Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesMeridian Planning a~oning Commission Special Meetir~ August 31, 1999 Page 23 Purcell: It's a vinyl by folding door. Barbeiro: Staff is there any concern with having that dryer within a area like that where the potential exists for (inaudible) seeing that there is no fire enclosure or separation with the dryer and the main area where the daycare would be. Hawkins: The site is inspected and with this request to go to the new to the higher number of kids, both the fire dept. and planning and zoning staff would do an or-site inspection. For the most part, I am not aware of any City Ordinances that specific those kinds of safety issues. It could potentially brought up with any kind of licensing from the Dept. of Health and Welfare. They have a few more safety standards than the city does. Barbeiro: I would defer to the Meridian Fire Dept. on factoring their in-house inspection. Purcell: I've had an inspection from the Fire Dept. and from Planning and Zoning all ready for my first permit. At that point, they had no concerns. Borup: Any other Commissioner's? Okay. Thank you Miss Purcell. Do we have anyone here in the audience want to stand and comment on this application. Seeing none. Commissioner's. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move we close the public hearing. Hatcher: I second it. Borup: All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Borup: Okay. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I move that we recommend approval of the conditional use permit for in .home daycare on 2241 E. Clarene Street to include staff comments. Barbeiro: ,Second the motion. Borup: We have a motion and a second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. ITEM NUMBER 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION ANU ZONING OF 4.34 ACRES (R-T TO C-G) BY SONNTAG EYE ASSOCIATES OR ASSIGNS LOCATED AT LOT 15 OF MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION: Hawkins: Mr. Chairman just for clarification did you say Item number 6 on the agenda? Meridian Planning and'!6ning Commission Special Meeting August 31, 1999 Page 24 Borup: I believe I said number 7. I was jumping ahead. Yes it is item number 5. Hawkins: Going asleep on the job Chairman. We will go ahead and do staff comments on both 6 and 7 if that's all right. This application is for an annexation. The property is currently zoned R-T in the County. It is this cross hatched piece here. There is quite a bit of development going on here in this Magic View Subdivision. Gentry Way is an approved location for a Holiday Inn Express. There is another application this evening for this parcel for offices I believe and this is the existing Texaco, the Eagle Partners project is here, which is the Chevron/Macdonald's. Approved plat for Midvally Business Park, which is approximately 5 one acre pieces. The request from the applicant is to annex from R-T to a C-G zone. C-G is the existing zone of these other adjacent properties. Just would ask that staff comments dated August 30 be incorporated. A couple of items to point out on there for your clarification Commissioner's, most of them are fairly standard. Item number 7 on page 4 and item number 8 on page 4 both deal with the landscaping issues. This is the proposed site plan. The applicant may have a .modification of this, which I will defer to him for further clarification, .but this is what is in your packet. The items that I refer to deal with the landscape strip on the Freevvay Drive which is here on the south end. In-between 184 offramp for Eagle Road which comes around here and then Allen Street is here. This would likely be the principle entrance off of Eagle Road coming from the north the principle entrance to get in to their site. It is a proposed 60,000 sq. facility. The staff does request that there be a widening of the landscape strip on Allen as well as on Freeway Drive and 35 feet is as an entry way corridor and that is what we feel, because of the high visibility be included and we did make a suggestion. I do not know if the applicant has had any discussions with ITD. To my understanding it has not been done before but to have some kind of a license agreement to in the area between 184 ITD's existing right of way and Freeway Drive on the off ramp there is space to potentially buffer a little bit. The site is well the parking lot is well designed we feel in terms of the existing landscaping. The offset there on Allen the existing 10 feet here in Midvalley Business Park to the north, if that was cont~r~ued I think it would provide more continuity between the two parcels. The one other error on page 5 of the staff report, we did not complete the sentence on number 9, which you may have noticed, but that's the intent there that I just pointed out. The proposed 10 foot landscape strip on Sonntag's north boundary would continue the current 1 U feet on the north side. There are also public works a couple of public works issues wf•~ich Bruce may want to address. Thanks. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, Brad. I do have a question. What is on the west side of the property. Is that residential? Hawkins: The west side is residential, right now yes. Single family house with some agricultural implements. De Weerd: And that buffering is adequate? Meridian Planning an~oning Commission Special Meetin~ August 31, 1999 Page 25 Hawkins: There is a existing informal request to planning and zoning from the Magic View Subdivision for a Comprehensive Plan change. There is not a formal application, but it has been submitted to the city by the homeowners. Approximately 70 acres in the subdivision and they are requesting it be changed from single family which is currently is in the Comprehensive Plan to mixed residential. That's one of the issues we were considering with that is that there maybe a more similar use in the future. The existing use yes, we felt that the 20 feet was adequate there. They do taper in a little bit there and come back out in order to get an access drive on the west side there of building 2. I'm sorry, mixed plan use is the request from the Homeowners Assn. Excuse me. De Weerd: One more question for Brad. Do we get anything from ACRD on this. Hawkins: I did not receive anything, no. Borup: Thank you. Freckleton: Chairman Borup, members of the commission. I'm not sure which comment number it is but I just wanted to point out a situation out there with sewer and water service. The developer of the Holiday Inn Express which is across Allen Street to the east, recently installed sewer and water mains to service the Holiday Inn site. Construction has stopped on that project and has stopped before those mains could be received their final testing and approval. We have not accepted them for ownership and maintenance and that is still the situation today. It is real unclear as to when they will gear up and get going on construction again, but this point of time, construction has stopped on the Holiday Inn project. Borup: At this point there is no sewer service Freckleton: At this point in time we don't have sewer or water that can serve this site. Borup: Okay, thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Chairman, I guess my question would be, can the two applications in front of us tonight somehow assist in paying for that development so they can hook up when Holiday Express comes in that they would reimburse them. Freckleton: Commissioner De Weerd. That is certainly a possibility. Hubbell Engineering, as you recall, is developing north of the side, the Midvalley Business Park and they are in the same boat. It may be very beneficial for all these applicants to get together and work this out. My understanding is there's some outstanding bills to the contractor that installed the mains and they certainly would be open to having their bills paid. Borup: Thank you. Any other questions? Again this Item number 6 is annexation and zoning. Is the applicant or one of his representatives here this evening. Meridian Planning an~ning Commission Special Meeting August 31, 1999 Page 26 Freeman: My name is Scott Freeman. I am with Johnson Architects. We are the architects on this project for the applicant. I have a couple of boards I'd like to put up. Can I do that at this time. Borup: Yes but you realize that anything any exhibits need to be left here Freeman: Yeah this was submitted to Brad at the time we applied. We did get a copy of the report and we did have a chance to go through it. There are a handful of items on there that I would like to address either with questions or proposals. The