Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutesMeridian Planning & Zo ~~ g Commission May 13, 1997 Page 7 Smith: Second Johnson: Motion and a second to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Borup -Yea, Smith -Yea, MacCoy - No, Manning - No, Johnson -Yea MOTION CARRIED: 3 Yea, 2 No Johnson: Decision to City Council? Borup: Mr. Chairman, I move the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian hereby decide that the commissary bakery business for which the applicant proposed to obtain an accessory use permit is not an accessory use and that the applicant for an accessory use permit be and is hereby denied. Smith: Second Johnson: Motion and second to pass that recommendation onto the City Council, all in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CAR WASH WITH FUEL FACILITIES BY STEVE LYONS AND STEVEN BAINBRIDGE: Johnson: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the applicant or the applicant's representative to address the Commission. Bob Daugherty, 409 Ada Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Daugherty: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners this property that we are before you this evening had previously been approved for a conditional use permit for a retail building at 835 East Fairview Avenue. Since that time the owner has entered into an agreement to sell the northern portion of that property to Mr. Lyons and Mr. Bainbridge. Their desire is to construct a full service car wash facility with two detail bays, a retail space in front of the car wash and fuel facilities on that property. I believe that you have a diagram showing the original layout in our meeting with staff members and also with ACRD that drawing has changed somewhat just reflecting the 35 foot setback along Fairview Avenue and also the desired 40 foot in depth from the new right of way that ACHD wanted before we started a driveway actually entering into the facility. Although this development is somewhat different than the 6riginal one proposed we feel that it Meridian Planning & Zol!g Commission May 13, 1997 Page 8 would be an acceptable use based on Meridian's comprehensive plan and also it would be we believe that it would be an appropriate use. Currently the property is vacant if you will recall previously there was a single family residence on the property. That residence has since been moved. The property currently is vacant. The overall project originally was 3.98 acres, we are proposing to split off the northern .888 acres to facilitate the car was facility. They would also be granted a parking easement which would be located on the southern portion of the property which would be owned by Mr. Kouba. There, have been a couple of issues that have been addressed in your staff s recommendations. We don't seem to have any problem with any of their recommendations. We feel that we have met all of the required setbacks and everything that they have been requiring. There was however a couple of issues with regard to ACHD that I don't know if it would be appropriate to discuss those with you or just take those up directly with them. Johnson: I think it is a good idea to have them on the record if you don't mind putting them on the record. Daugherty: The original conditional use permit had required cross access agreements to the east and to the west for those commercial properties that are currently located up on Fairview Avenue which would have been Rountree Chevrolet and also the portion that would be to the west of our property but to the south of Meridian Auto Sales. The new conditional use or new recommendations from ACHD were asking for a cross access easement to the parcels to the south. We have tried to get clarification from ACHD, Ms. Gallagher's office this week and they assure me that they will try to get an answer back to us by Thursday. We don't know exactly what they are going to come back with us at. We would like to stick with the original cross access easement agreements. We have already secured the one for the 40 foot roadway easement which is on the Rountree parcel which was is actually owned by the Johnson's. We have already made arrangements to grant the cross access easement to the south and to the west of Meridian Auto Sales. So those are basically in place we just don't feel that we need to go into anything with the properties to the south even if it is the affected property they are referring to Kouba's. That is what that 40 foot easement is, it runs the entire length of our eastern boundary and provides ample access to that .southern portion of the properties. The other issue. with ACHD was that they were originally we had designed a 40 foot access of Fairview Avenue to go to the east side of the property there, ,they came back with us and recommended that we reduce that down to 36 feet. We did so and we reflected that on the new drawings. Now their recommendations are that we construct an entryway that is 24 to 30 feet wide. We would like to be able to have access to some larger vehicles and so forth to that property to the south. We anticipate at one point or another Rountree will develop the property to the south of their current car lot. We think that the additional traffic flow down there would warrant the 36 foot side entry as previously approved and that is what we would like to stick with. In your staff s-report from Planning and Zoning there was a comment #6 which was under the general comments that addresses the sidewalk, curbing and had indicated that ACRD had requested monies for the sidewalk be deposited into a trust. That particular Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission • May 13, 1997 Page 9 item that was the case under the original conditional use however my understanding and talking to Ms. Stiles is that if reconstruction of Fairview wasn't in ACHD's five year plan that you folks were wanting to see the sidewalk and so forth being placed up there now. So we would be willing to do that and as a matter of fact ACHD's new facts and findings have indicated that they did want us to construct that 5 foot wide sidewalk. So that is just what I believe what may be an error in referring to the original conditional use rather than the present one. Johnson: How long is that sidewalk, what is the length? Daugherty: The length would be 150 feet, that is the entire frontage of our parcel on Fairview avenue and of course we are not putting a driveway in. We have been restricted, the only driveway off of the parcel would be in that 40 strip. So we are constructing; we would be constructing a sidewalk the full width of our property in the north end. We also have this evening we have our project architect Mr. Joe Numbers from the Housing Group. If you have any questions about the building I would be referring those to him. We also have representatives here this evening from two different car wash equipment manufacturers. That would be Dan Thomas from Hannah Sherman and Bret from Preco. There is also a representative Bob Biner from Sinclair fuel who the owners anticipate supplying the fuel and helping construct the fuel facilities. AT this time if you have any questions regarding the site plan I would be happy to try to answer those for you. If you ~ have any questions specifically for the car wash the building or the fuel station I would like to refer those to the experts in their area. Johnson: I appreciate that, any questions of the applicant from the Commissioners? MacCoy: What are your hours of service going to be? Daugherty: The developer indicates that would be from 8:00 a.m. until 8:00 p.m. MacCoy: You say you have met with our staff as to lighting, outside lighting, signs, etc. assuming they have laid the whole thing down for you. Daugherty: Basically our conversations with staff we were relating primarily to the original conditional use, we didn't anticipate anything would change from that. We had addressed those lighting issues previously. The main concern with the light issue was in the buildings we were proposing down in the south which were adjacent to Danbury Subdivision the residential area down there. At this time that portion of the project would still remain conceptual in nature and it basically would not be developed at this time. We are just talking about the north portion of that property. MacCoy: I figured that, my question is for the southern section (Inaudible). Meridian Planning & Zoi~Rfg Commission May 13, 1997 Page 10 Daugherty: The southern section down here although being conceptual in nature that was something that under the first conditional use we had indicated and you folks had also made that stipulation that would be subject to an additional conditional use at such time that it was to be developed. MacCoy: For example on the northern property when you have your car wash on I have been by there, I take it that is your sign up there, the picture sign. Daugherty: There is a picture sign on the property yes. MacCoy: My concern is when I talk about lighting for example is the glare which as you are driving along Fairview and we don't end up with another installation like we have got already along there that just the lights are such position that they catch the traffic the wrong way and of course right now it is no problem but come winter time it will be a problem. So we are looking for lighting which is directional and they don't end up on Fairview avenue and create a problem for our drivers. Daugherty: I don't believe that our developers would have any problem entering into an agreement to do so. MacCoy: I just want to go on record with that. What about, a couple of things here, how are you going to handle the questions about what is the building going to look like, what kind of material are you going to use? Do you want to just put that to the side here for a moment? Daugherty: I would like to put that to the sideboard and refer that to the architect if you don't mind. MacCoy: What about screening if any down the side of your property or even along the back? Daugherty: Ms. Stiles had indicated to the rear of the property that they would be requiring some sort of fence and originally we had been talking when we were looking at developing the whole parcel the property to the south we were talking about a chain link fence with some sort of like redwood or vinyl slats to provide some sort of shielding from the residential area in the back and also to make sure that we maintain anything that might blow away and that it can be cleaned up on site rather than going onto the property that won't be developed. MacCoy: Let me get this straight, from the car wash to the other part of this property the building is that going to be a direct drive through or anything. Use that road to the east which is 40 feet? Meridian Planning & Zdl~g Commission May 13, 1997 Page 11 Daugherty: The 40 foot roadway to the east is what we anticipate would be' the only drive going to the southem portion. MacCoy: 1 am going to save my comments on the screening and etc. with the building of the south section until the time we get there because you have some things to think about there with the homes and trailer park and so on out there. I think I will pass, most of my questions have to do now with the construction and your building. Johnson: Anyone else? Borup: I have a couple, you said the site plan is adjusting to somewhat allow for the 35 foot setback, so I assume the fuel station is moving back? Daugherty: The fuel station is moving slightly back. Borup:. You had mentioned the cross access a couple of times, is the 40 foot roadway on Rountree property is that what you said? Daugherty: Yes it is, it is actually owned by the Johnson's but Rountree is leasing it. Borup: So you don't have to worry about any cross access easement there as far as to other (inaudible) Daugherty: That is correct it has been created by (Inaudible) Borup: But you had mentioned the property to the west then, that would be west in the future but this concept doesn't show any access at this point or are you talking right up there at the corner? Daugherty: That access being that it is an easement in nature that is something that would be subject to the actual location of it would be depending on what was developed down at the southern end. Borup: And then you said you were a little confused on what ACHD meant on the property to the south whether they meant the undeveloped of this or you think they may mean further south off of this property. Daugherty: I am thinking they are not meaning to the parcels directly to the south of our entire parcel. The reason the Borup: The 40 foot would take of that wouldn't it? Daugherty: Not necessarily because there is a 20 foot buffer strip that is required between us and the residential area. So we have held that off so actually that Meridian Planning & Zoi1!~fg Commission • May 13, 1997 Page 12 easement does not touch anything that goes to the south of our parcel. That was also something that had been previously addressed during the original conditional use. That is why I am anticipating that ACRD has probably not fully looked at this. I believe they were taking a look at the separation of our car wash and the second phase that may be developed. If that is the case we just don't feel that we need that. We have the ample access from that 40 foot easement. If they are making reference to the south of the entire parcel down there when we previously discussed it we kind of showed that Danbury Fair going across there had made a separation basically between commercial and residential in that line which is our south line. The actual owner of those parcels to the south of us right now is here this evening and he had indicated to me that he plans on doing something residential as we had anticipated. So I don't think that we would want to try and create a cross access easement going through a definitely commercial area down into a residential. This easement is such that it will not become a public roadway, it is a private roadway easement just to access those commercial facilities. Borup: When was the first conditional use application, was that a couple of years ago? Daugherty: That was CU #996 so it was approximately a year ago. Borup: You said as this point there are no specific plans for developing the area the southern portion of the property. Daugherty: That is correct. Borup: I am wondering why the applicant goes through all of this detail and then abandons the project and along that line then are you going to be going ahead with your development? Daugherty: My understanding is the folks that are here tonight that are representing the car wash the developer's Mr. Lyons and Mr. Bainbridge have every intention of constructing this car wash at the earliest possible convenience. They have already secured an architect that is working on the plans to get those in as soon as we have City Council's approval and they would like to start construction this year if at all possible. Borup: Thank you have I no other questions. Johnson: Does anyone else have any other questions? Smith: Mr. Chairman I don't know if this is the appropriate time to bring this up but I don't know if there is some much questions or comments on the site plan as designed, one thing is I have a problem with these parking stalls back right out into this access drive. If this property to the south is indeed developed as it is shown here that is going to be a traffic hazard. Also with the stacking space that is available to these vacuum Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission May 13, 1997 Page 13 bays and express lanes seems to be inadequate especially for the Saturdays you get quite a number of people coming in to get their cars washed. You. are going to get those cars stacking out on that access drive as well. I can appreciate the site constraints that you had to design by but I just wanted to bring those tv~ro things up regarding the site plan. Daugherty: We have basically taken that into consideration and as you are aware there is limited space available here. However we do feel that would be ample, we have three basic lanes going into the car wash. We also have some staging areas in front of those vacuum bays. We feel that we would have ample space. In addition the roadway is actually 40 feet wide which by ACRD standard is basically four lanes. So we don't think that we would have too much of a problem there. The property to the south those parking stalls that are actually facing out on the roadway that is going to be an easement that is going to be granted by Mr. Kouba who will own the southern portion of that property to Mr. Lyons and Mr. Bainbridge and they have indicated that their intention is to use that for employee parking. So there will be a limited amount of trips coming in and out of there per day. We don't feel that would be much of an issue really. Johnson: Have you put a number to the number of cars that you could accommodate in a line to enter the wash area? Daugherty: We can have at least 3 in each lane which is nine plus the ones there