S~ ROEN WILSON: Gp/~rove ~ ~r eh.c~eaL ~/~ f e ~L a~plove dPcl~i~ ~pprm~e ~2~-~tc..t~ ~73~ 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRE1-1MtNARY PLAT~FOR HONOR PARK N0.3 SUBDIVISION BY WILLIAM HON: ~t~nue p f h< u~L~ ~Tu.~y 2 K~ ~. . 12. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF AMENDING ORDINANCE #180, TITLE 3, CHAPTER 15, CAN SYSTEAA AND POSSIBLY ENACTING AN ORDINANCE FOR THE CABLE GOMMUNICATION FRANCHISc FEE: ~ j~ a~i~2,~e.~ z~°/~e~`r~-~ ~ d'"`en-dew u~ X180 • • 13. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SENIOR CITIZEN BOARDING, LODGING COMPLEX BY WAYNE ~ KAREN FORREY: C~'c t1 ~ r~~2 ~~~ Z ~J 14. REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF NON-DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR CHAMBERLAIN ESTATES N0. 1 PHASE 2: ~pruv~ ,r~2ec~re wi1-~ ~` ~~ ~~y Mgr-~r-,e~~s 15. REQUEST FOR HOOK UP TO SEWER BY CURTIS & TONYA GOSSAGE: ~~- f'~' w,rz/~ ~ ©~,y mss- _ ~~P~ ~~ 16. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR TR ASURE VALLEY WORSHIP CENTER: E?. ~: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: A. SHARI STILES, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: 1. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN: ' - 2. VOICE MAIL: CTTY OF MERIDIA PUB~C MEETING SIGN- SHEET NAME PHONE NUMBER ~6.~~ ~• ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~P ~ - low ~ l GvY~~. ~~c~,~~er .~~~ - coo I `~/r~~ ~L.CS ~l-4 - ~ -7 oc~ • • ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN R-2 DEVELOPMENT OLSON AND BUSH INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 2 ANNEXATION AND ZONING A PORTION OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 8, T. 3.N., R. 1.E., BOISE, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for consideration on June 4, 1996, and the City Council having considered this matter during the public hearing on May 7, 1996, Brad Miller, the Petitioners representative, appearing and testifying, and the Council having adopted and approved .the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Planning and Zoning Commission, but at the City Council meeting of June 4, 1996, the Council having requested amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the City Council presents the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Annexation and Zoning request was published for two ( 2 ) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled before the Planning and Zoning Commission for March 12, 1996; that notice of public hearing on the Annexation and Zoning request was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the public hearing scheduled before the City Council FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 1 ~ ~ on May 7, 1996; that the matter was duly considered by the City Council at the May 7, 1996 hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations; that the City Council, after the May 7, 1996 hearing adopted and approved the Findings of Faet and Conclusions of Law of the Planning and Zoning Commission; that the City Council reconsidered the Findings and Conclusions of the Planning and Zoning Commission at the June 4, 1996, meeting and requested amended Findings. 2. That the property included in the application for annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 14 acres in size; that the property is situated within the City of Meridian's Area of Impact and Urban Services Planning Area. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as RT rural Transition; that the Applicant requests I-L Light Industrial zoning for the property; that currently the property is being used as pasture land. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used for light industrial. That to the north is the Union Pacific Railroad and on the other side of the railroad is the Elixir Industries property which is a light industrial use; that to the west is pasture and the school district bus facility and to the south and. west is the light industrial use of YMC and Van Auker. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 2 5. That the property is now adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. That R-2 Development/Ronald Van Auker is the Applicant; that the Applicant does own the land and has consented to this annexation and zoning and the application is not at the request of the City of Meridian. 7. That the requested zoning of Light Industrial District (I-L) is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B. as follows: (I-L) Light Industrial: The purpose of the (I-L) Light Industrial District is to provide for light industrial development and opportunities for employment of Meridian citizens and area residents and reduce the need to commute to neighboring cities; to encourage the development of manufacturing and wholesale establishments which are clean, quiet and free of hazardous or objectionable elements, such as noise, odor, dust, smoke or glare and that are operated entirely or almost entirely within enclosed structures; to delineate areas best suited for industrial development because of location, topography, existing facilities and relationship to other land uses. This district must also be in such proximity to insure connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. Uses incompatible with light industry are not permitted, and strip development is prohibited. 8. That the Applicant's representative, Mr. David Roylance testified at the Planning and Zoning hearing, March 12, 1996; that this project it located north and west of the intersection of Franklin and Eagle Road; that to the north is the Union Pacific Railroad tracks; that the project contains 14.4 acres and has nine (9) lots; that the Applicant proposes central .sewer and central water and ACRD approved public streets. 9. That the Applicant's representative, Brad Miller, testified at the City Council hearing, May 7, 1996; that Mr. Miller FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 3 referred to a memo from Shari Stiles, City Planning Director, stating that there be a requirement for the conditional use procedure for each of the nine, (9 ) lots, not be made a requirement; that it is the preference of the Applicant that the buildings being built within the light industrial zoning being requested, not be subject to the conditional use permit process; that the requirement that sidewalks be on both sides of the street be waived and that the Applicant just put sidewalks on one (1) side of the street since it is an industrial development. 10. That comments were submitted by the Assistant to the City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, the Meridian Police and Fire Departments, the Ada County Street Name Committee, and the Central District Health Department, and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 11. That Bruce Freckleton submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property, to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605 M; that any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems with this project shall be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance except wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation; that a master street drainage plan be submitted, including the method of disposal & approval from the affected irrigation/drainage district; that a profile of the subsurface soil conditions shall be submitted to determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation and prepared by a soil FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 4 scientist with the street development plans; that a copy of the proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions be submitted for review; that 5 foot wide sidewalks be provided according to City Ordinance Section 11-9-606 B. ; that a letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names, be submitted making any necessary corrections to the preliminary Plat map prior to re-submittal to the City; that the fire hydrant placement, with the City of Meridian's Water Works Superintendent assistance, be coordinated; and that response in writing to each of the comments on the revised Preliminary Plat Map be made to the City Clerk's office prior to the scheduled hearing date. 12. That the specific site comments from the Assistant to the City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton were the following: a. That the legal description contained in the application for Annexation and Zoning describes more property than what is shown on the Preliminary Plat map, however the legal description submitted with the Preliminary Plat application, by Roylance & Associated and titled "Legal Description for R2 Development - Olson and Bush Industrial Park No. 2 Preliminary Plat - 14.39 Acre Tract" appears to describe what is shown on the Preliminary Plat; that if it is the intention to request Annexation and Zoning for more property than what is shown on the Preliminary Plat map, a new legal description must be prepared to include all the intended property including those portions of adjacent Rights-of-way and shall be prepared by a Registered Land Surveyor, Licensed by the State of Idaho, and shall conform to all provisions of the City of Meridian Resolution No. 158. b. Water service to this development shall be from an existing main installed along the westerly side of Eagle Road and all water mains shall be installed, at subdivider's expense and locations shall be coordinated through the Public Works Department. c. Sewer service to this development shall be from a main FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 5 that is currently being designed by Pacific Land Surveyor as part of the "Ronald W. Van Auker, Inc. - Sewer Project". d. When sewer and water mains are installed to service this subdivision, access