first one and again I don't know which item it is on you list, but the landscape strips on both Allen Street to the east and the future Freeway Drive to the south. We have taken a look at some possibilities in expanding the landscape stripe to better comply with staff requirements. I brought some sketches ****End of Tape 1 and 2 Borup: the staff comments today? Freeman: I received the staff comments yesterday Borup: Oh, okay. Freeman: I work fast. Originally we did have a 4 foot landscape buffer on the east side. We are proposing here with some minor modifications that we expand that to an 11 foot buffer and I believe that would comply with staffs recommendations. You comment on the one item on the staff report that was not complete regarding that 10 north buffer, I am unclear exactly what that was referring to. Was it commenting perhaps that this 10 foot strip here to the north return around the corner and continue. If we expand this to a 11 foot buffer, is that- Borup: I believe what he was referring to is if you continue your buffer on north adjoining parcel proposing a meandering buffer. He is talking on that buffer up along there-along Allen Street from the other project. By your going a 10 foot that would be more in align with what they are doing and have some continuity there. Freeman: Currently along that north property line we do have a 10 foot buffer all along the north property line and the 11 foot buffer-the 10 foot buffer here would include a 10 foot buffer on the front-I guess is what I am trying to say. Borup: Okay your right. We are talking two different items there. That along north property line is item number 9. They are saying 10 foot on both-is that what your saying. Freeman: Yeah, we provide a 10 foot buffer on the north. I guess to clarify my question, it was that if we do expand this east buffer to an 11 foot buffer, have we indeed complied with both of those comments. Meridian Planning an~oning Commission Special Meetin~ August 31, 1999 Page 27 Hawkins: Yes. Freeman: Okay. On the south side we originally I believe a 6 foot landscape buffer there and in reconsidering this it appears as though we can get a 19 foot landscape buffer on our property without going across the street and addressing Idaho State Transportation Dept in any way. I would propose that the 19 foot landscape buffer along that south side be considered as acceptable treatment for buffers on the Freeway Drive. I guess I can get further feedback on that in a minute. You'll notice on this new landscape plan there is a difference between the new landscape plan here at the corner and what was originally submitted which is also indicated on the board here behind me. Originally we had proposed that an additional curb cut be added near that corner, but in talking to ACHD they prefer that that be relocated off the corner 150 feet in either direction. We felt that since that would put that additional curb cut significantly close to either the north or the west curb cut all ready planned that it would be better just to eliminate that one. I believe in discussions with planning early on that that curb cut was kind of anon-issue. We either could or could not have that. Are there any questions about the proposed landscape buffers so far. Guess I can address these right in front of you. The second question I had regarding the comments was the requirement for gravitational sewage flow from the site. We have considered what to do about that with our civil engineer and it appears that the only possible way to get sewage off of this property because of the existing topography is to use a sewer injector system. We did not want to use one either, but the only way to flow with gravity would be to build up this site like 10 feet. If I can describe the topography a little bit that might be more clear. The existing site topography right now runs from the east toward the west downhill and there is approximately a 10 foot difference between the east side and the west side. Our building, therefore, is going to sit anywhere from two to four feet below the elevation of the street over here. If we were to build up the site in order to have a downhill slope for sewage to the street, we would potentially end up with an 18 to 20 foot differential on the west property boundary which seemed excessive to us and would be very difficult and expensive to accommodate. We are proposing that we balance the cut and fill in this side as much as possible in the interest of drainage and of access -vehicular access. The proposal of the sewer injector pump is one that we feel that is necessary. Borup: Okay. Freeman: The other item I wanted to address was the question on irrigation on this property. It was pointed out that we would not be allowed to tap into the domestic water mains along the street. There is some surface irrigation available on this site, however there is some questions whether it would be adequate enough to provide a pressurized irrigation system. There is also an existing well on the site which is referred to in the staff report currently being used for domestic purposes. We have considered using it as much as possible for irrigation of the site. Unfortunately it is right smack dab in the middle of the site where we would like to build. A couple of questions I have regarding that are, if it is determined that the surface irrigation water available is not adequate to irrigate this landscaping, and the well in addition to that would (inaudible) adequate Meridian Planning an~ning Commission Special Meeting August 31, 1999 Page 28 water, would it be possible to relocate the well (inaudible) and put another on near by, or is that something that would be impossible. Freckleton: Chairman Borup, members on the Commission, that is a question that needs to be addressed to the Idaho Department of Water Resources. The City of Meridian does not have jurisdiction on ground water wells. I believe in the past there has been some relocation of wells, as long as you have a permit for a well on the site. Freeman: Okay. As a follow-up to that question and that is helpful, if it is determined that the surface irrigation available to us and the well are both inadequate to water the landscaping as required, is there any consideration given to that problem. Is there anyway to use what we can from other sources and then tap into the City mains as a backup. Borup: Mr. Freckleton and while your thinking about that, what are the adjoining sites around here. They've all had the same requirement also haven't they. Have they designed their pressurized irrigation system yet? Do you know. We are talking a project right to the north and two across the street. Freckleton: Chairman Borup, the Midvalley Business Park adjacent to the north is in the process of designing a pressurized irrigation system for their site. Same requirement. Holiday Inn to the east, their landscaping area, I believe, was small enough that it didn't exceed our maximum allowed. Under our permits with water resources, we can not use domestic to water an area larger then a'/2 acre total size. I believe the calculations that were submitted, there was about 35,000 sf of landscaped area. Borup: Do you know how Midvalley was designed in theirs. Was it off the irrigation system? Freckleton: I have not seen any design for it yet. Borup: Would it be practical for two projects to combine on their pressurized irrigation systems on the design- Freckleton: It's definitely something that could be looked into. (Inaudible) Freeman: We are going to have to investigate how much water we have available there, but that does give me an idea of what our options are. Freckleton: One other thing that you might consider too is a shallow well. We have an abundance of ground water in Meridian and I believe as long as you do a well that is less than 18 feet, it is not even a permit. You may be able to do all most a reverse french drain type system that you could pump out of. Meridian Planning an~ning Commission Special Meeting• August 31, 1999 Page 29 Freeman: Again I can talk to the Dept of Water Resources about that. I think that sums up the questions I had on staff report. I did offer some solutions as far as landscaping requirements. If there is going to be discussion on that, I'd like to have the opportunity to address you again to answer anything that is proposed. Is that all right. Borup: Yes. We would probably insist on it. Did you address item number 6 on the parking stall size? The driveway. Freeman: Oh yes I did. We have changed that and it is reflected on the new sketch to a 25 foot drive. Any other questions for