Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCesco MinutesMeridian Planning & Zoning Commission October 8, 1996 Page 11 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT GENERAL BY WAYNE AND KAREN FORREY: Johnson: Any discussion, corrections or deletions concerning these findings of fact as prepared? Entertain a motion for approval. Borup: Mr. Chairman I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we approve the findings of fact as prepared, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup -Yea, Oslund -Absent, Shearer -Yea, MacCoy -Absent, Johnson -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: Recommendation to the City? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I recommend the Meridian Planning and Zoning hereby recommend to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Shearer: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we pass the recommendation onto the City as stated, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Johnson: This should be a good project for the City of Meridian Mr. Forrey. (Inaudible) ITEM #8: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A JOHN DEERE DEALERSHIP BY CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT SUPPLY Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission October S, 1996 Page 12 CO.: Johnson: Any discussion regarding the CESCO findings of fact and conclusions of law? Borup: I have none, I think they covered things pretty good on the concerns before (inaudible) sewer and water and it sounded like there are a lot of conditions that need, a lot of things need to happen. I have nothing else. Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning hereby adopt and approve these findings of fact and conclusions. Borup: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded we approve these findings of fact and conclusions of law, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup -Yea, Oslund -Absent, Shearer -Yea, MacCoy -Absent, Johnson -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Shearer: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommend to the City Council that they approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Specifically resolving the sufficient sewer and water service for all of the applicant's land included in this application. Borup: Second Johnson: Motion and second to pass the recommendation onto the City as read, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL US PERMIT FOR A THRIFT STORE AND FARMERS MARKET BY IDAHO YOUTH RANCH INC.: Johnson: Any comments gentlemen? Borup: Nothing specific on the findings and I think it probably can be handled, the same /U-!5- 4~ ITEM #13: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A JOHN DEERE DEALERSHIP BY CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT SUPPLY CO.: Corrie: Is there a representative of the Contractors Equipment Supply Co.? McCreedy: Mr. Mayor and Council members, John McCreedy representing CESCO. A brief overview of the proposal, CESCO would like to build a sales, service and parts dealership for a John Deere facility here in the City of Meridian. They are currently located in Boise where they have been since 1955. A very long standing company with a good history and a good reputation in the Boise area. They have to leave that facility because the airport in Boise is expanding and they need a new facility. They intend to expand the runway there. Their lease is up some time mid to late next year, I believe it is September of 1997. I think the Council probably knows some about this property, it is now known as what is called the playground property. It was annexed first in 1993, there was a development agreement that was signed with Mike and Sue Clarke at that time as the owners of the Playground Inc. There was an amended ordinance #615 in 1994 that changed the zoning on the property to C-G commercial general. A retail equipment dealer, rental and sales would be an allowed use under a C-G zoning here in the City of Meridian. This City Council did recently approve a final plat which subdivided the Playground Subdivision into 3 lots, this is lot 1 of that subdivision. It is currently a driving range. That is the use that is restricted under the development agreement with the Clark's. Last fall CESCO representatives started meeting the Clark's and City officials to determine the possibility of locating the facility here. The purchase was complete after many months of negotiations with the Clark's and the Playground just this last June we were informed by the City that they wanted a conditional use permit in order to accomplish two things one, to get the use in place, two, it was my understanding that was the procedure that would be needed to amend the existing development agreement that is on the property to allow an alternate use. CESCO has put together a very comprehensive development team. They have CSHQA as the architect, Wright Brothers as the builder, Jensen Belts is the landscaper, Hubble Engineering has done some of the engineering, J.J. Howard who is here to speak to the sewer issue has done some engineering on the sewer. The building for the site, we do have the landscape plan here, is approximately 24,000 to 25,000 square feet. You will notice it is setback quite a ways from Overland Road in excess of 200 feet to provide as much distance from the road as possible. The neighboring uses, I understand that lot 2 of the Playground Subdivision which would be located here is now up for sale by the Clark's. Lot one is the RV facility that they have. On the east side you have the Howell facility that was recently approved by the City Council that is a truck and tractor sales and service facility. The freeway, on this end, you might note from the staff report that the (End of Tape) equipment dealership, very extensive landscaping for the facility. There is bermed and raised landscaping along the freeway. I think they put a lot of time and detail into it. On the back side of this we have a little bit of a layout of the building and an example of what the sign would look like. Very low profile sign, very low wattage on the sign, Very attractive building, plenty of parking, 66 spaces, it is my understanding plenty of handicapped parking. It complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Screened trash receptacles for the facility. You may remember that there was a lot of testimony about the glaring lights on the driving range that you have heard over the last couple of years. That problem will be eliminated. The lighting that will be along the freeway will be low wattage, low intensity and the lights that are now on the driving range will be removed. The comp plan calls for mixed use in this area, I believe it complies with that requirement. The public hearing was held there was no written or oral testimony in opposition. I believe it is harmonious and appropriate for the area. You do have two other equipment dealers in the immediate vicinity, Arnold and Western States. Really just two outstanding issues that we have been wrestling a little bit with. One that I think is fairly easily resolved and that is do we need an amended development agreement, we have indicated to staff and to Mr. Crookston that we will do whatever the City wants on that issue of a development agreement. It is my opinion that since you have an existing development agreement out there and since it does restrict the use to the property an amended development agreement would be appropriate. t have put one together in a draft form after Shari's office sent me an example of a development agreement you have done with another facility. I have sent that to Mr. Crookston and hopefully get some comments from him and work that issue out prior to issuance of a building permit if this application is appropriate, I think the more sticky issue is sewer, it is my understanding and Mr. Howard can speak to this tonight that sewer is available for this facility. I did the negotiations for CESCO when we were buying the property from Playground. I can assure you and I did provide a copy of the agreement to staff that there is an easement in place for CESCO to connect to the existing sewer system that exists on Lot 2 and 3 of the Playground Subdivision. That easement allows us to connect to it, to