would be 2 available in each vacuum line so there would be another six there, there would be at least 15 cars that could be stacked up beginning at the vacuum bays and going east and then there is still another 6 that could be waiting to get into the tunnel that would be on the other side of the vacuum stalls. To your knowledge is the property clean so to speak? Daugherty: To my knowledge yes it is, I believe that you may be referring to the DEQ requirements from last time. My understanding is the only thing that has to be completed is that it needs to be hard surfaced and this will accomplish that. Johnson: Thank you, anyone else? Any other questions? This is a public hearing, is there anyone else representing the applicant that would like to come forward at this time. Joe Numbers, 910 Balsam Street, Boise, was s~nrorn by the City Attorney Numbers: Also we have some (inaudible) The building itself the structural shell is a metal building and on the north side this would be the side facing Fairview Avenue and also on the east side which would be out of site along the 40 foot access these would be faced in CMU. We are also proposing to use a glazed the as a trim or as an accent piece and along the bottom we have a line of split face CMU and then ribbed CMU band Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission May 13, 1997 Page 14 that meets the metal awnings out front. The rest would be smooth face CMU block on the main fagade and (inaudible). MacCoy: Okay, you have a flat roof on the place, what about sound inteneration with the actual car wash is that going to be a purchased item as a unit or are you actually going to build that from scratch and put the machinery in it? Numbers: I am sorry Commissioner MacCoy MacCoy: I am looking from the standpoint of once you put the machinery in the building are you going to have a lot of noise or is there a new type of lifestyle going on here you have taken care of that through your building or (inaudible). Numbers: The walls on either side of the car wash tunnel will be CMU block which has quite a good sound attenuation properties. We also will have a shield a fiberglass shield over the top which I guess primarily to shield the structural components from the water. As far as the noise from the car wash equipment I don't think that is very much. I would defer to the car wash equipment people if that is a concern. I might also point out that the building itself is set back quite a ways from Fairview avenue, it is approximately 90 to 100 feet. MacCoy: It just gets to be a concem of ours the fact that we don't want to building something and all of the sudden it is a nuisance to our community. I am sure you don't want that either. Numbers: I might also point out as one of the, ideas that the developers are thinking of doing is having kind of a theme, 50's theme with this and we have made provisions along the side elevation here to accommodate or to allow antique cars to be pulled in (End of Tape) point out in the front of the building itself is a small 17 foot diameter patio area. We anticipate in the summer and warmer whether that there would be tables and awnings out there and it would make a nice place to wait and also I think be a visual attraction from Fairview Avenue as well. Johnson: Any other questions of the architect? Smith: The whole building is CMU? Numbers: Mr. Chairman, Commissioner Smith yes that is correct. Let me back up here, we have two faces of CMU. At this point here screening is a metal building from the west and south side we see portions of the metal roof coming down to a CMU (inaudible). So there are only two walls that are CMU then the ones that we are seeing in this sketch. Two walls that come all the way up, this is a 20 foot height here on the west and south sides the walls will come up to meet the roof only. Actually we are Meridian Planning & Zo~g Commission May 13, 1997 Page 15 thinking of bring the block up about 4 feet and then metal building down to that : On the west and south sides. Smith: Were you going to leave the CMU a natural color or are you going to paint it? Numbers: I anticipate that we will paint it, I have shown the split face along the bottom and the ribbed that would remain natural color and the rest the smooth face.CMU would be painted some color probably white or an off white. Smith: Then you said the blue is a glazed CMU? Numbers: Right, glazed one brand is called spectra glaze it is a ceramic glazed the for both maintenance purposes and also to add a nice touch to the car wash itself. It is a fairly typical material that has been used in a number of car washes in the Treasure Valley today. Smith: Thank you Fitzgerald: Is CMU a acronym for something? Numbers: Yes sir it is, it stands for concrete masonry unit. Johnson: Any other questions? Thank you, does the applicant have any other people that would like to come forward at this time before we get into the public portion assuming there is a public portion. Does anyone have any questions about equipment at this time, can always reserve (inaudible) Is there anyone else that would like to address the Commission at this time on this application? Are there any other comments to add or is there anything you would like to add in winding it up? Daugherty: I would like to add something, there was some question about the noise. One thing that I also wanted to add was in the comments and discussion with Shari Stiles she had also brought that up and was asking about the vacuum bays seeing as how they are going to be located to the south of the property. What the developers have indicated to me is that the actual vacuum unit itself will be housed inside the building and there are a couple of different options but it would be ducting that would run out and actually servicing those islands. So that should cut down quite a bit on the noise. That was where are concern was and where Ms. Stiles concern was from the vacuum equipment. I think that is all I have thank you. Johnson: Since we are talking noise and maybe you covered this and I missed it. Is there going to be a loud speaker system at all that you are aware of? Daugherty: To my knowledge there would not be any type of a loud speaker system no sir. - Meridian Planning & Z~g Commission May 13, 1997 Page 16 Johnson: Those are systems that have caused of problems with the public before. Daugherty: No, I wouldn't think that there would be any need for one in the rear, it would be a typical car wash where the people drop their cars off at the vacuum bays and then they will head up (inaudible) they will be looking for their tip and that is the only hand signals most consumers need. Johnson: Thank you, I am going to close the public hearing unless someone else would like to testify at this time. Seeing no one then I will close the public hearing. This is an application that would require findings of fact and conclusions of law if someone would like to make a motion. MacCoy: Mr. Chairman, I move that we have the counsel prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for this project. Borup: Second Johnson: We have a motion and a second to have the City attorney prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law on the application item 12 on our agenda this evening, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MacCoy: Mr. Chairman I move that we conclude our operation this evening and close the meeting for the public. Smith: Second Johnson: Moved and seconded to adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:08 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: JIM JOHNSON, CHAIRMAN Meridian City Council June 3, 1997 Page 16 understand the developer is trying to complete some of the improvements prior to recording it so they won't be bonding for as many improvements. They just was to complete the project first. That may not get done by this month. The other part of the ordinance that they need a time extension on is that they submit phase 2 of Packard Subdivision No. 1. That is required to submitted in phases of one year. They also are not going to be able to meet that deadline so they have asked for an additional year to submit phase 2 on that. Morrow. That covers both the agenda items then 11 and 12? Stiles: Yes Corrie: They are asking for a year on both? Stiles: Yes Corrie: Council with your permission we will do 11 and 12 together. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we grant the extensions of one year for both items 11 and 12 from the effective date (inaudible). Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to extend one year the date or the extension of the Packard Subdivision No. 1 phase 1 and No. 1 phase 2. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #13: LAMONT KOUBA: LOT SPLIT FOR 835 E. FAIRVIEW AVENUE. Corrie: Is Mr. Kouba here? Daugherty: My name is Bob Daugherty I am with Johnson Land Surveying and we are here tonight on behalf of Mr. Lamont Kouba. We had. previously been approved a conditional use permit 9-96 for a piece of property situated at 835 East Fairview Avenue. As you may recall there was a single family residence located on the premises which was in between Rountree Chevrolet and Meridian Auto Sales. Mr. Kouba's intentions were to construct a retail facility on the northern portion of that property and the southern portion was going to be conceptual in nature and geared towards the automotive industry service type businesses. Since that time Mr: Kouba has entered into a sales agreement with two individuals, a Mr. Steve Lyons and Steve Bainbridge to sell off the northern portion of that property where the retail facility was going to be placed. Their intention is to build or construct a full service car wash with fuel facilities. A conditional use permit application has already been filed and has going through the Y~ Meridian City Council -June 3, 1997 Page 17 public hearing stage at the Planning and Zoning Commission level. During our initial application we had proposed a drive entering onto the property from the west side of our property. We had run into some difficulties with ACRD with the location of the driveway in relationship with a driveway at Meridian auto sales. So they were requiring that we remove the drive to the east side of our property which would border on the side of Rountree Chevrolet. Rountree had previously left a 40 foot strip vacant to access the rear of their property for possible future development. It was determined at that time that if we constructed our entryway on the east side of our property that they would no longer be able to use that, their proposed entry to access that back portion of their lot. We had entered into an agreement with that property owner, I use the term Rountree because they are the people that currently have the lease on that property. The property is actually owned by Mrs. Johnson. We had entered into an easement agreement to utilize that 40 foot strip to access our entire parcel. That 40 foot strip goes the entire length of our property on the east side. As a result of that easement we would no longer have access off of Fairview Avenue direct lot access off of Fairview Avenue per ACHD's requirements. I guess the only reason that we are before you tonight is because what it will do is create a technically land locked parcel. In reality we don't feel that it will be a land locked parcel because we do have that 40 foot easement that will service that southern portion of the property. The sates agreement that Lamont, Mr. Kouba has signed with Mr. Bainbridge and Mr. Lyons requires the construction of that 40 foot easement to be made in a timely manner. For those funds to be set aside in escrow to make sure that is done. So in doing so we don't feel that we are jeopardizing any .type of access to that southern portion and I guess ultimately Mr. Kouba is fully aware of the situation and what has been created here, he is certainly willing to do that in order to sell that northern portion. What we are doing here this evening is just asking your permission to do this. Bentley: I have a question on this 40 foot easement, you said you are going to have him bond to construct is, is that the full length of both pieces of property or just bond for the front piece? Daugherty: That would be the full length, the full 40 foot roadway easement. If you have on the very back of your packets there I believe you have the picture. That 40 foot easement in its entirety would be constructed. Bentley: Clear back to Danbury? Daugherty: 20 feet off of Danbury. Tolsma: This 40 feet that you plan on here you say Rountree has 40 feet on their side also? Daugherty: No, that is the 40 foot easement, that easement shown is entirely on their. property. Meridian City Council June 3, 1997 Page 18 Tolsma: (inaudible) Daugherty: The 40 foot easement is entirely on their property that is correct. We have a recorded easement that I believe is part of your packet that shows that has been recorded and granted to Mr. Kouba and or his assigns for permanent roadway easement. Tolsma: So the property you are going to split off is just for the car wash (inaudible) Daugherty: That is correct the shaded in area to the north. Bentley: I would like to hear from staff on their thoughts on this. Stiles: Councilman Bentley, Mayor and Council, I believe that this the applicant and his representative has been thorough in this application. It only makes sense that frontage along Fairview is going to be desirable for the commercial property. With some of the frontages there it is not going to allow a full width roadway since they do have the recorded easement in place and it is going to pass to their heirs and successors. I see no problem with granting the lot split, the reason he is requesting this even though we allow the one time lot split and it is not in our ordinance, any time there is a lot split it is called a subdivision in our ordinance. We have been going along with what the County does as far as allowing that one time split. With this proposed split there is no frontage and that is the reason that he has come in to make this request to ensure that there is no problem with selling off that front portion. There is a development agreement required Lyons and Bainbridge who have proposed the car wash they are aware of that development agreement requirement and Mr. Kouba on the back portion of this is also aware that he will have to enter into a development agreement at such time that he develops that back portion. Did that answer your question? Bentley: Thank you Corrie: Any further questions? Thank you Morrow: Counselor, Shari is correct we don't have a formal one time split we require the formal subdivision process for the one time split in the County. I guess some guidance with respect to this application. Crookston: Under our ordinance it is a splitting of property, it is a division. It is under our ordinance a subdivision plat is required to do this. Morrow. Shari then in this process are we going to see a subdivision plat filed for this split to occur? Stiles: I hope not Meridian City Council June 3, 1997 Page 19 Crookston: I think that it means that a variance would have to be requested. Stiles: Since I started this job three plus years ago, my predecessor had given me the instruction that was the way it was to be done that we allowed the one time split. We have been allowing the one time split, probably even before Wayne Forrey was here maybe Gary could attest to that. Jack Niemann had written numerous letters I found in the file saying they are allowed a one time split as long as they meet the requirements of the ordinance as far as lot size and the frontage requirement we have routinely been allowing a one time split. Morrow: That was a matter of policy not of ordinance so we don't have a formal structure to do that. Which we need to do post haste. Rountree: I have a question for Wayne or Shari or both, what did we do with Albertson's at Cherry Lane and Meridian? Crookston: They started out initially coming in with a subdivision plat then we got into the problem with water. Rountree: No we are talking about Cherry Lane and Meridian Road, the old Albertson's. Crookston: That was established prior to our ordinance and, but they have since come in with a subdivision plat. Come: Well Council it looks like you can do one of two things here. Morrow. What might that be? Corrie: Well you can ask for a variance or you can ask for a subdivision, actually there are three, one time split and do the ordinance post haste as you said. Morrow. Well that would be my preference. (Inaudible) staff has got it pretty well covered I think that what we do is from my perspective is we grant the one time split and then we also come back (inaudible) so my motion would be that we grant the one time lot spli# for Lamont Kouba at 835 E. Fairview Avenue. Rountree: Second Come: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #14: CHARLES & BRENDA MALLARD: LOT SPLIT 3225 S. CINDER ROAD - SW CORNER OF VICTORY AND CINDER ROADS: -- ~. r -. MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 10. 