to sewer and water will be directly adjacent to the twelve Lots in Olson and Bush Industrial Park No. 1, an Ada County Subdivision. e. Show, label and dimension, all existing easements and/or right-of-way within or adjacent to the subject parcel, i.e. "Union Pacific Railroad", "Evans Drain", "Snyder Lateral", and the 60 foot wide easement going to Franklin Road and any other easements of record. f. A 60 foot wide stub street needs to be extended toward Franklin Road, adjacent to the easterly subdivision boundary. This stub street would align with the existing 60 foot wide easement across the parcel south of this development. Sewer and water mains shall be extended to the south boundary of this development within the stub street. These mains shall be installed, at subdivider's expense and locations shall be coordinated through the Public Works Department. g. The location of the proposed sewer main exiting the development appears to be in error. Coordinate with Pacific Land Surveyors for the actual design location. A 20 foot wide common area Lot needs to be centered over the proposed sewer main between the right of way of Lanark Street and the north boundary of this development. Ownership and maintenance responsibility of the common area Lot shall remain with the owners association. A blanket easement shall be granted to the City of Meridian for the operation and maintenance of the sewer main. h. That 250 watt high pressure sodium street lights will be required at locations designated by the Meridian Public Works Department. All street lights shall be installed, at subdivider's expense; that typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. i. The length of the cul-de-sac exceeds the maximum allowed per City Ordinance; that no variances have been requested for the excessive length. j. That the treatment capacity of the City of Meridian's Wastewater Treatment Plant is currently being evaluated; that approval of this application needs to be contingent upon our ability to accept the additional sanitary sewage generated by this proposed development. 13. That Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 6 submitted comments and they include the following: a. All parking areas shall be landscaped and provided with underground sprinkler systems to meet the requirements of 11- 2-414.D. b. That a detailed site plan review will be required at the time of the building permit application; that this site plan review will ensure compliance with all City Ordinances. c. That the seven (7) lots in Olson Bush Subdivision No. 1, by owner Ron Yanke, should be annexed to the City of Meridian; that not having this entire area annexed along the frontage of Lanark Street can create problems for the Meridian Police Department, and any development of these additional lots should take place under the requirements of Meridian City Ordinance. d. Provide a 60 foot wide stub street to the south at the location of the existing 60 foot wide easement; that no additional access will be granted to the property south of this development from Eagle Road. e. Provide a letter of approval from the appropriate irrigation district(s) for tiling of existing laterals/drains. f. Provide permanent non-combustible fencing adjacent to Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way prior to obtaining building permits. No encroachment of this right-of-way is permitted. In addition, at minimum, temporary fencing to contain construction debris will be required for all development. g. Since the Applicant has indicated this is a commercial/industrial development but has requested Industrial Zoning, a conditional use permit application for a planned development shall be submitted and approved if it is to be considered as a mixed-use development. h. Sixty foot wide proposed Lanark Street should be readjusted to provide abetter transition from the existing 50 foot wide section. i. That streetlights are to be in place prior to obtaining building permits on any parcel. j. Applicant shall submit a revised preliminary plat incorporating required staff and agency changes and showing all existing easements a minimum of two (2) weeks prior to City Council hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 7 k. All sewer/water line locations should be located in public right-of-way or within a common lot. 14. There were property owners in the area of the proposed annexation that appeared and testified at the Planning and Zoning hearing on March 12, 1996, to make comments on the application and the following is a summary of their testimony: a. Guy Valentine testified, bringing visual aids to show his concerns regarding this development; that with respect to Olson Bush No. 1 development, there has been absolutely no screening and no landscaping done; that his concern is this will be the case with this application; that storage .yards not screened, parking lots not paved or screened; that representing some concerned citizens and residents in the area, they want their right protected to the same level of qualities or higher qualities that the environment affords; that this is a thriving area of community and single family residences and the residents would like to keep it that way; the visual pollution is degrading to the neighborhood and the community; that the protective covenants will not give the community the kind of assurances that must be given concerning the residents' vested rights; that written guarantees from the developers and owners committing this development to provide a clean, noise-free environment, free of pollution and hazardous elements which are objectionable to the residents and property owners that are directly affected. Mr. Valentine summarized in saying that the residents believe that the subdivision is arbitrarily or artificially laid out to avoid being adjacent to the Snyder Lateral and well as to avoid being adjacent to the seven single family dwellings between which a transition yard would be necessary for protection and beautification; that a buffer strip would help with the aesthetics of Franklin Road and Eagle road entryway corridors; that this Commission require Olson Bush No. 1 developer and owners to clean up and screen their junky development to demonstrate they deserve to expand before any other development applications are approved and to require conditional use permits for all the lots; that the residents, including himself, are not against developing the area. b. Brad Miller, representing R2 development, testified that the information presented by Mr. Valentine is about the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 8 M ~! Olson Bush No. 1 development, of which, R2 development had nothing to do with; that on the north side of Lanark, R2 development has a fine looking building and fine looking property; that R2 has other developments of equally fine looking character that Mr. Valentine would be proud to have in his backyard; that C C & R's have been submitted in this phase; that screened fencing will be provided in the construction areas or yards; that all parking areas will be paved, including the yard themselves; that every storage area which R2 has currently constructed, is paved, and that this development would be the same; that R2 development does not know who ultimately will move into the buildings being constructed in this project, but the anticipation is that the property will be subdivided, buildings built and leased out; that at some point the Applicant may sell one or two of the buildings, but keeping the area looking nice is would be an incentive since the Applicant is the property owner. c. That Bill Tonkin, testified, affirming the earlier testimony of Mr. Valentine; that the property owners that overlook this property, are merely reacting to something that has occurred and don't want to see it repeated. d. Carl Schnebly, offered testimony that he does not agree with this proposal as stated and reiterates that same expressions as that of Mr. Valentine. e. Dale Fletcher testified that he too, is in agreement with what Mr. Valentine had to say. f. That Mr. Oren Mayes testified, stating that some 30 odd years ago when most of the property along the rim. at Franklin was developed and subdivided, there was no question to whether this was going to be industrial in light of the railroad; that folks are complaining about an industrial park development taking place below them when they knew an industrial park was going to happen someday. 15. There was public testimony at the City Council hearing on May 7, 1996 and the following is a summary of that testimony: a. Guy Valentine testified that he would like the conditional use process enforced; that the residents in the area of this project would like some guarantees from the ,City in protecting their view; concerned with screening, storage areas and parking; also concerned with any future development of extending these lots and if so FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 9 what's to protect the residents; that he would like the full Snyder lateral to remain in the open; that Eagle Road is a designated entryway corridor and the area should be given some consideration. b. Dave Roylance testified that the conditional use permit process in an unnecessary burden; that within a certain zone there are principle permitted uses and that it is burdensome and unfair to the developer to make this requirement; that one protection to the City would be a development agreement which would require a staff level design review process as part of the building permit process; that the developer intends to the every ditch in the project. c. That Janette Fletcher testified regarding. the cleaning up of the garbage and getting that cleaned up and reiterated what Mr. Valentine testified to. 16. That Councilman Morrow commented that there are county uses within the Applicant's ground that are not zoned and annexed within the City and obviously subject to the conditional use process; that most everything west of Eagle Road is not subject to the conditional use process; that under our economic development goal statement policy that the City of Meridian shall make every effort to create a positive atmosphere which encourages industrial and commercial enterprise; that the policy of the City of Meridian is to set aside areas for commercial and industrial interest and activities to be harmonious with natural development and respect the needs or features of the area; that this can be accomplished by having covenants and restrictions within the subdivision; so from a practical standpoint he has a problem with with the conditional use process requirement. 