increase the size if we need to, to move the location if we need to, so I think CESCO has full legal right and access to that sewer system. The question of capacity for that sewer line has been answered by Mr. Howard, I think you have a letter. I did fax over another copy of it again today to make sure you had an opportunity to look at that. It is his opinion that there is plenty of capacity and I think he does have quite a bit of familiarity with it as he was the engineer that worked on the project quite some time ago. I think the better issue or the issue that we have been wrestling a little bit with staff is the policy of allowing this facility to hook up outside the drainage area for the sewer facilities in that area. It is my understanding that the Five Mile Trunk Extension and the plans for that include connecting this piece of property to the Five Mile Trunk Extension. All be it the other two lots in the same subdivision are connected the other way to the City system. The question I think of whether that is an appropriate area to divide it but that is more of an engineering question. I do note that this is all one subdivision that is platted all as one subdivision now. It seems to make some sense that entire subdivision be connected to the same system. But I want to let you know that CESCO really doesn't have a lot of dispute with that, their proposal is that they be allowed to temporarily connect to that system. They have indicated several times that they will participate financially with the other existing and coming users to get that Five Mile Trunk Extension accomplished. We would like to try to look to a solution that gets that accomplished. I think if the facility gets approved and you have a good tax base and you have a very good long standing history with this company in Boise I think it hopefully will be the last time you have a land use application on this piece of property for at least a couple of years, maybe for quite a long time after that. I think also you get an owner in there that is willing to participate financially in the Five Mile Trunk Extension and that seems to be quite an advantage. I don't think they had the ability to pay for the entire thing themselves. But they certainly have the ability to pay as they should for their fair share. We have indicated that all along. So I think there are some advantages to approving the conditional use permit, allowing them to temporarily connect to the existing system that does have the capacity. And then given them some breathing room or some time to work with the other owners in the area to get that Five Mile Trunk Extension extended in compliance with the City Attorney's objectives. I did fax over a letter today, I am not criticizing, but I find a couple portions of the proposed findings and conclusions confusing on the sewer issue. On page 4, we have a couple of statements, one it does reflect our desire to temporarily hook to the existing system. And then it indicates that details for that arrangement need to be addressed in a development agreement and we agree with those two statements on page 4. We need the temporary hook up or basically we have no facility. At least not in the time that we need it in order to get moved out of Boise and into Meridian in compliance with some lawful leases. Second we do want to work out the details of that in an amended development agreement. However if you turn to page nine, and I am not arguing on a technical basis I am just concerned with what might be a later interpretation of these findings and conclusions. It is my opinion that they might be a tad bit ambiguous on the sewer issue. In paragraph 17, it says that it isn't know whether it is physically possible to sewer into the existing system. I think we do know that it is possible to do that. The next page on page 10 there is a phrase that says the City does not have a time table for the extension of the Five Mile Creek sewer line. So I think if one of the conditions of approval is that we connect to the Five Mile Creek sewer line I have some real concerns with that because if there is no time table for that happen then I don't think we have a facility that we can move into in time. So I really think the temporary hook up is absolutely essential for this facility. Then I think those are primarily comments and as Mr. Crookston explained earlier tonight they might not be the final say so. But what is the final say so is the conclusion on page 14 and 15 which would be 7 B, or actually excuse me, let me back up. Page 13 and 14 which would be 5 E on page 14, excuse me where it says the property does not have sufficient sewer service and the phrase that concerns me is and provisions for applicant at its cost to supply the necessary sewer service must be worked out as a condition of granting this conditional use permit. I guess it is that phrase provisions for applicant at its cost to supply the necessary sewer service. If the interpretation of that is the applicant has to pay to connect to the existing service then I don't need to say anything. more and I can go. But if the interpretation of that is that they have got to pay for the Five Mile Trunk extension then I think there are some real concerns there. So I think that language needs to be clarified. We need some guidance as to exactly what the City Council is looking for. Our request is that we be given that temporary hook up. I think maybe a reasonable proposal would be to set a time frame on the temporary hook up and then perhaps indicate that when that time runs out if an extension is necessary then so be it. But we are more than willing to include in the amended development agreement a statement that we will pay our fair share for the Five Mile Trunk Extension. So I would ask that even if we can tonight (inaudible) some language on that paragraph 5 E on page 14. Then on page 15, 7 B, I think that needs to be changed to read that applicant shall enter into an amended development agreement with the City prior to issuance of a building permit. That is 7 B on page 15. The language that is there that requires us to comply with the existing development agreement be taken out because I don't think we would be able to comply with that existing development agreement, it limits the use to a driving range. We are clearly contemplating something different. I think there is also substantial concern about that development agreement every being fully complied with in the first place. We kind of want to have a fresh start with a new amended development agreement and this company and opportunity to show you that it is serious about keeping its word on those things. I would certainly stand for any questions, I do have Bob Nemick who is a representative of CESCO, Mark Canfield couldn't make it tonight, he is the president of CESCO, he is actually up in Vancouver looking at some building designs to compliment what we have going here. Corrie: Questions from Council? Bentley: I have a question for staff, Gary, I would like to have your interpretation and views on the sewer issue. Smith: Okay, Mr. Mayor and Council members, some years ago we established, the City of Meridian established a policy that we tried very hard to contain sewer service in sewer service areas, drainage areas. We felt that we didn't want to get outside of a drainage area with sewer service because of possible future impacts on the sewer mains within a designated drainage area. For instance if we were pumping from one drainage area into another drainage and then a heavy use was proposed in the drainage area to which we were pumping we could have an impact on the capacity of the sewer line in that drainage area. So we pretty much stayed with a couple of exceptions I guess to keeping sewer drainage in or sewer service to specified drainage areas. I don't recall the date but when Dr. Clark was the owner of this property he came to me and asked for a letter of sewer service to Lot 1 which is the driving range. I did give him a letter stating to the effect that sewer service could be extended to a support facility for the driving range. Basically the intent of that was to provide a sewer line for the building that housed the driving range operation. And possibly a small concession stand perhaps. But my intent was not to authorize any sewer