1997 The regular meeting of the Meridian Planning & Zoning Commission was called to order by Commissioner Keith Borup at 7:00 P.M.: MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Manning, Byron Smith, Malcolm MacCoy: MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Jim Johnson: OTHERS PRESENT: John Fitzgerald Jr., Will Berg, Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Richard Baxter, Jerry Van Engen, Morten Awes, Jeff Foster, Loren D. Ross, Robert Fritts, Ruth Fritts, Rhonda Coonse, John Shipley, Dixie- Jenkins, Hoyt Michener, Clifford Babbitt, Nancy Hansen, Marvin Hansen, Van Elg, Carolyn Jansper, Patrick Drake, Jim Maines, Karen Gallagher, Robert Jacobsen, Richard Coonse: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MAY 13, 1997: Borup: Has everyone had a chance to read the minutes, any comments, questions or additions? Manning: I move the minutes be approved as written. MacCoy: It has been moved and seconded to approve the minutes as prepared, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CAR WASH WITH FUEL FACILITIES BY STEVE LYONS AND STEVEN BAINBRIDGE: Borup: Any discussion from the Commission concerning the findings of fact and conclusions of law? Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to reiterate my concerns that I brought up at the last meeting regarding the site plan as designed. I have concems about the parking spaces backing out onto the access drive. I think it is a safety issue that should be addressed. I also don't believe that there is adequate stacking space in front of the vacuum bays. The findings of fact state that Bob Daugherty testified that 15 vehicles could be stacked in the three staging areas, three lanes. That would be five vehicles a lane. The standard parking stall is 19 feet, 5 cars and 19 feet is about 96 feet. I don't think they have 96 feet from the vacuum bay to the street. I think at a minimum they should do some kind of a vehicular flow projection to determine how many vehicles are actually going to be stacked and how many are going to be required to be waiting in the street. Also, in response to the construction of the building it has been stated by the architect Joe Numbers that the building would be constructed of primarily of CMU and _ -- .,,. Meridian Planning & Zor~ Commission June 10, 1997 Page 2 metal siding. The rendering of the building that was presented depicts pre-cast concrete and I don't want to belabor a graphic issue but it clearly does not depict CMU. I think it should be adequately or accurately depicted when presented to the City Council. The correct material designation on the construction of the building. Also, I guess I have a concern that this building has been designed to look pretty from the street and once you turn the corner of the building the applicant has chosen to minimize the durable, they have minimized the CMU and have-gone with a metal shell which is not as attractive and requires more maintenance and does not have the longevity of concrete masonry. If I need to put together some kind of motion to amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law and incorporate those concerns about the design, I don't want to hold up the process for the applicant to incorporate those concerns into the findings of fact. Borup: You can go ahead and anything can be amended at this point. Maybe you can get it more precise. Counselor? Fitzgerald: Well his concerns he expressed are somewhat detailed and I would say that given the expression of his concerns unless he can be more concise and specific it would require or I would suggest that we redo those findings of fact and conclusions of law to specifically incorporate those as stated. Borup: Concerning his comment on not wishing to hold it up further here is there some way that some of those comments could be submitted along with the findings to City Council that they may want to consider any adjustment? Fitzgerald: I suppose that he could specifically try to provide it in a motion to amend it by saying his concerns with regard to the parking spaces backing out into the roadway access roadway the stacking he doesn't believe that there is a sufficient area. And third in terms of the design of the building the appearance and so forth he has concerns about those. And then he could amend it that way and include it (inaudible). Borup: Commissioner Smith does that sound like that would cover (inaudible) Smith: Let me see if I can give this a try here. I would like to amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law with the following inclusions that the parking be reconfigured on the site to eliminate backing onto the access drive. That the applicant provide documentation to show that there is adequate stacking space for cars on the site as designed and if not that redesign be done. That the rendering as presented to the City Council be corrected. to show the materials that are proposed to be utilized in the design and construction of this building. And that consideration be made by the City Council to require that the entire building be constructed of CMU in lieu of partial walls CMU and metal siding. MacCoy: Second !1 '-a'W /~- ~ Meridian Planning & Zo~ Commission ~_ June 10, 1997 Page 3 Borup: We have a motion and a second, do you want to expand on the motion to include the rest of the findings? Smith: I will make a second motion. Borup: With the aforementioned motion I would also like to propose that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian hereby adopts and approves these findings of fact and conclusions of law. MacCoy: Second Borup: We have a motion and second, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Smith -Yea, MacCoy -Yea, Manning -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Borup: Do we have any other recommendations for City Council? Smith: Mr. Chairman, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the city of Meridian that it approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicants for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law or similar conditions as found justified and appropriate by the City Council. And that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, uniform fire code, parking, paving and landscape requirements and all ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the applicant's by the City. Manning: Second Borup: A motion and second, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTSIDE SEATING BY WILD WEST BAKERY & ESPRESSO - 815 E. 1ST STREET: Borup: At this time I would like to open the public hearing and invite the applicant or the representative to come forward. Carolyn Jansen, 708 Spyglass Way, Eagle, was sworn by the City Attorney. Borup: We have got your application and such, maybe you can expand a little bit on what you are proposing. ~ ~ Meridian City Council June 17, 1997 Page 10 same sized building we will just end up making a slightly tighter site with more landscaping around it. The concept will be the same. The significant changes that will occur there we feel will mitigate any appearance or any encroachment that is perceived by our project. Morrow: Final questions? There being none we will now close the public hearing, Council your pleasure. Rountree: Mr. President I move that we have Counsel prepare findings of fact and conclusions. Bentley: Second Morrow. It has been moved and seconded to have the Counselor prepare findings of fact and conclusions, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CAR WASH WITH FUEL FACILITIES BY STEVE LYONS AND STEVEN BAINBRIDGE: Morrow: Is there a representative here for Mr. Lyons and Mr. Bainbridge. Daugherty: Council, my name is Bob Daugherty I am with Johnson Land Surveying representing Mr. Bainbridge. During the last meeting we came before you and asked for your permission to split the parcel that had previously been approved for retail space at 835 Fairview Avenue. Since then Mr. Kouba who previously had the conditional use approval has sold the northern portion of the property or at least entered into a sales agreement with Mr. Bainbridge. I might want to note at this point that Mr. Lyons is no longer associated with the project. So it is just Mr. Bainbridge. His intention is to construct a car wash a full service car wash facility on the northern portion of that property. It would have a retail space in the front of that cash ash and also have full fuel facilities. There would also be two detail bays associated with the car wash: All of that construction would take place on the .88 acres that adjoins Fairview Avenue. We have gone over the facts and findings that were prepared from Planning and Zoning . We don't have any problems with anything that they have recommended. There are a couple of items however that we would like to ask for your permission to change. One of them we had previously stated that the hours of operation would be 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. the car wash we are asking that we be allowed during the summer to open that at 7 a.m. and go until 8 p.m. The winter hours, they would anticipate those being from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. The fuel facility, those would be extended hours and 1 believe that there would be the availability to pump gas via a gas card or credit card type situation even as much as 24 hours per day for the fuel station itself. Commissioner Smith had three specific concerns that he indicated that he was going to pass along to the Council. One was about the parking issue where people were going to be backing out into a 40 foot road Meridian City Council June 17, 1997 Page 11 way easement that we had secured from the adjoining property. There was also some concern about the stacking, how many cars we could actually have waiting to get into the car wash before they would start spilling out onto that roadway easement. Then additionally he had a concern about the building construction itself and materials that would be used. We have redone a site plan, I believe that you folks probably have a packet that reflects the new site plan which did away with the parking that would be backing into the 40 foot easement strip. And created out of that parking area or a portion of that parking area some additional stacking which would handle up to S additional cars. We feel that the site plan changes anyway would address all of those concerns. The building concerns I would like to defer those to the project architect Mr. Joe Numbers at a little later time here. There seems to be some a couple of discrepancies. In the site specific requirements from Bruce Freckleton and Shari Stiles and it kind of goes throughout the entire findings of fact but it appears at least on page 14, item e, they were looking for a warranty deed on that additional 4 foot of right of way that ACRD is requiring along Fairview avenue. They are requiring that prior to applying for a building permit. During in ACHD's requirements they are asking for that 4 foot warranty deed to be in place and recorded prior to issuance of a building permit. We would like for you to if you approve this conditional: use permit we would like for you to change that to reflect ACRD so we can go ahead and get the permit in process. Mr. Bainbridge, should alt of this go through of course then the sale on the property would be complete. Then he will be contacting ACRD and dedicating that additional 4 feet of right of way. We don't feel that additional 4 feet of right of way should hold up the entire process. It would hold it up substantially getting that to ACHD prior to issuing the building permits. Or applying for the building permits I should say. Additionally there was some confusion as far as the cross access agreements. They were requiring during the original conditional use permit ACRD had requested cross access agreements to the property to the east which was the parcel that Rountree is currently sitting on. The parcel to the west and to the south of Meridian auto sales, during this new conditional use process a lot of that had kind of gotten changed around. We went back to ACHD and I have delivered a letter to Ms. Stiles from a Steve Sneed the development analyst for ACHD and he has agreed that they would change their items to reflect the original conditional use which would be those two parcels. In doing so we have already secured the easement with the parcel that Roundtree sits on for that 40 foot access easement that goes the entire length of our parcel. The parcel that would be to the south and the west of Meridian Auto Sales that portion we feel that once the southern half of the project is developed- at that time we would go ahead and enter into the cross access agreement with those folks. With that I guess I would be happy to try and answer any questions that you may have specifically about the site plan. We do also have representatives here this evening from Hannah Sherman which will be supplying the car wash equipment that will be housed inside the building. We also have a representative from Sinclair Fuel that will be providing the or constnacting the service station and providing any information that you might need about that. Our project architect Mr. Joe Numbers of course is here to answer any concerns you may have about the building itself. Meridian City Council i June 17, 1997 Page 12 Morrow: Questions for Mr. Daugerty? Tolsma: What are your hours of operation you are changing that from 8 to 8 to 7 until when? Daugherty: During the summer hours the car wash itself will be open from 7 a.m. until 8 p.m. so we are extending that by 1 hour in the morning which would allow people to stop by on their way to work perhaps and get their cars washed. Tolsma: And your fuel service will be open Daugherty: The fuel service, we would anticipate that the fuel availability would be 24 hours a day. That people would be able to go in there and get fuel. And the fuel station I might note is going to be facing right up on Fairview avenue. Of course we have previously discussed the lighting issue with staff and I am sure that will be part of the development agreement. Rountree: I don't have a question for Mr. Daugherty I do have a question for their equipment suppliers as it relates to noise level of vacuums. Morrow: Any other questions of Mr. Daugherty? Thank you, could we have the equipment supplier come forward and answer the questions that Mr. Rountree and Mr. Bentley have? Thomas: My name is Dan Thomas. Rountree: My question is what is the decibel level of the vacuums at say 100 feet from their placement on this site? Thomas: Well the vacuums the way they are designed in this building here shouldn't be heard literally at all. They are inside the detail shop building inside a sound proof closet. So they will pretty much you will not even hear them all. Bentley: I had a question on signage and I don't know who to direct this one to. Morrow: Thank you Mr. Thomas. Is the project architect Mr. Numbers. Numbers: I am a representative from the Housing Group the architectural group representing Mr. Bainbridge. Bentley: I wanted to ask you want kind of signage we were looking at? Numbers: We have several signs shown on the building itself if you will notice on the elevations we have some metal roofed canopies and we have signage on a backlit canopy there if 1 could point those out quickly. Also, the Sinclair fuel station will have Meridian City Council ~ • June 17, 1997 Page 13 signage as a part of its canopy. At this point we are not planning on having an independent sign on the property. Bentley: At this point, are there plans down the road? Numbers: Not that I have discussed with the owner, no. Bentley: We would prefer to just stay with it on the awnings. Numbers: (Inaudible) I stand corrected (End of Tape) Morrow: Mr. Numbers would .you continue with the knowledge that you have at this point in terms of the signage on the building, further questions Mr. Bentley? Bentley: No Morrow. I think that addresses those comments. Mr. Bainbridge if you would come forward please and further answer Mr. Bentley's question. Bainbridge: As far as the sign, we will have a sign out on the berm whether it will be a monument or a pole type sign I guess that is up to the committee. Is there a committee? Bentley: There is a sign ordinance. I myself would prefer to see a monument sign. Bainbridge: Either way whatever is preferred we will do that. Bentley: That would be my preference. Morrow. Any further questions for Mr. Bainbridge? Crookston: What height of sign are you talking about? Bainbridge: I believe one of those monument signs is like 6 foot as far as height. I would say it is probably about 6 foot as far as the width. Crookston: The top of the sign how high would that be? Bainbridge: From the base to the top (inaudible). Benner: My name is Robert Benner, I am a representative of Sinclair Oil and I think I can address the signage question. On the canopy if we are allowed to put the identification on as our standard company identification on three sides of the canopy there will be 21 