17. That Shari Stiles commented that although the conditional use process is very cumbersome and time consuming, it does give the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 10 City more control; that in a light industrial zone there are recycling plants, solid waste transfer stations, any number of things that are not going to fit with what the neighbors think and that this kind of development is going to be there for a long time to come; that it is going to set a precedent and going to remain in that character for years and years; that there is nothing wring with requiring conditional use permits and expecting a little higher class than has been expected in the past. 18. That Councilman Tolsma made comments that the conditional use process has validity in that it allows the City Council to see what is going to happen to the development and that if the developer does not conform to the conditional uses, they are out of business. 19. After additional discussion between Councilmen Morrow, Tolsma and Rountree, a motion was made to accept the Planning and Zoning Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which was adopted on a three (3) to one (1) vote. 20. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer, but the sewer and water lines will have to be extended to the property by the Applicant. 21. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a substantial amount of growth; that there are pressures on land previously used. for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision, lots, commercial and industrial uses. 22. That the following pertinent statements are made in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 11 A. Under the LAND, GENERAL POLICIES, section commencing at page 22, it states: Encourage a balance of land uses to ensure that Meridian remains a desirable and self- sufficient community; and under the INDUSTRIAL POLICIES, it states in part as follows: 3.1 Industrial development within the urban service planning area should receive the highest priority.. 3.4 Industrial development should be encouraged to locate adjacent to existing industrial uses. 3.5 Industrial areas should be located within proximity to major utility, transportation and services facilities. 3.9 Industrial uses should be located where discharge water can be properly treated or pre-treated to eliminate adverse impacts upon the City sewer treatment facility and irrigated lands that receive industrial runoff. 3.10 Industrial uses should be located where adequate water supply and water pressure are available for fire protection. and under the Eastern-Eagle Road Light Industrial Review area is stated as follows: 3.15 The City of Meridian shall encourage the development of a Technological park and compatible light industrial uses within the proximity of the Idaho Foreign Trade Zone. 3.17 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to encourage and promote light industrial development in the Eastern Light Industrial Review Area. B. Under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Economic Development Goal Statement Policies, Page 19 1.1 The City of Meridian shall make every effort to create a positive atmosphere which encourages industrial and commercial enterprises to locate in Meridian. 1.2 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to set aside areas where commercial and industrial FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 12 interests and activities are to dominate. 1.3 The character, site improvements and type of new commercial or industrial developments should be harmonized with the natural environment and respect the unique needs and features of each area. 1.5 Strip industrial and commercial uses are not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 23. That the property is included near an area designated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as being in a Mixed/Planned Use Development area, but it is not shown as an orange Mixed/Planned Use Development area on the Generalized Land Use Map. 24. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in development that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and business and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in commercial and industrial development, is bringing in more population and is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population, and the housing for that population, does not FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT' PAGE 13 ~ ~ sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students; that the increase in commercial and industrial which might locate in this annexation would be helpful. 25. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City, may impose either a development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which, if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all lots in the City, because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 26. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows.: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10') wide." 27. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal street right of way or utility easement." 28. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows: "Existing natural features which add value to residential development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of the subdivision;" FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 14 ~ ~ 29. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi- improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and' natural value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and recreation facilities." 30. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: "Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. The Commission and Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments." 31. That 11-9-607 A, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in part as follows: "The City's policy is to encourage developers of land development and construction projects to utilize the provisions of this Section to achieve the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 15 L~ 1. A development pattern in accord with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 5. A more convenient pattern of commercial, residential and industrial uses as well as public services which support such uses." 32. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met; including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a legislative function. 3. That the City Council has judged these annexation, zoning and conditional use applications under Idaho Code, Section 50-222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, Meridian City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Council may take judicial notice of government FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 16 ~ ~ ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 6. That the land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant with the consent of the property owner, and is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon. the annexation of land. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983). 9. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways and 11-9-606 14., which requires pressurized irrigation. 10. That the Applicant's proposed use of the property is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 11. That the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its meeting on January 4, 1994, and has not amended the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan; thus, uses may be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 17 but the Zoning Ordinance may not address provisions for the stated uses; it is concluded that upon annexation, as conditions of annexation, the City may impose restrictions that are not otherwise contained in the current Zoning and Subdivision and Development Ordinances. 12. The Applicant has not stated or represented its intentions for development, which was of concern to the Planning and Zoning Commission and is also of concern to the City Council. 13. That it is concluded that the City. could annex the property and zone it as requested but the Applicant should be required to approve, adopt and record covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R) which set forth the requirements of the City as set forth in Conclusion 16 and enter into a development agreement in which the City should set forth the same development and buildings restrictions. 14. That it is concluded that since the Comprehensive Plan, under LAND USE, Mixed-Use Area at Eagle Road and Franklin Road, in 5.16U, states that all development requests will be subject to development review processing to insure neighborhood compatibility, that such limitation should apply to the Applicant and the land involved in this Application; that it is further concluded that such restrictions can, and should be, structured. and laid out in the CC&R's and the development agreement. It is therefore concluded that the annexation and development of the parcel of land should be subject to being de-annexed if the CC&R's and development agreement are not. entered into by the City and the Applicant. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 18 ~ ~ 15. Therefore, it is concluded that the property should be annexed and zoned Light Industrial (I-L), as requested in the Application, but shall be subject to de-annexation if the CC&R's and development agreement are not agreed upon and executed by the Applicant and the City. 16. That,- as a condition of annexation and the zoning the Applicant shall be required to meet all Ordinances of the City and specifically the below stated Ordinance requirements and shall also enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address, among other things, the following: 1. Inclusion into the development of the requirements of 11- 9-605 a. C, Pedestrian Walkways. b. G 1, Planting Strips. c. H, Public Sites and Open Spaces. d. K, Lineal Open Space Corridors. e. L, Pedestrian and Bike Path Ways. f. M, Piping of Ditches 2. Payment by the Applicant, or if ,required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, of any impact, development, or transfer fee, adopted by the City. 3. Addressing the subdivision access linkage, screening, buffering, transitional land uses, traffic study and recreation services. 4. An impact fee to help acquire a future school or park sites to serve the area. 5. An impact fee, or fees, for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city. 6. Appropriate berming and. landscaping. 7. Submission and approval of any required plats. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 19 • 8. Submission and approval of individual building, drainage, lighting, parking, and other development plans under the Planned Development guidelines. 9. Harmonizing and integrating the site improvements with , the existing development. 10. Establishing a landscaped setback area all along the properties southern border and plant trees that will grow to a height in excess of the twenty (20) feet, but not higher than forty (40) feet and which shall be not more than twenty-five ( 25 ) feet apart at the time of planting, shall be six (6) feet in height when planted, and an irrigation system shall be constructed, water and fertilizer supplied to the trees to allow adequate growth. 11. Addressing the comments from the City Staff,' applicable at the time of annexation and zoning or at the time of development. 12. The sewer and water requirements.. 13. Traffic plans and access into and out of any development. 14. Meeting all parking and paving ordinances. 15. And any other items deemed necessary by the City Staff, including design review of all development, and conditional use processing. 17. That Section 11-2-417 D of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance states in part as follows: "If property is annexed and zoned, the City may require or permit, as a condition of the zoning, that an owner or developer make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject property. If a commitment is required or permitted, it shall be recorded in the office of the Ada County Recorder and shall take effect upon the adoption of the ordinance annexing and zoning the property, or prior if agreed to by the owner of the parcel. ."; that the above section states that the development agreement shall take effect upon the adoption of the ordinance annexing and zoning the parcel, but no development agreement has been agreed on, or even discussed. The land could be subject to de-annexation if an FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 20 acceptable development agreement is not ultimately agreed upon. after the annexation ordinance is passed. It is concluded that the land should be annexed and zoned, but subject to de-annexation if a development agreement is not entered into. 18. That it is concluded that the annexing and zoning, of the property would be in the best interests of the City of Meridian, but it is concluded that the property may be de-annexed if appropriate development agreement and CC&R's are not entered and agreed upon and executed by the City and the Applicant. 19. That the requirements of the Meridian Police Department Meridian City Engineer's office, Ada County Highway District, Meridian Planning Director, Central District Health Department, and the applicable irrigation district, shall be met and shall be addressed in a development agreement. 20. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled, the property shall be subject to de-annexation. That pressurized irrigation shall be installed and constructed, and if not so done the property shall be subject to de-annexation. 21. That the Applicant shall be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer, at its expense, and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the development agreement entered into. 22. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the applicant and its assigns. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 21 • 23. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning as requested in the Application would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 24. That if these conditions of approval are not met, the property shall be de-annexed. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. 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 property set forth in the application should be approved for annexation and zoning under the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; that if the Applicant is not agreeable with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions and is not agreeable with entering into a development agreement and adopting covenants, conditions and restrictions, the property should not be annexed. MOTION: APPROVED• DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 22 ~ ~ BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ~~ R-2 DEVELOPMENT r`\ OLSON AND BUSH INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 2 ANNE%ATION AND ZONING A PORTION OF THE SE 1~/4 OF SECTION 8, T. 3.N., R. 1.E., BOISE, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The above entitled matter having come on for consideration on June 4, 1996, and the City Council having considered this matter during the public hearing on May 7, 1996, Brad Miller, the Petitioners representative, appearing and testifying, and the Council having adopted and approved the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Planning and Zoning Commission, but at the. City Council meeting of June 4, 1996, the Council having requested amended Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, and the City Council presents the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That a notice of a public hearing on the Annexation and Zoning request was published for two ( 2 ) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled before the Planning and Zoning Commission for March 12, 1996; that notice of public hearing on the Annexation and Zoning request was published for two ( 2 ) consecutive weeks prior to the public hearing scheduled before the City Council FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 1 • on May 7, 1996; that the matter was duly considered by the City Council at the May 7, 1996 hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence; that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations; that the City Council, after the May 7, 1996 hearing adopted and approved the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the Planning and Zoning Commission; that the City Council reconsidered the Findings and Conclusions of the Planning and Zoning Commission at the June 4, 1996, meeting and requested amended Findings. 2. That the property included in the application for annexation and zoning is described in the application, and by this reference is incorporated herein; that the property is approximately 14 acres in size; that the property is situated within the City of Meridian's Area of Impact and Urban Services Planning Area. 3. That the property is presently zoned by Ada County as RT rural Transition; that the Applicant requests I-L Light Industrial zoning for the property; that currently the property is being used as pasture land. 4. The general area surrounding the property is used for light industrial. That to the north is the Union Pacific Railroad and on the other side of the railroad is the .Elixir Industries property which is a light industrial use; that to the west is pasture and the school district bus facility; also in the area is the light industrial use of YMC and Van Auker. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 2 • 5. That the property is now adjacent and abutting to the present City limits. 6. That R-2 Development/Ronald Van Auker is the Applicant; that the Applicant does own the land and has consented to this annexation and zoning and the application is not at the request of the City of Meridian. 7. That the requested zoning of Light Industrial District (I-L) is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-2-408 B. as follows: (I-L) Light Industrial: The purpose of the (I-L) Light Industrial District is to provide for light industrial development and opportunities for employment of Meridian citizens and area residents and reduce the need to commute to neighboring cities; to encourage the development of manufacturing and wholesale establishments which are clean, quiet and free of hazardous or objectionable elements, such as noise, odor, dust, smoke or glare and that are operated entirely or almost entirely within enclosed structures; to delineate areas best suited for industrial development because of location, topography, existing facilities and relationship to other land uses. This district must also be in such proximity to insure connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of Meridian. Uses incompatible with light industry are not permitted, and strip development is prohibited. 