service beyond that type of flow. I don't doubt what Jim Howard has said, I haven't had a chance to look at it myself but I don't doubt that there is capacity in the line if it was extended. I don't have any record that it was extended across lot 1, that is something that I will have to check with our plumbing inspector because it was a service line it is not a public facility. It was built to serve the lot. But again we would be putting a use, a sewer use back into a different drainage area. The drainage area is delineated by the Hunter lateral as the high ground, that property to the east of the Hunter Lateral was destined to flow into the Five Mile Trunk Extension property to the west flows into the Nine Mile Trunk Extension. The R.V. park that exists out there flows into the Nine Mile because it is on the west side of the Hunter lateral. These sewer drainage areas are not defined by lines etched in stone. Obviously there are places that service can be provided outside of these magical drainage area lines. It depends on the use that is being proposed. The quantity of sewage that is going to be generated from that use and possible impact that it would have on the drainage area that it is going to be discharged into. I doubt very seriously that this use this particular use would be of that great of an impact. What Jim Howard is saying is that there is capacity in that line and as I mentioned I don'# discount that. I guess it is a policy thing that we have tried to maintain for several years. We need to be cognizant that when this happens if it happens that the property is or could be taken out of financially taken out of financially participating in the extension of a trunk line. This applicant has indicated that they would participate financially as far as their fair share, I don't know what that amounts to. It is a temporary connection and I agree there needs to be, if possible a time placed on that connection. I don't know if that is possible. Everybody gets fired up to extend a sewer line until it comes time to write a check. Then it becomes well you do it, I will just stand by and you do it and I will connect later. The school district as you know purchased 50 some acres from Gary Voigt and in order for that the property to develop as a high school site the sewer line is going to have to be extended under the interstate. When that happens I don't know, someone said within 5 years, within 3 years, I am not sure what their plans are, what their requirements are for a high school. But when the high school is needed that sewer line will have to be extended. There is another piece of property to the east of this piece that is being touted as a truck transport facility and there is a property to the east of that that for a long time has been interested in being developed as a residential subdivision. So there is a lot of property out there that needs the sewer or can use the sewer once the sewer is extended that property is going to be developed. It is not just a matter of connecting this property, it is a matter of getting this property getting sewer to this property once the sewer gets under the interstate. And I think there are some financial questions that need to be answered if this applicant is interested in participating financially, I think those dollars needed to be generated to see what that participation is going to be like. I don't want to see this property taken out of the picture in terms of participating financially because it is in the drainage area to the Five Mile Trunk. Bentley: Thank you, that is all I have. Corrie: Any other comments or questions from Council? Do you have anything further? R Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 10 ITEM #4: TABLED NOVEMBER 6, 1996: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A JOHN DEERE DEALERSHIP BY CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT SUPPLY CO.: Corrie: Council do you have that in front of you? Morrow: Mr. Mayor if we could, City Attorney Crookston handed us a revised findings upon coming to the meeting tonight, could you have him briefly or could we have him briefly explain the difference between that and the findings we had prior to this? Corrie: Mr. Crookston? Crookston: Certainly, Mr. Mayor and Council, these, the difference between what you had previously had is that this relates, the changes relate to basically an agreement that has been proposed to the Council in my discussions with the applicants Counsel John McCreedy and myself and Gary Smith who I informed of the representations that had been made by Mr. McCreedy. It relates to the sewer line coming across the freeway. That it was agreed subject to the Council's approval of course that there would be no requirement immediately that the sewer line be placed at this time. That they would connect to the existing sewer connection that is in the playground on lots 2 and 3. CESCO proposed to develop on lot one that they would have five years to try and do that. If they connected, if someone came across let's say just another third party or a 6, 7, 8 or 20th party decided to combine and get that sewer line across the freeway that they would connect to that line as soon as it came to them. If however that sewer line was not constructed by someone else in five years CESCO has indicated that they would place that line, put the line in. I have told them that it is an 18 inch line underneath the freeway then goes to a 15 inch line from the point where it ends on the south side of the freeway to where it connects to Overland Road. Then it would beaten inch line going west on Overland Road so they are informed of that. They have basically entered into an agreement that is certainly subject to the Council's approval. With that connection to the existing sewer line in the Playground that they could operate for up to five years after the time that they obtain their building permit. So it likely is longer than 5 years from today or whenever the proposal is agreed upon. We are still working out the development agreement. Mr. McCreedy and I have discussed it somewhat. So there are still some questions some minor questions that still need to be (inaudible) and agreed upon. Ultimately we would come back with the development agreement and ask the Council to approve that assuming that CESCO also signed that development agreement. The real difference is in that the original findings said that CESCO had to put the sewer line across the freeway from north to south and take it to their property. Morrow: Thank you, I have no further questions. something that I will have to check with our plumbing inspector because it was a service line it is not a public facility. It was built to serve the lot. But again we would be putting a use, a sewer use back into a different drainage area. The drainage area is delineated by the Hunter lateral as the high ground, that property to the east of the Hunter Lateral was destined to flow into the Five Mile Trunk Extension property to the west flows into the Nine Mile Trunk Extension. The R.V. park that exists out there flows into the Nine Mile because it is on the west side of the Hunter lateral. These sewer drainage areas are not defined by lines etched in stone. Obviously there are places that service can be provided outside of these magical drainage area lines. It depends on the use that is being proposed. The quantity of sewage that is going to be generated from that use and possible impact that it would have on the drainage area that it is going to be discharged into. I doubt very seriously that this use this particular use would be of that great of an impact. What Jim Howard is saying is that there is capacity in that line and as 1 mentioned I don't discount that. 1 guess it is a policy thing that we have tried to maintain for several years. We need to be cognizant that when this happens if it happens that the property is or could be taken out of financially taken out of financially participating in the extension of a trunk line. This applicant has indicated that they would participate financially as far as their fair share, I don't know what that amounts to. It is a temporary connection and I agree there needs to be, if possible a time placed on that connection: I don't know if that is possible. Everybody gets fired up to