inch high red letters back lit stating the word Sinclair. Each of the letters will be rouded into the side of the canopy and then back lighted. There will also on three sides of the canopy be a 2 by 3 foot back lighted logo sign, the one with the dinosaur in Meridian City Council June 17, 1997 Page 14 green. As to the signage out in front we are very flexible. Our standard signs, we have two standard signs what we call our R140 which is 140 square feet, each module is 10 foot by 7 foot, 10 foot wide by 7 foot high and there are two of them. So that would be 14 foot by 10 foot wide. The smaller sign is what we call our R70 and it is 7 foot wide by 5 feet high. So each of these two modules the logo and the price sign would each be 5 feet high. They can be placed in a monument configuration. We need a maximum of on the smaller sign we need the maximum of about 8 foot 3 inches for the poles and the sign. And a maximum height of at least 12 feet. It would be 10 foo#, five foot, five foot and then 2 foot off the ground. The normal height of the sign in a normal installation we try and keep them at 14 feet. Crookston: The height of the total top of the sign would be 14 feet. Benner: Right, this is our normal installation where the poles go up on the site. On a monument like I said we try and keep them and we need a minimum of 12 feet from the top to the very bottom of the ground. Crookston: My concern is along Fairview Avenue I don't know if whether or not the City wants to see a ,sign that is like the Texaco sign off of Eagle Road. Benner: Like I say the standard sign is just the two modules. If however there are regulations or sign ordinances that preclude either use of either of the modules we can also have the signs custom made to order by one of the sign companies which we would be happy to do in order to meet any of the requirements that you folks care to put forth for us: We are trying to (inaudible) signage adequate so that we can be identified that this is a Sinclair fueling station but still meeting all of your concerns so far as compatibility with the overall program an image that you are trying to project. Tolsma: So the sign that you are proposing then would be roughly the height of this chamber in here? Benner: Yes, that would be the overall height of the lower of the monument type. Morrow: Any further questions? Comments of staff? Ms. Stiles? Stiles: t just had one question the application to date has always dealt with a car wash that shows a waiting area. It was not a 24 hour facility. But the latest drawings we have here of a floor plan looks more similar to a convenience store with the freezer and coolers. I just wanted to make sure that this was not going to be a 24 hour convenience store as that would require another conditional use permit. This is dedicated strictly to auto service. Morrow: You said car wash are you talking about the car wash or the fueling station? Meridian City Council June 17, 1997 Page 15 Stiles: Well it has been the car wash and fueling station, but this lobby area that is shown here now with coolers and a freezer looks more like a convenience store than where you might pick up some oil or vehicle related items. Morrow. Mr. Bainbridge would you reply please? Bainbridge: As far as the hours in the lobby section the latest will be is 10:00 and as far as the gas will nan on a credit card out there. So there won't be locks so they will be able to get gas for 24 hours. The lobby will be closed by 10:00 any time during the whole year. There will be some conveniences in therefor our customers, we will have drinks, there will be a coffee bar. Similar to what Nulook and Boise West has as far as a lobby inside. Stiles: It is not somewhere, where people would come and pick up milk and eggs? Bainbridge: No, we will have snack items in there but it will be basically all snack items. Stiles: Thanks Morrow. Any further questions? Smith: Mr. President, I, sitting at the Planning and Zoning meeting heard quite a discussion about from one of the commissioners concerning the construction of the building. I noticed in the letter from Johnson Land Surveying that we received today that the architect Joe Numbers was going to address the building materials and I don't know that I heard him address that. I am curious because it was an issue. Morrow. Mr. Numbers can you respond please? Numbers: On two sides of the building we have concrete masonry units, the side facing Fairview Avenue and the side facing to the east of Roundtree Chevrolet. On the west and south sides we have a concrete block base 4 feet and then a metal siding coming down to that with the metal roof. The two sides that do face Fairview are Concrete block we have a series, we have a split face concrete block base up four feet then painted concrete and then a band of ribbed block and then additional painted block above that. I believe that the elevations indicated on them what the materials are for each of the elevations. Are there any more specific questions Mr. Smith that I might answer? Morrow. Questions of the Council? Gary, did you have a final comment? Smith: No, that is all. Morrow: Thank you Mr. Numbers, final questions or comments? Meridian City Council ~ • June 17, 1997 Page 16 Bentley: I have a question for Shari; on the landscaping, this monument sign is it going to be on top of the landscaping. Is that going to be too much height for what we are trying to obtain with our signage? Stiles: Councilman Bentley, Council, I don't know that we have any specific landscaping plans that would show berming, how much berming there would be. Right now all we have are just locations of where the trees would be. I don't believe there is any specific landscape, a detailed landscape plan hasn't been submitted yet. I suppose as part of your conditional use permit you can require that they only be monument signs. Typically they will contour the berm around a monument sign to make sure they get visibility, but I think that can be worked out when they apply for their building permit. Morrow: Any further questions Mr. Bentley? Bentley: I would like to get the rest of the Council's feeling on how high we want these signs to go. Morrow: Well I think essentially you have three choices. here. You can adopt the findings as written, or you can amend the findings or you can have them re-written. Obviously the sign issue is a new issue that is not dealt with very well within the findings. In that process if you opted to have the findings re-written it seems to me there are several points here that are not part of the original findings. You could require conceptual drawings from Mr. Numbers and Mr. Benner in terms of the sign proposal to be adopted as part of those findings and then make that binding on the project. Those are the options that you have. I think part of the confusion in my mind in terms of heights and berms and landscape plan is that I don't know really where that signage is. Bentley: That is where I am at too. Morrow: Mr. Rountree your thoughts? Rountree: I am trying to find where that was addressed in the findings. As you stated it is not particularly well spelled out. I am sure it says in here that signing ordinance of the City of Meridian will be adhered to. I guess my question from Council would be what kind of latitude do we have beyond that in terms of limitations. My preference would be a monument type sign a little lower the better. Given the rather Spartan design of the building I would hope that the landscape would somewhat off set that. It would be helpful for me to see a little more detail in there. As far as the project goes I don't have any issues with it. Morrow: Counselor your answer to Mr. Rountree's question. Crookston: Our sign ordinance has no height restrictions on it. That is the reason that we have the Texaco sign at Eagle Road and the Freeway. If we want restrictions on the size of sign or the height of sign we can do that as part of the conditional use process. Meridian City Council ~ • June 17, 1997 Page 17 But we, as a Council we need to look at if we want something like that included in the sign ordinance. Morrow: And as they say that will be for another meeting for another day. Does that answer your question Mr. Rountree? Rountree: Yes it does. Morrow: Comments Mr. Tolsma? Tolsma: My comment is about the same as Mr. Bentley's was. I would like to see something in there about the height of the (inaudible). Morrow: Is there a motion then as to how you wish to get to where you want to go? Rountree: Well just for discussion my suggestion would be that we ask the applicant to provide staff a rendering or a concept of signage of the front berm of this facility for consideration with some dimensions and locations. And that we get their comments and have that so we can incorporate that information into the findings of fact at our next regularly scheduled meeting. If that is not an acceptable (inaudible) I would suggest that we get some specifics in the findings of fact this evening which may be more confusing to the applicant. Morrow: I think that the simplest to proceed from here may very well be the applicant had some questions with respect to cross access and how it is spelled out in these findings and (inaudible) whether the ACRD procedure or prior to building permit. I think those issues need to be resolved in fairness to them. I think in fairness to us we need to, I am not buying off on anything I can't see I guess is what I am trying to tell you. So from my perspective is that do we instruct the staff and City Attorney to prepare new findings with this information in to be ready for next meeting or would your preference be that the applicant provide renderings and we address those at the new meeting and then vote for findings. Bentley: I think that if we don't do it in that order then we are going to have to turn around and amend a second set of findings. Morrow: That is possible if you don't care for the renderings that are submitted. That is a risk that you are running. We could also amend the portion (inaudible) Bentley: Which would save him some time. I think we should do it in that fashion. Morrow: Is there a motion? Shari, Mr. Tolsma has a question for you. Tolsma: The, you have never seen a landscaping concept of this of what the design is for berm other than what our ordinances are for the City for landscaping? Meridian City Council June 17, 1997 Page 18 Stiles: Just the outline that is shown on the site plan. Tolsma: Other than that you are in agreement with everything they have here other than you have no design for the landscaping? I mean as far as the findings of fact and conclusions are written. Stiles: As far as the landscaping I don't have any problems with the findings. Tolsma: So the landscaping and the signage really is the only thing right now that is in question here. Stiles: if you want to see the elevations and profile of how that will look from Fairview that is fine. Tolsma: What I was getting as was how far we have to or what we can do to amend the findings so (inaudible) if we need to postpone this for two weeks. Or get an artist conception of what we are looking at or if the new findings will show what we need to know about the landscaping and the signage. Stiles: I think maybe as far as some of the changes the applicant is asking for I would have a hard time making some of those revisions I guess. And maybe part of the slight change in use they are proposing could be changed to note that there will be a site plan. Tolsma: If there was an artist conception of how the sign looks in relation to the building as far as height and then the berming and the landscaping that sits on top of the berming 12 feet or if it is 12 feet ground level whether they are including the berming. Stiles: Are you prepared to make some of those restrictions? Tolsma: That is what I was looking for a concept of. Stiles: I was wondering if you are able to amend the other portions of the findings that you would like to amend if maybe that profile and the sign itself would undergo site plan review of the Council if that would be acceptable. Or if you really want to get into absolutes in the findings. Tolsma: I have one question for Gary also, on the other well that is on this property that is in the findings that they are possibly going to use for water, but you wanted to put a monitoring system on the sewer or a measuring device on the sewer to see how much water goes down there for a sewer rate. We have such a device for that? Smith: We don't have anything in present use, there are devices that are made for that type of measurement. But we don't have anything in the City that is being used presently for that purpose. Meridian City Council June 17, 1997 Page 19 Tolsma: But you would wish to have that measuring device in? Smith: We need to monitor because this is a commercial establishment and in accordance with the ordinance we need to monitor the flow from the facility for our treatment purposes but we also need to monitor the amount of water that is going through the meter that is going into the sewer. Somehow we need to separate those two out. Tolsma: That can be worked out. Smith: The ordinance requires for a commercial establishment that we bill them sewer use charges for the amount of water that goes through the water meter. If they want to do otherwise for example for their landscaping then they need to make arrangements to separate the measurement on that amount of water that is being used. If they are using an on site well for irrigation purposes then they wouldn't be billed, they do want to use it for the car wash. There will have to be some kind of a measuring device placed either on the well or in the sewer to monitor that flow. Otherwise we have no basis for charging. Tolsma: Are you comfortable with the way the findings read that? Smith: I haven't read that part- of the findings yet Councilman. Morrow: Any further questions? Rountree: I just remind Council that the previous applicant (Inaudible) required a rendering of the landscape plan presented to us before we advanced it through the approval process for the conditional use permit. Because of the corridor in. Daugherty: The developer Mr. Bainbridge feels very strongly that if at all possible we would like to try and resolve that this evening. We had always been under the impression that there was a sign ordinance in place and that we would certainly adhere to that sign ordinance. As far as the landscape plan it was always talked about at staff level that would have to be submitted as part of the building permit process. We are certainly prepared to do that and be subject to whoever's recommendations if they are not satisfied with that of course we would redo that until they are satisfied with it. That would be prior to issuing building permit. As far as the sign itself, let me back up. I think that the other issues were issues that were clarified. Like the ACHD issues I think we have a fetter that pretty much clarifies those things. If you folks have an idea of what you want as far as a sign we would be more than happy to go ahead and agree to that this evening in order to try to speed this process along. Other than that we would just like you folks to that into consideration. If we can at all possible resolve this we would like to do so this evening so that we can at least get the building plans and stuff submitted and start the review process. And of course at that time that is when we would go ahead and submit the sign plans and the landscape plan. ` Meridian City Council June 17, 1997 Page 20 Morrow: Thank you Mr. Daugherty. Bentley: One final comment since he brought the signs up, I personalty would like to see something smaller than 12 foot high. Morrow. Well I guess Mr. Daugherty has proposed to you, you still have three choices here. You can adopt the findings of fact and conclusions as they were written which I think is probably not a choice. You can amend them, you can amend them to the technical things and then have some sort of a sign review required or you can have the findings rewritten incorporating in as Mr. Rountree has suggested a rendering very similar to what we required of Mr. Smith and A'a Limited. So there are ways to get where you want to go, which way do you want to go there? Bentley: Well if everybody is satisfied with the proposed changes the hours if they are not a problem with everybody I would move that we prepare new findings and to accompany them we would have a landscape rendition with a signage with it for us to review. Rountree: Second Morrow: It has been moved and seconded to prepare new findings of fact and conclusions of law to address the issues that we discussed tonight and also a requirement for a rendering or proposed signage Bentley: And landscaping Morrow: Okay, now are you talking about a landscape plan that was required for the building permit or just a rendering. Bentley: A rendering Morrow: Okay fine, then the motion would include signage and the landscaping around it so it would be a rendering of the front elevation