8. That the Applicant's representative, Mr. David Roylance testified at the Planning and Zoning hearing, March 12, 1996; that this project it located north and west of the intersection of Franklin and Eagle Road; that to the north is the Union Pacific Railroad tracks; that the project contains 14.4 acres and has nine (9) lots; that the Applicant proposes central sewer and central water and ACHD approved public streets. 9. That the Applicant's representative, Brad Miller, testified at the City Council hearing, May 7,,1996; that Mr. Miller FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 3 s ~ referred to a memo from Shari Stiles, City Planning Director, stating that there be a requirement for the conditional use procedure for each of the nine ( 9 ) lots, not be made a requirement; that it is the preference of the Applicant that the buildings being built within the light industrial zoning being requested, not be subject to the conditional use permit process; that the requirement that sidewalks be on both sides of the street be waived and that the Applicant just put sidewalks on one (1) side of the street since it is an industrial development. 10. That comments were submitted by the Assistant to the City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, the Planning and Zoning Administrator, Shari Stiles, the Meridian Police and Fire Departments, the Ada County Street Name Committee, and the Central District Health Department, and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 11. That Bruce Freckleton submitted comments and they are incorporated herein as if set forth in full; that any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property, to be included in this project, shall be tiled per City Ordinance 11-9-605 M; that any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems with this project. shall be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance except wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation; that a master street drainage plan be submitted, including the method of disposal & approval from the affected irrigation/drainage district; that a profile of the subsurface soil conditions shall be submitted to determine the seasonal high groundwater elevation and prepared by a soil FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 4 ~ ~ scientist with the street development plans; that a copy of the proposed restrictive covenants and/or deed restrictions be submitted for review; that 5 foot wide sidewalks be provided according to City Ordinance Section 11-9-606 B. ; that a letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names, be submitted making any necessary corrections to the preliminary Plat map prior to re-submittal to the City; that the fire hydrant placement, with the City of Meridian's Water Works Superintendent assistance, be coordinated; and that response in writing to each of the comments on the revised Preliminary Plat Map be made to the City Clerk's office prior to the scheduled hearing date. 12. That the specific site comments from the Assistant to the City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton were the following: a. That the legal description contained in the application for Annexation and Zoning describes more property than what is shown on the Preliminary Plat map, however the legal description submitted with the Preliminary Plat application, by Roylance & Associated and titled "Legal Description for R2 Development - Olson and Bush Industrial Park No. 2 Preliminary Plat - 14.39 Acre Tract" appears to describe what is shown on the Preliminary Plat; that if it is the intention to request Annexation and Zoning for more property than what is shown on the Preliminary Plat map, a new legal description must be prepared to include all the intended property including those portions of adjacent Rights-of-way and shall be prepared by a Registered Land Surveyor, Licensed by the State of Idaho, and shall conform to all provisions of the City of Meridian Resolution No. 158. b. Water service to this development shall be from an existing main installed along the westerly side of Eagle Road and all water mains shall be installed, at subdivider's expense and locations shall be coordinated through the Public Works Department. c. Sewer service to this development shall be from a main FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 5 that is currently being designed by Pacific Land Surveyor as part of the "Ronald W. Van Auker, Inc. - Sewer Project". d. When sewer and water mains are installed to service this subdivision, access to sewer and water will be directly adjacent to the twelve Lots in Olson and Bush Industrial Park No. 1, an Ada County Subdivision. e. Show, label and dimension, all existing easements and/or right-of-way within or adjacent to the subject parcel, i.e. "Union Pacific Railroad", "Evans Drain", "Snyder Lateral", and the 60 foot wide easement going to Franklin Road and any other easements of record. f. A 60 foot wide stub street needs to be extended toward Franklin Road, adjacent to the easterly subdivision boundary. This stub street would align with the existing 60 foot wide easement across the parcel south of this development. Sewer and water mains shall be extended to the south boundary of this development within the stub street. These mains shall be installed, at subdivider's expense and locations shall be coordinated through the Public Works Department. g. The location of the proposed sewer main exiting the development appears to be in error. Coordinate with Pacific Land Surveyors for the actual design location. A 20 foot wide common area Lot needs to be centered over the proposed sewer main between the right of way of Lanark Street and the north boundary of this development. Ownership and maintenance responsibility of the common area Lot shall remain with the owners association. A blanket easement shall be granted to the City of Meridian for the operation and maintenance of the sewer main. h. That 250 watt high pressure sodium street lights will be required at locations designated by the Meridian Public Works. Department. All street lights shall be installed, at subdivider's expense; that typical locations .are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. i. The length of the cul-de-sac exceeds the maximum allowed per City Ordinance; that no variances have been requested for. the excessive length. j. That the treatment capacity of the City of Meridian's Wastewater Treatment Plant is currently being evaluated; that approval of this application needs to be contingent upon our ability to accept the additional sanitary sewage generated by this proposed development. 13. That Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 6 ~ ~ submitted comments and they include the following: a. All parking areas shall be landscaped and provided with underground sprinkler systems to meet the requirements of 11- 2-414.D. b. That a detailed site plan review will be required at the time of the building permit application; that this site plan review will ensure compliance with all City Ordinances. c. That the seven (7) lots in Olson Bush Subdivision No. 1, by owner Ron Yanke, should be annexed to the City of Meridian; that not having this entire area annexed along the frontage of Lanark Street can create problems for the Meridian Police Department, and any development of these additional lots should take place under the requirements of Meridian City Ordinance. d. Provide a 60 foot wide stub street to the south at the location of the existing 60 foot wide easement;. that no additional access will be granted to the property south of this development from Eagle Road. e. Provide a letter of approval from the appropriate irrigation district(s) for tiling of existing laterals/drains. f. Provide permanent non-combustible fencing adjacent to Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way prior to obtaining building permits. No encroachment of this right-of-way is permitted. In addition, at minimum, temporary fencing to contain construction debris will be required for all development. g. Since the Applicant has indicated this is a commercial/industrial development but has requested Industrial Zoning, a conditional use permit application for a planned development shall be submitted and approved if it is to be considered as a mixed-use development. h. Sixty foot wide proposed Lanark Street should be readjusted to provide a better transition from the existing 50 foot wide section. i. That streetlights are to be in place prior to obtaining building permits on any parcel. j. Applicant shall submit. a revised preliminary-,plat incorporating required staff and agency changes and showing. all existing easements a minimum of two ( 2 ) weeks prior to City Council hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 7 k. All sewer/water line locations should be located in public right-of-way or within a common lot. 14. There were property owners in the area of the proposed annexation that appeared and testified at the Planning and Zoning hearing on March 12, 1996, to make comments on the application and the following is a summary of their testimony: a. Guy Valentine testified, bringing visual aids to show his concerns regarding this development;, that with respect to Olson Bush No. 1 development, there has been absolutely no screening