me? Borup: Any questions? Mr. Barbeiro. Barbeiro: For Mr. Freeman and for staff, with regards to the requirement that you can not irrigate more than 'h acre for domestic water, is there any allowance for a pro rated irrigation system where you can guarantee that if it is a 35,000 sf area you can guarantee that at least half of that area can be irrigated from ground sources. Does that then break off and allow him to irrigate the remainder with domestic water. Freckleton: Commissioner Barbeiro, I don't recall ever seeing a situation like that. We could certainly look into it. We are just bound by our permits with water resources as far as what we can use our domestic water for-and there is that cut off. Barbeiro: But under these circumstances he could provide documentation showing that less than %2 acre would be used for domestic water irrigation. Is the rule so black and white that regardless of how much -if his pressurized system were to show that he could irrigate 25,000 of that 35,000 and then only 10,000 would have to be irrigated from domestic, the agreement that we have would not allow for that or is that option available in negotiations. Freckleton: This evening I don't have an answer for you. That is something that we could certainly look into though. Once their investigation is complete and they know where they are at, if whether their just not going to be able to do it any other way, we can address the issue then. Barbeiro: Scott, have you come across anything like this where you have-(inaudible) that you can not irrigate off of domestic water. You get together with the city and water resources and come up with an agreement that we may not have to go in and have the concern of ground water and surface water. Freeman: I think immediately we are going to be looking into that and having discussions with planning and the Dept. of Water Resources to see if there is a solution. I guess my question would be, is the solution what a solution hold up the development agreement that we are going to make or can that be amended to the development agreement that we make. Our intention is to comply with staff's requirements. I just .Meridian Planning an~ning Commission Special Meeting August 31, 1999 Page 30 wanted to be honest and let you know that it could be impossibility to irrigate the landscape with what we have. Yes, certainly I am going to investigate those options. Borup: I would think that could be addressed in the development agreement. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman, do you anticipate that you could have some of this information flushed out prior to City Council? Freeman: Refresh for me when that is going to take place. September 21. I think that should be adequate time to address this, yes. Borup: Is that parcel (inaudible) irrigated now? Is that irrigated pasture? Freeman: I don't know for certain. (Inaudible) In the past-I don't think it's currently being irrigated. I guess there is one other thing which you've adequately addressed and that is the incompletion of the utility lines in the street. You did suggest that perhaps we could make those improvements our self and maybe come up with a reimbursement agreement for the site down stream of us. I guess it is up stream in the case of sewer. I think (Inaudible) Borup: I think what he saying is the lines are in or partially in just not completed and test and whatever you can work out with the other individuals. The city just needs an approved- Freeman: I will have to look into the legality of that (inaudible) in to somebody else's construction contract. We will look into it. Freckleton: Mr. Chairman. I would suggest getting a hold of Hubbell Engineering. They are the ones working on Midvalley Business Park. They have also had dialogue with the construction firm that installed those lines. Barbeiro: With regards to the sewer injection system or lift station, how will this effect this project and what are the public works views on having a lift station on this site. Freckleton: Commissioner Barbeiro, the City of Meridian is getting ready to install a new trunk line underneath the .interstate. It is west of the site. It is along the western boundary of Magicview Subdivision. This site could be gravity served, I believe, to that trunk line, but the lines would have to come from the west up what is called Freeway Drive, along the interstate, in order to serve the site. I believe that that would be the way that we could serve it-by gravity. As I said, the trunk line is scheduled to start construction here shortly and this point of time there are no plans to put a main in Freeway Drive. Borup: Just expand on Mr. Barbeiro's the injection system would be onsite and that would be the applicant's responsibility for maintenance etc. It does not really affect the city lines. Meridian Planning and!6ning Commission Special Meeting August 31, 1999 Page 31 Freckleton: This is all within the same drainage area. I will address that issue with our plumbing official tomorrow and see what his feeling is. It could be some time before that main is in Freeway Drive, so an injection system may be the only option at this point of time. Barbeiro: And in the case of an injection system, this would be a temporary injection system not necessarily a permanent one. I am guessing 60,000 sf, we are looking 18 months of completion, is that about right? Freeman: That's our goal-between 12 and 18. Barbeiro: Twelve months then, you can be pretty assured that the lines would not be in in 12 months. Twenty four months possibly. Freckleton: That's one of those crystal ball questions. As Brad mentioned they've had some interest from other parcels in there on doing some mixed use type Comprehensive Plan changes, so I think there are some people with some ideas in there. As you know our trunk lines are extended or our main lines are extended by development and so the city has no plans at this point of time of putting anything in at Freeway Drive. Barbeiro: So, as it stand now the lift station would be temporary and it would be a condition that once the new lines come in that the lift station be abandoned and they hook up to the new line. Is that correct? Freckleton: That would certainly be my recommendation, yes. It should be designed with provision to be abandoned and gravity sewer to the south toward Freeway Drive. Borup: And I would think the applicant would that would be the goal they would have also rather than have that injector system. Freeman: Yeah. It's less (inaudible)if the trunk lines were there we would certainly use them, but I think we can design for the use of the future trunk line when it does become a reality. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman, Bruce. About approximately what's the distance between this proposed site to the future trunk line that is on the west side of the subdivision. Freckleton: Commissioner Hatcher. Probably about 1200 to 1800 feet. It is hard to tell with the- Hatcher: The reason I was bringing that up was that potentially depending upon ttie distance, depending on the time line of that trunk line and the cost of putting in tree future line on future Freeway Drive might out weight the cost of a temporary lif± station and then conversion over at a later date. It is something for the applicant to look into as Meridian Planning an~ning Commission Special Meeting August 31, 1999 Page 32 to what option he might want to proceed with-if it works within his time line. What is the approximate time line for the trunk line itself, not for any off shoot mains. Freckleton: I look for that to be going in probably within 3 to 4 weeks-to having construction commencing in there. Hatcher: And availability to tap into it-how long for this project? Freckleton: To be able to get to the trunk line-I have not seen any kind of a time line on this project yet.