or the front approach of the entire project, that would be the motion then to incorporate the changes as discussed tonight and a rendering showing the frontal elevation as you approach including the signage for our next meeting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow: That means for you Mr. Bainbridge is that the findings of fact and conclusions that we have will be rewritten they will be rewritten to reflect the changes as desired by you in terms of hours to address the issue in terms of the 4 foot strip the cross access agreements and so on and so forth. The only thing that you will need to provide prior to then will be your artist rendition Mr. Numbers folks can provide Mr. Benner with the sign Meridian City Council ~ • June 17, 1997 Page 21 or the proposed signage. I think it is very clear that the Council has .indicated that they want a monument sign and not exceedingly tall so it should be a very simple process. ITEM #7: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTSIDE SEATING BY WILD WEST BAKERY & ESPRESSO - 815 E. 1ST STREET: Morrow: Is there a representative here that would like to make a presentation? Jansen: My name is Carolyn Jansen, I am the general manager of the Wild West Bakery & Espresso in Eagle and Meridian. We propose to put out two tables, four chairs, some umbrellas in the summer time right in front of our window in front of our building. There is a sidewalk that is right in front of our building. It is 18 feet between the front of our building and the curb. Planning and Zoning suggests we go from 5 to 8 feet, there is no problem with that. There is a little walk path right in front of our window of our building before the actual sidewalk even starts. So if you are standing on the sidewalk towards the Sunrise Cafe we are not even on the sidewalk there. So that is where our tables and chairs would go, right underneath the window. Then out from that about 3 feet from the curb we would put our whiskey barrels and they would have live flowers in them for color. And then underneath the window we propose to put a window flower box with color plans and foliage in there. And then we propose to put an awning over the window for shade because the sun is like directly right through that main window. I did take pictures which I submitted earlier. I hope somebody had originals because the copies don't look very well. But anyway I took a picture of the planter boxes in Eagle and the awnings at our Eagle store so you could have a better idea of what we were talking about. So that is what we really want to do is get some tables and chairs out so we can get people to notice where we are at. Tolsma: Question, it seems that it would grease the wheels a lot easier if we had samples here tonight: Rountree: I have no comments other than we received the letter today indicating that the issue of the sandwich sign, seems as that sign is more to advertise the sandwiches as opposed to be a sandwich board. It was an issue previously but we don't particularly agree with sandwich signage but you are proposing more or less a blackboard on your building that will advertise what it is your daily specials and bill of fare is. Jansen: That is correct, unfortunately my sandwich board does not quite depict exactly what it will look like. Those are supposed to be cowboy boots and there is a cowboy hat on top which makes it stand about this tall. What it was, was a sandwich board that had a black board on both sides so you can see it coming and going what our specials were of the day. At the planning and zoning hearing it was decided so to speak we are trying to get away from sandwich boards on First avenue in Old Town. Some of them are just tacky and hand written stuff. So what was proposed that I thought was a great idea is just take this sandwich board and turn it straight and lean it up against the wall and have it stand right by the door so it is not out on the sidewalk blocking. So we will do hot ~- Meridian City Council July 1, 1997 Page 10 Morrow: Mr. Mayor, it is hereby decided that the variance for the setback ordinance is hereby granted and the applicant shall meet a 20 foot setback and a 20 foot side street setback. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded on the decision, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF'LAW FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CAR WASH WITH FUEL FACILITIES BY STEVEN BAINBRIDGE: Morrow. Mr. Mayor question, trying to clear up the confusion over which set of findings of fact and conclusions. Maybe the. counselor can bring us up to speed as to why we have two sets of findings. Crookston: I am not sure why you have two sets, the initial set that I brought down to the City hall had the Planning and Zoning Commissioners names on the second to the last page and I just changed that to the Council. Morrow. One set was missing page four. Crookston: I don't know what Anna delivered, my secretary brought down a single page changing the Commissioners names to the City Council members names. I don't know how she attempted to perform that. They read exactly the same other than the names. Will do you have the, I talked to Anna this afternoon and she said that Marlene brought it down. It is the second to the last page that has the change in names. Morrow: So I guess the question is that the findings we can deal with the name change (inaudible) is everybody happy with the findings of fact and conclusions. Corrie: One of the things on their drawing, I think Mr. Rountree and Tolsma referred to in the drawings they would like to see it is they showed the sign as 20 foot tall and in the findings of fact it said nothing over 12 foot. Rountree: Which is how it was represented during the hearing. Crookston: That is what we did at the hearing is, I don't know that it was represented but they said they would do what the City desired. The discussion by the Councilmen was not all of the Councilmen but basically it was 12 feet high. Corrie: The drawings that we just got don't show that. .~ , Meridian City Council July 1, 1997 Page 11 Crookston: I have not seen the drawings. Morrow. I guess the issue there to address that is in our decision if we approve the findings of fact and conclusions as written it doesn't specifically spell out that prior to obtaining a building permit that a detailed landscape plan and detail sign plan approved under design approval both reviewed by City staff and staff shall make a recommendation and the City Council shall take action on the staff s recommendation. I think what the issue here is that we can approve the findings of fact and conclusions and require both the submittal of the landscape plan and the sign plan to be in conformance with what we specified in the findings of fact and conclusions. Corrie: I agree, I just want to make sure that we are all on the same page on that one. This just came in and it wasn't there and they had your questions and answers before this. That is fine if you are comfortable with that I have no problem. Rountree: I am comfortable with the language in the findings. Corrie: I will entertain your motion or further discussion whichever way you want to go. Morrow: I would move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law for the conditional use permit for a car wash with fuel facilities by Steven Bainbridge. Bentley:, Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as rewritten, any further discussion? Roll call vote ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley Yea, Rountree -Yea Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: A decision? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, the City Council here by decides that it approves the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law. That the property be required to meet the water, sewer requirements, fire and life safety code, uniform fire code, parking, paving and landscaping requirements and all other ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the applicant by the city. The applicant shall submit prior to obtaining a building permit a detailed landscape plan and a detailed sign plan approved under design approval both for review by the City staff and staff shall make a recommendation and the City Council shall take action on the staff s recommendation. Tolsma: Second t- Meridian City Council July 1, 1997 Page 12 Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma on the decision, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow: Is that clear as to what we are doing now and you can have copies of all of this and then you can deal with our staff concerning those two issues. ITEM #10: FINAL PLAT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION NO. 1 BY PROPERTIES WEST INC.: Corrie: Mr. Barnes, would you like to step up and give us a short review I am sure we have a couple questions for you. Barnes: Yes Mr. Mayor and City Council, I had an opportunity to meet with Ms. Stiles and Mr. Crookston and Mr. Smith regarding our development agreement. It took some time to get together but we finally got that accomplished. We worked through a number of concerns and I think we have worked through things sufficiently. One of the issues that I got to Gary as a witness that Shari will do a site analysis within 72 hours when we present everything to her. I couldn't get it in the agreement but I have Gary as a witness. We worked through a number of issues and I feel good with this development agreement and we will be happy to execute it. I want to personally. just to thank all of your for all that you have been through regarding this application. I want to assure you that you are going to be proud of what we are going to go forward with out there. We are going to do a good job for the City. That is basically it unless you have any further questions. Morrow:, I have a couple questions with respect to dust control. We have had some discussions about that, you have instituted a dust control program with Mr. Cook of Cloverdale Nursery. Barnes: Yes Mr. Morrow we have, they have a water truck on site and have agreed to in writing and it is on site and have agreed to keep the dust down. Morrow: Have they taken steps to inform the neighbors that they are aggressively pursuing a dust control policy? Barnes: Yes they have, they continually get harassed by the neighbors but I am having the neighbors now call me. Morrow: Fine, then the other question that seems to have recently come up is irrigation availability to neighbors. Can you explain to us the issue there? Meridian City Council July 16, 1996 Page 8 ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: Decision or recommendation? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, The City Council of the City of Meridian approves the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law that the use should be denied if the owner does not give his consent. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree on the decision and recommendation any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C-G BY LAMONT KOUBA AND RICHARD JOHNSON: Corrie: I will open the public hearing now, ,and is there a representative. Bob Daugherty, 5001 N. Eugene, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Daugherty: Mr. Mayor and Council members we are here on behalf of Lamont Kouba, he has a piece of property that is situated at 835 East Fairview Avenue in Meridian. He is proposing a commercial development, the property is a little under 4 acres, 3.78 acres. The commercial development he is planning on that is he is proposing would be geared towards the automotive and recreational industries, primarily sales and service. In your packet you can see the initial building that is facing Fairview, he is proposing a jet ski dealership and an automotive parts store that would be in the first two buildings. The other three smaller units to the south are, would be unoccupied at this point but he has been talking about the possibility of like an espresso shop, something similar in that nature and the rear buildings. That area is more conceptual in nature and that is something that we had discussed with staff members. Those buildings would be geared even more so toward the automotive type industry, as far as service type facilities. There has been discussion of items such as a welding shop, perhaps automotive detail, RV repair, things similar to that. I believe that through the Planning and Zoning Commission we have pretty much met all of the staff requirements as far as our set backs, our requirements as far as the utilities. Currently on the site or previously on the site there was a single family Meridian City Council July 16, 1996 Page 9 residence and various out buildings and the remaining of the property was in pasture. To the east of our property is Rountree Chevrolet and to the west is Meridian Auto Sales. The property primarily to the south is vacant and there is a residential area that is to the south and east which overlaps our southerly property line by approximately 21 feet. In our discussions with staff members they have indicated the required set back as being 20 feet from a separation of any commercial development. They specifically required a planting strip from the residential area which we have adhered to in our site plan. I guess at this point if you have any questions I would go ahead and entertain those. We do also have a few items that we would like to discuss as far as the facts and findings. There are a couple of issues that we would like to bring up. Corrie: Do you want to bring those up now? Daugherty: I will, on page 23, item 21, it was indicating that all waterways so forth be tiled. In this southwest comer of our project we have Five Mile Creek drainage that runs through there. My discussions with Ms. Shari Stiles indicated that we wouldn't be required to the that anyway. I guess what I wanted to do was to bring that up now so that we can perhaps eliminate the possibilities of confusion down the road. Perhaps we can get that Five Mile Creek omitted from that statement there. Our property owner is in agreement with signing the development agreement. There was also an issue taking place as far as the access, we are currently in negotiation with the property owner to the east which is Eleanor Johnson. They have leased their property to LB Industries and we are in the process of negotiating with both of those folks to obtain an easement on the east side of our property, the west side of theirs. There was a 40 foot strip that was left vacant to access the rear of that property should and when they develop it. In our discussions with ACRD they required our access to be moved to the east side of our property which ACHD's requirements would be that 40 foot strip would no longer be able to be used because it would be too close a proximity to our ingress and egress. So what we are trying to do there is a shared access with them, them providing the ground and us constructing the entryway and that would also provide access to the rear of their property when they decide to develop it. There were also some concems as far as the EPA that were brought up in the testimony with the Planning and Zoning. I guess I would like to relay a little bit of information with regards to that. I am sorry it was DEQ. There was a pest site previously on the property and there was some concerns as far as contamination. DEQ has sunk some test hole wells and they have done a lot of monitoring. Mr. Kouba has employed Mark Tort Environmental Management Company to do some work there. He since then has cleaned up the property. We have a verbal okay from Eileen Lorch from DEQ that says that the property is clean but it is going to take about two weeks to get those reports and get everything back to us. So that is an issue that has been addressed and I believe that it has been handled. There is a letter that we received also as a concern from one of the property owners which is Ruth Crow. She has a property that is two parcels to the south of us. She was indicating Meridian City Council July 16, 1996 Page 10 that her concern that her property would be landlocked if we don't provide a public access. Currently there is no public access through our property or through the property that is directly to the south of us. She does however according to our legal description we have drawn up some pictures and have a copy of her deed that if you care to see those we can show you that there is access provided to her property from the west side of her property. No less than 3 different streets and two alleys it looks like that go into her property. I guess that, I do have one more thing. The site plans that you have were revised site plans which indicated that the initial building that is up front facing Fairview Avenue there is 340 by 25 foot areas, your plans may indicate a 50 foot that was a change that we had submitted. The second part of the planning and zoning process since then our architect has suggested that we reduce that to 40 feet. I have some new site plans which just reflect that