extend a sewer line until it comes time to write a check. Then it becomes well you do it, I will just stand by and you do it and I will connect later. The school district as you know purchased 50 some acres from Gary Voigt and in order for that the property to develop as a high school site the sewer line is going to have to be extended under the interstate. When that happens I don't know, someone said within 5 years, within 3 years, I am not sure what their plans are, what their requirements are for a high school. But when the high school is needed that sewer line will have to be extended. There is another piece of property to the east of this piece that is being touted as a truck transport facility and there is a property to the east of that that for a long time has been interested in being developed as a residential subdivision. So there is a lot of property out there that needs the sewer or can use the sewer once the sewer is extended that property is going to be developed. It is .not just a matter of connecting this property, it is a matter of getting this property getting sewer to this property once the sewer gets under the interstate. And I think there are some financial questions that need to be answered if this applicant is interested in participating financially, I think those dollars needed to be generated to see what that participation is going to be like. I don't want to see this property taken out of the picture in terms of participating financially because it is in the drainage area to the Five Mile Trunk. Bentley: Thank you, that is all I have. Corrie: Any other comments or questions from Council? Do you have anything further? McCreedy: I just want to add that if we need to start generating some proposed or potential numbers for the sewer line extension I think they would be willing to look at that. We tried to look at that and we got concerned about it being so vague that it is not possible to do that. I think if we can get a date that we can have a temporary hook up for a period of 3 or 5 years and then the right to extend that if necessary. And then during that time period I am sure the numbers will become more concrete but I just want to assure you that this company is willing to participate financially and pay their fair share for that and that seems to be the important thing. I don't know if Wayne and I can massage some language in the development agreement to accomplish those goals, we will do that. (Inaudible) Morrow: Mr. Mayor, if I might, as a comment towards the sewer coming under the freeway,, I think that we currently are beginning to deal with some modifications to our late comers agreement. Part of that has been motivated by development that has gone on. It is also a request by Mr. Roylance's office for some clarification with respect to I believe Mr. Howell's property and wanting to see some adjustments in how that latecomers agreement was being done. I guess the point of the observation is that there might be in Mr. Howell's case some pressure to do that crossing in the very near term because he does not have the capability of having temporary service. So (inaudible) benefit is that the City was the lead group with respect to the extension of the St. Luke's site and will not be the lead group with the extension of any trunk line to any place in the short term. So that is not an avenue that is available to this project or any other project. So, (inaudible) that would be my comments on the sewer issue. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I would have a question for Council, is the development agreement the place to address something like that given the condition to do that in the conditional use permit. It seems that we have a willing party but we don't have a time table or a dollar amount and yet have the ability to put them on line on a temporary basis. How do we best look at that from the City's standpoint? Crookston: Well the development agreement as Mr. McCreedy said it may or may not fit into what CESCO desires to do. We need to determine or I need to determine a recommendation for the City as to whether or not the City can even or should even work with that agreement or request that a new development agreement be entered into because we are talking about different parties. We are talking about the same land but we do have different parties. At this juncture I am not certain as to how that development agreement affects this applicant. The development agreements do state that they are binding upon the heirs, executors and administrators and assigns. That is something we need to consider. Any party if it is agreeable can amend an agreement even if they are bound by a different one. But I think that the financing of the sewer line could be addressed in a new development agreement. Corrie: (Inaudible) if you are bound by an agreement you can agree to have another agreement, (inaudible) Crookston: If two parties have an agreement that is binding upon both of them they can agree to change that agreement. Corrie: I was thinking a third party (inaudible) Crookston: I thought that is what I said, but it was clearer the second go around. McCreedy: (Inaudible) plus the limitation in the old agreement the property only be used for a driving range. Crookston: Why did I understand you and I don't him. Rountree: I have a question for you, you just indicated you wanted a new agreement but previously you indicated you wanted to enter into an amended agreement. McCreedy: And those are the same thing, an amended agreement is the same as a new one. It would just indicate that there (Inaudible) now know there has been an original and an amended. Morrow: Well for point of discussion here I am supportive of the project in terms of the temporary sewer hook up I think that is a do able deal and I think we qualify that with a 3 to 5 year time frame to allow this extension of the sewer service to come under the freeway. I think we also qualify it with setting the payment terms or conditions, some method to get to fair share which would be done through the City engineer's office in conjunction with the City Attorney. I think the last thing is that from my perspective amended or new doesn't make any difference it seems to me like there is a lot in this development agreement that needs to be changed. So that whatever you two wish to call it we get something that reflects what is really going to go on here. I don't have any dispute with Mr. Howards engineering expertise it is well known around the valley. So I agree with Gary Smith's acceptance of that. So those would be my thoughts with this project. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I too agree with the project concept and (inaudible) the sooner we get some commitments from people to do an extension maybe we can get some more of them on line and get the line moving. Corrie: Have we significantly answered your question on page 14, number E, the property does not have sufficient sewer service available (inaudible) for the applicant at its cost to supply sanitary sewer service, have we taken care of that for you? McCreedy: I think maybe the facts are that it does have sufficient sewer. Corrie: That is what I want to make sure that you are understanding that we are saying. The City Engineer says it is a possibility but we need to find out where the sewer line is. McCreedy: I think we know where the sewer line is (Inaudible) Morrow: Being as there are findings of fact and conclusions here and we are going to do things that reflect major changes in these findings of fact and conclusions I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare new findings of fact and conclusions. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion is made and seconded that we have the attorney draw up new findings o fact and conclusions of law based upon the testimony tonight, any discussion? Bentley: Yes, would that include the Morrow: The new findings would be inclusive of everything that we have discussed here this evening in terms of making the adjustments to the development agreement and the temporary sewer to everything else. So that appears to me to be the fastest way to get to the objective and the simplest way that we can get to where we need to be. Rountree: Sounds reasonable to me. Crookston: I have a question, just on the date, when you want those done. Morrow: By the next meeting. Crookston: As I said I am not going to be here on the 6th, I can do those before (inaudible). I think that we do have, because you are talking about the development agreement we are talking about some time. Rountree: Are we talking about redrafting the development agreement or just the findings and then entering into the development agreement. Crookston: The way I heard the motion it included changing everything. Morrow: The motion was to change the findings to reflect the issues that we are discussing here. Now the findings can state that we need to enter into a development agreement (inaudible). Crookston: I did not understand that. Morrow: My intent was to get the very first hurdle out of the way which was to clean up the findings of fact and conclusions to reflect all that we have discyssed (inaudible). Corrie: Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: Alt Yea Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 10 ITEM #4: TABLED NOVEMBER 6, 1996: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A JOHN DEERE DEALERSHIP BY CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT SUPPLY CO.: Corrie: Council do you have that in front of you? Morrow: Mr. Mayor if we could, City Attorney Crookston handed us a revised findings upon coming to the meeting tonight, could you have him briefly or could we have him briefly explain the difference between that and the findings we had prior to this? Corrie: Mr. Crookston? Crookston: Certainly, Mr. Mayor and Council, these, the difference between what you had previously had is that this relates, the changes relate to basically an agreement that has been proposed to the Council in my discussions with the applicants Counsel John McCreedy and myself and Gary Smith who I informed of the representations that had been made by Mr. McCreedy. It relates to the sewer line coming across the freeway. That it was agreed subject to the Council's approval of course that there would be no requirement immediately that the sewer line be placed at this time. That they would connect to the existing sewer connection that is in the playground on lots 2 and 3. CESCO proposed to develop on lot one that they would have five years to try and do that. If they connected, if someone came across let's say just another third party or a 6, 7, 8 or 20th party decided to combine and get that sewer line across the freeway that they would connect to that line as soon as it came to them. If however that sewer line was not constructed by someone else in five years CESCO has indicated that they would place that line, put the line in. I have told them that it is an 18 inch line underneath the freeway then goes to a 15 inch line from the point where it ends on the south side of the freeway to where it connects to Overland Road. Then it would beaten inch line going west on Overland Road so they are informed of that. They have basically entered into an agreement that is certainly subject to the Council's approval. With that connection to the existing sewer line in the Playground that they could operate for up to five years after the time that they obtain their building permit. So it likely is longer than 5 years from today or whenever the proposal is agreed upon. We are still working out the development agreement. Mr. McCreedy and I have discussed it somewhat. So there are still some questions some minor questions that still need to be (inaudible) and agreed upon. Ultimately we would come back with the development agreement and ask the Council to approve that assuming that CESCO also signed that development agreement. The real difference is in that the original findings said that CESCO had to put the sewer line across the freeway from north to south and take it to their property. Morrow: Thank you, I have no further questions. tr~ i 'f Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 11 Corrie: Any further questions of Council? Rountree: I believe one thing we talked about on this was that at the end of that time period as it was established that there may be an option to extend that as opposed to being a drop dead kind of clause. I don't have any problem with the way this is written, but I believe that was discussed with CESCO when they were here last. Crookston: I am song I am not understanding you. Rountree: Well in the end, in this case five years it says they will build the sewer line. I believe when we discussed it it was at the end of whatever time period we prescribed then there may be an allowance for that to be extended. Crookston: You are right Mr. Rountree, that was discussed, the five years came out basically as a proposal if I recall correctly in our discussion. I met with Mr. McCreedy and two representatives of CESCO on a week ago today and we discussed it and the five year period came out in that discussion, but you are correct. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we adopt the revised findings of fact as given to us today 11-19-96 for the CESCO Contractors Equipment Supply Company. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma that we accept the adopted revised findings of fact and conclusions of law, any further discussion? Crookston: I just have a point, as I am sure you noticed these findings I delivered tonight do adopt the Planning and Zoning Commissions findings, so these are not the only thing you are dealing with. Corrie: Any further discussion? Roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow: Mr. Mayor, the Meridian City Council of the City of Meridian hereby decides that the conditional use permit for the property set forth in the application should be approved under the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law. Those of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. If the applicant is not agreeable to these findings of fact and conclusions and those of the Commission and is not agreeable into Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 12 entering in a new and amended development agreement the conditional use permit shall not be approved. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded on the decision, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: TABLED NOVEMBER 6, 1996: REQUEST APPROVAL FOR PROPOSED MERIDIAN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH: Corrie: Is there anybody here from the Presbyterian Church tonight? Berg: I had a conversation with Paul Hoffman and he verbally requested that this be dropped from the agenda. They are seeking several options one of them including an annexation route. But at this time he doesn't feel there are any more things he needs to address the Council with. He didn't have time to give me a letter, fax me a letter today but he said he would follow up with that so it doesn't drag on. He requested that it be withdrawn from the agenda. Morrow: I guess my question would be is what else could we do for those folk. We have had a preliminary discussion with them as to what the requirements would be and so on and so forth. I would suggest that we or would move that we drop the item from the agenda and subject that motion to receipt of a letter from Mr. Hoffman requesting us to do so. Bentley: Second Cowie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley to drop the request of approval from the agenda and request a letter from the representative that the Presbyterian Church is requesting to do so, any further discussion? Rountree: Mr. Mayor, as a point of guidance or direction to staff, I would suggest that the City of Meridian through staff track this application. If it ends up in Ada County Planning and Zoning and Ada County's action and (inaudible) city requirements are incorporated in their plan. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I think I would like to amend the motion to incorporate Mr. Rountree's statement. Would that be agreeable to the second? ^~ Meridian City Council November 19, 1996 Page 13 Bentley: Yes Come: Okay, the motion has been amended to incorporate Mr. Rountree's comments to staff, (Inaudible) any other discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: FINAL PLAT: BRIDGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS BY BOISE VALLEY CONSTRUCTION: Morrow: Mr. Mayor, is there someone here representing Bridgewood Condominiums? Eddy: Charles Eddy with Pacific Land Surveyors. Morrow: Mr. Eddy, I have a question, in our packet there is a letter dated November 15 from Bruce Freckleton and Shari Stiles with comments regarding the final plat, are you in receipt of that letter? Eddy: Yes, we received the letter and responded November 18 to Shari. Morrow: You are in agreement with all of the comments and conditions that were addressed by both Shari and Bruce? Eddy: Yes we are (End of Tape) Cowie: I guess I have one for the Counselor, have you read the CC&R's yet or did you just get them, Mr. Crookston? Crookston: Quite frankly I haven't seen them but I probably have them. Cowie: Any further questions for Mr. Eddy? Rountree: I have a question for staff? (Inaudible) response to the November 18 letter, are the responses satisfactory? Freckleton: Yes Councilman Rountree, I don't have any problem with the response, the only thing I wanted to make sure of was that legal counsel has a chance to review the declarations. Meridian City Council April 1, 1997 Page 3 list there you can see that the community is making this happen. I also am pleased to officially hand you a pledge form and I do look forward to having you join us the day of this event and celebrating our current and future park projects. Thank you very much for your time and the proclamation. Morrow. Mr. Mayor I would like to recommend that we give a big hand to all of the members of the committee and all of the corporate sponsors and company sponsors they have all done a heck of a fine job for us and it is a great event. I would urge all of you that are here for other reasons to support this issue also when it comes time to do this. Corrie: Also at this time I would like to recognize we have a couple scouts here from Troop #130 and welcome fellows we appreciate you being here tonight. ITEM #1: TABLED MARCH 4, 1997: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Corrie: Mr. Crookston you have some information on that. Crookston: The information that I have is that the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and the City still have some items to work out and it is not a done deal yet. Morrow: That being the case Mr. Mayor I would suggest that we table this until probably the first meeting in May which would be May 6. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that we table this to the first meeting in May which is May 6th, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: Council with your permission the City Attorney as requested that we put item #16 up further the request on Cesco Agreement. So if the Council has no objection we can move that to the second spot. ITEM #16: CESCO LATE COMERS AGREEMENT: Corrie: Is there a representative from Cesco here this evening? McCreedy: Thank you Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, John McCreedy representing CESCO. We have been trying to hammer out what is now called the partial amended development agreement for this property. You may recall we had a principal Meridian City Council April 1, 1997 Page 4 issue of the Five Mile Trunk Sewer extension when we were doing the conditional use permit application on that. My client CESCO agreed to participate in the construction of that extension if it wasn't constructed by another party either with or without CESCO within the next five years. And the City Attorney and I have been hammering out the language on that. We have one issue that remains and that is should the Five Mile Trunk Extension if it has to be constructed by CESCO be extended to CESCO's eastern or western boundary. Now I did submit a letter to you earlier today short two page letter and I provided copies to Mr. Berg earlier this evening so I was hoping that you might have a chance to just briefly review that issue. In light of that I would like to take a very short couple of minutes and give you some background. First t have a document that I would like to pass out if I might. What it is, basically is our version of what the Five Mile Trunk Sewer extension should be. I understand City policy is that the developer or City property owner should extend the sewer line to the farthest point in the boundary. Fully agree with that, when the next person down the line doesn't have sewer and it needs to continue to run in a logical fashion. I think the exception that should be made in this case is basically a factual one. You may remember and be familiar with the Playground property. Lot 2 of the Playground property already has adequate sewer service. You heard some testimony when we were doing the conditional use permit to that effect from Mr. Howard. He is here again tonight and I would ask that he have just a few minutes to kind of briefly recap that issue and briefly explain to you how CESCO is going to hook up temporarily to that sewer service for five years. So our position is that it doesn't' make a tremendous amount of sense to extend the, if the Five Mile Trunk Sewer Extension has to be built to extend it to the CESCO western boundary. Because the only property that could be served by that is Lot 2 of the Playground Subdivision which is owned by the Playground and they already have adequate sewer service. In fact I would like to hand to you a copy of a couple of pages from the development agreement that was entered into between the Clark's Playground and the City and in that development agreement the Playground agreed to provide their own sewer service. In fact they agreed at that time to provide sewer service to the lot that we eventually bought but that never came about. There was never sewer service provided to that lot. But they did provide in compliance with that agreement, I have highlighted the relevant provisions of that for you. Their agreement to provide sewer service to their own property. So we don't think it makes much sense to impose upon CESCO the economic burden of ripping up the extensive landscaping that they are going to put in here in the next few months and running a sewer line approximately 400 to 465 feet to the west to serve a piece of property that already has adequate sewer. Our goal tonight is not to have this thing extended for another couple of months to do this issue. In that regard I have brought original partial amended development agreements that I would like to give to the City Attorney and I have attached to this as exhibit B the issue that we are debating tonight. That is the diagram that I provided you earlier. We are ready to go, we are ready to sign, we have signed in fact this agreement and my client's signature has been notarized. We are hoping that you will see an exception here for that general policy. It doesn't seem to make a tremendous amount of sense to impose and it is approximately $30,000 in today's figures to run that line to the western boundary of Meridian City Council April 1, 1997 Page 5 CESCO's property. I would stand for any questions that you might have and if not turn it over to Mr. Howard for a very brief (Inaudible). Corrie: Thank you Howard: My name is Jim Howard with JJ Howard Engineering. If you have any questions, any location, size, depth of manhole whatever that I can, any of the engineering questions. I have a little, should I place this on the board over there in case you want to refer to it (Inaudible). This is the CESCO property and this is the Playground area (Inaudible) portion that now presently has sewer. (Inaudible) The rest of this is gravity flowing over to Locust Grove. Here is CESCO, this the line they are building a 2 inch pressure main into a manhole and then gravity all the way over here. So all of this gravity line (Inaudible) presently being served by a sewer that ranges in a depth of 5 feet here to probably 8 to 9 feet here. That is the kind of schematic (inaudible) to a point (inaudible). Crookston: Mr. Howard, I understood you to indicate that they were extending the sewer along their southern boundary? Howard: (Inaudible) and then they would (Inaudible) and run this way with it (Inaudible) Crookston: That is what my understanding was from my discussion with John McCreedy was that they wanted to stop the sewer at their eastern boundary. Howard: (Inaudible) Here is a gravity line that runs all the way (inaudible) Morrow. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Howard, if it can be shown in the event that the sewer line that is currently proposed to terminate at the eastern boundary went to the western boundary what would the approximate elevation be when it got to the western boundary? Howard: I can't speak to that because that is a design (inaudible) perhaps your City Engineer would know better than I (inaudible). Morrow: What you are suggesting to us then is currently in order for this line to be serviced off of the gravity flow line the elevation is not sufficient that it will gravity flow it is an elevation issue where it has to be a pressure line to get into that gravity flow line. Howard: At one time we thought that it would serve gravity but this is so much more than (inaudible) that most, efficient cost (inaudible) Morrow: Thank you Corrie: Any further questions Meridian City Council April 1, 1997 Page 6 Bentley: I have one, in the event that proposed sewer line does come up, you say if you can gravity feed then you will abandon that line? Howard: Yes (inaudible) Crookston: Excuse me Mr. Mayor and Council I would like to have Gary Smith make a comment on this. Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, the extension of the sewer line in Overland Road was not only intended to sewer property on the north side but it was also intended to sewer property on the south side of Overland. As the applicant has pointed out the property on the north side Lot #2 of the Playground Subdivision is apparently sewerable by the existing private sewer service line that runs through the RV park. We don't know at this point what the status of the ground to the south is going to be. At one time as you know it was proposed as a subdivision, since that time 50 some acres I believe has been sold to the school district the Meridian school district for a high school site. The frontage remains in the ownership of the original property owner or developer. I don't believe that there is any problem with elevation on the sewer line as far as extension in Overland Road. The ground slopes from the Hunter Lateral which crosses Overland Road west of CESCO's site. It slopes to the east downward. So I believe where the line is brought under the Interstate and south to Overland Road will have sufficient depth to extend to the west across the front of CESCO and indeed pick up CESCO's sewage. The reason that the applicant is here before you tonight is that the policy that we have established in the past to extend the sewer and or water along the frontages of properties that develop. Their request was contrary to that policy that is the reason I asked Wayne to have them come and talk to you. Crookston: Mr. Mayor and Councilmen, it is actually more than a policy it is an ordinance that requires that for the person that puts in the line to extend it to their farthest boundary from the point in which the sewer and or water it is the same policy in both the water and the sewer. They are to extend it to their farthest point from which it enters. (Inaudible) McCreedy: We understand the ordinance and we understand the policy we are asking for an exception to that and there are two principle reasons for that. One, I think you see that CESCO has made a commitment to approximately a $300,000 expenditure. If in fact they can't get that thing constructed in cooperation with some other parties over the next five years obviously there are some land owners on the south side of Overland that are going to need to be consulted about that including the school district. We are aware that there are some agreements and some plans already in place where there is some money dedicated by the school district. So we hope to solve that problem through some good communication and negotiation. What our principal point is we have made a pretty serious commitment of $300,000 to take it to at least the eastern boundary our or Meridian City Council April 1, 1997 Page 7 property. We did that commitment because we believed in having a facility in the City of Meridian. We had an argument that we could have made about a year and a half ago that we were entitled to a building permit instead of a conditional use permit and an amended development agreement. I think from my client's standpoint I have to express to you that they believe that they have done enough. They are looking for a little reasonableness and a little compromise from the City Council in that regard. That is quite an expenditure and quite a commitment that they are making. If the property owners on the south side of the property that would have the ability and the financial where with all to come and negotiate and get the sewer line from the eastem point I think they are more than able to do that and more than willing to do that. I also understand that their driveway is going to line up with our driveway which is on the eastern side of the facility. So I question why they would want to come across Overland Road at the western side of the facility to get that particular line. Although I recognize the status of their site plans and the approval of their plats is a little bit in flux. It is not exactly clear where they are going to need to do it. What our point is we have made a serious commitment, we think we have done enough and we are asking for some reasonableness and some compromise on the City Council's part, that in short is our request. Morrow. I have a question of Gary, with respect to the Playground the way that it was originally approved the sewer line that the Playground was to put in was also to and through their property was it not? Did they in fact do that? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, Councilman Morrow, the, as far as I know the agreement with the Playground was that Lot 1, the driving range which CESCO has purchased was not sewerable by gravity. As you know it is in a different drainage area it is in the Five Mile Drainage area. When the property owner before CESCO, Dr. Clark came to me one day and asked if they could extend their private sewer line to that lot #1 for a facilities building for the driving range, the ball shack in other words or a place that may dispense soft drinks and that sort of thing. I wrote a letter to him and said yes you could if it was physically possible to do that. The reason that I limited that service was because it is in a different drainage area. There was no prospects at that point that the Five Mile trunk line was going to be extended in the near future and that was the reason that I wrote the letter. But I don't believe that the Clark's the developers of the Playground Subdivision were required to extend sewer through there because it just physically wasn't possible. The ground elevations would not permit it, the ground is sloping from the Hunter Lateral to the east, the sewer is sloping from, it is adverse grade you might say. As Jim Howard pointed out, its present elevation it pokes out of the ground it is just not deep enough to serve that lot. Morrow. My question then would be is the ordinance that Attorney Crookston refers to does it have a provision within that ordinance that allows us not to require them to sewer to and through their property even though it doesn't meet the grade requirements or the drainage requirements. Is there provision that allows us to have that exception and have them not extend that sewer? Meridian City Council April 1, 1997 Page 8 Smith: I can't speak to it Councilman Morro don't know if there is a provision for a waiver you. ~ -_.. w, I don't know that it does or doesn't. I or not, without looking at it I couldn't tell Crookston: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Morrow, the only provision that the City has to really get around that requirement is through a variance. Morrow. Did ~ give them a variance from that requirement, the Playground? Crookston: Not to my knowledge. Morrow. Mr. Mayor, a follow up question for Gary, the Voigt property that is across the street from this particular parcel. That property by and large flows to the east is that correct? Smith: Yes I believe it does Morrow: They have an obligation also with respect to the sewer line or the extension of the sewer line to serve their property do they not? Smith: Yes Morrow. And in this case would that obligation be to extend it across the front of their