The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1995 03-21; - • ~. MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MFNUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MARCH 7, 1995: (APPROVED) TABLED MARCH 7, 1995: ORDINANCE #695 - RE-PEAL AND RE-ENACTMENT OF 2-1001: (APPROVED) 2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A ZERO FOOT SIDE YARD VARIANCE BY ALBERTSON'S, INC.: (APPROVED) 3. REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR TEN MILE SQUARE BY ALBERTSON'S, INC.: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 4. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR ALBERTSON'S, INC.: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 5. . PUBUC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-4 TO L-O BY JAMES AND JEAN FULLER: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A GAS STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE BY JAMES AND JEAN FULLER: (APPROVE FINDINGS; DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TREASURE VALLEY BUSINESS CENTER PHASE 2, 66 LOTS BY GEMTONE, INC: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-4 TO R-8 AND L-0 BY MICHAEL GAMBLIN: (APPROVE FINDINGS FOR L-0 PORTION; CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE; CITY ATTORNEY TO AMEND FINDINGS FOR R-8 PORTION) 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO TRANSFER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY CANDACE ADKINS dba CANDYLAND DAY CARE 11: (APPROVED WITH NO ADDITIONAL ASSESSMENT) 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BY FRED ~ i~ ~ LOTRIDGE: (APPROVED) 11. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR ANGEL PARK DEVELOPMENT BY FRED LOTRIDGE: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 12. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FLOWER SHOP RETAIL BUSINESS BY BILL AND JOYCE BREWER: (APPROVE AMENDED FINDINGS; APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 13. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CAR STEREO SALES AND INSTALLATtON BY RICHARD CESLER: (APPROVE AMENDED FINDINGS; APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 14. REQUEST, FOR A PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR MR. SANDMAN SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY BRYCE JOHNSON AND RUSS HUNEMILLER: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 15. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE BY BRYCE JOHNSON AND RUSS HUNEMILLER: (APPROVED AMENDED FINDINGS; APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 16. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5: (APPROVED) 17. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5: (APPROVED) 18. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: A. WAYNE CROOKSTON, CITY ATTORNEY: 1. NON-DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR LOS ALAMITOS PARK NO. 1: (APPROVED) B. CHIEF GORDON: 1. TRAFFIC CALMING REPORT: C. MAX YERRINGTON: 1. 1535 E. FIRST - TRASH IN YARD: (SEND A LETTER OF NOTICE) i~ `~ ~ '~ i ~) MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL GHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD MARCH 7, 1995: (APPROVED) TABLED MARCH 7, 1995: ORDINANCE #695 - RE-PEAL AND RE-ENACTMENT OF 2-1001: (APPROVED) 2. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A ZERO FOOT SIDE YARD VARIANCE BY ALBERl'SON'S, INC.: (APPROVED) 3. REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR TEN MILE SQUARE BY ALBERTSON'S, INC.: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 4. S1TE PLAN REVIEW FOR ALBERTSON'S, INC.: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-4 TO L-0 BY JAMES AND JEAN FULLER: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE Al1AENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW) 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A GAS STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE BY JAMES AND JEAN FULLER: (APPROVE FINDINGS; DENY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMtNARY PLAT FOR TREASURE VALLEY BUSINESS CENTER PHASE 2, 66 LOTS BY GEMTONE, INC: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 8. PUBUC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-4 TO R-8 AND L-0 BY MICHAEL GAMBLI[V: (APPROVE FINDINGS FOR L-O PORTION; CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE; CITY ATTORNEY TO AIVIEND FINDIIVGS FOR R-8 PORTION) 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO TRANSFER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY CANDACE ADKINS dba CANDYLAND DAY CARE II: (APPROVED WITH NO ADDITIONAL ASSESSMEN~) 10. PUBLCC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USf PERMIT TO ALLOW A PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BY FRED ~ • LOTRIDGE: (APPROVED) 11. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR ANGEL PARK DEVELOPMENT BY FRED LOTRIDGE: (APPROVED WITF! CONDITIONS) 12. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FLOWER SHOP RETAIL BUSINESS BY BILL AND JOYCE BREWEF2: (APPROVE AMENDED FINDINGS; APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 13. REQUEST FOR CONDITtONAL USE PERMIT FOR CAR STEREO SALES AND INSTALLATION BY RICHARD CESLER: (APPROVE AMfNDED FINDINGS; APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 14. REQUEST FOR A PRELIMFNARY/FINAL PLAT FOR MR. SANDMAN SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY BRYCE JOHNSON AND RUSS HUNEMILLER: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 15. REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE BY BRYCE JOHNSON AND RUSS HUNEMILLER: (APPROVED AMENDED FINDINGS; APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 16. REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISiON NO. 5: (APPROUED) 17. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5: (APPROVED) 18. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: A. WAYNE CROOKSTON, CITY ATTORNEY: 1. NON-DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR LOS ALAMITOS PARK NO. 1: (APPROVED) B. CHIEF GORDON: 1. TRAFFIC CALMING REPORT: C. MAX YERRtNGTON: 1. 1535 E. FIRST - TRASH IN YARD: (SEND A LETTER OF I~OTICE) ~ ~ MERfDIAN CITY COUNGL MARCH 21 1995 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Grant P. Kingsford at 7:30 P.M.: MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Morrow, Max Yerrington, Bob Corrie, Ron Tolsma: OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Shari Stiles, Bruce Freckleton, Chief Gordon, Ken Shelton, Terry Rohan, Scott Edens, Gordon Anderson, Craig Slocum, Joe Simunich, Karol Walker, John Longden, Renee Longden, Malcolm MacCoy; Skip Voss, Jerry Brohan, Steve Spoor, Dotty Hook, Richacd Britton, Van Elg, Tim Mockwa, Don Smitcher, Michael Gamblin, Candace Adkins, Jim Merkle, Bill Brewer, Richard Cesler, Gene Smith: MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETI.NG HELD MARCH 7, 1995: Kingsford: Are there any corrections, additions or deletions to those minutes? Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I move they be approved. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve the March 7th minutes, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: I would like to welcome finco Boy Scout Troops with us this evening, Troop #85 from Eagle and Star and Troop #166 from Meridian, it is good to have you gentlemen. ITEM #1: TABLED MARCH 7, 1995: ORDINANCE #695 - RE-PEAL AND RE- ENACTMENT OF 2-1001: Kingsford: Does the Council have any questions for Mc. Voss at this time? Have you reviewed fhat with him? Morrow: Yes, I have. Kingsford: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERfDIAN REPEALING SECTION 2- 1001A OF THE REVFSED AND COMPILED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MERtDIAN AND RE-ENACTI'NG SAID SECTIDN PROVI'D1NG FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE AS AMENDED WITH CHANGES TO SECTfON 2.303, 4.108, AND 10.507H, ARTfGLE 78, ARTICLE 79, AND THE ADOPTION OF THE FOLLOWING APPENDIXES, 2-F, 3-A, 3-B, 3-C, VA STANDARDS, 6-A HAZARDOUS MATERIAL CtASS1FICATION AND 6 UBC REFERENCE TABLES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 2 C~ EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the public that would like to have Ordinance #695 read in its entirety? Seeing none I would entertain a motion on Ordinance #695. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I move fhat we adopt Ordinance #695 with the suspension of rules. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Ron to approve Ordinance #695 with suspension of the rules, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A ZERO FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK BY ALBERTSON'S, INC.: Kingsford: Has the Council reviewed those findings? Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law for the side yard variance by Albertson's as written. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law on the side yard setback for Albertson's as written, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Yerrington - Yea, Morrow - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTtON CARRI'.ED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision? Morrow: Mr. Mayor the decision is that the application for a variance from 11-2-410A in the C-N district is granted to the Applicant but onty along fhe lot line between Lots 1 and 2 where the building to be constructed will abut the existing building. Yerrington; Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the decision, all fihose in favor? Opposed? • • Meridian Ci1y Council March 21, 1995 Page 3 MOTIDN CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR TEN MILE SQUARE BY ALBERTSON'S INC.: Kingsford: Questions of staff or the developer? ~ Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the preliminary and final plat for Ten Mile ; Square. ~ ,~ Tolsma: Second ;~ ;1 Morrow: Discussion ~ Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Ron, discussion Mr. Morrow? i ~ Mor~ow: Would the motion include subject to staff conditions? ~ ~ ~ ~I Corrie: Yes it does. Kingsford: Would you amend your motion please? Corrie: I move that we approve the preliminary and final plat of Ten Mile Square by Albertson's Inc. with the consideration as a condition of the applicant with the staff s conditions that were recommended. ;~ Tolsma: Second ,~ '' Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Ron to approve of the preliminary and final pJat foc Ten Mile Square for Albertson's Inc. conditioned upon #he staff requirements being met, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR ALBERTSON'S INC.: Morrow: I have questions Mr. Mayor. The preliminary question is on the landscaping plan, on the border that borders Parkside Creek development for a certain percentage of that border there is a design that incorporates a 6 foot high block wall with a landscape berm against the btock wall and then at the point where fhe building touches the easement line it changes to a 6 foot chain link fence and proceeds then to the corner of the Parkside . Meridian City Council March 21,' 1995 Page 4 i • Creek and Wally Lovin property. It is my observation that because those homes that abut that have their backyards and bedrooms in there are lights that can shine through. In tuming radiuses as per these blueprints in the parking lot that wall ought to also be a block wall as opposed to a see through chain link. I throw that out for discussion that is my observation. Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, I agree with Walter, I visited with the homeowners out there last evening and looked at the situation. Where the lots across the canal are situated (inaudiblej headtights from cars or from trucks or whatever turning around out there would shine into bedroom windows. There are also several concerns of the homeowners that they have a beautiful view of the mountains now and want to know if Albertsons would be willing to paint a mural on the back of their building. Kingsford: I am sure we would get a lot of (inaudible) as to what that mural should be. Any other comments or questions that you would like to ask of either staff or the developer? Morrow: f would ask for staff comments, Shari's and Bruce have seen this landscape plan, do you have any further comments other than our observations? Stiles: No, I would just make the additional observation that the people that came to the last meeting would Iike to have the council consider an 8 foot fence in lieu of the 6 foot fence. Corrie: Mr. IVlayor, you said 8 foot, is that cinder block? Stiles: Mortar block whatever. Kingsford: It sounds Iike a bigger mural. Morrow: Well I think the issue with respect to the 6 foot as opposed to the 8 foot, when you begin to go with cinder block and 8 foot high there are several structural things that have to be changed with respect to trying to buitd a wall. t guess also in my own personal mind is that I recognize fhat this is fhe border befinreen the commercial and a residential zone. What is our policy with respect to 8 foot fences and something that is not a junk yard or requires specific industrial screening. Do we have ordinance capability #o require an 8 foot fence? Kingsford: I think we ha~e a prohibition against it. Crooksto,n: An 8 foot fence is altowed in the C-N district pursuant to ordinance. ~ Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 5 • Kingsford: I guess that shot be down. I have some concern about an 8 foot fence and what that would do to that being a solid area, what that would do for vision. I can appreciate wanting to block head Iights and noise and that sort of thing but you are not going to eliminate the parking area lights. I would think a 6 foot fence is going to eliminate most of fhe auto lights. to go higher than that you are certainly going to restrict the view I am not sure everyone out there is going to agree with that height. Corrie: Probably aesthetically it would be better with a 6 foot all the way down for everybody concerned. Mr. Mayor I agree with Walt, I think that 6 foot wall should be all the way down to the parking area and not the chain link halfway and the 6 foot all the other way. I would Iike to hear what the developer has, if they have any questions there. Kingsford: The architect or whoever, if you would Iike to speak to that issue of the wall separating Parkside Creek and the development. Slocum: I am Craig Slocum from CSHQA Architects representing fhe applicant Albertson's. I guess in just addressing the comment from Council in regards to the chain link fence, what we felt would be better would be since we are providing landscape on our side of the easement putting up a 6 foot masonry wall is not going to allow those neighbors to see any of our landscaping other than the trees which are over that 6 foot height. I think the bushes and shrubs that we are providing with a chain link fence at least they would continue to have that view. I think those, the 3 individuals that were here last week are these 3 lots and in fact I think what they are going to see is smaller scale shops building when it goes in if it goes in and some landscaping. The concem that we took from Council originally was the noise and headlights of the trucks and service vehicles behind the Albertson's that there is no traffic behind this area. There are no roads thus there would be no service vehicles. That is why we presented to Council to provide that masonry wall in fhe location that the headlights and noise was a concern. Kingsford: I think where they are discussing concern particularly as you go directly south there after you pull away from the drain and go to the north right at that point and from there up to Cherry Lane. Morrow: Let me ask you this Mr. Slocum with respect to Lot 2, which is where the accessory building is, is that building built at the same time that the Albertson's store is builf? Slocum: It is not proposed to be. Morrow: And so frorn our perspective now it could be 1 year, 2 years, 5 years before it is built. • • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 6 Slocum: I# is market driven. Morrow: tn the case of a market driven building it eould be 1 to 5 years and under those circumstances then those folk would not have any protection from the lights in the parking lot shining~through on lots from the corner of the building there to the comer of the property is that correct? S'locum: They would not have as much protection as if a building were there. However, as Shari is holding up the sections (inaudible) we would be berming in order to facilitate bloeking the head Iights. Corrie: Shari could you hold that up just a little higher? Where would that be, would that not be Section E, would you have a Section E up there, where is that over here then? Slocum: We don't have a specific section at this point, we have taken the section into Mr. Lovin's property at each street frontage and at the point of at the time what we thought was the CounciPs concerns. Corrie: So that is going to be a berm there, you don't show it is a berm. You just show a fence you don't show a berm in the section like your Section E which would be there because it is a fence nof a berm I would think you would have another section cut to show us which I don't see one so I don't know if it is a berm or what it is. It could be just flat. Slocum: During our dealings with Planning and Zoning we received conceptual site approval, dealing with Shari. One of the comments that Shari gave us is that we would have to berm in order to facititate blocking headlights from glaring onto adjacent properties. Kingsford: So you are talking the north-south section there befinreen the Lovin property and down to the ditch. Is that a 20 foot width and what is the elevation of that berm? Slocum: At Mr. Lovin's property? Kigsford: All the way the north-south. Slocum: At Mr. Lovin's property it is 25 feet and the berm is presented to be 3 feet above curb, so you are 3 feet above the asphalt. Kingsford: And fhen from the Lovin property south there is no berm? Slocum: We have not indicated one, only from the standpoint fhat we did not cut a section • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 7 • through there. What I was trying to state that in fact we would be required to berm at any areas where headlights could glare into adjacent properties as my understanding from talking with planning staff. Corrie: That is a 3 foot b~rm than right, from the level of the parking. Slocum: Correct Kingsford: Any other questions? Thank you, what is the Council's pleasure? Morrow: I will state my position, 1 am not willing to approve a plan with a chain link fence given the fact that you have exposure the full length from the corner of the Albertson's store to the property. I think that certainly those foik are entitled to, those who abut that property are entitled to the same protection that the other folk have at the other end from parking lot Iights and fhose kinds of things. I am not convinced that a 3 foot berm as opposed to a 6 foot fence will solve that problem. So from my perspective I would like to see the block wall the full length as with cross section (inaudible) with the block wall and berming and continuation of that landscaping (inaudible). Tolsma: Is that a motion? Morrow: Well, it was a point of discussion stating my position. If you wish it to be, if you agree with that concept I will make that motion. Tolsma: I agree with that concept. Yerrington: I second that motion, that concept. Kingsford: I would kind of be interested in a motion. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move fhat we approve the site plan as presented with the exception that we require the continuance of the 6 foot masonry block wall and landscaping full length of the southerly property line. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Southerly property line? Morrow: It really runs from northwest to southeast, would you prefer that I make it that way? C~ Mer.idian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 8 • Kingsford: Why do you make it from point, do you want it to go a1l the way from Cherry Lane? At what point do you want that block wall to stop? Morrow: I want it to stop at the intersection of the Albertson's property and the Lovin property. Kingsford; You don't want it to going between Lovin's and the parking lot? Morrow: No Kingsford: Okay, is everyone clear on the motion? Is that agreeable on the second? Yerrington: Yes Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the site plan for Albertson's with the exception that the 6 foot block masonry wall with the adjoining landscaping run onto the north, to the Lovin property, that is to the southern boundary of the Lovin property is that correct? Morrow: Yes ~ Kingsford: All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE FROM R-4 TO L-O BY JAMES AND JEAN FULLER: Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite either the Fuller's or their representatives to speak first. Crookston: Mr. Mayor I have a conflict of interest in this matter? Kingsford: Well get off this table, Mr. Riddlemoser would you step forward? Tim Mockwa, 1802 N. 33rd Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Mockwa: As I mentioned I am representing Mr. and Mrs. Fuller in their request for this rezone from R-4 to L-0. I would like to make this brief and cover just a couple of major topics. Briefly discuss the justification or reasoning behind this request and secondly cover a couple of design considerations facing this rezone. Probably the most important ~ • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 9 point fhat I would like to get across, there are 2 separate requests before you tonight for this project, one is a rezoning to L-0 and second is a conditional use permit which is item 6 on the agenda: It is very important that they are considered separately we have never intended that fhis rezoning be tied fhat conditional use permit. The justification or reasoning behind this request, the major reason is a change in conditions of the site and the surrounding vicinity of this area. The comprehensive plan designates this area as urban, although residential can certainly be considered urban so too can all the uses permitted within an L-O zone. The urban designation contemplated future growth for this area which has now been realized. Part of this gcowth is current ongoing ACHD road widening project, development of the parcels on the northwest corner of Cherry and Ten Mile and fhe future of the other 2 currently vacant properties at this intersection. This change has made it no longer reasonable for this parcel fo remain residential. The Limited Office District is designated to act as a buffer befinreen other more intense non-residential uses such as that which is occurring south of this parcel and high density residential uses. Although the adjacent residential district may not exactly be considered high density. The history of development changes, current road widening and future development definitely cause this parcel to be a transitional piece. This request offers the council an opportunity to rezone ~this property to a transitional zone which would allow a use adequate for the nature of the property as it exists today. According to the facts and findings and conclusions of law from our previous Planning and Zoning Commission hearings this request is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. The area in fhe request is intended to be developed in a fashion that would be allowed under the new zoning. The facts of findings state that changes in the area or adjacent areas that dictate this area should be rezoned have occurred. The area will be served adequately by central public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police, fire protection, drainage, refuse disposal, water and sewer. The area will not create excessive additional requirements of public cost for public facifities and services and will not be detrimental to the common welfare of the community. Vehicular approaches to the property will not create an interference with traffic on the surrounding public streets. Finally, the use of the area will not result in the destruction, loss or damage in natural or scenic features of major importance. Despite all the overwhelming positive findings for fhis approval the recommendation by the Planning an Zoning Commission to the City Council was for the rejection of this request for a rezone. The reasons for this negative recommendation are clearly stated in item H in the facts and findings. This is where I want to make sure to clarify to the Council what it is exactly that we.are requesting. This rezoning request is for Limited Office and again it is a separate request from the convenience store conditional use permit. If a rezone to limited office is granted it wiil allow the Fuller's to construct on this property any of the uses as designated in the zoning ordinance as permitted within the Limited Office zone. An approval of the zoning request by itself in now way permits the development of this parcel as a convenience store without a separate conditional use permit. The facts and findings clearty spell out that a use is designated as permited within • • Meridian City Counail March 21, 1995 Page 10 Limited Office would not be offensive to this area, Some of the ways in which mitigation of neighborhood concerns are going to be addressed on here primarily deal with the screening, the site is intended to be screened on all sides and is currently screened on al] sides abutting residential and by utilizing this exisfing fencing and vegetation supplemental new plantings, the screening will be done in accordance with the ordinance. The Fuller's fully accept all conditions placed on this development by ACHD and will comply with their requirements for access points, turn lanes. Lighting associated with the development of this parcel will be designed so that light from any lighting fixture does not reflect direct rays and spill over into adjacent residential districts. And signage will conform to the Uniform Sign Code and the Meridian zoning ordinance. In summary I hope I have helped to clarify this request, simply put the Fuller's are requesting the rezone from R-4 to L-O. If a rezone is granted they will construct on this parcel only uses which are permitted by the zoning ordinance unless they obtain a separate conditional use permit. The facts and findings and conclusions of law state that all procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and the City of Meridian have been met and complied with by the petitioner. Conclusions of law also clearly indicate the changes in the area have occured that dictate this parcel should be rezoned. The only negative finding resulted from the misunderstanding of exactly what this rezone was requested and I hope I have resolved that question. Kingsford: Any questions of the Council? Morrow: I have one quick question, the one negative finding that you are referring to is in the conclusions of law, item #3 H, is that what you indicated? Mockwa: Yes, well, I don't have the findings with me. Morrow: Did you want to review those to make sure that is the right one? Mockwa: Yes, H states that the proposed uses will involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimentat to any persons property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors. I feel this is clearly referencing the reqeust for the gas station and not the request for the zoning. t fhink that is where the confusion came that I apparently didn't make it clear that they were 2 separate requests, although they were 2 separate items on the agenda. We kind of covered both of them in one presentation. I think it wasn't clear that they were separate from each other. Kingsford: Any other questions of the Council? Thank you, anyone else from the public? Jerry Rohan, 3255 West Woodmont Drive, was sworn by the Attorney. • • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 11 Rohan: On rezoning #his property, the neighborhood has gotten together and there are a few things or I should say one thing that we agreed on. We as a neighborhood don't feel have a problem wifih the Fuller's trying to sell their land and develop their land, it is what they want to put on that land. We had felt #hat we could compromise with a commercial development. A single level professional type office building something like that would be landscaped complimentary to fhe subdivision that we reside in that would fit in with the surrounding area. We felt that we could deal with that something that would fit in with the property that we paid a lot of money to live there and just wanted to bring that point up. Thank you. Kingsford: You and your group are familiar with our L-O zone and what would be permitted there~ Rohan: Yes we are, but as far as we know we are willing to compromise to make fhing a litfle easier. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Steve Spoor, 1720 North Aronmink Way, was sworn by the Attorney. Spoor: Members of the Council, (inaudible) as he just spoke and f wanted to reiterate as a neighborhood we are willing to work with the Fuller's in coming up with a use for their land that is both advantageous to them and to us, but one thing we would fike to urge is still that even though these are 2 separate issues that they do be considered as one for your protection and our protection. We would like to know exactly what would be put on. that land before the change in zone is accomplished. I think this would be beneficial to everybody. Thank you. Kingsford: Sir, so we have it accurately, can we have you spell your name? Spoor: S-P-O-O-R ; Kingsford: Thank you, anyone else from the public? Ken Shelton, 3225 West Woodmont Drive, was sworn by the Attorney. ' Shelton: Mr. Mayor, distinguished Councilmen, I would like to go on record as concurring '; with the negative recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I disagree with the gentleman that spoke on behalf of the Fuller's that it would have an economic, it ' would not have an economic impact on this area. There has been a letter submitted by a ~ real estate professional to the Planning and Zoning Commission that outlined the negative • i Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 12 impact. Therefore I would like to request that you deny the proposed application to rezone from R-4 to L-0 by Mr. and Mrs. Fuller. I thank you for the opportunity to comment. Kingsford; Thank you, any questions? Morrow: Mr. Shelton, basically you are opposed to an L-0 rezone, I guess what that means is that you would prefer that the Fuller's or somebody Iive on that corner as a residence for the rest of the time that the property is there? Shelton: That property is large enough that there is potential for another home to be on that property. I would not have a problem with another residential, when I bought that property, I did look at the zoning in that area and being residentially zoned l felt comfortable purchasing my home at that location. Morrow: I understand that but with respect to the Fuller's house and to say somebody builds another house there, can you visualize somebody paying to live on the intersection of 2 five lane roads on the corner? Shelton: I guess that would be a personal preference. Kingsford: Any other questions of the Council? Anyone else from the public? Dotty Hook, 3350 Sugar Creek Drive, was sworn by the Attorney. Hook: I would like to start by saying I cannot imagine anybody living there in a house on the corner for fhe duration. I do feel though that a convenience store is a real concern to me. It seems to me like we have convenience stores on every corner but we are also ,getting an Albertson's and a few stores over there. I do believe the Fuller's have a right to sell theic property and we had talked about working with them in a day use such as offices or something like that, that would be appropriate with the landscape for the subdivisions that are there. I know that a lot of the neighbors are very supportive for a day use, but we all have a great concern for a convenience store and what it.will bring. That is all that I have, I just wish that you would think about it very seriously. Thank you. Kingsford: Thank you, any questions? Anyone else from the public? Mr. Shelton, is the letter that you referenced, the one from John Blakely? {Inaudible) Kingsford: That is the letter you spoke to, in that he does talk about convenience stores, that is the one I remember. Anyone else from the public? Seeing none I will close the i • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 13 public hearing. Counselor, what is your feeling, is there additional testimony? Riddlemoser: You mean whether or not there has been additional testimony or whether there wasn't, I do not really believe that fhere has been as far as any material issue is concerned. Morrow: Point of discussion Mr. Mayor, it seems to me here that the issue really is two-fold and one is that the item that is being asked for here as per ~ur agenda is a rezone to Light Office. Light Office is the only zoning for that corner that could allow any type of use that would be harmonious to the neighborhood. I think what needs to happen is we need to divorce the issue of the CUP for a convenience store and recognize that if the ground is going to be used for anything other than residences the best zoning that can be had for there is light office. The other issue is I cannot conceive anybody, sentencing anybody else to live on that corner of 2 five lane highways for the rest of their natural lives. Certainly the Fuller's should have the option of selling fiheir property and moving on to someplace that is a better place for residential stuff. I don't see that any buyer short of a free home would pay anything to live on that particular comer. I think part of the confusion here and I certainly agree with the neighbors observafions that a convenience store is not an appropriate use for the comer. But I disagree with the findings of fact and conclusions that are written essentially denying fhe rezone to Light Office. And so I will not vote to support the findings of fact and conclusions. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I have one question, I think I hear the testimony denying is the people in Cherry Lane Village is concur that the L-O would be alright as long as there is not a convenience store there, 24 hour type thing. I guess I have one question for Mr. Shelton, with this letter from Mr. Blakesly, it did mention the convenience store as such, are you still concerned about a limited office, like a dental office or something like that, does that still bother you on that corner'? (Inaudible) Kingsford: Other feelings of the Council, is it your desire to approve of those findings or direct to have amended findings? Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we have amended findings. Morrow: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Walt to have amended findings prepared, all those in favor? Opposed? • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 14 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea C~ Kingsford: Those amended findings would be voted on at the next meeting. If they are approved they will be public and you can all review those. ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARI'NG: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A GAS STATION/CONVENIfNCE STORE BY JAMES AND JEAN FULLEFt: Kingsford: At this time I will open that pubtic hearing and invite the applicant or his desginee to speak ficst. Tim Mockwa, Toothman-0rton Engineering, was sworn by the Attorney. Mockwa: This second and completely separate request is for the conditional use permit to allow construction of a convenience store on the Fuller property. A conditional use permit is required for this use within the Limited Office zone. The facts and findings and conclusions of law.state fhat the petitioners have to complied with all local requirements of the Local Planning Act, and of the City of Meridian. This property has sewer, water, fire protection, police protection and would not create excessive additional requirements at pubfic costs for public facilities and services. This use would not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Again, this is out of the facts and findings, this is not my opinion. The proposed use would be harmonious with and in accordance with the comprehensive plan. Again the facts and findings. The Commission recommended to the Counci'I that you deny this request, the reasons were that this use would not be harmonious with the character of the general vicinity and would change the character fo the area. The Commission also stated in the facts of findings that this use would be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. The comprehensive plan is a vehicle the City has adopted to ensure future development occurs in a harmonious manner as growth occurs. Growth has occured and these changed conditions indicates that this property use should be changed accordingly. This request is simply asking that this property be permitted to develop along wifh the character of the general vicinity and in accordance with #he Comprehensive plan. Kingsford: Questions from the Council? Anyone else from the public? Steve Spoor, 1720 North Aronmink Way, was sworn by the Attorney. Spoor: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, I addressed the Planning and Zoning Committee which you should have a copy of my testimony, the comments that I brought to their attention still stand and I just wanted to re-testify that I would like to bring those in front of you for discussion. Thank you. • • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 15 Ken Shelton, 3225 West Woodmont Drive, was sworn by the Ci#y Attorney. Shelton: Mr. Mayor, distinguished members of the Council, as I stated previously I would request that you deny and I concur with the findings of the Planning and Zoning Commission to request this approval for a conditional use permit. It will definitely economic and a social impact on our community. So I won't take any more of your time, thank you for the opportunity to comment. Richard Britton, 3030 Autumn Way, was sworn by the Attorney. Britton: Mr. Mayor, I represent the Meridian Seventh Day Adventist church, we own the lot and someday intend to build on it fhat is directly across the street. Last night the church board voted to oppose this convenience store application and asked me if I would represent them here tonight in that opposition. As a church group we are against or opposed to the convenience store operation on that corner. Kingsford: Thank you. Jerry Rohan, 3255 West Woodmont Drive, was sworn by the Attorney. (End of Tape) Rohan: Thanks for letting me talk to you genflemen again, I am not sure that I went to the same meeting that Mr. Mockwa went to with the Planning and Zoning Commission. When I listened to what they, on their facts and findings is that they couldn't really find anything positive that would really come about by putting, letting a convenience store/gas station be allowed to be built there. The comprehensive plan, I don't understand where this gentleman came up with, how in the wide world of sports that could fit in with it. In our previous tesfimony I believe we stated in there that it doesn't even come close to fitting in there. How a convenience store/gas station could be harmonious to the neighborhood, you gen#lemen have all been to them, you have seen the traffic, the noise, the lights at night. If you come in late, the people that come in there with their stereos blaring, their loud cars, partying, the trash the noise it just keeps going on and on. The economic impact to the neighbors is just phenomenal, we are going to lose thousands of dollars on our property our values of our property because we have gas pumps right in our backyard. Anybody can see that, that is why I don't understand, I guess you can tum anyfhing around that you want to, but I just don't see how it could work even if I live farther back in the subdivision. At this time I would Iike to request that you conclusively deny the permit for the conditional use permit for the gas station/convenience store. Thank you gentlemen. Kingsford: Thank you, anyone else from the public? • • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 16 Mockwa: I would just like to state for the record as I was talking about this conditional use permit request, what I was trying to do was to point out what the facts and findings stated and draw from their conclusion on why they rejected it and discuss that a little bit. The three items that I read off again were not my opinion they were taking right out of the facts of findings and conclusions of law which you have on your desk there in front of you. Kingsford: Thank you, anyone else? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Council members, Counselor, as I reviewed the minutes of P& Z that sounds pretty much like what we have. Riddlemoser: I don't see any materiat additional testimony Mr. Mayor. Kingsford: Council members? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we adopt the finding of fact and conclusions of law as written. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRfED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, a motion on the decision would be that the Meridian Planning and Zoning commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they deny the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application in accordance with fhe findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth herein. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to deny the conditional use application, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRI'ED: All Yea . • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 17 Kingsford: I thank everyone for their testimony and certainly fhose of you that had concerns if fhere is anything that wouldn't be a permitted use in an L-0 zone you would be re-noticed and testimony would be available again at that point. Thank you. ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TREASURE VALLEY BUSfNESS CENTER PHASE 2, 66 LOTS BY GfMTONE, INC.: Kingsford: At this time I will open that public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Val Elg, 1111 South Orchard, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Elg: Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council, we are here to present to you the second phase of the Treasure Valley Business Center. Many of you know the history of this project, many of you are aware that it sat undeveloped for quite some time. The owners have decided to move forward on a proposal to develop the project in a means that wi'll provide quite a bit of flexibility for the development of these lots. I will hold this up here, hopefully you can see fhat. The lots here, this development here in phase 2 will create an extension of the existing street system in phase 1. We have the Treasure Valley Business Center phase 1 along this north boundary line with this irrigation ditch running through here. We have the Yellow Freight and Tri-City Meats and the other structures that are being built here in phase 1. This development here incorporates a design where the lots are rather narrow but buildabte. As each land owner wishes they may purchase additional lots to suit their needs fo,r their type of industrial development. In reviewing this application, we found that fhere is an existing PDG approval that encompasses this site and in addition the property is zoned I-L. A conditional use permit is not required for most uses out here for Industrial uses. The other thing that I might point out this road right here is Pine Street extended, fhis provides for a means of acquiring additional right of way to extend Pine Street. We discussed that with ACHD, they are in support of what is occurring hece. There is also access permits from ITD at both locations of Pine Street and this State Street Avenue extension. Both which empty out onto Eagle. Here again we have access from the north North Olive and at Hickory I believe it is called. As you can see there is ample access we also have a stub street planned for at this point right here heading off to the west. I guess what I will do is dive right into some of the conditions for approval. We read over them again and again and discussed them with Shari and with staff. We are quite comfortable with the conditions that have been proposed. It is the intent I believe at this point to request platting of the entire development, however, it may in fact become a phased development somewhere in this neighborhood here. This may be the first phase, somewhere in this area here and we will identify that to Shari before we come in with the final plat. As far as site specific requirements from public works, they asked us to identify the uses for Lot 6, Block 1 and 2 down here. This was originally a railroad spur and as you • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 9 8 • can see it is a very awkward piece of property right there. The intent right now is to and this was another quesfion from public works is that we provide a drainage plan, a master drainage plan for the street systems. The intent at this point is to probably provide some sort of a seepage bed here in fhis right of way with the four tenths of a requirement for drainage we would have to have roughly twelve feet of fall from this corner to this corner to drain the entire site. We don't have that there so we will provide a seepage bed here and then through a system of either seepage beds and piping we plan on making this the retention area for the development. ACHD has also asked that we also provide access on this lot down to the Lot 2 so that piece does not become landlocked. They do have an existing easement that goes out to Eagle Road however. These lots will remain unbuildable, t believe it stated on the plat until such time as sewer and water become available and an adequate access is reviewed and approved. I guess the only other comment that we might have about this at this point is that we understand that each of these lots will be subject to a 10% landscape requirement or common area so to speak that prior to the development of each lot a design review, staff level design review will be required to ensure that each lot has at least 10% open space or landscaping designated and incorporated into the design of tfie future buildings. We don't have any particular problem with fhat, that is a much better solution to us than coming in with 10% ball field out in the middle of an industrial development. That works well. The one thing that we are slightly aoncemed about is the request for, or the condition fhat states we have to provide a pressurized irrigation system within the industrial development. For 10% or roughly 7 acres deveiopment in here out of this 75 it is an extraordinary fee to require pressurized irrigation to each of these lots. I believe that one of the general conditions of approval that is in this report is in most states that individual wells may provide irrigation to the landscaped areas within the development. I would ask that you consider that in lieu of fhe fact that this is an industrial development, we are not talking a high amount of density, we are not talking about parks. We are talking about businesses that are going to be putting in 10 of this area in landscape on each lot in order to comply with the ordinance. The adciitional fees required, cost associated (inaudible) are e~raordinary. Other than that I don't think we have any particular concerns. We would ask that you address specific wording if you could in your condifions of approval to identify each lot, the requirement that each lot provide a landscape plan showing 10% as it is written right now, I suppose it is fine and that is probably how it has been handled in the past. 1 would feel a Iittle more comfortable knowing that each lot will specifically be required to provide that landscaping as design review. With that I will open myself up to any questions if you have any. Kingsford: A comment maybe Van, since you are talking about logically selling more fhan one lot to businesses it shouldn't be 10% of the lot it ought to be 10% of a particular ownership. Elg: Correct, and I correct myself, I did make a note of that, that is should be, we • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 19 • understand that each lot or each group of lots must submit landscape plans showing 10% so that is a good point. Kingsford: Questions of the Council for Van? Morrow: I have a question with respect to the irrigation water is provided by Nampa Meridian to that property? EIg: Settlers Morrow: The entire property is Settlers? Elg: Yes Morrow: If you are proposing not to use pressurized irrigation system which is a means of using that water right are you proposing to deed that water right or give that water right back to Settlers so that it could be redistributed elsewhere in the community. Elg: We might be able to address that, I am getting a nod yes that would be a possibility. Morrow: I think fhe point of the pressurized irrigation is that we are requiring pressurized irrigation to put some sort of, to fielp us with our City domestic water and .not use valuable water to irrigate grass when we could use irrigation water to do that. So I think if we are going to grant that exemption that it makes sense that irrigation water right go elsewhere within the community where it can be used. Elg: I#hink that sounds like a fair trade. Crookston: Mr. Mayor, that would require an application for a variance. Kingsford: Any other questions or comments from the Council? Anyone else from the public? Don Smitcher, 3890 East Ustick Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Smitcher: This is the first commercial, big commercial that we have had so we didn't really have a policy as you fellows know we do have as far as residential lots. They have about 80 inches of water for that whole 160 and I sometimes feel that they should be required by I can see their point. F discussed it with Mr. Wright today and we haven't really come down on commercial because it was the old, number 1 was 10 - 11 years ago when it was started and we have had quite a discussion as to fhe ditch tiling out there. We are going • • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 20 to require them to tile down Eagle Road and down to Tri-City Meat but that will be your lot too, you have a deal in there for your well. Years ago when we set this thing up I can't corne up with anything where we waived the concrete cement but I did in talking to Mr. Wright, he had a letter to us and they asked us to waive it and we evidently didn't answer back or he didn't have a letter to our answer so we are having our secretary check out some more. It is so unusual that she has ever lost any of our papers because she is really been real good, but one question I wanted to know of, the Council here, where that was waived as far as the concrete lining that is not a concrete tile but it is a concrete lining and they come up with these 2 new lots, Tri-City and Food Service and of course last fall when we looked at all of our (inaudib.le) showed it was supposed to be concrete line so we did notify Tri-City and we did notify Food Service that it should be tiled. But whether we can force that where it has already been approved you know 10 or 11 years ago and evidently we did waive that of what we can find now we have waived that part. The only thing I can think of is the one letter he had, Upland, this is when Upland had it, the only thing I can think of is for some reason if our manager didn't bring that to our attention that slipped past us. But we do have a letter from our secretary approving it once it was put in there. So it is just kind of, it surprised me and it surprised her today when I called her, well she said she just couldn't befieve that we waived the concrete lining, but that did just (inaudible) and they lined it. When they excavated I don't know they just took way more out of there than they had to so what is happening now from talking to Tri-City it would cost fhem $50,000 to put tile in that section there. At the time Randy didn't know thaf it was supposed to be filed although we got on it before he got a building permit. The fact is he did sign the DOSS that he would tile it, he was wanting to talk to Mr. Wright and Mr. Wright was out of town but he still wanted to get his building started so we did sign the deal that we would let him discuss that with that and he would be liable if he put the tile in. But where we found the old records that we evidenfly waived that I don't know whether the board will want to stick to that plan now. On the new part we will. It would be a lot better, especially for Tri-City if that lot was tiled. Shari, she is trying to work out a deal with on the landscaping and it is just going to, its 30 feet across the top of that ditch and we can't hardly work from the roadside, they didn't leave enough room befinreen the curb and the drop off. So we probably have to work on that side of Randy's if we ever went in there. But I didn't know whether fhe Council would want us to force that, under the law I don't think we could force it. I would like to see them do it, but I just wanted to see if there was any opinions on that in a commercial area. Our scare is only somebody dumping something in those ditches and the fact is they caught me out there one night, I was pumping water our of it and the Deputy Sheriff come along, we were putting in a ball park in for the church across the road from Treasure Valley and they thought we were dumping something in but they found out we were just taking water to water the ball field over there. So do you have any comments on that? . Kingsford: Counselor? • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 21 U Crookston: Mr. Smitcher, when you have been saying we and us and things like that are you testifying as a representative of the Settlers Irrigation District? Smitcher: Yes, I am president of the board. We have been working on this ever since last October and until today when i visited with Mr. Wright he showed me the 2 letters and right then it looked like we had been wasting a lot of time. I can't find in our files and "we are going to work on that tomorrow just to see if we can't find anything well then probably we will just have to let that go. The new part we are going to require that it be tiled all the way through to Tri-City's corner there. Kingsford: Thank you Don, anyone else from the public? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Council members. Morrow: I have some questions, with respect to, I understand the issue with the 10% in terms of fhe lot owner and I agree with that. There is a note from the public works department and I would ask Bruce to give me some background, note #2 says the property owner adjacent to the west has expressed some desire to abandon the existing sanitary sewer, domestic water right of way crossing. Can you bring us up to speed for the reason for that comment Bruce, please? Freckleton: Sure, Gary had been in contact with Mr. Ouderkirk and Mr. Ouderkirk had brought that proposal to Gary. In its current state our sewer and water cuts diagonally across that Ouderkirk property. It kind of cuts that piece of property at a weird angle and it kind of makes it hard to develop. With the new alignment of Pine Street, the new Pine Street extens.ion his fhinking was, or his proposal was to see if we could relocate Yhat sewer and water down to the Pine Street extension and free up his property so that he could develop it. Morrow: That is what Mr. Ouderkirk was asking for? Freckleton: Correct Morrow: And at who's expense would that relocation take place? Freckleton: That is a good question, Mr. Ouderkirk had~ talked to Gary and that is why, I think, Gary when he brought this to my attention he said that we probably ought to look at the viability of that proposal and to see if there could be some open dialogue and just bring this subject to the table. Morrow: How does that affect this particular parcel, in other words are we saying to them that they need to align their sewer and water within Pine Street, is that the point of the • • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 22 comment here so that we may adjust the Ouderkirk's into what is going to be Pine Street, is that what we are after here? Freckleton: I don't believe so, I think what we need to do is we need to work together with Briggs Engineering and see if it is a viable solution. When Gary expressed this to me he didn't express it Iike it was a condition to be placed on this project. Morrow: On this plat, basically this doesn't have a lot to do with the plat but we are asking Mr. Wright and his group to do, is to cooperate with us to see if we can work with their engineer and come up with a solution to this problem with Ouderkirk's. Is that agreeable with you Mr. Wright? (Inaudible) Morrow: I guess my other question was with respect to can you bring me up to speed with the ditch fhing (inaudible)? Stiles: Councilman Morrow, Mayor and Council, the property that Mr. Smitcher is talking about is in phase 1. The City did grant a variance for not tiling that portion of the ditch. It has been rip rapped and it is kind of a problem that they are dealing with in phase 1. It doesn't have anything to do wifh this particular phase. They have, it is a requirement to tile the ditch if they are not going to tile the ditch they will submit a variance application and have to get that approved by Council, but I believe the proposal at this time is to tile the ditch. Morrow: Why was the variance granted, is there a size problem here? Kingsford: Well I think Walt, it goes back as Mr. Smitcher indicated to around 1981/1982 era and I don't think we had that requirement particularly in an industrial zone yet. The correspondence that I have seen called whether 2 or 3 correspondences and one of them did call for it and I don't know what the order of those things were for a rip rap and that sounds like a real scientific proposal to me when I reviewed it. Morrow: Was fhat in your time? Kingsford`. Unfortunately so. Any other questions of the Council? Smithcher: That is one thing that when we, the original deal was they would move it because it wound through the property (inaudible) later it would be concrete, I guess that is where the conflict. We don't have anything to show that it is supposed to be rip rapped, everything we got shows it is supposed to be concrete line. But coming over and visiting • • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 23 with Shari they do have one on here that shows rip rap. While we were negotiating what kind of concrete and everything that was going into this line ditch this change was made and I can't imagine us okaying a change like that. But if'we didn't get that one letter from Upland (inaudible) it could easily have screwed it up. So that is what we are looking for now just to make sure that we are on good ground. If we find anything that shows that they still should do it than we are going to try to see that it is done one way or another. Tri-City would like to negotiate with the developer, the developer has already sold the lot and they are not willing to talk. So that is the way it stands right now. Kingsford: And one developer sold it to another developer and time presses on. What is the, if you are interested in those Shari does have the correspondence that we have received. What is the Council's pleasure with the preliminary plat. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the preliminary plat as presented subject to staff conditions with exception on the site specific comments I wish that condition to read 10% either per lot or per owner for landscaped area in the case of multiple lots and that public access to lots 1 and 2 and through those lots is spelled out within the documents. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve of the preliminary plat for phase 2 of Treasure Valley Business Center subject to staff conditions being met that they specify the 10% per lot or per owner if it is a multiple lot be in landscaped open space and that public access be provided to lots 1 and 2, is that correct, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I think also the way that this is structured now if I understand it correcfly from Mr. Crookston is that it does require pressurized irrigation but in order to get through that it would take a variance on the part of Mr. Wright to accomplish that. ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-4 TO R-8 AND L-O BY MIC'HAEL GAMBLIN: Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the owner or his designee to speak first. Mike Gamblin, 1927 SE 5th Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Gamblin: Gentlemen, I am here representing myself asking for a rezone from an existing • . • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 24 R-4 zoning that has a single family residence on Cherry Lane to a zoning of Light Office/ R-8 zoning. The reason for the dual zoning is to mirror or mimic an adjacent zoning that accommodates a business usage in the front along Cherry Lane and then accommodates a residential lot subdivision behind that in the same amount of space. I would encourage the Council to adopt the positive recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Committee. Additionally I would like to add at the public hearing at the Planning and Zoning Commission a concerned and adjacent neighbor brought up the potential problem of access as Leisure Lane going down the westerly side of the proposed property is a private lane. He brought up a question of access and he also brought up an additional question which we have subsequently done some research on as to the feasibility of development i.e. the sewer and water down Leisure Lane. I offer the following testimony of fhis to address that issue. As far as the development potential the City has informed me that their site survey and an additional one that I had done found that the sewer was not deep enough to allow for sewer to be extended down Leisure Lane from the north side, from Cherry Lane. So consequently, that will make it difficult if not impossible to subdivide into residential lots at this point. The City has said that the sewer could be brought in from the, I would like to re-state that to bring sewer in from the south on Cherry Lane would be impossible they said it could be brought in from the north but that would of course take the approval of all of the land owners or the majority there of along Leisure Lane. Which is something that I am not requesting at this point. As far as the access is concerned, I do believe also that since I am not requesting a plat or a subdivision in this particular action that question although I am not unsympathetic to that would have to be handled at a later date, it is premature at this time to address that issue. I definitely would have to secure all the proper permission from the land owners who do own that land. Kingsford: On that subject, in reviewing the Planning and Zoning's minutes, you are not or are you now the owner of record? Gambiin: I arn not. Kingsford: So certainly the rezone would have to be conditioned upon your actually obtaining it. Gamblin: My transaction is conditioned upon the rezone. Tolsma: Have you (inaudible) have you worked that out? Gamblin: Yes, the parcet has access, deeded access and easement along Leisure Lane. Tolsma: So you do have access (inaudible). • ' • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 25 Gamblin: I do have access into Leisure Lane, yes. Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Gamlin? Anyone else from the public? John Longden, 1727 Leisure Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Longden: I have a concern about the rezone from R-4 to R-8 on the residential lots in back. I am the one that owns that Leisure Lane easement down through there and I am across from that. R-4 atready allows for single family dwellings on that particular piece of land. Although I have no objections to the L-O in front for Light Office. But I would have objecfions to the City water and sewer going down Leisure Lane at this time without being consulted prior to the conditions ~of it. It has in some of fhe paper work here that they thought Leisure Lane was owned from the Highway District but it is privately owned. So I wanted to bring that to your attention. That is about all I have to say. Kingsford: John, as I recall there is a certain portion of that that is Highway District owned isn't there adjacent to Cherry Lane. How far back does it go that the Highway District owns? Longden: Well, on the right hand side it goes back roughly about 100 feet I would guess but it is only 8 feet wide. All the pavement part belongs to the deeded owner (inaudible). and that is about a 300 foot strip and it is 42 feet wide. Kingsford: Thank you, anyone else from the public? Karol Walker, 1665 NW 11 ih, was sworn by the City Attorney. Walker: I was wondering if Guy Walker could speak for me seeing as I am not real familiar with this but I do have opinions on it. Kingsford: Well, I think he can certainly speak for himself or for you. Walker: Well, in my place. Guy Walker, 3545 West Birdie Court, was sworn by the City Attorney. Walker: Thank you Mayor Kingsford, members of the Council for allowing me to speak, the reason why Karol asked me to come up here and address the Council is due the fact fhe homeowners down on 11 th are all single women and are a little bit unknowledgable regarding the development #hat is going on here. We understand Mike's desire to rezone from R-4 to R~ and there in layman's terms we would like to have the R-8 explained to us • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 26 • because as we understand and wanted to residential and R-4 is residential, what is the R-8 designation going to be and what effect will it have on their property they are not aware. Secondly, they don't have any real objection to fhe limited office use outside we feel it is premature to be granting a rezone to limited office as well as to R-8 when there is no plan or any kind of information provided to the homeowners as to what the depth of fhe use of the limited office use is going to be. Is it going to go 200 - 300 feet down that ground, 80 feet, just what is it going to do. The same way with the change in zoning from R-4 to R-8, we feel this is a little bit premature. They feel they need more information. Kingsford: The findings~of fact that the Planning and Zoning came up with I think Guy would spell out certain of your questions and may be helpful to you. You can pick up a set of those from the City Clerk. They did speak to with regard to R-8 to what you are allowed to do is to have little narrower lots and the P& Z requested that the houses be at least 1400 square feet to be more in compatible with those that are on Leisure Lane. But basically the difference between R-4 and R-8, R-8 does allow for duplexes, but their findings ruled fhat wouldn't be allowed. And likewise they had to be separate detached housing and they had to be at least 1400 square feet. Walker: If they do allow an R~ and Planning and Zoning then can let's call put restrictions you cannot go into duplexes into 2 story, Planning and Zoning would have that authority to do so? Kingsford: Certainly it couldn't go into duplexes I don't know as we have ever dealt with the 2 story issue. That would be a provision that the Council would have to put on it if that was their desire to. Walker: That is their main concern is because if this R-8 rezone is granted then the R-8 does allow for duplexes and then if it goes into duplexes~ you go to facts and findings and conclusions and if it allows for duplexes and 2 story then that Kingsford: Of course our findings right now say that they can't be duplexes and of course you can make a 2 story in the R-4. Walker: That is correct they can make a residential 2 story, there is a big difference between a residential 2 story and a duplex. Kingsford: And already Guy we are saying that the duplex is not going to be allowed in the current findings unless the Council were to modify those now and I don't see that happening. Walker: I am also representing Linda Paddock had a letter addressing that 1 will leave • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 27 • with the Council and they are objecfing at this time, objecting going from the R-4 to the R- 8. they are not objecting going to the Limited Office use. They would tike to have a little more, of course (inaudible) R-8 the high density. Thank you very much. Kingsford: Did you have that letter or was it already submitted by Linda Paddock? Walker: I'll get it. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Seeing none I will clos~ that public hearing. Walt Morrow: I have questions, I guess a couple of observations, my first question is that with respect to Shari's comments on item 3, dated January 6th, detailed site plan to determine compliance with landscaping, lighting, parking, drainage, utility hook ups, etc. must be submitted and approved prior to occupancy, why would that be prior to occupancy as opposed to the building permit point or some other point? I can see some potential problems there. Stiles: Councilman Morrow, Mayor and Council there is a home existing on the property that the applicant proposes to use as his office as a real estate office. It is not yet hooked up to sewer and water, I have visited the site to see if there was parking and landscaping there and fhat was just to determine compliance of the ordinance. Morrow: There would be no building permit issued in this proposed project? (End of Tape) Morrow: So then what the point of this then is that prior to an occupancy certificate being issued for the office portion all these things would have to be completed is that correct? Stiles: Yes Morrow: As opposed to just a plan being done. Stiles: Yes, particularly now because of hooking up to sewer and water for a commercial use would need to be done at this time. Morrow: I guess my confusion here, the way it is worded we are asking for a detailed site plan to determine as opposed to requiring the landscaping, lighting and all these other things to be a condition of occupancy is that unclear or is that me just not being able to get through it. • ! Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 28 Sfiles: At the time I wrote these comments I was not aware that he was just planning to use the existing home without any remodeling or anything. Morrow: My next question is with respect to Gary Smith's comments Bruce, and I agree, his second paragraph is that if the property is to be subdivided for residential or other approved subdivisions a plat needs to be prepared showing an acceptable width of public right of way approved by us and recorded. What Gary is after here is that an acceptable public road being Lansing Lane is that correct, to service the back portions of this property that would be subdivided into residences because those residences would face on Lansing Lane, I'm sorry Leisure Lane. That is what he is asking for there? Freckleton: That is the way I read it. Leisure Lane and that subdivision when it was created was created illegally. That is a private lane and I believe the intent of Gary's comment there was so that it would be brought up to today's standards. Morrow: The next issue is that with respect to sewer where they are asking for R-8 zoning what you are indicating is that we cannot sewer that from Cherry Lane down Leisure Lane it has to come from some other point south to this property through other people's property? Freckleton: Yes Councilman Morrow, we, the sewer line that exists in Cherry Lane is I believe it was approximately 3 1/2 to 4 feet deep. A couple of our guys went out and shot some level readings up Leisure Lane and we do run out of depth. Prior to my time with the City, Gary had worked with I believe it was Roy~Johnson regarding bringing a sewer line in from the north to serve this whole development and it was determined at that time that is how service would have to be brought in to service this. Morrow: Okay, I have a question, does it make a lot of sense to zone, I don't have a problem with the light office, it can be hooked up to City sewer and water services as it sits now that is correct? Freckleton: That is correct. Morrow: I guess the question in my mind is do we zone something residential at this point in fime change it from R-4 to R-8 knowing that it can't be serviced by either public right of way road and by sewer? Kingsford: I think that is a legitimate comment, I am sure that the Gamblin's are concerned about, with that small of a parcel the payment for 2 fees for Rezone. I can appreciate that as being a major issue. But, I wouldn't disagree with you perhaps we could table into the future until sewer is there, the rezone to R-8. I do have a question as I thumb through this • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 29 • again Mr. Gamblin, point brought up by someone and I don't remember who it was, what is the depth of the property fhat you are asking for L-O and so on. I don't see that in any documentafion? Is it the current residence, the boundaries of the current residence? Do we have a legal description of that? (Inaudible) Kingsford: We would need' a description of that which you wish to have L-O. {Inaudible) Kingsford: If you don't mind we need to get this on tape so we have some sort of record. Gamblin: I don't have anything in my file, I spoke with Shari about fhat initially and uncertain as to what we decided. I think we, that is right, it is 90 Freckleton: It looks like it is approximately 80 by 120 for the L-O. ;~ Gamblin: Okay, so I believe that comes to like 15 feet in back of the existing home. I~ Kingsford: I didn't see that dimension, where are you looking Shari? i :~ Stiies: Mayor, this was on the original transmittal for the rezone. There is a description of the entire property and then they do break it out for the L-O for parcel 1 and parcel 2 R- 8. ~ Kingsford: I must have received that (inaudible) just so we do have a description that ~~ identifies the L-O. Gamblin: The City has given me an idea and I don't recall who it was I spoke to, where if we couldn't determine that there was public access off of Leisure Lane than an additional lane would be possible down on the existing property back to the lots behind. So, I was given that idea as an alternative, I didn't pursue that idea because I felt that it was premature. So, the reason for the R-8 zoning was precisely what you Mr. Mayor had suggested that it would accommodate a Iittle narrower than normal lots would accommodate 3 lots as opposed to just 2 with an R-4. It would mirror exactly evidently the women on 11 th that were, that are being testified for, live on those lots. Had they not had the same provisions there would just be 2 homes there and not 3. So I am just asking for something that was done right next door. Any other questions for me? Kingsford: Any ofher questions of the Council? I closed the public hearing, unless the Council wants to ask you a question. What is your pleasure? • Meridian City Councii March 21, 1995 Page 30 • Crookston: I think we need new findings, particularly because of this sewer issue that has been brought up and because of the testimony of Mr. Watker on behalf of 2 people. Kingsford: Also a written submittal from Linda Paddock, I don't know whether that was at the P & Z. Crookston: I don't recall that it was. Corrie: 1 have some questions on this sewer that I am not quite comfortable with. So I move that we have new findings of fact and conclusions drawn. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Ron to have new findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared by the City Attorney, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea (Inaudible) Kingsford: Well, the new findings will be before us at the April 4th meeting. (Inaudible) Kingsford: That would be correct. Could you come forward again? Gamblin: Unfortunately, let me clarify, I think what you just did was essentially remand this back for new findings that is going to add additional time. Any possible way of addressing the Iight office zoning of it in lieu of the whole thing. My reason is I spoke at the P& Z meeting as I have a limited time with the seller to perform on my contract that extends past that that would pass what you just suggested. That would put a little undo duress on our arrangement. Can you take a look at the light office portion of it? Grookston; I think with the additional testimony we need to amend the findings. Gamblin: I believe the additional testimony all concurs that they did not object to the light office portion of the request, did they not? I think that was stated by everyone. Crookston: I think that the sewer issue invotves both the limited office and the residential. Gamblin: The sewer issue does not involve Iimited office, Shari, the house is already on • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 31 • sewer, I verified that with the City. Whoever spoke that it was not on the City is contradicting what the City has already told me that the house is on sewer and water. Which the seller has told me also. Kingsford: Probably that is correct, those that faced on Cherry Lane were hooked up to sewer was my recollection. Gamblin: So the sewer issue directly affects obviously the back portion of it whatever I have proposed for the back portion of it. Kingsford: When we re-did Cherry Lane some years ago those front parcels on Cherry Lane were hooked to sewer I am almost positive. Gamblin: I just ask fhat it be addressed to address my concerns. Crookston: Well, let me ask the question, even if the Council said that they could proceed with the limited office, it is still going to be until the first meeting in April before there is an ordinance passed even if they grant it. Are you going to be able to live with just the Council saying they approve the limited office and not having an ordinance passed rezoning it? Gamblin: Yes Kingsford: I think what he is saying is that to back it up 2 weeks would miss that sale. Gamblin: Yes, it extends back, we would be out of contract at that time. Morrow: (Inaudible) Gamblin: Friday Kingsford: We wouldn't have an ordinance prepared and adopted prior to (inaudible). Gamblin: I am unfamiliar with the procedure, is that just a fairly academic step? It happens just as a matter of course? Kingsford: Well, the Council has to approve of that ordinance and read it and pass it in a public hearing and then prior it taking affect it has to be published in the newspaper before the rezone actually occurs. Crookston: The property may not be rezoned likely until, if things went as quickly as they • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 32 • could, until the Thursday after fhe first meeting in April. Gamblin: Let me ask this then, like I say I am not familiar. What is the probability then that if the Council approved tonight fihat it eventually would not be rezoned to Iight office? Crookston: It would be very unlikely. , Gamblin: That is my understanding and I betieve fhat with that information it would then pertorm on the contract. Morrow: Maybe, let me re-state our position as a City, our position is this rezone does not take place officially until the legal notice has been published in the paper and the proper time has expired. Everything that you ought to do between now and that day is solely at your own risk. The odds of the zoning not occurring if the Council's desire is for that to be rezoned are very good that nothing will change but there are no guarantees from our position as a City or as a City Council. Gamblin: I understand that. Morrow: You would be taking and assuming all the risk. Gamblin: Of course Kingsford: Now having heard that is it your desire to act on the Limited Office portion? Crookston: Let me ask an additional question. Mr. Gamblin are you saying that you in essence are amending your application to have all the property zoned Limited Office or just to have the Council act on that portion of the application and land in which you have asked for it to be zoned fimiied office? Gamblin: Just that portion that I want to be Limited Office. Corrie: I guess since I. made the motion, I have a couple of questions to the Counselor. Is there any change in testimony that we could not go with what he is requesting? Crookston: From what I have heard there has been no objection to the limited office. {Inaudible) Kingsford: You may guy but again the public hearing is closed I don't know that we could deal with what we are talking about now on the issue. ~ U Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 33 {Inaudible) r~ LJ Kingsford: We will make that determination whether there is (inaudible) (Inaudible) Walker: The comment was made that there was no objection to the limited office use, but there was an objection to the vagueness of the size of the property and the limited office use ingress/egress, parking, etc. What was the size and details objection to the size of that ground, If you approve this Iimited office use who knows how deep. Kingsford: That is something we just pin-pointed, we now have a dimension on that. Walker: Did the public hear it? Kingsford: I think so it went over that micro-phone. Walker: Okay, then again, I have been through this, where is the parking and so forth, ingress/egress? That is the objection that I have, that there is a lack of detail as far as how the property is going to be laid out. Kingsford: Shari with regard to that, the site plan that you visited with Mr. Gamblin about, did it spell out, what have you done with regard to ingress/egress so forth for that property? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council fhe property does have an access off of Cherry Lane and also is accessing off of Leisure Lane. They do have adequate parking for the use proposed. I don't know if Mr. Walker is talking about the rest of the property but that can be dealt with at any time there is an actual subdivision of that property. What Mr. Gamblin wanted to do when he came in he saw this property, it was something that he wanted to purahase for his office, it was a litfle too large for what he needed and through our discussions I told him that instead of rezoning the whole thing timited office it might be better to leave some of it residential and to come in at a later time when he could sell off some of that property through a subdivision because he didn't have any use for it. Kingsford: Would you state the dimension again of the Limited Office portion? Stiles: I believe it is 80 feet deep and a 120 feet wide. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, I have a question, this was presented to us as a rezone from R-4 to R-8 and L-0 can we split it? It was requested C~ Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 34 • Kingsford: Well, I think that those numbers that you called out over there, but go ahead Counselor. Crookston: You can as I understand the application was to have a portion zoned L-O and a portion zoned R-8, because it is already designated as to what parcels are to be zoned which zone you can segregate fhat out. And particularly with the applicant's consent which he has so consented. Kingsford: We have had numerous properties that we zoned the front so many feet one fhing and the remainder a different. Corrie: To get this moved along I will withdraw the motion. Kingsford: Who made the second? Tolsma: I withdraw the second. Kingsford: Is there a new motion? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we rezone the front portion of the lot, approximately 80 by 120 feet to Light Office and that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare new findings of fact and conclusions of law to the remaining portion of the lot and that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions as written for fhe front portion Light Office portion of the lot. Kingsford: I think you have 3 motions there, I think you need to have a motion on the findings. I think you have to have the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance rezoning the front portion as you described dimension wise Iimited office. Let's have a motion first on the findings for the limited office. Morrow: Okay I withdraw my motion. Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law for the rezone portion of the light office rezone portion of this lot. Kingsford: Is there a second? Yerrington: Second Kingsford: IVloved by Walt, second by Max to approve of fhe findings of fact and conclusions of law for the front portion, 80 by 120 for limited office, roll call vote. ~ • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 35 Tolsma: Can we approve part of the findings (inaudibl'e). Crookston: They are not but I think you can approve them as they pertain the L-0 and deny fihem and have new findings that pertain to the R-8. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: The second part then. Morrow: I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare the ordinance for the rezone to light office. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to have the City Attomey prepare an ordinance rezoning the front portion to Limited Office, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTIDN CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Now a motion to have the City Attorney prepare new findings on the R-8 portion of it. Morrow: So moved Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to have the City Attorney prepare new findings of fact and conclusions of law on the R-8 zoning on the back portion, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRI'ED: All Yea Yerrington: Mr. Mayor I would make a motion that we have a break. FIVE MINUTE BREAK ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO TRANSFER CONDITIONAL USE PERMFT BY CANDACE ADKINS dba CANDYLAND DAY CARE II: . Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 'Page 36 l J Kingsford: At fhis time I will open that public hearing and invite the owner or their designee to speak first. Candace Adkins, 310 South Harding, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.. Adkins: I am requesting a transfer of a conditional use permit of the property of 1131 West Cherry Lane from Linda Paddock to I so I may use it as a day care. Kingsford: You have then a conditional sale based on the transfer? Adkins: I own it now. Kingsford: So you are just transferring the conditional use. Any questions? Morrow: Is it currently being operated? Adkins: Yes Kingsford: Any other questions? " Freckleton: Mr. Mayor, I just want to bring to your attention, I did prepare a memo on this 1 ,~ proposal, I don't know if the appiicant has seen it, regard their assessments. They are ~ currenfly set and based on the historical usages on that site it does indicate that we do ~ need to adjust their assessments to bring them in line with where we are at. They are ~ currently set at 1 ERU for sewer and water. Historical information indicates that they ~~ should be about 3. Morrow: So you are asking for 2 additional is that correct? Freckleton: That is correct. Kingsford: Prior to your time I guess Bruce, but this has been discussed and the Council has talked about how many of those children already reside in the City and what the logical trade off is there for this kind of a business. Since those families already do pay - most of them into the sewer and water system in Meridian already. I just bring that up for the Council's attention because it has been considered in other day care operations. Morrow: What has the precedence been, that we have not been assessing additional sew.er and water (inaudible). ;i Kingsford: This is strictly from memory but it is my recollection that we haven't. I am ~ ~ ;i ~; ~ • • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 37 unaware of a day care that is paying other than the one that is in a commercial building over on Fairview that is paying more than a single hook up. I could stand corrected on that, but I am unaware of one. Freckleton: A Small World on Meridian Road, when they came in and did it, behind Albertson's. Theirs is set to this same type criteria. Kingsford: How many children are in this day care now, they were younger children is that right. Is that your desire to continue wifh the younger chi~dren? Adkins: Yes, it is licensed for 35 and there are only 14 in it now. Corrie: We don't have to go to 2 additional do we? Kingsford: That is your decision. Corrie: We can transfer the conditional use permit as it is now without including the 2 others. Kingsford: I think your only ofher opportunity is as Mr. Freckleton has brought out is for a re-assessment of those at a time like this, transfer of a conditional use permit, transfer of ownership or whatever. Tolsma: Bruce, have you looked at the water meter usage in the past history on this place, how is it in comparison to a residential usage? Kingsford: That is what he has based this on. Freckleton: This information was pulled from fheir past years water meter records and I took the average for Yhat past year and that is how I arrived at these new figures. Kingsford: Your numbers then Bruce were using what, 6800, 6900 whatever that is for that we have used for single family? Freckleton: Actually I ha've adjusted that up Mr. Mayor, we found that 7500 is more of an accurate number, the old number was 6500 but we have kind of done an informal study and found that fhe average residence we use 7500. Kingsford: And that doesn't take into account of course is the irrigation season, those people that irrigate right? That is in house use? • Meridian Gity Council March 21, 1995 Page 38 Freckleton: Correct ~ J Kingsford: Is there landscaping on this that is being irrigated? Freckleton: I believe they do have a small area that is landscaped, a small yard area. Corrie: What does this, what is it going to cost them more by doing this? Freckleton: I believe it was right around $3750. Corrie: A year? Freckleton: No, one time. Corrie: $3700 more one time. Kingsford: Any other comments of the Council? This is a public hearing so we have to offer others a chance to speak then. Anyone else from the public that would Iike to offer testimony on this issue? Guy Walker, 3545 West Birdie Court, was sworn by the City Attorney. Walker: As the Mayor knows and the Council knows I am familiar with this property and have been involved with it for 4, 5 or 6 years. I feel that in the transferring of the conditional use permit at this time and evaluating the water usage I feel the impact on them just getting started and so forth. Am I correct in saying that you are going to impact it $3700? Kingsford: If the recommendation were followed yes. Walker: In talking to Linda and helping put this thing together financially and seeing the amount of water and sewer bills she is paying has been exceeding 4 or 5 times what a single residence has been. So consequently, children go in and out, there is not that much water usage compared and i feel like this is an issue that should be addressed at a different time and a different hearing rather than just for the transfer of the conditional use permit. Kingsford: Didn't you just contradict yourself Guy? Walker: I could have, you got me confused already when you throw the $3700 impact here. • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 39 C~ Kingsford: What I heard you say was that her water bills indicate 3 or 4 times. Walker: She has been paying already. Kingsford: But there is a difference befinreen user fees, a hook up fee is reserve capacity. You are paying for your use in the plant, the sewer plant and your use in fhe water facility for us to dig a well, for us to set aside space in the sewer plant. That is what those hook up fees are for. In lieu of you digging a well or building a septic system you are buying that reserve capacity. Separate of that is the user fees that she is paying every month and that is a totally separate issue. Walker: Okay, a users fee, again she is not buitding and she is you know, the property is already in existence and has been for 3 or 4 years and all there is is a transfer of conditional use permit for a day care. They are not building a new structure here. Kingsford: That is correct, but what we have done is have the opportunity re-evaluate what that business did and it did impact our sewer equal to 3 residences. Walker: Excuse me did she not pay for that usage. Kingsford: No, she has paid one hook up fee for sewer and one hook up for water. Walker: But her water bill and sewer bill was running 3 to 4 times what a single residence would be. Kingsford: And that is what dictates that she needs to pay those hook up fees because she is taking up 3 to 4 times what a single family dwelling does in the sewer and in the water system. Walker: But is she not already paying them? Kingsford: No, you are not making that transition between reserve capacity and user fees. If I could illustrate that for with regard to water. You have to dig a well, you pay a fee to dig the well, you put a pump on it. That is your reserve capacity. You pay a power bill each month and you pay for maintenance to pump that water. That is your user fee in our system that is the difference befinreen what we are talking about. Walker: Thank you very much. Kingsford: Anyone else from the public? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Walt? • • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 40 Morrow: I have a question for Ms. Adkins. You have purchased this piece of property already? Were you aware that there might be additional sewer and water fees when you purchased it? ~ Adkins: No Morrow: Thank you Kingsford: Ron you had a question. Tolsma: How many children does Linda Paddock have there? (Inaudible) Tolsma: So she wasn't using (inaudible) Adkins: I have no idea Tolsma: You have no idea how many she had there? Adkins: At the time of closing she had 13. Tolsma: 13 but you don't know what she has done in the past, if she has been up to her maximum of 35 or anything like that. Kingsford: I think what Ron is searching for is was there more than that before that would have constituted an increase water use. Adkins: I don't know. Walker: Being heavy involved with Linda over 4 or 5 years doing her financial records and putting the SBA loan together for this, I know that she did not have over 13 to 15 children in there. Reed Olson was her CPA and was doing her books so I know she didn't have over 15 there fhe last couple 3 years. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we transfer the conditional use permit to Candace Adkins at no additional ERU's for sewer and water. Corrie: Second • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 41 C~ Kingsford: Moved by Walt; second by Bob to approve the transfer of the conditional use permit to Candace Adkins with no additional hook fees for sewer and water, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: I think that it warrants Candace, that if you do go beyond that 15 that we do have license to re-evaluate those hook fees because they could, if 13 are constituting 3 or 4 times what a house does 35 must be more than that. I think we will be looking at re- evaluating that if it does increase appreciably. ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BY FRED LOTRIDGE: Kingsford: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the applicant or his designee to speak first. Jim Merkle, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Merkle: Mr. Mayor, members of fhe Council I am here this evening on behalf of Fred Lotridge the applicant on this conditional use application. The proposal is for an approximate 7.8 acre parcel Iocated on the north side of Fairview at the northwest corner • of Hickory Way and Fairview just southwest of the Capitol Christian building (inaudible). I think it is Dove Meadows subdivision (inaudible) of the proposed project. The parcel is already within the city limits of the City of Meridian and it is in an existing L-O zone, limited office within the City limits. Within your L-O zone you allow a planned development commercial with a conditional use and that is what this proposal if for. Within the site itself there is a proposal of approximately 65,000 square feet of building which will include retail, professional office and various related uses which are allowed through the planned development commercial or a conditional use process. In our application packet to the City back in December I believe it was there was a list of potential uses which may eventually be within the project. Those particular uses with the exception of Fred's building right here are unknown site specific at this time. But a list of items which may be put in that plaza are included in your application, are all items which are allowed within your conditional use in this zone. Kingsford: Mr. Merkle, if I could.would you point to his building? Merkle: Regarding the comments from fhe City Engineer and Shari Stiles on the conditional use application, I submitted a written response to each of them and I think they are all acceptable. There was one, in fact I know they are all acceptable, but there was • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 42 • one particular one about the curb and gutter on Fairview that Gary Smi#h had requested it and then in my letter of response I responded wanted the latitude to discuss it with Larry Sale at the Highway District and with Gary. He had subsequently written me back and said that would be acceptable that, basically whether we should provide curb and gutter along Fairview. I don't think it is a big item but it is unique. Other projects we have done along Fairview have not been required to have it and this one may be required to have it. So we, whatever the decision is we will comply with it, but we would like the latitude to discuss it. Prior to submitting this proposal we met with Shari Sfiles regarding this project and came up with a concept. Basically the issue is with the, right now we are asking for the conditional use permit for the project, but it is not a site or building permit or site specific issue. We would come back with a site plan review at staff level when the building (inaudible) approval of at the conditional use stage. Kingsford: Certainly, depending on the usage you have the parking requirements (inaudible). Merkle: Exactly, the site is laid out now with the correct parking requirements for the types of uses. Shari made the comment that if a sandwich shop or some type of small restaurant when in the~e obviously the parking requirements would change. We would have to adjust it at that time since we don't know what those uses are. The next item on your agenda is basically this same project and that is the prelirninary~nal platting which is (inaudible) and platting the whole piece. I think that is all, if you have an and answer fhem. Fred Lotridge is here this evening if y ha'~e sp c fic se qu st ons about the project. Larry Knopp the architect was at the Planning and Zoning meeting but he is out of town and was not able to make it tonight. His testimony is in the minutes in your.packet from the Planning and Zoning.hearing. Kingsford: Any questions of Mr. Merkle? Yerrington: I have one question, is it true that there are curbs and sidewalks across the street? . Merkle: Yes that is true. Morrow: I have a question Jim with respect to item 7 under Gary Smith's and Bruce Freckleton's comments, we suggest an accel/decel lane to be constructed in accordance with ACHD standards as part of the project (inaudible) south side of this intersection. It goes on to say or talks about the curb and gutter. Are you indicating that you agree with those lanes. Merkle: I think in my response letter, it has been so long, but I think the just of it was that i • • ~i ~~ Meridian City Council ~~ March 21, 1995 i; Page 43 the accel/decel lanes those are acceptable that is a good idea. Typically what the Highway District requires along Fairview because of the arterial status is the sidewalk be put in but not put curb and gutter in or the additional widening because of the impact fee situafion where they come back in a few years and do all' of Fairview at one time. Instead of having a bunch of hodge podge curbs and gutters. Gary came through with the comment with the accel/decel lanes which we agree with and also that he requests, well I am not sure how he worded, but he doesn't say he will be required to. So I just wanted the latitude to discuss it wifh Gary and if he essentially requires it we will corrmply. But it was unclear whether that was a requirement. And later on in your other packet on the pretiminary/final plat he came back and his verbiage is the City of Meridian and Ada County Highway District need to come to an agreement on this issue and will inform the applicant of the final decision on the curb and gufter and that is acceptable. Kingsford: Other questions of Mr. Merkle? Anyone else from the public that would like to offer testimony on this issue? Seeing none I will close the public hearing. Councilmen. Morrow: t have a question of Shari or Bruce, we were at a meeting with ACHD discussing this section of road a couple of weeks ago. With respect to some 7 lanes and 6 lanes and those kinds of things is that where the negotiation is going on between us and the City with respect to the curb and gutter locations. Is that the question for why we don't have a firm answer as to we do curb and gutter at this time? Stiles: Councilman Morrow, Mayor and Council, our discussions with Larry Sale and other members of the Ada County Highway District were that on Fairview they would be able to allow the sidewalk to be placed in there but they preferred that no curb and gutter be constructed at all along (End of Tape) Corrie: Why did they say thaf? ;1 Stiles: Because of not knowing what the exact elevations would be and also because of ~~ when they came back in they didn't know if they would have to rip back out all of : improvements. It was kind of a concession I guess they felt on their part to allow a ; sidewalk but we were pretty adamant that we at least needed a pedestrian walkway along ~ Fairview not knowing when Fairview will ever be constructed. They said if fhey could put ' the sidewalk there and we were talking about D& B Supply at this time too and that they 'i could put some grass seed in befinreen the sidewalk and the existin ~ g pavement. ; Morrow: One of the things we were discussing Bob is that a potential conflict here is fhat ~, at some point in time there may be in fact at least 2 lanes wider than it is now. One of the ~j issues with respect to this sidewalk thing is if it was going to be a serpentine sidewalk and i it sat back some ten feet that was, the closest point it could serpentine to was within 2 feet l ~i ,~ ~~ • .Meridian Cify Council March 24, 1995 Page 44 • of where a curb and gutter would currently be built. It was a straight away sidewalk and then it could be built in a different manner. My sense from that discussion was that the decision liasn't been made yet as to what Fairview Avenue is going to be and was not part of the meeting. We talked about Avest and them setting, how was the issue with Avest and the curb and gutter and those things resolved with that parcel along the Fairview Avenue area? Did we come to a conclusion with them? Stiles: The Avest property also they would allow a sidewalk only, they do not want a curb and gutter constructed at this time along Fairview. Corrie: So in other words on the south side they did but on the north side they don't and they don't know where they are going. Stiles: On neither side did they want curb and gutter. Corrie: But there was curb and gutter on side but they didn't really want it. Stiles: Are you talking about the Treasure Valley Business Center? Corrie: Right Stiles: I don't know what happened at that time. Perhaps the owner wanted to develop the whole thing at one time, I don't know. Kingsford: I think there was a different feeling at ACHD at that time, it was not impact fees and so on. Any other questions or comments of the Council? Is there a motion on the conditional use permit? Excuse me the findings need to be approved. Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I move we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law (inaudible) Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for Planning and Zoning, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARR1'ED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision? u Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 45 • Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the Conditional Use Permit for Planned Commercial Development with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. That the applicant and owners be specifically required to submit a final development plan, meet all of the requirements of Section 11-9~07 and of the Limited Offiee requirements and all of the ordinances of fhe City of Meridian. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve of the decision presented to us by P& Z, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRFED: All Yea ITEM #11: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR ANGEL PARK DEVELOPMENT BY FRED LOTRLDGE: Merkle: As I stated before (inaudible) basically it is a preliminary final plat simultaneously. We have fhe same issues with the Highway District on that as we do on the conditional use so they will bofh be flushed out at the same time. The comments from the City basically are comments related to notes on the final plat and what not. I think they are all acceptable to us, most of them are the same as they were on the conditional use. Kingsford: Any questions of Mr. Merkle on the preliminaryffinal? Any comments of staff? Morrow: I have a question of Bruce, we are currently struggling with on the comments on the general comments from you guys, is any existing irrigation or drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this property shall be tiled, so on and so forth. My question is as it relates specifically to this group of property does, we are struggling with the Avest from Locust Grove to Eagle Road with respect to those water and drainage lines floodin the Bryan property. Does any of the ditches that exist on this property impact those negotiations that are currently going on? Freckleton: Councilman Morrow, the tile that fronts this property on Fairview turns north along the Ewing parcet, the water eventually gets into the drain if you remember it is the drain that cuts diagonally across the back of the Dove Meadows piece. So yes I think it does need to be looked at just to make sure it is going to fit into the grand scheme of things. Morrow: Okay, and i further want to make the point here if it does fit into the scheme of things based on the things that we are going through with that, that these folks do ~ Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 46 • participate in the solution of the problern that we are currently researching as they are a contributing factor to that problem. Freckleton: I believe that is appropriate and I think that we should probably invite Mr. Merkle to the meeting of the grou p. Kingsford: I think Jim you are looking a little dazed here, but that is not unusual, what we have here is a condition that has been worsened going to the west with each parcel been developed that has resulted in the corner of Locust Grove and Mr. Don Bryan's property and having about a foot of water on his orchard and his front lawn. We are trying to remedy that of which this parcel may be a factor. Bruce will be calling a meeting in the next week that would be beneficial for you to be at and work on this solution. Merkle: I have no problem with attending that meeting, I would just like, from what I recall out there, there is one irrigation ditch along Fairview along the front of our property. Any drain that is created by us paving will have to retained on site. And basically we would get our irrigation water for the common areas for the landscape areas out of that ditch and just pipe the ditch through. So, I am kind of hesitant to say we want to hold up our approvals based upon some solution down stream that on the surface may turn out Kingsford: I don't think that this will be a big encumbrance but we would like to have everybody along there so that we remedy it. Morrow: 1 think fhe point, Jim, is going to be is that if this is approved it is going to be approved subject to you participating in the solution of the problems that have been created down sfream by development of which this is part. And it is not a major issue. Kingsford: Any other questions or comments of the Council? Is there a motion on the preliminary/final? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the preliminary~nal plat subject to staff conditions and subject to participation of the owner or his representative in the solution of the irrigation problems for the area. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the preliminary/final plat for Angel Park Subdivision conditioned upon meeting staff approvals and that they participate in the resolution of the irrigation water problem as it moves to the west, all those in favor? Opposed? • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 47 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea • ITEM #12: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FLOWER SHOP RETAIL BUSINESS BY $ILL AND JOYCE BREWER: Kingsford: At this time we would love to hear from Mr. Brewer. Brewer: In order to expedite I believe you have the comments passed along, the findings of fact from Planning and Zoning. The only thing that is really of any importance to me at this point is that we could maybe get out of doing curb and gutter improvements. We request that because 5 to 6 years down the road we plan on destroying the building that is there and putting something else there and to have to re-do curb cuts and approaches and everything at that time would be a waste for me. We are planning living by all of the other requests that have :been made. Kingsford: Any questions of Bill? Morrow: With respect to the curb, as I read through this, the indications were that they, as I interpreted, they were asking to replace all of the curb not just the damaged portion of the cucb. Brewer: AII the curb and gutter. Morrow: And it is a straight baak curb is that correct? And it has no curb cuts other than the one that exists on the southeast corner of the property? Brewer: That is correct. Morrow: And if you re-use this property at some point in time, this is a throw away building at the point of re-usage any new curb would be put in at this point in time would be destroyed with new curb cuts to utilize the property. Brewer: That is right, I don't mind the expense of approximately $2400 for 5 new sidewalks but to have to destro y curb and g u tt er 5 or 6 years would to me be a total waste. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Morrow: I have no other questions. Kingsford: Comments staff? Is there a motion on the findings? • • Mecidian City Council March 21, 4995 Page 48 Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the findings of fact and conctusions as prepared for P& Z with the deletion of the curb and gutter replacement requirement. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve of the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for Planning and Zoning with the exclusion of the curb and gutter requirements, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law with the exception of the requirement to replace the curb and gutter. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: IVloved by Walt, second by Max to approve of the decision, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRfED: All Yea Brewer: Gentlemen, as we tried to make clear Joyce and I neither one will have anything to do with the flower shop. The young lady, Brandi Barnhardt and her partner here they will be going into business there. Thank you very much. Kingsford: Well, welcome to Meridian, I don't envy you having to work with your landlord. ITEM #13: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PE'RMIT FOR CAR STEREO SALES AND INSTALLATION BY RICHARD CESLER: Kingsford: Mr. Cesler? Any questions for Mr. Cesler'? Corrie: The tanks are out right? • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 49 • Cesler: No sir fhat is not correct, the indication that the Planning and Zoning recommendation that since I was intending to some time in the future purchase this property and had no intention to operate this as a service station and that I personally would like to have the tanks removed we are working in that respect. However, there has been a slight change in the last couple of weeks. The property is currently bein resold and I am re-negotiating with a new landlord to operate my business there. It will e done, we have some contractual things going. But we need to make sure that they will work with me on this like the old landlords did about getting the things out. I did notice that in the recommendation too that there was a way of kind of easing past this a little bit if the Fire Department regulations were met with regards to leaving the tanks in the ground for a period of time until we can make arrangements to get them taken out. I intend that will happen but I don't know that can happen before I intend to open the business. I don't see that they are a hazard at this time. Those tanks are brand new they do meet EPA standards, they are vented properly. I would certainly be more than willing to work with the Fire Department to seek some sort of continuance before we have to remove them property so that I can occupy fhe building and operate the business. Corrie: Is there any gasoline in those tanks? Cesler: No sir, there was gasoline at one time but there is not gasoline at this time. As you might have noficed the pumps have been removed from the property. It has been re- concreted and there have been placed some seals over the ends of the pipes where that was taken out. Some pressure seals that meet EPA standards also. The venting for those tanks is at the top of the overhang. Pipes go all the way up that support and out the top so they are vented by EPA current standards also. Kingsford: Any other questions for Mr. Cesler? Walt Morrow: I have a question with respect to Ada County Highway District has recommended that one of the curb cuts be eliminated. Cesler: Yes sir due to my debating skills I did however convince them they should pay for that and they agreed. Kingsford: Congratulations are in order. Cesler: Yes I feel very good about that one, it is in their report also that they do consider that a hazard to the new standards for setbacks and that th~ey recommend it be changed to sidewalk, curb and gutter but they are going to pay for it and will do it. Morrow: And we have documentation of that? • . Meridian Gity Council March 21, 1995 Page 50 Cester: Their report was issued to Shari, she has a copy of that. Morrow: Okay, so it is no longer stipulated then in our findings of fact, that would be up to Mr. Cesler to make that change. ACHD has agreed fo make the change. Stiles: Yes they have, I don't know if the findings reflect anything to do with fhat. Cesler: If you have a copy of the report I could show you where it is. Kingsford: Any other questions of the Council? Is there a motion on the findings? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law with the addition of the change from Mr. Cesler removing the driveway entrance and replacing fhe curb, gutter and walk to show that ACHD is going to do that as per the documentation Shari has and also the continuance of the tanks. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve of the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for P& Z with the exception of the portion speaking to the applicant re-doing the sidewalk, and eliminating a curb cut fhat ACHD will be doing that now and the continuance with regard to the removal of the tanks, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision? Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends to the City Council that they approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law except that ACHD will now take over the closing of fhe access with the curbs and gutter instead of the Mr. Cesler and the tanks. Yerrington: Second Kingsford; Moved by Ron, second by Max to approve of the decision as read exctuding the tank removal and the Highway District take care of the closing access, all those in favor? Opposed? • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 51 MOTIDN CARRIED: All Yea • ITEM #14: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR MR. SANDMAN SUBDIVISION N0. 2 BY BRYCE JOHNSON AND RUSS HUNEMILLER: Cr.ookston: Mr. Mayor I have a conflict on this matter. Kingsford: Councilmen do you have any questions with regard to the request? Morrow: I guess my only questions with respect to both of these is the receipt of the letter today from, that Shari sent that was in our box tonight to Mr. Larry Sale. And there is also a letter from Briggs Engineering, I am sorry to Briggs Engineering and Becky Bowcutt from Gary Moes a District Traffic Engineer for ITD. Shari can you bring us up to speed as to what the status of those are? Stiles: Councilman Morrow, Mayor and Council, I received this letter to Bri today from the Idaho Transportation Department, they have agreed with ourEr qlue t fog curb, gutter and sidewalk along Meridian Road. There is a substantial drainage problem there that needs to be addressed. Also there is a lot of traffic along that road where people are walking in the mud and dirt and need a safe walkway. I haven't, the letter to Larry Sale was a result of our meeting that we had on March 3rd, he had not responded as 1 just sent this to him today. It is my understanding from talking to Van Etg of Briggs engineering that they are working on something. But he can filt you in more on what his discussions with ACHD have been. Elg; Yes, our engineer Stan McHutchinson talked with Larry Sale and went out apparently on a site inspection at the site, I think yesterday. ITD has agreed in requiring the curb, gutter and sidewalk. However, there is a plan which ACHD a sometime around this time of fhe year to improve that intersect onr of Meridian R ad and Overland. That intersection ri ght h e r e a t t h i s poin t t he in tersection will be raised up to the design grade will be about 1.1 feet above the existin for that street will be about a foot or 13 inches so ewhere aS und the ef higher.~ gt wie taper back and be about four tenths back here and about 4 tenths here and it stops about at the toe of this steep hill that comes down here. So, in looking at that Stan and Larry, Stan of our office and Larry Sale of ACHD agreed that it wouldn't make sense at this point to install the curb and gutter in any event because they will be widening that out and have to either rip it out when they make the plan, it was on the 5 year plan apparently so it will be the next 2 to 3 years when they widen that. They will have to either rip the curb and gutter out now or we would have to build it to grade and it will be hanging up there and be very awkward. So what Larry agreed to verbally was that as long as we put the sidewalk, we would install the sidewalk along the property line, adjacent to the property line and then i) 1 ~ ~ ~~ ~ Meridian City Council ~ March 21, 1995 Page 52 ~ ACHD when fhey came into the make the improvements here would install the curb and ! gutter and there would be roughly a 2 1/2 foot landscape strip or something in befinreen the ' sidewalk and the curb and gutter that would I guess have to enter into a maintenance '~ . agreement or something. ACHD or the owners wiU have to enter into a maintenance ';i agreement to maintain that. In any event there will be a borrow ditch right now to take the , existing drainage off the streets and eliminate the drainage problem that is here. When i~ the curb and gutter are installed to help that drainage situation the storm drain will be brought up Meridian Road here to a point, I believe there is a manhole that~will be installed ~ or will be installed right in the middle of the intersecfiion.. It will be brought up here there , will be catch basins, it will drain to this catch basin then it will drain off to a retention area ~~ over here. That is how ACHD plans to deal with the drainage right now. In the meantime the catch basin will eliminate the drainage to this lot and solve that issue hopefully. Kingsford: So they are going pipe under Meridian Road to a catch basin? E1g: Right, what we would ask is that you waive that requirement for the curb and gutter in light of that discussion with Larry Sale and allow us to work that situation out with. ACHD. Kingsford: Any other questions of the Council? Tolsma: (Inaudible) Elg: We could do that in fact if you wanted to make that a condition that we do that it would be fine too. Maybe a way to word the condition would be to waive the curb and gutter requirement or to require the curb and gutter or as otherwise approved by City staff and ACHD. Kingsford: We have a brand new attorney that will take care of that for us. Corrie: Mr. Mayor, so you will have your sidewalk and you said 2 foot of landscaping? Elg: Well, right now it will be the sidewalk, it will be sidewalk and a borrow ditch. Corrie: So, in other words they walk on the sidewalk and they fall over the (inaudible). Elg: Well, it won't be that steep. Corrie: You were talking about 1 to 2 feet (inaudible). Elg: When everything gets built out (inaudible) • Meridian City .Council March 21, 1995 Page 53 • Kingsford: Any other questions of the Council? fs there a motion on the preliminary/final plat for Sandman Subdivision No. 2? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the preliminary/final plat for Mr. Sandman Subdivision No. 2 subject to staff conditions and the resolution befinreen our staff and ACHD as to the curb, gutter and sidewalk drainage issues. Corrie: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Bob to approve the preliminary/final plat for fVlr. Sandman Subdivision No. 2 conditioned upon staff approvals and the resolution between staff and ACHD with regard to curb, gutter and sidewalk and drainage issues, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #15: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE BY BRYCE JOHNSON AND RUSS HUNEMILLER: Kingsford: Does the Council have questions on that issue? Morrow: The applicant is aware of all of the site specific issues from both P& Z and staff and. public works staff and agreeable with those? Kingsford: Have you gotten all of those transmitfals Van? (Inaudible) Kingsford: You have no problem with those? (Inaudible) Elg: It was the landscaping Kingsford: I guess the answer to the question is yes you are aware of them and in agreement with them. Morrow: There was a problem with the landscaping? Kingsford: But they have reached a compromise on that. . i I • • il ~~ ;I Meridian City Council ; March 21, 1995 ;~ Page 54 EIg: We do have site specific requirement #5 is a similar issue again with that curb and gutter and sidewalk, which is on page 2, it is a public works site specific requirement #5. Kingsford: Are you talking now about the findings? E1g: No just ~the conditions of approval, comments from public works #5, it says the applicant will be required to construct curb, gutter and sidewalk, same comment for the preliminary plat. Kingsford: Other questions of the Council? Morrow: I would have a question of Jack Riddlemoser with respect to, that does, item #5 that Mr. Elg is raising does appear in the findings of fact and conclusions on page 3, item 9. Riddlemoser: That appears to be correct but as I say with the compromise that we are discussing and also the discussion between the applicant and ACHD and our staff I fhink we can handle it in the same manner that we handled it in the preliminary/final plat issue just a moment ago. At the time these were drawn that was what we were looking at. Kingsford: So if it is your desire you would make a motion to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law and exempt those items or amend them. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we amend the findings of fact and conclusions of law to be amended to include the incorporation of staff and ACHD working out the curb, gufiter sidewalk, drainage issues. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve of the conditional use permit, pardon me findings of fact and conclusions of law for conditional use permit to amend the portion with regard to meet sfaff approval and ACHD approval with regard to curb, gutter, sidewalk and drainage issues, roll calt vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Yerrington - Yea, Corrie - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Kingsford: Is there a motion on the decision? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission hereby recommends ~ Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 55 L~ to the City Council of the City of Meridian that they grant the conditional use permit requested by the Applicant for the property described in the application in accordance with the findings of fact and conclusions of law as amended set forth herein. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve of the decision, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #16: REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5: Kingsford: Does Council have questions on the revised preliminary plat for Waterbury Park Subdivision No. 5? Morrow: Since the original approval was before my time and the only thing fihat we have is a map and an agenda sheet can we have the engineer for the applicant basically review what is being amended here. Smith: My name is Gene Smifh I am with Hubble Engineering. Back in August 1994 we had the annexation and zoning hearing for this development. At that time a couple of major issues that were brought up were access to the north piece of property. I believe it is owned by Mr. Sanford and our project did not address that access. The other issue that was brought up is irrigafion for Mr. Simunich to our west and we have since designed and in fact installed an irrigation line for him. I believe he is here this evening if he has any concems with that I am not aware of any concems. This preliminary plat has been revised to provide the access to the north. Kingsford: That access to the north then, it appears that goes across the ditch, am I correct? Smith: That is correct. Kingsford; Joe, as I recall, I remember correspondence from you with regard to a structure being a 2 piece versus a one piece, am I talking about the right thing here? (lnaudible) Kingsford: Okay, and you are comfortable then with the water situation through this parcel ~ Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 56 now? (InaudibJe) • Kingsford: But you stake your engineering degree that will work right Gene? Morrow: Did it come from Idaho? Smifh: It did not but my license does. ~ Kingsford: And John in terms of relationship to your property that opens up into an acceptable portion? (Inaudible) Sanford: My name is John Sanford, 2880 Venable Lane, Meridian, I fhink my question is the South Slough ends here and and there is (inaudible) runs along here what is going to happen to the ditch? Kingsford: What is the size of that ditch and what do you plan to do with that? Smith: That ditch would be in excess of 48 inch diameter and it was not anticipated to pipe that ditch. Kingsford: That would necessitate a variance from us. In visiting with Mr. Sanford and Mr. Simunich earlier they said it goes under a 48 inch pipe across Linder so you need to give us evidence of fhat if it is over. Any other questions of the Council? Morrow: I am confused in terms of it is in excess of 48 inches where it crosses Meridian Road headed west past this parcel of property then it down sizes to below 48 inches where it goes across Linder? Kingsford: Well, that was I think Joe just speaking from memory. I don't know whether you knew that was 48 inches or not. (Inaudible) Kingsford: So we don't know what that is but we will have evidence as to what size it is needed. (Inaudible) • • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 57 Kingsford: Any other questions of the Council? Again Gene that would be something you would have to request a variance from if in fact that is (inaudible). Is there a motion on the revised preliminary. Morrow: So moved Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Max to approve the revised preliminary plat for Waterbury Park Subdivision No. 5, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRfED: All Yea ITEM #17: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5: Kingsford: Would you explain that to us Gene, you have that signed and worked out? Smith: We received the revisions from Shari today and they are satisfactory to the developer. Kingsford: Entertain a motion to approve