and no landscaping done; that his concern is this will be the case with this application; that storage yards not screened, parking lots not paved or screened; that representing some concerned citizens and residents in the area, they want their right protected to the same level of qualities or higher qualities that the environment affords; that this is a thriving area of community and single family residences and the residents would like to keep it that way; the visual pollution is degrading to the neighborhood and the community; that the protective covenants will not give the community the kind of assurances that must be given concerning the residents' vested rights; that written guarantees from the developers and owners committing this development to provide a clean, noise-free environment, free of. pollution and hazardous elements which are objectionable to the residents and property owners that are directly affected. Mr. Valentine summarized in saying that the residents believe that the subdivision is arbitrarily or artificially laid out to avoid being adjacent to the Snyder Lateral and well as to avoid being adjacent to the seven single family dwellings between which a transition yard would be necessary for protection and beautification; that a buffer strip would help with the aesthetics of Franklin Road and Eagle road entryway corridors; that this Commission require Olson Bush No. 1 developer and owners to clean up and screen their junky development to demonstrate they deserve to expand before any other development applications are approved and to require conditional use permits for all the .lots; that the residents, including himself, are not. against developing the area. b. Brad Miller, representing R2 development, testified that the information presented by Mr. Valentine is about the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 8 Olson Bush No. 1 development, of which, R2 development had nothing to do with; that on the north side of Lanark, R2 development has a fine looking building and fine looking property; that R2 has other developments of equally fine looking character that Mr. Valentine would be proud to have in his backyard; that C C & R's have been submitted in this phase; that screened fencing will be provided in the construction areas or yards; that all parking areas will be paved, including the yard themselves; that every storage area which R2 has currently constructed, is paved, and that this development would be the same; that R2 development does not know who ultimately will move into the buildings being constructed in this project, but the anticipation is that the property will be subdivided, buildings built and leased out; that at some point the Applicant may sell one or two of the buildings, but keeping the area looking nice is would be an incentive since the Applicant is the property owner. c. That Bill Tonkin, testified, affirming the earlier testimony of Mr. Valentine; that the property owners that overlook this property, are merely reacting to something that has occurred and don't want to see it repeated. d. Carl Schnebly, offered testimony that he does not agree with this proposal as stated and reiterates that same expressions as that of Mr. Valentine. e. Dale Fletcher testified that he too, is in agreement with what Mr. Valentine had to say. f. That Mr. Oren Mayes testified, stating that some 30 odd years ago when most of the property along the rim at Franklin was developed and subdivided, there was no question to whether this was going tb be industrial in light of the railroad; that folks are complaining about an industrial park development .taking place below them when they knew an industrial park was going to happen someday. 15. There was public testimony at the City Council hearing on May 7, 1996 and the following is a summary of that testimony: a. Guy Valentine testified that he would like the conditional use process enforced; that the residents in the area of this project would like some guarantees from the City in protecting their view; concerned with screening, storage areas and parking; also concerned with any future development of extending these lots and if so FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 9 • what's to protect the residents; that he would like the full Snyder lateral to remain in the open; that Eagle Road is a designated entryway corridor and the area should be given some consideration. b. Dave Roylance testified that the conditional use permit process in an unnecessary burden; that within a certain zone there are principle permitted uses and that it is burdensome and unfair to the developer to make this requirement; that one protection to the City would be a development agreement which would require a staff level design review process as part of the building permit process; that the developer intends to the every ditch in the project. c. That Janette Fletcher testified regarding the cleaning up of the garbage and getting that cleaned up and reiterated what Mr. Valentine testified to. 16. That Councilman Morrow commented that there are county uses within the Applicant's ground that are not zoned and annexed within the City and obviously subject to the conditional use process; that most everything west of Eagle Road is not subject to the conditional use process; that under our economic development goal statement policy that the City of Meridian shall make every effort to create a positive atmosphere which encourages industrial and commercial enterprise; that the policy of the City of Meridian is to set aside areas for commercial and industrial interest and activities to be harmonious with natural development and respect the needs or features of the area; that this can be accomplished by having covenants and restrictions within the subdivision; so from a practical standpoint he has a problem with the conditional use process requirement. 17. That Shari Stiles commented that although the conditional use process is very cumbersome and time consuming, it does give the FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 10 City more control; that in a light industrial zone there are recycling plants, solid waste transfer stations, any number of things that are not going to fit with what the neighbors think and that this kind of development is going to be there for a long time to come; that it is going to set a precedent and going to remain in that character for years and years; that there is nothing wring with requiring conditional use permits and expecting a little higher class than has been expected in the past. 18. That Councilman Tolsma made comments that the conditional use process has validity in that it allows the City Council to see what is going to happen to the development and that if the developer does not conform to the conditional uses, they are out of business. 19. After additional discussion between Councilmen Morrow, Tolsma and Rountree, a motion was made to accept the Planning and Zoning Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law which was adopted on a three (3) to one (1) vote. 20. That the property can be physically serviced with City water and sewer, but the sewer and water lines will have to be extended to the property by the Applicant. 21. That Meridian has, and is, experiencing a substantial amount of growth; that there are pressures on land previously used for agricultural uses to be developed into residential subdivision lots, commercial and industrial uses. 22. That the following pertinent statements are made in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 11 A. Under the LAND, GENERAL POLICIES, section commencing at page 22, it states: Encourage a balance of land uses to ensure that Meridian remains a desirable and self- sufficient community; and under the INDUSTRIAL POLICIES, it states in part as follows: 3.1 Industrial development within the urban service planning area should receive the highest priority. 3.4 Industrial development should be encouraged to locate adjacent to existing industrial uses. 3.5 Industrial areas should be located within proximity to major utility, transportation and services facilities. 3.9 Industrial uses should be located where discharge water can be properly treated or pre-treated to eliminate adverse impacts upon the City sewer treatment facility and irrigated lands that receive industrial runoff. 3.10 Industrial uses should be located where adequate water supply and water pressure are available for fire protection. and under the Eastern-Eagle Road Light Industrial Review area is stated as follows: 3.15 The City of Meridian shall encourage the development of a Technological park and compatible light industrial uses within the proximity of the Idaho Foreign Trade Zone. 3.17 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to encourage and promote light industrial development in the Eastern Light Industrial Review Area.' B. Under ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Economic Development Goal Statement Policies, Page 19 1.1 The City of Meridian shall make every effort to create a positive atmosphere which encourages industrial and commercial enterprises to locate in Meridian. 1.2 It is the policy of the City of Meridian to set aside areas where commercial and industrial FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 12 interests and activities are to dominate. 