change if you care to see those. I think that is all I have if you have any questions I would be more than happy to try and answer those. Rountree: I just wanted to reaffirm that you had no other comments on the draft findings of facts? Daugherty: I believe that is all. Rountree: I would like to see both of those items that you mentioned, the deed showing access and your new site plan. Daugherty: The shaded area on the drawing is reflecting the deed on Mrs. Crow's property. In our initial evaluation there seems to be some problems with the deed itself. But nevertheless there would still be access. Rountree: I have no more questions. Morrow: I have a couple of questions, the new site plan that you are showing us is basically flopped over and that is for the common access point off of Fairview that you addressed earlier. Daugherty: That is correct. That was actually addressed in the second part of our Planning and Zoning meeting, when we had gone to them we had indicated that was a requirement of ACRD. We provided them updated drawings and I was assuming that you had those updated drawings that showed the. building basically where it is. The only change we were doing from that from the site plan that they had was 40 foot buildings or that you should have would be the updated 50 foot wide building which would be the C, D and E and those we have reduced back to 40. I believe that they were 40 on that original plan on the very first one that showed that building on the east side of the property. So if that is the one that you are having then yes it is basically kind of flipped. Meridian City Council July 16, 1996 Page 11 Morrow: That is correct and then there is a difference in terms of apparently spaces J, K, I mean F, G H, L, I, J, K, M. Daugherty: From the original site plan that is correct. The last one we had submitted to Planning and Zoning and to Ms. Shari Stiles you must not have the updated version then. Morrow: It is apparently not part of this packet. Unless it is buried somewhere else in here. My next question is this site is proposed to be under one ownership is that correct? Daugherty: That is correct. Morrow: So this is not a subdivision process anticipated here? Daugherty: No sir. Morrow: You are aware that at some point in time if it is to be subdivided it will have to go through the subdivision process? Daugherty: Yes Morrow: That is all the questions that I have. Corrie: Any further questions from Council? Thank you sir, anybody else from the public that would like to enter testimony on the request for annexation and zoning? Gary Lee, JUB, 250 South Beachwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lee: I would like to hand out a vicinity map showing the property in question. We were contacted by Ron Crow who is Ruth Crow's son last Friday. Apparently he had been discussing some issues with his mother and she brought up this particular conditional use and annexation to him and he started looking at some of the paperwork that she received in the mail and was a little bit concerned with the property. As stated earlier a letter had been sent to the City by Mrs. Crow requesting that a public street be considered to provide access through this proposed development to their south boundary. As you can see on the vicinity map is probably similar to what you received earlier where her property is located in relation to the planned development. We show that there is one public street access in the property on the west boundary that being Washington Avenue. There is a small private road in that Catherine Park Subdivision kind of down on the South end but it is not a public standard road, it is quite narrow and probably would never be convertible to a public road. As you can see there is no access into Danbury. Badley Avenue which is to the west through another parcel could eventually be extended to this property at some 3 Meridian City Council July 16, 1996 Page 12 future point. The concern that we had noticed looking at this not only the Five Mile Creek being an obstacle to cross but to service her property north and east of the File Mile. But the length of the proposed street coming off Washington into the subject property would be the 450 maximum length allowed by the City of Meridian for access to properties. We see a real need there for a secondary access point somewhere in that northern say 30 or 40% of the property. The comp plan calls for mixed planned development in this particular area. I suppose that could mean a number of things, although there is no specific plan in mind at this point. I can see probably some mixture of single family, maybe some duplex and maybe even some apartments. There are apartments now that border her property along the west boundary so maybe there could be some transitional things going in there. But in any event we would have to have an adequate public road system to service this area. Particularly if we have some higher density developments in there it is going to generate some additional traffic that would probably be better to exit to Fairview rather than going into the local streets that are in that Washington Avenue area. And again we would like to reaffirm Mrs. Crov~ls request that the City consider a public street through the property that is before you tonight. If you have any questions I would be glad to answer them the best that I can. (Inaudible) Morrow: Gary, I have a question here, on the northern boundary of the Crow property and the southern boundary of this property before us it doesn't look to me like the are contiguous, what is the little, what is this and what is this? Lee: That is separate ownership. Morrow: Both parcels they are two different parcels of ground here? Lee: Yes Morrow: And are they the same ownership or separate or different for those two? Lee: I don't know for sure if they are or not. Any road that would come down there would obviously have to go through there. That particular parcel is going to need access as well. Morrow: So really the bigger issue here is access, the Crow property at least has one access and potential another one on Badley. But these two properties here have no access. Lee: They are in worse condition, absolutely. Meridian City Council July 16, 1996 Page 13 Morrow: Thank you. Corrie: Any further questions of Council? Thank you Gary. Anybody else from the public that would like to give testimony at this time? Council, questions? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have some questions of Gary and Shari, either or both. With respect to these two parcels that we have identified, Gary do you know if they are under different ownership and what the status of those properties? Smith: No I don't Councilman Morrow. Morrow: And would you have a proposal for access to those two properties? Smith: No Morrow: Shari, do you have any thoughts? Stiles: I don't know how they would get access except through the Ruth Crow property if there is no access through Fairview. Morrow: Let me ask you this, what does our comp plan call for for those two properties? Stiles: Those are in mixed planned use development area. Morrow: Thank you Corrie: Any other questions from Council or staff? Rountree: I would have a question for the applicant. It appears that there would be an enclave of non-annexed property that would have no access with this proposal and the way the property boundaries fall to the south. Would the joint use of the access off of Fairview be one that the applicant and the owner would consider either permanent easement or public access to provide that access to that parcel of land? Daugherty: I .guess currently what we are looking at is there are two other properties that are in between that parcel of ground and they actually do have access to that property off of Washington. I guess because of the fact that Five Mile Drainage in is in there that is just a problem with the parcel of ground itself I guess. I don't see that us granting an easement is going to solve their problem. Tolsma: Are you speaking of the two parcels of ground directly south? Meridian City Council July 16, 1996 Page 14 Daugherty: No, there are two parcel of ground that sit, they would be to the south of us and north of the Crow property, there are two separate parcels there. There is a one acre parcel and then there is another strip in there that they are under separate ownership they are not under the same ownership. (End of Tape) sent to the Mrs. Johnson who is also the property owner of Rountree which is to the east of us. And then there is another, the smaller parcel there is property held by I believe it is Daily so it is two separate individuals. I guess what we are saying is the property basically has this problem to begin with and I don't believe that should be something that we should have to resolve. I guess that is something where they do have access there are ways to get over Five Mile Creek and access that property and we believe that should be their responsibility to handle that. Tolsma: Have you talked to the two property owners that are directly south of you, those two small parcels? Daugherty: Specifically I have not. Tolsma: So you don't know what their thoughts are about being land locked in there? Daugherty: I believe that Mr. Kouba has talked to the Johnson's about that parcel but we haven't been able to contact the bailey's at all. At this point there, I don't believe that there are any current negotiations to purchase that property now. I guess I might add one more thing, the gentleman from JUB had indicated that they might look at something like, I guess it was hard to say, something like apartments or town houses I guess in that area. We don't feel that a street I guess going right down the west or the east side of our property to access a bunch of residential units going right down through the middle of strictly commercial development, I just don't feel that would be an appropriate use of the site the way that we are proposing it. In addition, the access that we are proposing is on the east side of our property which is actually on the Rountree property. If you follow that line down that easement that we have worked, that we are in the process of working out with them, what it would do it go directly into the back part of that Danbury Subdivision without having to make a right turn and then go south, go to the west and then south. I think that we are basically putting our project in jeopardy by doing that. Corrie: Mr. Daugherty, are you aware of a letter from the APA to the Planning and Zoning Administrator, did you get a copy of that? Daugherty: Yes sir I did, it clarified a couple of issues. Their initial statement was that they wanted a sidewalk constructed from our front building to the sidewalks along Fairview Avenue. In that particular location there are no sidewalks along Fairview Avenue. They have indicated that what they would still like to see and I think we would be willing to go ahead and do that is to construct a sidewalk from our front building there to the right of Meridian City Council July 16, 1996 Page 15 way of Fairview Avenue. I believe that was their preferred option. Corrie: Any further discussion from Council? I will close the public hearing. Council discussion or pleasure? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, if t might with respect to the issue of access, it is a very difficult issue. However, what we are doing here on Fairview, particularly on this site is we are creating a line that exists between residential uses and commercial retail types of uses. If we extend the line that has been drawn for Danbury Fair that would seem to indicate that everything south of that line is a residential use in some nature. Now it appears to me that it is going to take some operation amongst property owners in that area for those folks to get their properties developed at any rate, no matter what is done with this particular property. So, it is a tough issue with respect to access but I don't think you access the two parcels that we are talking about here when we are talking about a joint access along a common property line between the Rountree parcel and this parcel. And so, I don't think you can get to these two properties without effectively taking away the use of the property before us. With respect to the issue of the sidewalk and APA there is provision within the findings for the staff report to deposit to ACHD's trust fund I think that is an appropriate manner of handling the sidewalk issue. There are no sidewalks anyplace along Fairview in this area. So I don't think it is reasonable to expect to have those built now, there are also no specs for those. So the logical course of action to me seems to be to deposit to the trust fund and at such time as they are built they are funded by ACRD. Those would be my two thoughts concerning the two issues that were brought up. Corrie: Any other comments from Council? Mr. Rountree? Rountree: I agree with Walt with what he said with respect to the sidewalks. I am somewhat concerned with the potential difficulty of providing access to that parcel. And by acting on an annexation and or use when the property on Fairview potentially land locking that site particularly being the middle property being owned by one of the owners that is involved in this and I don't know that there is recognition that they are doing this to themselves. I would like to see that some kind of an effort made with those property owners that they are aware of what is going on. Even though they have been notified of the hearing I believe some effort should be made with the Johnson property to make sure that they understand that they are severing any ties with the adjacent property. Morrow: Question, Charlie, what would you do with that property? The thing is if you are going to have a line between commercial and residential at what point is potential access, what benefit is it? Rountree: I guess I am more concerned with the access proposed for this site is actually J Meridian City Council July 16, 1996 Page 16 on property owned by that middle, by the people that own that middle property at least that is how it was represented that is who is paying taxes on that property. I guess if I was assured they do that was going and they wouldn't find out at a later date and all of a sudden get into a situation where they got contrary about providing access to this property and then seeing this thing again. Because access shifts or changes on Fairview. That is the only concern that I have. As far as what I would do with it I would sell it. Tolsma: I might ask a question of Mr. Smith over there, Gary, do you have a copy of this, well directly to the west of Mrs. Crow's property right about in the middle isn't that where the apartment complex is located? Smith: Yes, correct. Tolsma: And wasn't that in future phases supposed to have access to Fairview Avenue? Smith: That is what they reported yes. Tolsma: And they were also going to tie into Badley Avenue at that time? Smith: Badley does tie into the complex right now. Tolsma: And when the future development then would go to Fairview Avenue. Smith: Yes Tolsma: So then at that time then possibly Badley could run into the northern part of Mrs. Crow's property? Smith: Yes sir. Tolsma: And then we could probably also have partial access or provide for access to this property then to the west those two little parcel that is between Mrs. Crow's property and the proposed project. Smith: You would have to cross Five Mile Creek with a bridge. We also have a sewer line a trunk line that extends from East Crossbill Court to the west through that second parcel of property over to Five Mile Creek and then north along Five Mile. Tolsma: It goes down Badley to Five Mile Creek? Smith: No, Crossbill Court in Danbury Fair Subdivision to the east of the larger of those Meridian City Council July 16, 1996 PaSe 17 two parcels between Crow's property and the proposed project. Tolsma: The little strip to the east that is in there that goes to the property line at the end of the culdesac? Smith: Yes off the culdesac yes. There is a sewer line trunk in there that extends to the west across that, see where that stub drain is, it is just north of that stub drain and it runs over to Five Mile Creek and then north on Five Mile. So that property has a sewer trunk that crosses through it also. It might be a good spot for a small neighborhood park. Morrow: If I may ask, Gary, with that easement extending to the west that means that there is no building on top of that easement through that property. It appears to me that it leaves just a little, it would leave a very small sliver on the south side of the easement. Smith: If that stub drain is correct, if everything is in scale on this drawing that is correct. Morrow: So we are rapidly looking at a piece of property is pretty much consumed with as Charlie says there is not much developable there anymore. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Corrie: I must assume that we are waiting on a comment from Gary. Smith: I am sorry, I am going to have to ask for you to repeat that. Morrow:. It was a comment from the standpoint that with the easement to the west for the sewer interceptor and with the stub drain and the Five Mile Drain we are not talking about a piece of property that there is much left of is that correct based on this drawing that we are seeing? Smith: Yes sir correct. Morrow: And for the most part that is not buildable or it wouldn't be buildable except for the stuff to the north of the easement it appears according to this. Smith: Yes Morrow: And Ron has indicated there may be an access to this property from this piece right here where the multi family is. Tolsma: It might be that you have to build a bridge. Meridian City Council July 16, 1996 Page 18 Morrow: Across Five Mile. Smith: If you extended 5th Street where R-15 is noted down there, Washington and 5th, 5th Street right now extends north through that parcel that is numbered 1304 and it ties into Badley Avenue which extends from the west to the east. That exists right now, it doesn't show on this map but that is in place out there. It is a private road through the apartment through that 1304 parcel. Badley I believe is a public road over to the boundary of that parcel and I am not sure if it continues on or not but it does connect with an extension of 5th that is a private road. The gentleman that developed the apartments on parcel 1304 had plans to extend 5th Street north to Fairview. I don't know if he owns that property above 1304 or whether that just has a zero in it, it is labeled R-8 open field. What the plan was to extend 5th Street north of Fairview and continue the apartment development (inaudible). As Councilman Tolsma mentioned at that time Badley could conceivably be extended over to the Crow property for access to that property. And it would have to cross Five Mile Creek to get to her property that is on the east and the north of Five Mile. If there was any access needed for that property between this project that is being proposed and the crow property it could be provided from the crow property but again there are several what ifs in that line. Rountree: Given that explanation I am a little more at ease about being able to access those parcels. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Morrow: I have no further questions. Corrie: Any other comments from Council? Entertain a motion on the request for annexation and zoning to C-G. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, we need to do something with the findings of fact and conclusions as prepared for Planning and Zoning. I guess my inclination would be to adopt these with the added phrase that exempts the tiling of Five Mile Creek. Bentley: Second Rountree: Was that a motion? Morrow: That was just a point of discussion. I will make it a motion, I move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for P & Z to be amended that under article 21 of the conclusions that we add the phrase not required to the Five Mile Creek. J ~, Meridian City Council July 16, 1996 Page 19 Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law by Planning and Zoning with the addition to item 21 on page 23 not to the Five Mile Creek, any further discussion? Roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move to instruct the City Attorney to prepare an annexation ordinance. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree for the attorney to draw up an ordinance, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE USE BY LAMONT KOUBA AND RICHARD JOHNSON: Corrie: I will now open the public hearing, Mr. Daugherty. Bob Daugherty, was sworn by the City Attorney. Daugherty: Again we are here on behalf of Lamont Kouba, just a continuation of the annexation and zoning in requesting a conditional use permit for construction of a block building facing Fairview Avenue which is reflective of your site plans. We have brought along some pictures and also an architectural rendition of what we anticipate the front building looking like. The pictures are of a development that is over in Boise that is very similar in construction. The artist rendition will actually show more along the lines of what our building would actual look like. If you would like to see any of these. The small picture down at the bottom we are anticipating that those will be R & M Steel type prefabricated buildings and those would be the buildings that would be located to the south of our project and those we would anticipate would be very similar in nature to the ones at Rountree Chevrolet. We have had several discussions with staff members along with Public Works Department and the various utilities. All of the utilities are on site, we have as previously discussed a sewer main at the southwest corner of the property. There is power and basically all of the other services are located off of Fairview Avenue. We ~;~ ~ ~ , , Meridian City Council July 16, 1996 Page 20 believe that everything is pretty much handled, with the exception of getting the drawing and the engineering done to submit to the appropriate agencies. If you have any questions with regard to this conditional use, I guess I would be more than happy to try and answer those for you. Corrie: Council, any questions. Rountree: On how you represented the photographs, are those a likeness of what you propose to build or is that actually a development that has been done by the applicant? Daugherty: No, that is similar in construction, that is a similarly constructed development over in Boise that doesn't have anything to do with our applicant. That was just primarily to show the construction type standards. Tolsma: Have you seen all the comments of Bruce Freckleton and Shari Stiles? Daugherty: Yes I have. Tolsma: And you have no problems with those? Daugherty: No sir we don't. Rountree: I have a procedural question, can we act on a conditional use permit without the annexation having been acted on? Fitzgerald: No, you an go ahead and have your public hearing and then we will adopt the annexation ordinance and then we can move on the conditional use permit. Morrow: I think normally do we not continue the public hearing for the next meeting in case there is any additional testimony? Fitzgerald: That would be fine. Morrow: I have a question for staff, I don't have any questions for Mr. Daugherty. Shari and Gary, is this conditional use permit application for a single building or for the entire project. Are your comments directed to the entire project as proposed to us or just for the first building? Stiles: Councilman Morrow, Mayor and Council, I haven't looked at this specific plan that was presented tonight. I want the applicant to realize that this approval shouldn't be for total development, this is just the first part. For one thing I think the parking requirements Meridian City Council July 16, 1996 Page 21 haven't been met in the phase 2 even if they were all if it was entirely to be used for ware house they would be short on the parking space. So, I think they just presented this because they wanted to annex and zone the entire property at this time and the have specific plans for phase 1. But they still would need to meet all of the findings and (inaudible} changed significantly from what they presented. (Inaudible) Morrow: So if I understand what you are saying correctly and your comments were directed towards uses A, B, C, D and E which is assumed to be one building with multiple tenants based on the pictures that we saw is that your understanding? Stiles: My comments as far as the Five Mile Creek and the buffering of the adjacent subdivision would apply to the whole project. Morrow: I understand that, what I am after here is the conditional use, I understand the protection on the perimeter but with respect to are you telling us that we are looking at a single building and the conditional use requirements for that single building which is similar to the picture that we saw which is at the corner of Plantation Lane and State Street at Boise. This picture, it has multiple uses in a single building. Stiles: I think that the development agreement could still address the entire parcel as part of the annexation but I just basically think they are asking for approval of the first main building. Daugherty: Perhaps I can clarify that, in our discussions with Planning and Zoning what we were seeking was a conditional use permit on that front building. with the understanding that once that is developed then what we would do is proceed with the back portion of the property, the R & M Steel type buildings and that would fall under a separate conditional use permit, does that help clarify it. Morrow: That clarifies your position and based on that Shari is telling me that her comments are two fold therefore the perimeter plus the first building. Stiles: Yes Morrow: Gary yours are the same? Smith: Looking through my assistants comments they are pretty generic to the whole site. Morrow: Thank you, I have no other questions. Meridian City Council July 16, 1996 Page 22 Corrie: Anything further from the Council? Anybody else from the public that would like to give additional testimony? Gary Lee, JUB, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lee: I would just like to reaffirm our client's position, Mrs. Ruth Crow about her desires to see a public street access in the north of her parcel. Thank you Corrie: Thank you Gary. Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony? I guess we need a motion to continue the public hearing. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we continue the public hearing on the request for conditional use permit for recreational automotive use by Lamont Kouba and Richard Johnson to August 6. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to continue the public hearing on item 5 to the Council meeting on August 6, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE ON FRONT SETBACK BY CAMERON CORDOVA: Corrie: I will open the public hearing on the request for variance. Is Cameron Cordova here? Cameron Cordova, 8706 Fircrest, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Cordova: Mr. Mayor and Council you have all the notes on this request. I filled out the application and the outline provided, I filled that out to the best of my knowledge. I guess, I don't have any idea whether there was anybody within that 300 feet that were contacted that opposed that variance or if there any concerns that I need to address. Corrie: Does Council have any questions? Morrow: Well the obvious question, how come you are in this fix? Cordova: We were under construction when we found the pin in off the sidewalk there. Meridian City Council August 6, 1996 Page 5 conclusions as prepared for us. Corrie: Any other discussion of Council? Rountree: I think the findings reflect the discussion that we had at our previous meeting quite well. I have no problem with them. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, if there is no further discussion I would move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written for us for the variance request by Cameron Cordova. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions as written, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: Decision motion? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, it is decided that the application for a variance to the front setback requirements for Lot 2, Block 11 Tract Subdivision No. 4 is hereby granted as it relates to the placement of the garage only. It must be placed at a setback of 18 feet or more. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion was made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree on the decision, any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: ORDINANCE #736 - KOUBA ANNEXATION: Corrie: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 7, T.3N, R.1 E, B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anybody from the audience that would like to have Ordinance #736 read in its entirety? Hearing none I will entertain a motion on Ordinance #736. Meridian City Council August 6, 1996 Page 6 Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that the City of Meridian adopt Ordinance #736 with the suspension of rules. Rountree: Second Cowie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree that we approve Ordinance #736 with suspension of the rules, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JULY 16, 1996: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE USE BY LAMONT KOUBA: Cowie: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant to start. Bob Daugherty, 5001 N. Eugene, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Daugherty: Mr. Mayor and Council members, we are before you again this evening and requesting the conditional use permit for Mr. Lamont Kouba. I believe during the last meeting we pretty much covered all of the issues, we were waiting however for the annexation. I don't believe that there were any additional concerns if you have any I guess I would be prepared to answer those at this time. If not I guess we would just seek approval. Cowie: Council, questions? Morrow: I have just for recap, Mr. Daugherty, this is the parcel that is 3.87 acres, and there is an access agreement between yourself and the adjoining parcel? Daugherty: That is in the process right now. There has been a draft that has been forwarded to their attorney and they are in the process of reviewing that right now. Morrow: It seems to me that there was a little sliver of property at the very bottom of this parcel of ground that someone was supposed to research and see who owned with respect to access. Did your owner own that property? Daugherty: There is a property directly to the south that according to the tax roles an owner by the name of Daley with no address owns it, we have no further information on ~., Meridian City Council August 6, 1996 Page 7 that. Morrow: So there is no information with respect to that piece of property that we are able to get other than the name of the person that owns it, it is a very small piece of property. Daugherty: That is correct. Crookston: I am song what was the name of the owner again? Daugherty: I believe it is Daley. Morrow: I would ask a question of Gary Smith, does that mean that this parcel of property is effectively landlocked? Smith: tam going to need to look at the map and see where that piece of property, was that the sliver of property that was just Morrow: It was very narrow and very long. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, if my memory serves me correctly weren't we talking about the one map we had showed I can't think of the name of the street but it has been extended but our map and the drawing they gave us didn't show that on there. Was Washington Street the one? Smith: Yes, Washington Street was the one proposed for vacation by another person. Bentley: What is the next street north, we had talked and we said the one street had been extended farther than it showed on the diagram that we had. Smith: Badly is north of Washington. Bentley: Does it extend into this property that we are talking about? Smith: No Daugherty: The property in question according to my employer indicates that there seems to be some errors with the deeds that could have created that problem there. The fact that Daley's .doesn't seem to have any address and they haven't been able to send out the taxes. Our information was that it was a possibility that it was going to be going up for tax sale. But currently we haven't been able to ascertain who or where the owner is located of if in deed there is an owner there. The information that we have was taken directly off Meridian City Council August 6, 1996 Page 8 of the tax information at the County level. The last meeting, the concern primarily that was addressed was over the Crow property and I though that we had pretty much resolved that issue that there is access to that property. Morrow: Let me ask you this, is this property right here part of the annexation chain, the one that is directly below this sliver? (Inaudible) (Discussion Inaudible) Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have a question of Gary, how does this particular piece of property get, how do we address the issue with respect to the property in terms of access or in terms of determining whether or not it is a lot or if there is a property right there? Smith: The only thing I can think of would be a title search process. I don't know of any other way to determine who the owner is. Morrow: How do we keep it from becoming landlocked? Smith: Well, we know that if this property is developed as it is proposed it would restrict access from the north. There isn't any access from the east because that existing subdivision Danbury Fair. The only access and then I believe Five Mile Creek is on its west boundary. So it could be accessed from the west but it only appears to be 60 feet in width, is that about right? Daugherty: I think it is approximately 40 feet. Smith: 40 feet, so it is very possible as Richard said it is a result of the survey lines that didn't match from one property parcel to another. And depending on the direction from which surveys were done they left gaps. There are gaps and overlaps that you see on these assessor maps all the time. I don't recall seeing one this width or the fact that it has a name attached to it. It makes it a little suspicious that it is a survey overlap or a gap. Daugherty: Mr. Johnson indicates that the Daley's owned the parent property prior to the subdividing it, Daley was the original owner of that parcel. It might give a little better indication it was an error in the actual deed recordings. Which also, the property only being 40 feet in width would limit the availability of anybody to really develop that parcel in any case. It seems like that it would either become owned by Mr. Kouba or the Johnson parcel which is directly to the south of it. Corrie: Counselor, would a title search would that show this up that it could either an error or actually held by somebody, would it show whether it is actually owned or it is just an Meridian City Council August 6, 1996 Page 9 error? Crookston: It would not show necessarily that it was an error, we can get the deeds for the property and the adjacent property from the title company, it would tell us who the owner of the property was. Morrow: I believe Shari has a comment. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, the property to the south of this which includes the parcels that you are talking about as well as the Ruth Crow property have several splits in them that are not really understandable. One of them is owned by Trakel that is part of, or adjacent to the property where in a later item on the agenda the Stutzman vacation there is a small narrow piece that is owned by someone else. To the south of the Ruth Crow property there is a another little piece that is where Carlton comes in from the west. This little piece is a landlocked piece, I wasn't aware that there was yet another piece to the north of that. I have no idea how those subdivisions took place because they don't make any sense. Either they were meant to be part of a future right of way, I just don't know what happened to them. There is a big question about the property to the south of this and how and why these divisions took place. It doesn't help you any. Crookston: Shari, is there not then a problem with maintenance of that property because at this juncture we don't know who the owner is and probably the adjacent land owners have no obligation to maintain it so doesn't it just lie there in essence in seed and growing weeds? Stiles: I could look the owners up on the information that we have here at City Hall if that is Council's wish if they want to research that further. But if it is landlocked it is worthless property really to someone. It should be either incorporated as part of this project or I don't know how you enforce that when there has been possibly illegal splitting of property that hasn't been detected by the County. I don't know the history whether it had to do with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and their easements for Adkins Drain or I really don't know why that would take place and it would take a title search and some investigation to find out why that was the way it was. Crookston: If a piece of property is sold without access there are provisions that provide that the buyer can obtain access through the property adjacent to it. If access is necessary for the use of that property. Stiles: I would think that would be true. Corrie: So where are we now? Meridian City Council August 6, 1996 Page 10 Crookston: Well I am not sure that the conditional use, it is my understanding that Mr. Kouba is only going to use the land for the conditional use of which he owns, the problem becomes what is going to happen with that property. If we can't find out who the owner is and even if we do find out who the owner is the owner can just say I don't care. He can say I will sell it if somebody wants to come and pay me $5 million for it or whatever price. But I am not sure that it is a problem for the applicant because it is not included in his conditional use. It is, the biggest problem I see is what it going to happen to the property who is going to maintain it. Corrie: Do I have the understanding that it really has nothing to do with the conditional use permit they are requesting now but they will later who owns some land as far as being landlocked it could come from the south and also the west. Morrow: I guess my question to the Counselor Mr. Mayor is do we have any potential liability with respect to the property in terms of landlocking it by actions that we may take. Historically when we add properties that have the potential of landlocking we have tried to guarantee an access or stub road or something like that to the property does that in this case apply? Crookston: I think that it applies, but I think that it is more applicable in the annexation then it is in the conditional use. Rountree: That can be addressed with the future annexation that needs to take place for the rest of this property since it is not in the City at this point in time. Crookston: It could but at this juncture we don't know that an annexation application would ever be filed and requested. The problem as I said earlier the problem becomes who is going to care for that property? Bentley: Well who is caring for it now? Crookston: Do you know Mr. Daugherty? Daugherty: I would suggest that nobody is caring for it currently, as you had stated, I don't believe that piece of property, we are not asking for a conditional use with reference to that piece of property. If that property is going to be landlocked with the conditional use permit it is currently landlocked. You are not changing the disposition of that property by granting our conditional use. Crookston: I think that is very correct. We are not landlocking it by granting a conditional use, if the property is landlocked that was committed between the prior people that deeded r- f Meridian City Council August 6, 1996 Page 11 property let's say surrounding it and if the city desires to ensure that property has access i think that is more of an issue that should be addressed in the annexation and not in the conditional use. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, one more question to the Counselor, what would your advise be for us then at this point from a legal standpoint? Crookston: I think that you have the ability to revoke the annexation ordinance and try and resolve the matter. I think it would be appropriate possibly to do that but I think the real problem is finding out who the owner of that property is and contacting them and see if they have any problem in either having Mr. Kouba use it or Mrs. Crow or any adjacent owner. Stiles: Would it be possible to table this for just either to the end of the meeting or a couple items and let me look that up on the information we have and see if we can determine that ownership? Crookston: That would be fine with me, that is up to the Council. Rountree: Do you have that information available? Stiles: I am not sure an owner will show up but I do have that information from the Assessor's office. Crookston: I think the question for the Council is whether or not they want to consider withdrawing the approval of the annexation ordinance and holding that for whatever period of time that the Council desires so that there could be an attempt to find out. who the owner is and see what can be done with that. Shari is this property at all in line with where a roadway might be? Stiles: It is really hard for me to determine wither that, what the purpose was for that split. I would think that a lot of the remanent left and some of the parcels that have been created in this area are worthless unless they are determined to be a future right of way or a drainage easement or something like that that perhaps Nampa Meridian or Ada County put up on the block someday and said here is an extra 40 feet that we have no use for it is for sale. Crookston: If the property is where a roadway would be located which we don't know but if it was Ada County Highway District could condemn that land if it is adjacent to the Five Mile Drain Nampa Meridian Irrigation District could also condemn it and use it for either one of them for their governmental purpose. I don't know that the City has a purpose for Meridian City Council August 6, 1996 Page 12 that land because we don't provide road service. Even if it is where a road should be. Morrow: If I might suggest let's defer this for a minute and let Shari do some research and maybe move on to the two ordinances and then bring this back and take a look at it. I guess so we can move forward. Daugherty: Could I interject one thing before we do that, at the last hearing there was a lot of discussion as far as that northerly line of the subdivision that is adjacent to our property. It was indicated during that time that was somewhat of a defining line and that there was some discussion as far as to the north of that line was primarily like commercial type developments and to the south was residential areas. I would like to interject that parcel that is in question is indeed to the south of that line as referenced in the previous meeting and that it might be more appropriate that should that ownership be determined no matter who owns it that would be more appropriate that would be residential which would be accessed from the south or from the west. And that perhaps it might not be as much of a consideration as we are making it here. Corrie: Were you making that as a motion to hold that until after 7 and 8 are done and then come back to it. Morrow: Yes Tolsma: Second Corrie: All those in favor of the motion? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: ORDINANCE #737 - HASKIN/GREEN ANNEXATION - C-G: Corrie: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING A CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 8, T.3N, R.1 E, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have Ordinance #737 read in its entirety? Hearing none I will entertain a motion for Ordinance #737. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Ordinance #737 with suspension of rules. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Tolsma to approve Ordinance #737 with ~. 0 Meridian City Council August 6, 1996 Page 19 Corrie: I will do it Wednesday, there is an Air Quality Board on Wednesday I will get a reading on it. Bentley: I move to table. Rountree: Second Corrie: Moved by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree to table this to the August 20 meeting for a report back from the Air Quality Board, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JULY 16, 1996: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE USE BY LAMONT KOUBA: Corrie: Shari do you want to let us know what is going on here? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I submitted the map that was generated from our GIS information, there is a .223 acre piece directly south of the referenced property that is valued at $1500. They have an ownership shown as James and Susan Daley with an unknown address. So I don't know how they are getting any tax revenue from a property with an unknown address. Directly below that is a .969 acre property owned by Elnora Johnson that owns the Rountree Chevrolet piece. I don't have any answers for you here, I don't know how those subdivisions came to be in effect whether they were part of a previous drainage system as I mentioned before. Whether they were auctioned off as unusable property by perhaps an irrigation district but the properties are not usable in their present configuration. It would seem that either the property to the North would have to provide access to them or the property to the South it seems more logical that the property to the south would provide access as an extension of a residential development as it is entirely adjacent to single family residential development. I don't see what purpose an access from Fairview Avenue to these properties would serve. Unfortunately that is all the information that I have. Crookston: Well if the taxes aren't paid the County will have the right to take it back in three years, it usually doesn't occur in four years. Stiles: I don't know how they would be assessing any taxes if they have no address for an ownership on that property. Meridian City Council August 6, 1996 Page 20 Crookston: They can assess the taxes but they can't inform the owner which is a problem. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I guess what I would like to see with this from my perspective we press on with the conditional use for the recreational automotive thing and at the same time instruct staff to notify both Ms. Johnson who I am sure is aware since she is an owner of the Rountree property immediately north and these folk if it is possible to find that these are potentially land locked properties and they need to be noticed that it is up to them to protect their interest as best they can. If anything has developed in terms of the Crow property and it and looks like if one other piece of property develops then that truly does landlocked them. The Council has already approved a locking system to the east, unless we withdraw the annexation ordinance we have approved a lock out from the north and we are rapidly getting into a position where with the other properties we are not going to be able to approve anything with them in terms of locking these two properties out. And so I guess from my perspective I would like to see those property owners notified in some manner of record that they need to be protecting their interest. Crookston: I am sorry Mr. Mayor and Council the other avenue to proceed with and it is totally up to the Council is to provide a means of access through the property through the Kouba property so that there is at least for lack of a better statement a curb cut so that you can get into the property or across it or whatever. But that is totally up to the Council. You would have to go back and change the annexation ordinance or at least make that a condition. Tolsma: I have a question for Counsel, there are still two other forms of access to this property, one to the south and one to west. Crookston: There is no road access to my knowledge. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Rountree: I don't see that we are any farther along then we were last meeting. Access can be provided to those parcels from the south or the west. I don't see any reason to reconsider the annexation. The folks that own those properties have been noticed for both hearings. (Discussion Inaudible) Morrow: I guess from my perspective Charlie I just want to make sure that those folks that own those, I don't want to see somebody show up here a year from now saying I didn't know. ~~ Meridian City Council August 6, 1996 Page 21 Rountree: I understand. Morrow: I am in favor of pressing ahead of approval of the conditional use and getting on down the road but also at the same time making sure that those folk are notified by us the City of Meridian that it is their responsibility to look out for their own interest because they now are land locked on two sides and they need to be a little protective of their property rights. Rountree: I agree and I think we ought to do that in concert with the County since they are partners in this thing as well. Come: Any further discussion? Hearing none I will entertain a motion from Council. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the request for a conditional use permit for recreational automotive use by Lamont Kouba, also to instruct our staff to inform the property owners to the south, the Daley's and Johnson's of the situation that the properties are now land locked on the north end and east side and it is in their best interest to protect their property rights by representing themselves in any future actions that may come with surrounding properties. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley, you heard the motion any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: FINAL PLAT: THE LANDING SUBDIVISION N0. 9 BY LEON BLASER: Corrie: Is there a representative? Council any questions? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to see a brief presentation concerning the property and the response. I know we have a written response that Mr. Jacobs has provided to us concerning the questions asked by staff. Jacobs: The general comments, I probably should identify myself, Keith Jacobs, Pacific Land Surveyors. We have reviewed these comments, general comments 1 through 8 and agree with them. We indicate that this is in the flood plain, flood plain X and it is only less than a foot deep and it shouldn't be a problem we can protect the homes from being flooded. We will of course submit our plans to Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and have them approve them and have the letter and agreement in that respect hopefully we can