property to the point of the Hunter Lateral? Smith: Yes, it would need to be extended as far as it was needed to serve that property. At this point we don't know where that point is. It wouldn't go, I would not believe that it would go to the Hunter Lateral because of the way that streets are laid out and lots are positioned. I think on the preliminary plat and recalling from memory that there was an access road over there someplace across from CESCO. There wouldn't be any reason for the sewer line to extend past that if that was indeed where the access point was going to be. But I believe that plat has become null and void because of time since it was approved. Morrow. Then also if that was the case then we wouldn't have to follow the ordinance that says that to and through their property. In other words their extension where they developed first would simply be that portion of their property that could be served by that line. Smith: The intent of the ordinance as I understand it is to provide the extension of the sewer and water line so that the adjacent development can pick it up and extend it on through their property. This property is near the end of that line extension. So there would be no reason to extend it to the Hunter Lateral and stop it at that point, it can't go any farther to the west. It would be redundant unless there was a need on the south side for the sewer line at the Hunter Lateral. Now I can't envision that there would be Meridian City Council April 1, 1997 Page 9 because the way the ground is sloping to the east. But at some point to the east of the Hunter Lateral It could be needed. Morrow: If in the event that the requirement of CESCO was to extend to their western boundary and the only beneficiary of that is on the south side of the street then would they be required to reimburse CESCO that cost of that extension through a Late Comers Agreement or other means? Smith: Well typically we haven't, unless it is a very restricted use on a sewer or water line extension we haven't earmarked it as such. It is more generalized in terms of the number of equivalent residential connections that are being made to the line that has been extended. Perhaps a late comers agreement could be crafted so that it was indeed equally shared, the cost, if there were only two users for example. Morrow. I guess my concern here is that if it is extended that distance to the western boundary then clearly the only beneficiary to that is the folk to the south side of the road unless there is some provision for them to reimburse or pay it looks to me like you have a case for unjust enrichment on their part. That doesn't seem to be fair to me. Smith: They are the only ones that would be using it. That is right. Morrow. Thank you Rountree: I have a question for counsel, it appears that really the only solution if we are to respond to the request of the applicant is to have this brought to the council in the form of a variance hearing, correct? Crookston: That is correct Rountree: I would suggest that we do that as soon as possible and proceed with working with the applicant on getting at least the language of the development agreement worded. Morrow. I guess my comment would be to that is very candidly from our side as the City I think we have been remiss at getting this issue handled in a timely manner. I think the other thing is that if we are going to do the variance route which is the legal way to do it that we ought in fact instruct our Building department to process those plans and specifications so that process can be ongoing and permit taken out so folk can begin their construction as quickly as possible while we resolve the technical issues. So I would offer that comment to the Council. I think that we first dealt with this issue if memory serves me back in October. Here it is April some five months later or six months later that we are resolving this issue. That is not very timely on our part. Meridian City Council April 1, 1997 Page 10 Bentley: I would agree, I think we need to as Councilman Rountree stated we need to get the variance going. And in agreement with Councilman Morrow I feel we need to get on the way and get this man his permit so they can get started on their building. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Crookston: The only concern that I have is that the property directly west of the CESCO property we have no idea what use that will be put to. It is right now is in the Clark's ownership whether or not that can be sold and the buyer need eventual sewage I have no idea. That is the reason it was my understanding that the original extension of the sewer line to the west was set to go to CESCO's western boundary so that property to the west of CESCO could possibly connect to it. If tat can be sewered by means of the private line that the Playground now has the Clark's that is totally acceptable to me but it is a private line. It is not a City line, that line does empty into a City of Meridian line in Locust Grove Road but it is a private line right now. Is that not correct Gary? Smith: Yes that is right. Morrow. Does that line gravity flow at the current time? Smith: As far as I know, I know it gravity flows through the RV park, I don't know how far beyond the RV park that line was extended. Morrow. Mr. Howard may I see your map please? At the point of the green at the round point that is point of connection? Howard: (Inaudible) Morrow. And is currently exists and was functioning before its gravity flow line? At what point is the private line? Howard: The private line extends (Inaudible) on the east side of Locust Grove (inaudible) Morrow. Follow up for Gary, where is the, does the private line start at Locust Grove? Smith: The private line starts at the line in Locust Grove correct, not at the right of way but at the sewer line. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, how large is that line? Howard: This is a 6 inch and (inaudible) right now there is only one, no one being served by that sanitary sewer even with the exception of these few service lines by (inaudible) you really wouldn't want it any larger than that (inaudible) Meridian City Council April 1, 1997 Page 11 Corrie: I guess it seems like we have a fairly good consensus of what we want to do is to have them move on with their project and we'll have the variance put together for us. If you want to go ahead and start the Bentley: I have one more question, on that existing 6 inch line there is no actual obligation on that field to sewer to that line is there? Crookston: Under our ordinance the Clark's were supposed to or should have extended that sewer to and through their property which would have extended to their eastern boundary which is the western boundary of CESCO's property. Bentley: But basically what that design shows on that map that they have done that. Crookston: That is correct but it is not a public line it is a service line. Morrow. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to take the steps to complete the development agreement, that we instruct Mr. McCreedy and his client CESCO to immediately apply for the variance that is needed. We also instruct the City building department to immediately begin processing of the building permits and the plans and specifications in preparation to award a building permit to proceed upon completion of the variance and for the staff to expedite the variance process. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree, you heard the motion, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Crookston: I have one more question Mr. McCreedy do we have a new child? McCreedy: (Inaudible) ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO I-L BY MICHAEL AND MICHELLE MURASKO: Corrie: Counselor? Crookston: Mr. Mayor and Councilmen, what is cleaned up I believe it is paragraph 22. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I have a question or I guess a comment, question or comment or both. Findings of fact do clean up the issues we were kind of concerned about. I guess my question is this particular parcel does not have a development plan (Inaudible) annexation and zoning (inaudible). It seems to me in the plat process or on the plat there should be some kind of notification that there are pending issues to be dealt with