1.3 The character, site improvements and type of new commercial or industrial developments should be harmonized with the natural environment and respect the unique needs and features of each area. 1.5 Strip industrial and commercial uses are not in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 23. That the property is included near an area designated in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan as being in a Mixed/Planned Use Development area, but it is not shown as an orange Mixed/Planned Use Development area on the Generalized Land Use Map. 24. That in 1992 the Idaho State Legislature passed amendments to the Local Planning Act, which in 67-6513 Idaho Code, relating to subdivision ordinances, states as follows: "Each such ordinance may provide for mitigation of the effects of subdivision development on the ability of political subdivisions of the state, including school districts, to deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the subdivision."; that the City of Meridian is concerned with the increase in development that is occurring and with its impact on the City being able to provide fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services to its current residents and business and to those moving into the City; the City is also concerned that the increase in commercial and industrial development is bringing in more population and is burdening the schools of the Meridian School District which provide school service to current and future residents of the City; that the City knows that the increase in population, and the housing for that population, does not FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 13 sufficiently increase the tax base to offset the cost of providing fire, police, emergency health care, water, sewer, parks and recreation services; and the City knows that the increase in population does not provide sufficient tax base to provide for school services to current and future students; that the increase in commercial and industrial which might locate in this annexation would be helpful. 25. That pursuant to the instruction, guidance, and direction of the Idaho State Legislature, the City may impose either a development fee or a transfer fee on residential property, which, if possible, would be retroactive and apply to all lots in the City, because of the imperilment to the health, welfare, and safety of the citizens of the City of Meridian. 26. That Section 11-9-605 C states as follows: "Right-of-way for pedestrian walkways in the middle of long blocks may be required where necessary to obtain convenient pedestrian circulation to schools, parks or shopping areas; the pedestrian easement shall be at least ten feet (10') wide." 27. That Section 11-9-605 G 1. states as follows: "Planting strips shall be required to be placed next to incompatible features such as highways, railroads, commercial or industrial uses to screen the view from residential properties. Such screening shall be a minimum of twenty feet (20') wide, and shall not be a part of the normal .street right of way or utility easement." 28. That Section 11-9-605 H 2. states as follows: "Existing natural features which add value to residential development and enhance the attractiveness of the community (such as trees, watercourses, historic spots and similar irreplaceable amenities) shall be preserved in the design of the subdivision;" FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 14 29. That Section 11-9-605 K states as follows: "The extent and location of lands designed for linear open space corridors should be determined by natural features and, to lesser extent, by man-made features such as utility easements, transportation rights of way or water rights of way. Landscaping, screening or lineal open space corridors may be required for the protection of residential properties from adjacent arterial streets, waterways, railroad rights of way or other features. As improved areas (landscaped), semi- improved areas (a landscaped pathway only), or unimproved areas (left in a natural state), linear open space corridors serve: 1. To preserve openness; 2. To interconnect park and open space systems within rights of way for trails, walkways, bicycle ways; 3. To play a major role in conserving area scenic and natural value, especially waterways, drainages and natural habitat; 4. To buffer more intensive adjacent urban land uses; 5. To enhance local identification within the area due to the internal linkages; and 6. To link residential neighborhoods, park areas and' recreation facilities." 30. That Section 11-9-605 L states as follows: "Bicycle and pedestrian pathways shall be encouraged within new developments as part of the public right of way or as separate easements so that an alternate transportation system (which is distinct and separate from the automobile) can be provided throughout the City Urban Service Planning Area. 'The Commission and Council shall consider the Bicycle-Pedestrian Design Manual for Ada County (as prepared by Ada County Highway District) when reviewing bicycle and pedestrian pathway provisions within developments." 31. That 11-9-607 A, of the Subdivision Ordinance, states in part as follows: "The City's policy is to encourage developers of land development and construction projects to utilize the provisions of this Section to achieve the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 15 1. A development pattern in accord with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan; 5. A more convenient pattern of commercial, residential and industrial uses as well as public services which support such uses." 32. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Planning and Zoning ,Commission and City Council were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met; including the mailing of notice to .owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries. of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to annex land pursuant to 50-222, Idaho Code, and Section 11-2-417 of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that exercise of the City's annexation authority is a legislative function. 3. That the City Council has judged these annexation, zoning and conditional use applications under Idaho Code, Section 50-222, Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, Meridian City Ordinances, Meridian Comprehensive Plan, as amended, and the record submitted to it and things of which it can take judicial notice. 4. That all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Title 67, Chapter 65, Idaho Code, and the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been complied with. 5. That the Council may take judicial notice of government FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 16 • ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and State. 6. That the land within the proposed annexation is contiguous to the present City limits of the City of Meridian, and the annexation would not be a shoestring annexation. 7. That the annexation application has been initiated by the Applicant with the consent of the property owner, and is not upon the initiation of the City of Meridian. 8. That since the annexation and zoning of land is a legislative function, the City has authority to place conditions upon the annexation of land. Burt vs. The City of Idaho Falls, 105 Idaho 65, 665 P.D 1075 (1983). 9. That the development of annexed. land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, and Section 11-9-605 M., which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways and 11-9-606 14., which requires pressurized irrigation. 10. That the Applicant's proposed use of the property. is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, and therefore the annexation and zoning Application is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 11. That .the City adopted the Comprehensive Plan at its meeting on January 4, 1994, and has not amended the Zoning Ordinance to reflect the changes made in the Comprehensive Plan; thus, uses may be called for or allowed in the Comprehensive Plan FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW pAGE 17 R2 DEVELOPMENT but the Zoning Ordinance may not address provisions for the stated uses; it is concluded that upon annexation, as conditions of annexation, the City may impose restrictions that are not otherwise contained in the current Zoning and Subdivision and Development Ordinances. 12. The Applicant has not stated or represented its intentions for development, which was of concern to the Planning, and Zoning Commission and is also of concern to the City Council. 13. That it is concluded that the City could annex the property and zone it as requested but the Applicant should be required to approve, adopt and record covenants, conditions and restrictions (CC&R) which set forth the requirements of the City as set forth in Conclusion 16 and enter into a development agreement in which the City should set forth the same development and buildings restrictions. 14. That it is concluded that since the Comprehensive Plan, under LAND USE, Mixed-Use Area at Eagle Road and Franklin Road, in 5.16U, states that all development requests will be subject to development review and conditional use permit processing to insure neighborhood compatibility, that such limitation should apply to the Applicant and the land involved in this Application; that it is further concluded that such restrictions can, and should be, structured and laid out in the CC&R's and the development agreement. It is therefore concluded that the annexation and .development of the parcel of land should be subject to being de- annexed if the CC&R's and development agreement are not entered FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 18 • into by the City and the Applicant. 