- It is pretty extensive. It is going all the way to Overland Road on the south side of the interstate, crossing under the interstate. There is 2 pretty good size bores involved to bore underneath the interstate so I hate to even venture a guess on a time line. Freeman: Did I hear it stated that there were no plans to extend that trunk line to future Freeway Drive at this time? Or it is planned to extend along Freeway Drive? Freckleton: At this point in time, the trunk line is going to come down the western boundary of Magicview Subdivision across under the interstate to Overland Road. There are no plans on the board right now to take it east on Freeway Drive. Borup: Taking it east would be driven by development-only development going in. Freeman: Which could take a significant amount of time. Borup: If you waiting for other developments. Freeman: So what we are proposing is perhaps we could extend that line under the cost of this development. Borup: There are agreements where they'd be reimbursed as it is connected on. Freeman: Okay. Another thought that comes to mind. If (inaudible) tap fees for the sewer line on the east side, would we then be required to pay tap fees again whey we have to tie into the trunk line to the south. Freckleton: No you wouldn't. Once you pay the assessments, it runs with the land. Hatcher: My suggestion was just (inaudible) time frame of that trunk line, that the cost of doing a temporary lift up Allen Street to the line that is currently going in and installed it might the cost the long term cost might out weigh installing a gravity feed line into the new truck line being installed. That's an option. De Weerd: Mr. Freeman you refer to a couple of suggestions from ACHD so have you-do you have a draft or report or - Meridian Planning an~ning Commission Special Meeting August 31, 1999 Page 33 Freeman: I did receive a draft report. I don't have that with me. I am surprised to hear that you did not receive one. Would that normally come directly from ACHD to you. Borup: Yes, a lot of times they don't like to give us the draft and wait till the final. Freeman: I do have a draft report. Like I said the one recommendation we had to address was that corner curb cut and we decided to eliminate it. The rest was about fees and money. Borup: Okay. Thank you. Freckleton: There was one other comment that I did want to point out and that was in regards to the legal description for the annexation. Freeman: Do you want me to address that? Borup: If you've got the answer. Freeman: Well I have a partial answer I suppose. Originally we were notified that the first legal description that we submitted was not adequate because it didn't technically meet the definition of a (inaudible) and bounds description. We did have the surveyor submit another one and I believe that was submitted on August 5th. The report I received yesterday was the first time that I or it was brought to me attention that one also has a problem. I have a call into the surveyor to have him contact your department and get whatever problem there is straightened out because obviously there is ~~me miscommunication going on as to what you there. My understanding is now the legal description does not show that our property abuts the City of Meridian. Is that correct. Freckleton: Your contiguous on the north and I believe on the east, but not on the south. The situation on the south is really a strange one. When that interchange was built ITD acquired additional land to relocate Freeway Drive. Freeway Drive used to be about where the onramp is now. ITD acquired some additional land, is my understanding, and relocated Freeway Drive. If you go into the Ada County Assessor's records and look to try to find it, you won't find it. I've done it. ITD technically owns Freeway Drive. Ada County Highway District maintains it through a -some sort of a maintenance agreement that they have with ITD. It is kind of a real weird situation out there, but if you'll have your surveyor contact my office, I can certainly get him the information that I have. I have copies of deeds and that sort of thing. Borup: That was the only problem at this point was that little no man's area there on the south. Freckleton: Correct. It is just a strip of land that would remain in the County unless we get it included into the boundary description for this parcel. Meridian Planning ar~oning Commission Special Meetir~ August 31, 1999 - Page 34 Borup: Thank you. This is a public hearing on annexation for this property. Co we have anyone here in the audience that would like to address the Commission. Seeing none, Commissioner's. Hatcher: Mr. Chairman I move that we close the public hearing. Barbeiro: I second the motion. De Weerd: Does anyone have questions for staff or questions among ourselves before we close this. Borup: Remembering this is annexation and zoning. They've asked to be annexed in zone C-G which is-We do need a motion to procede. Oh I'm sorry. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Borup: Good thing somebody is watching me. Now... Hatcher: Mr. Chairman I make a motion that we recommend to City Council the request for annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres from R-T to C-G by Sonntag Eye Associates of Lot 5 of Magic View Subdivision to include staff comments. De Weerd: Second. Borup: We have a motion and second. All in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES ITEM NUMBER 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 60,000 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND OUTPATIENT SURGERY FACILITY BY SONNTAG EYE ASSOCIATES OR ASSIGNS LOCATED AT LOT 15 OF MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION: Borup: Staff any additional comments. Hawkins: No. Just like to incorporate comments from the previous item Borup: Thank you. Mr. Freeman. (inaudible) on items that really pertain to the conditional use permit. That is kind of the way things are normally done. Anything additional that you'd like to comment on. Freeman: No. I do have some drawings available of the elevations and some renderings if you are interested in viewing those, but I don't have any additional comments unless there questions I can answer. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 PAGE 63 16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR IN HOME DAYCARE BY KATHY PURCELL-LOCATED AT 2241 E. CLARENE STREET: (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL 10/5/99) 17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.34 ACRES (R-T TO C-G) BY SONNTAG EYE ASSOCIATES OR ASSIGNS LOCATED AT LOT 15 OF MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION: (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL 10/5/99) 18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 60,000 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND OUTPATIENT SURGERY FACILITY BY SONNTAG EYE ASSOCIATES OR ASSIGNS LOCATED AT LOT 15 OF MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION: (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL 10/5/99) 19. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 12.801 ACRES FOR TARAWOOD SUBDIVISION BY MICHELANGELO INVESTMENTS, LLC SOUTH OF LOS ALAMITOS PARK & NORTH OF SHERBROOKE HOLLOWS: (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL 10/5/99) 20. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TARAWOOD SUBDIVISION BY MICHELANGELO INVESTMENTS, LLC~OUTH OF LOS ALAMITOS PARK ~ NORTH OF SHERBROOKE HOLLOWS: (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL 10/5/99) Rountree: For those of you who have been here all night listening to hearings, it's past 10:30, and we will not open by recommendation of the Council additional public hearings this evening. Those hearings, point of information from Council, we should continue those; is that correct? Anderson: To a date certain. Rountree: To a date certain? Do we have to do that on each individual one or can that be done as a group? Gigray: Mr. President, members of the Council, I believe that if you entertain a motion with regards to all the public hearings so long as you list the items on the agenda that you'd be referring to, and then list the date certain upon which those public hearings will be conducted. I suppose you're looking at October 5~h Rountree: Mr. Bentley. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 PAGE 64 Bentley: Mr. President, I would move that we continue the public hearings for Items No. 13 through Item 20 until October 5th, 1999, and that is on the revised 9/20/99 agenda. Bird: Second. Rountree: Been moved and seconded to continue public hearings on .agenda Items No. 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 until our next regularly scheduled meeting October 5th Any discussion? All those in favor'? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Rountree: I'm sorry for that; because of the lateness of the evening we've got to move on. Everybody understand that it'll be October 5th? Okay. It'd be on the front of the agenda. We won't have anothertwo-hour hearing between you and - Bentley: Table the rest? Rountree: Well, we can move on the rest if -- I mean, it shouldn't take Bird: Shouldn't take as long to go through these. 