15. Therefore, it is concluded that the property should be annexed and zoned Light Industrial (I-L), as requested in the Application, but shall be subject to de-annexation if the development agreement and CC&R's are not agreed upon and executed by the Applicant and the City. 16. That, as a condition of annexation and the zoning the Applicant shall be required to meet all Ordinances of the City and specifically the below stated Ordinance requirements and shall also enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address, among other things, the following: 1. Inclusion into the development of the requirements of 11- 9-605 a. C, Pedestrian Walkways. b. G 1, Planting Strips. c. H, Public Sites and Open Spaces. d. K, Lineal Open Space Corridors. e. L, Pedestrian and Bike Path Ways. f. M, Piping of Ditches 2. Payment by the Applicant, or if required, any assigns, heirs, executors or personal representatives, of any impact, development, or transfer fee, adopted by the. City. 3. Addressing the subdivision access linkage, screening, buffering, transitional land uses, traffic study and. recreation services. 4. An impact fee to help acquire a future school or park sites to serve the area. 5. An impact fee, or fees, for park, police, and fire services as determined by the city. 6. Appropriate berming and landscaping. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 19 U 7. Submission and approval of any required plats. 8. Submission and approval of individual building, drainage, lighting, parking, and other development plans under the Planned Development guidelines. 9. Harmonizing and integrating the site improvements with the existing development. 10. Establishing a landscaped setback area all along the properties southern border and plant trees that will grow to a height in excess of the twenty (20) feet, but not higher than forty (40) feet and which shall be not more than twenty-five ( 25 ) feet apart at the time of planting, shall be six (6) feet in height when planted, and an irrigation system shall be constructed, water and fertilizer supplied to the trees to allow adequate growth. 11. Addressing the comments from the City Staff, applicable at the time of annexation and zoning or at the time of development. 12. The sewer and water requirements. 13. Traffic plans and access into and out of any development. 14. Meeting all parking and paving ordinances. 15. And any other items deemed necessary by the City Staff, including design review of all development, and conditional use processing. 17. That Section 11-2-417 D of the Meridian Zoning Ordinance states in part as follows: "If property is annexed and zoned, the City may require or permit, as a condition of the zoning, that an owner or developer make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject property. If a commitment is required or permitted, it shall be recorded in the office of the Ada County Recorder and shall take effect upon the adoption of the ordinance annexing and zoning the property, or prior if agreed to by the owner of the parcel. ."; that the above section states that the development agreement shall take effect upon the adoption of the ordinance annexing and zoning the parcel, but no development agreement has been agreed on, or FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 20 even discussed. The land could be subject to de-annexation if an acceptable development agreement is not ultimately agreed upon after the annexation ordinance is passed. It is concluded that the land should be annexed and zoned, but subject to de-annexation if a development agreement is not entered into. 18. That it is concluded that the annexing and zoning of the property would be in the best interests of the City of Meridian, but it is concluded that the property may be de-annexed if appropriate development agreement and CC&R's are not entered and agreed upon and executed by the City and the Applicant. 19. That the requirements of the Meridian Police Department Meridian City Engineer's office, Ada County Highway District, Meridian Planning Director, Central District Health Department, and the applicable irrigation district, shall be met and shall be addressed in a development agreement. 20. That all ditches, canals, and waterways shall be tiled as a condition of annexation and if not so tiled, the property shall be subject to de-annexation. That pressurized irrigation shall be installed and constructed, and if not so done the property shall be subject to de-annexation. 21. That the Applicant shall be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer, at its expense, and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land; that the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the development agreement entered into. 22. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT PAGE 21 • • the applicant and its assigns. 23. With compliance of the conditions contained herein, the annexation and zoning as requested in the Application would be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 24. That if these conditions of approval are not met, the property shall be de-annexed. APPROVAL OF FINDIN(i8 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN MORROW VOTED COUNCILMAN BENTLEY VOTED COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE VOTED COUNCILMAN TOLSMA VOTED MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION The Meridian City Council hereby decides that the property set forth in the application should be approved for annexation and zoning under the conditions set forth in these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; that if the Applicant is not agreeable with these Findings of Fact and Conclusions and is not agreeable with entering into a development agreement and adopting covenants, conditions and restrictions, the property should not be annexed. MOTION: APPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW R2 DEVELOPMENT DISAPPROVED: PAGE 22 ORDINANCE NO. 732 AN ORDINANCE OF-THE CITY; OF MERIDIAN AMENDING AND CHANGING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS THE SOUTH 1/2 OF LOT 16, 17, 18, 19 AND 20 IN BLOCK 1 OF AMENDED PLAT OF F.A. NOURSE'S THIRD ADDITION, .ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, FILED IN BOOR 7 OF PLATS AT PAGE 299, RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of said City to amend and change the zoning from R-15 to C-C, Community Business,. for the parcel described in Section 1 below: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho: .Section 1. That the aforementioned real property which is described as follows: The South 1/2 of Lot 16, 17 , 18, 19 and 20 in Block 1 of Amended Plat of F.A. Nourse's Third Addition, according to the Official Plat thereof, filed in Book 7 of Plats at Page 299, Records of Ada County, Idaho be, and the same is rezoned from R-15 Residential to CC Community Business District, and Section 11-2-425, Official Zoning Maps is hereby amended to reflect the same. This rezoning is subject to a~e~ded. the conditions referenced in the~Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as adopted by the Meridian Council on the request for rezone. Section 2. The Applicant shall pave parking and driveway areas and shall comply with all of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian including the Fire Code, Fire and Life Safety Code, and. the Uniform Building, Electrical, and Plumbing Codes, the Water and REZONE ORDINANCE - WLLSON Page 1 • Sewer Ordinances, and no signs shall be places or lighted such that the light shines in the eyes of drivers of vehicles traveling on East First Street. Section 3. That if Applicant shall fail to meet the above conditions the property shall be subject to rezone back to R-15. Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: There being an emergency, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval as required by law. PASSED by the City Council and approved by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this 18th day of June, 1996. ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, J - CITY CLERK REZONE ORDINANCE - WILSON Page 2 ~ ~ STATE OF IDAHO, County of Ada, ss. I, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of an Ordinance entitled "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING AND CHANGING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF MERIDIAN WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS THE SOUTH 1/2 OF LOT 16, 17, 18, 19 AND 20 IN BLOCK 1 OF AMENDED PLAT OF F.A. NOURSE'S THIRD ADDITION, ACCORDING TO THE OFFICIAL PLAT THEREOF, FILED IN BOOK 7 OF PLATS AT PAGE 299, RECORDS OF ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE."; passed as Ordinance No.732 , b the City Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the 1~~day of June, 1996, as the same appears in my office. DATED this ~~ day of June, 1 96. ity Clerk, City o M idian Ada County, Idaho STATE OF IDAHO, County of Ada, ss. On this ~ day of June, 1996, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. ,,,~e~eteteerrrs,,' SEAL = ~ ~~OT:~~ t_~~'~Ys~ ' y Public for Idaho _ ~ ~ - Res ding at Meridian, Id ho ~t A ~ B s ~C. a ~'~° ~ C fission Expires : O~ a,? :~ SP ~~ ,~ REZONE ORDINANCE - WILSON Page 3 t ,- , • 4• --J ~_~ _~__ ~ e ~ suB. .~ . . ~, ~. THIRD --______~ I '_i~P_WBER --- --- 1 ::~~ o a' s ~ ~ ~' __• .~ s • , ---L--~ f 4 1 . , ~ . ~, t ~ a~ a ~ i ~ ~ MILTON a J~~ ~ ~ SUBDNISIO a II . I S 'S p+D17LT10N • •. ~ i i ;o w,e , : , • . ; j , s • r f , ~ , C _A A t s • • s • t • • ~, • L_.1___L__11 h~17~ l'1 b~ - Le~1' Ifv~ 1't~ I g~ l q ~ `LO ~~ ! o~ THE -------- ------ A~)dt~ #~LAT of ------ F /1. Nou~.g ZNl~zp _---- --- --- ~__ L--H _E _J ~. _ ~ _ _-_ _VE -- -STATE- '_ -_- -AVE- - ------- ------------ ---------------- . 1 . . ru ~ AD - ! -- s , 4 . , • f 4 ~ , • ~ ~ ------------ -- - s ~,~,~ ----- ------- --- -- -- -----~ `---PULE ------ --- AVE--- i ~ ~~ Ra •, a. ~ W ~~ -- - ------ --------- --- 0~---------- - -,----- ------ - 'W, „ - -------~ err! 1 , ' ~ i ----- - ~ - - -------- -- IDA_HQ__ -AVE" n ,~ 4 s ~ o • • . , j 4 z ~ '° A D I ~„ - a ~ ~ ° • 1 PLA ~ i ~ .. . _ , S