21. REQUEST FOR FINAL PLAT OF TREMONT PLACE SUBDIVISION NO. 1 AND 2 BY LARRY HANSEN AND LUNA VISTA, INC. -BROADWAY AND 8T" STREET (951 W. PINE): (APPROVE) Rountree: We've just got some preliminary plats. Next on the agenda would be Item 21, the final plat for Tremont Place Sub No. 1. Staff, any comments? Stiles: Mr. President, Council, this is for the Tremont Place Subdivision, it was submitted as No. 1 and No. 2. This area right here, the Hansens owned and they decided to combine these two plats for a final plat. We have received a response from the applicant; they have indicated concurrence with our recommendations, and we would recommend approval. Rountree: Any questions for Shari? Bird: I have none. Rountree: It doesn't appear that there is anybody here representing the applicants. Was Bob -okay. He's gone. Need a motion for consideration of the final plat for approval. Bentley: Mr. President. • Meridian City Council Meeting October 5, 1999 Page 38 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Comments or questions of staff? Bird: I have none. Anderson: I have none. Corrie: All right. I'll entertain a motion on the recommendation for a request fog a conditional use permit. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we pass on the -have the attorneys Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law for the conditional use permit for home care daycare of Kathy Purcell located at 2241 East Clarene Street with the conditions of the Planning and Zoning enforced. Corrie: Okay. Bentley: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have the attorneys draw up Findings of f=acts and Conclusions of Law and based upon the conclusions and recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: I have a question. Is that motion then reflect favorable? Bird: Favorable. Yeah. Corrie: Thank you, Mr. Anderson. Any-other questions or comments? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 18. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.34 ACRES (R-T TO C-G) BY SONNTAG EYE ASSOCIATES OR. ASSIGNS LOCATED AT LOT 15 OF MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION: • Meridian City Council Meeting October 5, 1999 Page 39 19. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 60,000 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND OUTPATIENT SURGERY FACILITY BY SONNTAG EYE ASSOCIATES OR ASSIGNS LOCATED AT LOT 15 OF MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION: Corrie: Now we're going to 18. This is a continued public hearing, request for annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres R-T to C-G by Sonntag Eye Associates or assigns located at Lot 15 of Magic View Subdivision. Now I know why Tom is here. Okay. I'll open the public hearing. Mr. Bentley. Bentley: Would we want to open both public hearings? Corrie: Well, let's just do one at a time, we got annexation and then we can go to the conditional use permit. Or we can open both of them if you want. Okay. We can open them both since we're all - Bentley: We usually wind up with testimony going both ways. Corrie: I'll open the public hearing on both 18 and 19 (inaudible) Sonntag Eye Association. Number 18 is annexation and zoning and the 19 is a request for conditional use permit. So is your testimony on both of those that would be fine. Staff comments? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the property on Allen Street that was discussed earlier. It's located south of Hubble Engineers' property, just west of the Holiday Inn Express and kitty-corner from the Eagle Road Professional Center. We'd ask that our comments be incorporated into your approval. We've asked for additional landscaping along what would be a frontage road, it's called Freeway Drive, I guess, tentatively, that would extend somewhere in this area. The site plan didn't show up very well. This is the site plan. They had proposed phasing some of the improvements, and we'd ask that if they phased the buildings that they include all of the landscaping and any of the associated parking and other on-site improvements, on- and off-site improvements prior to the occupancy of the initial phase. That's all I have. Corrie: Thank you, Shari. Any other staff comments? Thank you. This is a public hearing, and I'll invite the applicant or representative there to talk. Would you please state your name and address, please. Freeman: My name is Scott Freeman. I live at 3625 Barry Drive in Boise. Although I don't believe I have a copy of the latest Facts and Findings, I assume that they're substantially the same as those that I saw prior to the previous hearing. We agree with the Facts and Findings as far as I know. The question of phasing which came up, it was my understanding that we were going to be required to develop the perimeter Meridian City Council Meeting October 5, 1999 Page 40 landscaping and along the street and also the landscaping that would be adjacent to Phase I. We were planning on doing the rest of the landscape and curb improvements in the interior of the site later on during Phase II, and that would include the landscape which is associated with the Phase II and III portions of the building. This probably is a moot point; it's looking more and more like this entire project is going to be completed as one phase. I guess the only other thing that I need to address came up in an earlier item, and that's the development of the water and sewer lines on Allen Street. We are certainly not opposed to agreeing in a similar way to holding off on a building permit until those items are resolved. And from what I heard, what it sounds like, the City can go ahead and take ownership of those lines and testing will be happening in the dear future; am I correct? Or am I assuming too much? Currie: That's a big assumption. We'll have Gary answer that one when you're through. Freeman: Okay. Unless there are questions of me, I don't think there's anyfihing else that I need to say. Corrie: Gary. Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, as I understand, what Eric Rossman has said earlier is that we wouldn't have a problem in accepting the lines even though a lien has been filed. We would rely upon the contractor to come back and finish the job. Now whether or not he'll do that is in somebody else's hands. Freeman: And that is something, if I can address that, that is something that we and the other adjacent property owners are working on at this time. Smith: Thank you. Corrie: Okay. Thank you, Scott. Anyone else from the public like to issue testimony on these two items? Okay. Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to - Stiles: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Excuse me, Shari. Stiles: Excuse me. I noticed in the recommendations that they only went to 1.4. Staff would request that all of our comments dated in our memo of August 30, 1999 be incorporated into those findings. Currie: Do the applicants have this - Bird: Mr. Mayor, does the applicants have this - Meridian City Council Meeting October 5, 1999 Page 41 Corrie: I don't think they do. Do you not? Bird: Of the August 30, 1999? Stiles: Yes. Bird: You don't have that? The staff comments? Freeman: We received staff comments prior to the P & Z hearing. If there have - I know there were going to be additional comments incorporated, but I haven't seen the final version. Bird: Have you seen these? The way you were talking, I didn't think you probably had. Corrie: I have a fax sheet that was sent over the 8/30/99. Did you get - Bird: You have not received this? What's this fax sheet then? I can't - I looked at that fax sheet. Was it -City of Meridian? Corrie: There's six sheets. Bird: -- Freeman. August 31St Freeman: (inaudible) Bird: Your previous hearing had to be in, if it was before Planning and Zoning, had to be in August or July. It wasn't this month. Freeman: After the hearing, I have not received anything in addition to what I received before the hearing. It could be it happened, it just never crossed my desk. Bird: Okay. *** End of Tape 2 *** Bird: This cover letter shows that it was faxed to them on the 30tH Corrie: Johnson Architects - Bird: 1602 Johnson (inaudible) Scott Freeman, I believe .that is, at Johnson Architects. Corrie: What do we want to do? Give him a copy and give him some time to do it? • Meridian City Council Meeting October 5, 1999 Page 42 Bird: I'll give him mine. I have no problem giving mine. Corrie: Come back to this item? Would that be satisfactory to you? Or do you want to take - Freeman: No. It should only take me five minutes to review that. I expect it's what I've seen before for the most part. Corrie: Okay. Bird: Can we go to the next one? Corrie: Yeah. We'll just -we'll hold No. 18 and 19 and go to 20 while you're doing that. Then when you're ready, we'll take yours. Before we go to Item 21, have you had a chance to read that? Freeman: Yeah. 20. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 12.801 ACRES FOR TARAWOOD SUBDIVISION BY MICHELANGELO INVESTMENTS, LLC-SOUTH OF LOS ALAMITOS PARK & NORTH OF SHERBROOKE HOLLOWS: Corrie: Item 20, continued public hearing: Request for annexation and zoning of 12.801 acres for Tarawood Subdivision by Michelangelo Investments, LLC south of Los Alamitos Park and north of Sherbrooke Hollows. At this time I'll open the public and invite staff comments first. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for the property that's in between Sherbrooke Hollows Subdivision and Los Alamitos Subdivision. Their access would be through the Sherbrooke Hollows Subdivision or through the Los Alamitos. We're just doing the annexation and zoning now? Corrie: Yes. Stiles: Okay. Staff would recommend approval to an R-4 provided that the applicant enter into a development agreement incorporating all staff comments and the condition which would also incorporate the conditions of the preliminary plat which is to follow. That's all I have. Corrie: Okay. Is there anyone from the public that would like to issue testimony in the request for annexation and zoning, Item No. 20? (inaudible). i-- -~. Meridian City Council Meeting October 5, 1999 Page 55 Bird: There's no more discussion, I move that we approve the annexation and zoning of 12.801 acres for Tarawood Subdivision, Michelangelo Investments, LLC and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law showing suc~~. I don't know whether this is proper or not, but I, in the preliminary plat site-specific requirements, I am for erasing No. 5. (.don't want to take responsibility. Corrie: Is that part of the motion that you'd like five removed? Bird: Yes. And I hope that it will show on the Facts and Conclusions of Law. Corrie: It will if that's your motion. Bird: That's my motion. Corrie: Is there a second to that? Anderson: May I ask for a clarification? You want to eliminate the whole thing or just one of the pedestrian pathways or - Bird: Just Lots 7 and 8 Block 3. The one that dumps out onto the Ridenbaugh. Anderson: I'll second it. Corrie: Okay. Motion is made and seconded to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law on the annexation and zoning with the recommendation to set the requirements with the exception of Item No. 5 in Lot 7 and 8, Block 3 verbiage to be taken out in the 20-foot-wide pedestrian pathway. Any further comments? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Before we go to Item 21, have you had a chance to read that? Scott, if you want to -let's go back and pick up 18 and 19 and then we'll come back to 20. 18. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AN7 ZONING OF 4.34 ACRES (R-T TO C-G) BY SONNTAG EYE ASSOCIATES OR ASSIGNS LOCATED AT LOT 15 OF MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION: CITY 19. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQU-EST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 60,000 SQUARE FOOT MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND OUTPATIENT SURGERY FACILITY BY SONNTAG EYE ASSOCIATES OR ASSIGNS LOCATED AT LOT 15 OF MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION: Meridian City Council Meeting October 5, 1999 Page 56 Freeman: I think I can make this really brief. There are a couple of items on here that were discussed during the P & Z hearing, and I did not see any additional comments that addressed them as we discussed them. Item No. 3 which has to do with the sanitary sewer service. We had demonstrated during the P & Z hearing that due to topography, a lift station was, in fact, necessary; however, we did agree to stub out a sewer line from our building southward so, in the event in the future a sewer main was brought up to future Freeway Drive on the south side of our property, we could then use that for our sewer and eliminate the lift station. One other comment has to do with Item No. 7 which is requires 35-foot landscaping buffer along future Freeway Drive. That also relates to the recommendation to City Council, Page 5, Item 1.4 in the recommendations which says that we will negotiate with the City of Meridian for a certain width along future Freeway Drive. What we had agreed to, I believe, in our discussions at the P & Z hearing was that we would provide - I need this back, don't I - we would provide a minimum 19-foot wide landscape strip along future Freeway Drive. I didn't see that specifically addressed in these comments. And that's all. Corrie: Okay. What was the first one, sir? Freeman: The first one had to do with the sewer line. They were asking that we look further into agravity-feed sewer line to the street. We had demonstrated during that hearing that that was not possible at this time because of the topography of the site. Corrie: Okay. Staff comments? Stiles: I wasn't clear on the 19-foot -was that going to be south of Freeway Drive or north of Freeway Drive? Freeman: That's north of Freeway Drive along our property. Stiles: So where this existing landscape is here, that would be increased to 19 feet? Freeman: Correct. I had submitted a revised site plan at the time of the last hearing that had taken that corner access out per ACHD's recommendations and added landscape buffer to that south side. That was going to be included, I believe, in the recommendations, but I see that the original site plan is attached here right now. Stiles: I don't have a copy of a revised site plan in my file. Does anybody up there have one? Freeman: I had distributed one to all of the members of the P & Z Council. No? Bentley: We're not (inaudible) P & Z. • ! Meridian City Council Meeting October 5, 1999 Page 57 Rossman: Mr. Mayor, I would assume that if it was passed out at the P & Z hearing that it would have been made a part of the record, so there should be some indication in the Clerk's record of a revised site plan. Freeman: I could attempt to describe those changes. It's relatively simple on the map on the screen if that helps. Corrie: Shari, is that going to help you if he does that, or will we still need that revised plan? We don't have it. Do you have it? Stiles: I would like to have a plan to know what we're approving when we see a site plan come in. Corrie: Is that it, Will? Is that the one? Freeman: That appears to be it. You'll know if the elimination of the access on the corner there between Allen Street and future Freeway Drive and also the increased landscape width. And what we had discussed, and what was going to become, according to my understanding, part of the recommendations was that we provide minimum 19 feet along future Freeway Drive. (inaudible discussion) Corrie: We better send it over and let Shari look at it. Bentley: Shari -show her that. Bird: We got it. Isn't it on the back of that packet? Bentley: It's on the back page. Nineteen. Bird: I knew I'd seen that when I seen it. Bentley: Dated August (inaudible). Bird: Don't I have it on mine? Corrie: August 31St date - Stiles: Has a scaled copy been provided to anybody? That's not scaled. Bird: It's on our conditional use, yeah. Corrie: But it's not to scale. • Meridian City Council Meeting October 5, 1999 Page 58 Bird: Is it to scale? Freeman: It is drawn to scale, but it is not copied to scale, no. But I can provide that. It's at the office. I just need to turn it in. Corrie: Would that suffice or do you still want to hold it? Stiles: Steve has told me that the 19-foot requirement was placed on the project after that site plan was submitted, so we haven't seen a revised site plan that shows that. I would like to see one that we can put a scale to and make sure that the driveways meet ordinance requirements and the parking stalls meet ordinance requirements after that 19-foot is taken out. It's pretty tight the way it is right now, so. I don't know - Freeman: Well, we discovered that we actually -supposedly ACRD is going to tike the right-of-way off of the center line of what the paved portion of future Freeway D~ eve is. We discovered that we actually had more land on our property than we originally had thought. So we were able to provide 19 more feet along the south side. Stiles: If they can meet all the conditions of approval, I don't have a particular problem. I would like them to submit a plan so we can guarantee that. Freeman: Yeah. It's not a problem. Corrie: All right. Council, do you have any questions? Bird: I have none. Rossman: Councilman Bird, would you like your copy back? Bird: Yeah. I'll take that back. Thank you. Corrie: Thanks, Scott. Bird: Do we have to close the public hearing? Corrie: Yeah. I was just looking at what's up there. Okay. I'II close the public hearing on Item 18 and 19, they were taken together, with the recommendation of the Council vote. Bentley: So moved. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting October 5, 1999 Page 59 Corrie: Okay. The motion was made and seconded that we close the public hearing on No. 18 and 19. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: Okay. All ayes. Let's take them one at a time. The request for annexation and zoning. Any discussion on that? Bird: I have none. Bentley: I have none. Corrie: Okay. I'll entertain a motion for the Findings of Fact and Conclusions to be drawn up for that one. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we pass the annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres by Sonntag Eye Associates or assigns located at Lot 15 in Magic View Subdivision for the attorneys to draw up the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order in favor with the applicant to get a scaled site drawing to the Planning and Zoning director within a couple of days. Bentley: Second. Corrie: Okay. Motion is made on Item No. 18 to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with approval, the opinion, and to have Scott bring the Planning and Zoning director the scaled map of the 4.34 acres. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Corrie: All ayes. Motion carried. Okay. -Item No. 19, the request for the conditional use permit. Any discussion. Bird: I have none. Bentley: I have none. Corrie: Okay. I'll entertain a motion on the conditional use permit. Meridian City Council Meeting October 5, 1999 Page 60 Bentley: Are we going to need to hold this until the annexation? Corrie: Yeah, we do. We can't (inaudible) to do it either way. We should get the - Bird: We can (inaudible) the Findings of Facts. Mr. Mayor, I move that we - in favor of the conditional use permit for 60,000 square foot medical office building and outpatient surgery facility by Sonntag Eye Associates or assigns located at Lot 15 in Magic View Subdivision and the attorney draw up in favor Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order showing such. Bentley: Second. Corrie: Motion made and second to approve the request for conditional use permit and have the attorney draw up the proper form on the CUP. Any further discussion? Hearing that, all those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES 21. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TARAWOOD SUBDIVISION BY MICHELANGELO INVESTMENTS, LLC- SOUTH OF LOS ALAMITOS PARK & NORTH OF SFiERBROOKE HOLLOWS: Corrie: Now we'll drop down to Item 20. This is a continued public hearing: Request for annexation - I'm sorry. Twenty-one, continued public hearing: Request for preliminary plat for Tarawood Subdivision by Michelangelo Investments, LLC. We've had a request that the testimony that was issued on Item 20 would be incorporated in 21 by Mrs. Bocutt and Mr. Stoppello. Is there anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony in this case? If you want to, you can now. Riley: Again, just one more time, gentlemen. I implore you to notice that Briggs Engineering's contradiction saying they do have plenty of access. Well, that is true. They do have five accesses into the property, but they're all through other subdivisions. They're still -they're assuming that we want all the traffic either coming through, out into Time Zone, down Bayou Bar and out through Raven Hill which is going to affect another one, going out through - up through Los Alamitos again down Three Bars over the new Eagle bridge and out to Eagle. All their accesses, I don't know this Ada County Highway District study, I don't know - it only makes sense if people work out in Nampa. They're still going to come through Los Alamitos. If they work in Micron, they're still going to come through Los Alamitos. If they have to come through, back through Sherwood and out and then down, that's not a legitimate way to go. It's going to be much faster to go through Los Alamitos, get on Locust Grove and down Overland. And as soon as the - or out to the Meridian onramp onto the freeway. So they're putting a ~ Meridian City Counci~eting October 19, 1999 Page 21 Corrie: Any further discussion? Motion is on the floor. All those in favor of the motion say aye. Motion is carried, table the Findings and the development agreement would be checked and reviewed by the. attorney. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES ITEM 9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.34 ACRES (R-T TO C-G) BY SONNTAG EYE ASSOCIATES OR ASSIGNS LOCATED AT LOT 15 OF MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION: Corrie: Item No. 9, this is Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: Request for annexation and zoning of 4.34 acres, R-T to C-G by Sonntag Eye Associates or assigns located at Lot 15 of Magic View Subdivision. Council, you have the Findings of Facts there. Any questions? Staff, comments? Anderson: I have none. Bird: I have none, Mayor. Corrie: Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion on Item No. 9. Rountree: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Rountree. Rountree: I move that we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order for the annexation and zoning of 4.3 acres from R-T to C- G. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law. Any further discussion? Roll-call vote; Mr. Anderson Anderson: Aye. Corrie: Mr. Bentley. Bentley: Aye. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: Aye. Corrie: Mr. Rountree. Meridian City Council~ting October 19, 1999 Page 22 Rountree: Aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES ITEM 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OF MAXIMUM BLOCK LENGTH AND MAXIMUM CULDESAC LENGTH FOR THE LAKES AT CHERRY LAKE #9 BY LOUIS J. STEINER (STEINER DEVELOPMENT)-EAST SIDE OF ASHFORD GREENS AND WEST OF LAKE AT CHERRY LANE #4: Corrie: Okay. We're getting into the public hearing part of the City Council meeting. I think we can probably get through it unless we have heavy debating going on a couple of them. So we'll watch the time. We want to try to close it up here by at least 10:30 (inaudible) run too late. I'll open the public hearing on Item No. 10 which is a request for variance of maximum block length and maximum cul-de-sac length for the Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 9 by Louis J. Steiner of Steiner Development, east side of Ashford Greens and west of Lake at Cherry Lane No. 4. *** End of Side 1 *** -- first. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for a property that you previously reviewed for a plat. It's located on the golf course. It's in between Ashford Greens and other phases of the Lakes at Cherry Lane. With the design that they have, this would be where a proposed Wilkins Ranch Subdivision once came before you that was denied. They have this block length that exceeds our 1,000-foot block length. They do have a proposed stub street that would come in this area and also the cul-de-sac length, I believe, exceeds our maximum. They are requesting a variance for the cul-de-sac and block length requirements. This is also the Eight Mile Lateral running along here. If they did stub into this property, they would need to build a bridge, and that's all the information I have. Corrie: Okay. I'll entertain the developer to testify first, and if we have any questions as referenced to the Findings of the Planning and Zoning director. Becky. Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering, 1800 West Overland, Boise. You saw this as a preliminary plat, the Lakes at Cherry Lane No. 9. As you well know, this property is isolated by the golf course and the Eight Mile Lateral. This cul-de-sac exceeds the 450 by approximately 70 feet, so it's 520 feet and then we've got this continuation of a block here and the block here that exceeds the 1,000-foot maximum block length. This particular variance application does meet the requirements for a variance. You can make the findings that there's site- ti ~- Meridian City Council ~ouncil Meeting October 19, 1999 Page 4 Anderson: Okay. Thank you. Rountree: Thanks, Will. Does that answer your question? Anderson: Yes. Thank you. Rountree: Okay, Shari. Back to you. ITEM 9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.34 ACRES (R-T TO C-G) BY SONNTAG EYE ASSOCIATES OR ASSIGNS LOCATED AT LOT 15 OF MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION: Stiles: Number 9 would be the Sonntag Eye Associates, it's also been called the Alan Care Center, I think it's also been called the Magic Uew Center. The main issue there, of course, is we had asked for a revised site plan which I believe we received either yesterday or today, and the issue of the water and sewer and the fact that that hadn't been turned over to the City yet. Rountree: Gary. Smith: Mr. President, Council members, we have a contractor that is improving a water system in that area, and they contacted the contractor who installed the water and sewer lines for the Holiday Inn Express to get their permission to connect their water line that they're building with the water line that was installed for the Holiday Inn. The contractor did give us approval or give the contractor - ourcontractor approval to connect so that they could pressure test and flush the lines. Beyond that, nothing has happened in terms of my request in written form to that contractor to allow us to go in there and finish the job. I haven't received any word back from them. Bird: Mr. President. Rountree: Mr. Bird. Bird: Gary, is that the one that's got the lien on it? Smith: Yes, sir. Correct. Bird: The lien's on the property, not on the sewer line. Smith: That's correct. Bird: So basically, that sewer line is not liened. Rountree: It might have a little slope to it. ~- Meridian City Council 1~ouncil Meeting October 19, 1999 Page 5 Bird: Yeah. It leans. Mr. President. Rountree: Mr. Bird. Bird: Counselor, got something here. Gigray: Thank you. Mr. President - Rountree: Need your microphone. Gigray: Gary and I have been working together on this, and I would just say that our concern is, one, the City doesn't want to be in a position of accepting for perpetual maintenance a line until Public Works is assured that it'll meet our standards. Secondly, we do not want to invite some kind of lawsuit with regards to taking control or possession or authorizing construction or finish of construction on that line that's in the right-of-way until it is clear that the owners of the property and the contractor involved area aware of the proposed action and consent to it which would mean, I think, an express waiver on their part which would mean that we could proceed then with the other land owners to get that project complete, and I think Gary is proceeding appropriately on that to get the necessary approval so that that can get done. Bird: Mr. President. Rountree: Mr. Bird. Bird: Is that what you're talking about, Gary? That Sonntag had already got approval to go ahead and hook to that existing line from the contractor that has the lien on the property that the line was originally put into -for`? Smith: No, sir. What I was talking about was a contractor that we've employed to do some water works out there in that same area, and they just wanted to connect to these lines in order to facilitate the testing of their installation for the water. Rountree: As it relates to this annexation, Findings of Facts, there's really no decision in Findings and Facts in terms of the annexation and zoning. There's - don't have a resolution that says we're approving it or denying it or tabling it or - Gigray: Are we on Item 8? I'm sorry. Rountree: Item 9. Smith: Nine. Meridian City Council 1',ouncil Meeting October 19, 1999 Page 6 Bird: Findings and facts (inaudible). Smith: Aren't there Findings in the packet? Bird: Yeah, there is. Rountree: But there is no - Smith: I don't see where they go on and recommend (inaudible) Rountree: They lean towards approval, but there is no statement that we're approving annexation and - Gigray: I'll pull that file. Rountree: Will you check on that? I think that's probably the direction we're going. Bird: That's what was approved. Anderson: It kind of eludes to that, but it never comes out and says that anywhere in the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law that I saw. Rountree: Anything new as it relates to these, Shari? Stiles: Nothing new on any of the - Rountree: Okay. Stiles: -Findings. ITEM 20. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: B. GARY SMITH: 1. HIRING OF CONSULTING ENGINEER-LATECOMER AGREEMENTS 2. INTERSTATE 84 SEWER CROSSING (LATE COMER'S AGREEMENT) 3. CITY OF MERIDIAN WATERLINE PROJECT, PHASE II Rountree: Gary, you want to go over your items on the agenda, and John's, I guess. Smith: Yes, sir. Thank you. We want -Item No. 1 is we want to retain a local consulting engineer to help us in calculating the late-comer fee structures for _., f~ Meridian City Council l~ouncil Meeting October l9, 1999 Page 8 Smith: Yes. I can address the - I think I can address the issue on the pretreatment, Item No. 1. I'm not up to speed on the QAQC Plan that he needs to do. Item No. 1 is the need for us to develop a pretreatment program that'll be acceptable by EPA, and this is kind of in line with some of the requirements of our NPDES permit that has just been recently issued. John's concern after attending a pretreatment seminar is that we have some expertise in the environmental area from the legal side of our life, and Bill Gigray has worked with the City of Caldwell on some of their ordinances. I talked to John this afternoon, and I don't know this is - I guess at this point, this Item No. 1 is something that we probably could delay at least two weeks until we, John and I, have a chance to sit down with Bill and visit about what background he has. We obviously don't want to go outside the city for legal assistance if it's not necessary, and at the same time we want to be sure that we dot all the I's and cross all the T's that the EPA folks want us to for the environmental issues on the late-comers, excuse me, on the pretreatment program. When they come to this item, 1 will request that be tabled for a future date for consideration. The only thing I can relate to you is what John has written in his memorandum to Mayor Corrie and yourselves concerning this contract proposal for Pat Brown of Brown and Caldwell. Again, this relates to requirements from the NPDES permit that we recently received. That's about it. Rountree: That's it? Smith: Uh-huh. ITEM 9. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.34 ACRES (R-T TO C-G) BY SONNTAG EYE ASSOCIATES OR ASSIGNS LOCATED AT LOT 15 OF MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION: Rountree: Questions? Comments on the one item, Bill? Gigray: On Item No. 9, reviewing the Findings there, it has the necessary language to grant that application for annexation and zoning because it proscribes that we proceed with the development agreement and also that we proceed with an annexation ordinance and a zoning ordinance which is the application. Rountree: Usually there's a paragraph in there that says what our action - Gigray: There will be. Rountree: I know you cover it from various angles, but we like the most direct. r ti.~ Meridian City Council >~ouncil Meeting October 19, 1999 Page 9 Gigray: I don't know why that particular language isn't in there, but it will be offered for what needs to happen. Rountree: Okay. Gigray: So there wouldn't be a need for any delay. ITEM 17. APPEAL APPLICATION: REQUEST FOR APPEAL DECISION OF ZONING ADMINISTRATOR BY MIKE FORD/YANKE MACHINE SHOP: ITEM 18. REQUEST FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR USE OF PYROTECHNICS .OCTOBER 29T" AND 30T" BY BRUCE YOUNGER, MERIDIAN ASSEMBLY OF GOD AND TEEN MANIA MINISTRIES: ITEM 19. APPROVAL OF CITY ELECTION JUDGES AND CLERKS Rountree: Mr. Clerk, do you have anything to enlighten us on like 17, 18 or 19? Berg: Council President, members of the Council, the appeal application, I believe you have the information from our attorney concerning that issue which we probably shouldn't discuss any further unless it's just a process or procedure in which you want to discuss with him. Item 18 was a request to be before the Council to ask for a special permit. After discussing this situation or this issue with the attorney, the fire marshal and also the Mayor, our ordinance doesn't allow us to give a permit or a special permit conceming this. Our fire marshal had telephoned them and had talked to them about this and possibly using other non-fireworks to get the same effect done, and he did not get back to me as far as what their response was, so I couldn't tell you if they were going to be here or not. Rountree: What you're telling us is we can't issue a permit based on our ordinance - we don't have the ordinance language? Berg: Correct. Rountree: Okay. So they can do it. Berg: They can - we can't issue them a permit. Rountree: For next year. Berg: We are working on a new fireworks permit that would probably allow that for next year, a 60-day prior application, but at the current time, our ordinance