of the development agreement. Morrow: So moved Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron to approve the development agreement for Waterbury Park Subdivision No. 5, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTtON CARR4ED: All Yea ITEM #18: DE'PARTMENT REPORTS: Kingsford: Mr. Crookston, with regard to department reports, if we could first the Non- Development agreement if you could address that please, it is in our packet. Crookston: Yes, we have received a non-development agreement for Los Alamitos Subdivision by Marty Goldsmith. I worked this out with the assistance of Shari and Mr. Goldsmith's attorney Brian McCall. Now that we have the correct legal description it is appropriate for the City to act on this. • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 58 Morrow: What are we doing here? • Kingsford: Counselor, would you explain what it is that we are talking about specifically in the non-development agreement? Crookston: This is an agreement where the developer is asking the City that he not be required to develop the property to put in the items that he has agreed to put in in the development agreement. He wants to not develop the property for up to 2 years. You are laughing Shari what is your comment? Stiles: Did you say that we went over this? Crookston: I thought we had, you have not seen this? Stiles: I looked at it today, I thought you were working wifh Will on this, is that right Will? Berg: (Inaudible) Kingsford: Counselor, are you hallucinating again? Counselor: Possibly, I have worked on it with Mr. Goldsmith's attorney, there were some things that needed to be changed. And then you caught, Mr. Freckleton caught the legal descrip.tion problem. It is my understanding that has been corrected. I think the agreement itself is appropriate now. Stiles: I didn't read it real carefully but I was wondering about the well site fhat the City needs there. The City is not going to be able to have any more development out there until they have a well. If that affected provision of that well site the City's ability to develop that well at this time. Crookston: This pertains to the entire subdivision so it would be a problem. Mr. Goldsmith do you want to address that? ~ Goldsmith: Well, if I may, I may be able to help with clarification. I am just asking for time to go around the bond that is reguired by Meridian City for them to sign on the plat. The bond is for lights, landscaping, fencing and pressurized irrigation. If the development is in fact not going to take place in the next year or 2 years depending on the market I don't want to put the money up. The reason I don't want to put the money us is because I will have to come and get the money if I don't do the development or something like that is going to take place. So I am trying to stay out of a sticky area right there with the money being put up. When the development takes place I will come in and give you the money ~r ~ Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 59 and I will do the development. So that may help clarify the non-development agreement. I was just looking to move the plat forward and have it signed. You guys wouldn't be giving up any leverage there by signing the plat and having it recorded now because you would have final inspection of water lines, hook ups and such things like that down the road. Pertaining to the well lot, that right now as it stands is not a recorded plat and that is what I am trying to do is get a recorded plat. I would not be able to give a chunk of the property until it is subdivided. Kingsford; But we wouldn't be able to utilize it though would we until improvements are placed there and the non-development agreement is lifted? Goldsmith: I think we need to figure out a way to get that done for you. Kingsford` With regard to that too then is this also used to not have to pay ACHD fees too isn't it? Goldsmith: ACHD and I have already entered into a non-development agreement at the time of which we sfart the development we will bond for improvements. So, concerning the well site, if we can move forward with that for you guys if you are going to need it before I develop that ground out there I am going to need to get the plat recorded. This will help me do it, IeYs get the plat recorded, I will get you, then I will be able to deed over that lot and I don't see how it would affect it Wayne if you guys put a well lot there. If you own that deed to that particular lot (End of Tape) Locust Grove right there. I think it is perfect that the 2 issues do be separated that there is a well site you guys have access to the weli site, we get fihe plat recorded and give you the deed. Kingsford: So we would have access to it and also power access to operate a well. Goldsmith: That sounds great, I think we can do these things right away. Crookston: Where would the power come from? Goldsmith: The power is right there in the road in front. Crookston: It is there now? Goldsmith: Yes Kingsford: Any other questions of Council? Entertain a motion. Freckleton: Excuse me Mr. M'ayor may I make a comment? Ideally for the pipe works for ~~ Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 60 ~ that well, we would want to come out to I can't remember the name of your main road going in Marty, Time Zone Drive and tie into our distribution system at that point. If I remember correctly, I don't have a plat in front of ine but isn't there a landscape lot that separates our well lot from Locust Grove. Do we not have direct access? Goldsmi#h: You do in my eyes have direct access to that, you and I will be able to do whatever it takes to make sure that you get that access. Kingsford: Would we be able to discharge into, do we have a water line right now in Locust Grove? Goldsmith: I have stubbed right to that, it is right there to that lot. Kingsford: So we can just stub in to where that street would be so that we would continue a loop into his subdivision when built. Freckleton: Correct, and possibly what we would be looking at is trying to get an easement or something for the interim. Goldsmith: An easement where? Kingsford: Well, our lot would go through to the street probably doesn't it, so we wouldn't need an easement we would be clear to that. Freckleton: Okay, I meant right of way. Kingsford: Is there a motion on the non-development agreement? Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we enter into the non-development agreement for Los Alamitos Park Subdivision Phase 1 subject to fhe resolution of the well lot issues. Tolsma: Second Kingsford: Moved by Walt, second by Ron fo enter into the non-development agreement with Los Alamitos Park Subdivision N0. 1 conditioned upon the well lot issues being resolved, all those in fa~or? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Goldsmith: You guys I need to get that plat recorded so I will need the signature before I give you the deed. ~ ~ IVleridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 61 Kingsford: We understand. Bruce Freckleton: Nothing Kingsford: Shari? Stiles: Nothing Kingsford: Chief? Gordon: Yes sir, 2 short items. Some of you might have noticed fhe radar trailer that we have out on the streets. If you haven't and you come across a small white trailer with a speed Iimit sign on the top and a window on the bottom that is c~ocking your speed that was bought under fihe grant program, the STEP program that we do have now. It is out every day in a different location. If anybody should request or complain to you about the speed within the City limits the trailer is available to be moved out into fhose locations to let them see just what the speeds are. The second item is also a traffic calming item, we are presently placing or moving around one of the unused police vehicles each day to a different location also into a high visibility area and areas that we are having problems. So if you do see the police car by the time you figure out there is nobody in it, it will have done its job and be very effective. Kingsford: I sure hope I don't hear about it being stolen. Gordon: No sir we have taken precautions. Tolsma: I noticed one thing at that (inaudible) Gordon: Only on your pick-up. Kingsford: It was perfect on my when I was on Meridian Road. Gordon: Contrary to belief there is not a camera inside that trailer. Crookston: Why isn't there? Gordon: Unless it becomes necessary for me to get my budgets through. Kingsford: Counselor? Crookston: Nothing • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 62 Kingsford: Walt? • Morrow: Question with respect to and it is more of an observation, we are getting a lot of stuff that is coming down through P& Z and applications to the City that I think if we had our zoning and development ordinance completed in terms of redone and adopted that we wouldn't be seeing these things. Quite candidly there are some proposals that have been through P& Z that apparenfly we are going to be lobbied for within the next week or so that wouldn't be issues if we had the zoning and development ordinance accomplished. My concem here is that in some of these issues I can see that some of these projects that are coming down the road that may be changing zone request for zoning and annexation to something that is acceptable to us and gets zoned and annexed and comes in at a later point and request another a different zone. If we, and my point here is that the issue was made to me that if we arbitrarily chose not to change a zone for example somebody had approved as an R-4 comes in #or a rezone as an R-8 that we could not change and if we opted not to change to R-8 then we could be challenged underneath Federal whatever discrimination thing in terms of our desire to have R-4 housing only and so on and so forth. My point being is that if that zoning classificafion and that zoning and development ordinance haven't been done very quickly and we don't get that on board then we go ahead and annex some of these grounds, lands with different zoning designations than these people really want. It appears to me that based on what I have been told that there will be some challenges down stream. It seems to me the way we have protected ourselves there is we don't have the zoning classification or the issues #here to begin with. So I think it is paramount that given some of these things that I am seeing that are starting through P& Z and fhat are coming between P& Z and us that we get that ordinance work done as quickly as possible so that we keep ourself out of challenges that we may or may not be able to win long term. I guess the question is what is the status of that zoning and development ordinance? Kingsford: I am glad you finally asked fhat because I was going to be just like kids I have in class and ask you what was the point. Morrow: My point is we need to get moving here. Kingsford: I agree and you and I have discussed the possible remedy toward that and I think we will be moving toward that posthaste. Anything else? Morrow: No sir. Kingsford: Mr. Commissioner of the Police Department? Yerrington: Well, I took a little trip down East 1 st Street, we have the biggest junk yard, we • • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 63 should dump all of our garbage down there and I think somebody has. Down there just across from the alley from me. I think it is 1535 where the old Apollo Cleaners used to be. 1 think all you guys want to have your eyes opened up and should drop down there and take a look at it. Kingsford: I would entertain a motion to have the City Clerk put them on notice of violation. Yerrington: So moved Morrow: Second Kingsford: All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRfED: All Yea Morrow: Along that same line Mr. Berg has contacted the Yanke folks pressing for a clean up of that same kind of iness that is on Franklin Road. That clean up has been accomplished as of yesterday. They removed all of the demolished buildings, regraded the lot back to dirt. So all of fhat stuff is gone. I think that, the point that I am making is that we got something done and Will was responsible for getting that done. Thanks. Kingsford: I think along that same line we have another problem I understand with chief over here across Broadway. Let's have the City Attorney advise our esteemed judge over in Boise that he is in non-compliance again, speaking now of Mr. Amyx. Crookston: Mr. Gordon and f have discussed that. Kingsford: Anything else Max? Yerrington: No, that is it. Kingsford: Bob? Corrie: Yes, Mr. Mayor, are we ready to start moving on the impact fee ordinance? What is the Council's pleasure, I am sitting on it? I need some direction from the Council, do you want me to bring it out and go with it? Kingsford: I would recommend that in your work session on Tuesday that you discuss that and reach an agreement on what you are going to do with it. Bring it out and vote on it if that is your pleasure. I agree you spent a lot of hours on it and we need to do something. • • Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 Page 84 Corrie: That is all. Kingsford: Ron? Tolsma: We got our 4100 yards of dirt hauled out to Tully Park and we are in the process of getting more hauled out there right now because we have some other business (inaudible). It is not top soil but it will work as fill. Also the bid sheets (inaudible) they should be hopefully (inaudible) we can start laying the top soil and (inaudible). And, I had another thing, a gentleman contacted me said he had been in contact with you (inaudible) about blocking the alleys befinreen East 4th and East 5th befinreen State Street and Pine. According to ACHD that is not supposed to be a blocked street, that is an open alley. Gordon: Mr. Streller, that is a dead end alley. Tolsma: Well, ACHD said that is not supposed to be blocked that is supposed to be public access. Gordon: It is not blocked it is a dead end, their house is at the end fhey are not blocking any traffic. Tolsma: Well there was 5 cars parked in there yesterday morning and a trailer, as a matter of fact you couldn't even get into the alley because everything was blocked clear to the end of the alley. He called me today and wanted to me come down and take a look at it. Gordon: He calls us every week and we go down there every week, it is not blocked. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Gordon: Maybe I need to go check it again but like I say we have checked it for every week for the last 15, 16 months that I am aware of. Tolsma: (Inaudible) out there working on cars all hours to 2:00 and 3:00 in the morning. ;~ Kingsford: Why don't Mr. Berg and Mr. Gordon get with that, if they are in violation of 'I zoning then we need to bring them into compliance. If they are blocking the alley they ~~ need to get it cleared. Anything else? i1 ;~ Tolsma: No; that is it. Kingsford: Mr. Berg? ~ Meridian Gity Council March 21, 1995 Page 65 Berg: (Inaudible) Kingsford: I would entertain a motion to adjourn? Crookston: Can I raise a question? Kingsford: You had your turn. • Crookston: This will not take long, what time are we meeting on next Tuesday? Kingsford: Did you guys decide you liked 6:30? Crookston: I have something that I can't get out of at 7:00, I can have someone else here though. Berg: The discussion, you are going to be talking impact fees that you were supposed to have looked at the document. Kingsford: You have to be somewhere else at 7:00? Crookston: At 7:00 and it is a half hour trip there. Kingsford: Well we can make it 6:00 and talk about impact fees first. Crookston: 5:30 would be better. Kingsford: Does 5:30 work, can you live with that. Corrie: So moved Mr. Mayor that we adjourn. Yerrington: Second Kingsford: Moved by Bob, second by Max that we adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRfED: All Yea MEETFNG ADJOURNED AT 10:54 P.M. (TAPE ON FLLE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) ~ ~ Meridian City Council March 21, 1995 ~Page 66 GRANT P. KtNGS O D, OR ATTEST: ~ ~:_._ WILLIAM' G. BERG, JR., LERK • ~• MERtDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1995 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETI'NG HELD MARCH 7, 1995: a~p~-ov~ 1. TABLED MARCH 7, 1995: ORDINANCE #695 - RE-PEAL AND RE-ENACTMENT OF 2-1001: Q~PFeVQ 2. FIN'D1NGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A ZERO FOOT SIDE YARD VARIANCE BY ALBERTSON'S, INC.: u~~~o~~ ~l~ ~` c' /~ G~~p~ro~e ~l~.e dec:rr~. ~'v~- ~-e /a~i~ku~ 3. REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR TEN MILE SQUARE BY ALBERTSON'S, INC.: Q~~tov~ ~r~~~i'ha•e~a.-~ n+.e~~n~ condi~'vn.s 6 y ~e .r-~' 4. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR ALBERTSON'S, INC.: u~prav-~e ~/e~ctp~io~ ~.tit 6'hiy~ b~oG~ h~-ccJen{~ WGf.GI u/~/~n~.rta~rh~ Q1C~~nGl ~/aN~G ~.(~OU~{~ Cfih2~ ,baiz~r ~D COIi'Ph ~f7ra~C~f 5. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-4 TO L-0 BY ~'A~ JAMES AND JEAN FULLER: L'`~y atf~rna~ ~rr~ ~tic ~Me~,ded ~/~ ~e~L 6. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUES~FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A GAS STATION/CONVENIENCE STORE BY JAMES AND JEAN FULLER: wr~~v~e ~l~ ~cfG ~~~i~o-n.a.~u,~e. ~Le~L~ a~p/ic~c,r`>v~ ~-e~~~eJf ~'~- 7. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR TREASURE VALLEY BUSINESS CENTER PHASE 2, 66 LOTS BY GEMTONE, INC: a~~o~v~e ~~~.e~ w~~-~ e~~i~i~-,s~ 8. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A REZONE FROM R-4 TO R-S AND L-O BY MICHAEL GAMBLIN: appro~'~,~1~~~~t -~r~~~~"~d~'ti~"' g~~~`~~'~G-O ~,~1~f~vrrey ¢o~rep~c oz~~hoin~e ~o~. G-o ~~~j ~t~~'ney ~ Preeb~,~e he~u ~,~~~s c/l ~ h~c~ !~°~~~~.' 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO TRANSFER CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY CANDACE ADKINS dba CANDYLAND DAY CARE II: opp~~~ ~r~in-J'~2!- O~ Co''idi~i~a.~ Gc.J'~2~rrHi~- wiz~'!z. izo ~cdlli~-i8~i~-Q as.t~fJ~ne~~ 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A PLANNED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT BY FRED LOTRIDGE: ti~~y~v~ ~/~'s Cll ~v~ ~ f~FrZ G'~H,-i~~.c~ ~i~~~FJv~2 '~~ I~~Z G~~m•v.iaaa~G~Ctf/b'r.~ QnGC t~-Q Co~2dihm»~~c.a.e_~l7~hsn~~j-- 11. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR ANGEL PARK DEVELOPMENT BY FRED LOTRIDGE: a/~~~~ve ~re%/~/'Y~G~ ~~~tSG?~~BG~ ~o `r~.Q2~~ .f~~-~{ Rrf'r~r~v~~ ~ ~oli~:~~sfiry %n ifr~~Ga~flort .s"o%~~v~v 12. REQ'UEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FLOWER SHOP RETAIL BUSINESS BY BILL AND JOYCE BREWER: ~~a~7rvve Oth~ehOleK ,~/-~ ~ ~/L q~~rav¢ ~on~li~v~,.a.fl.~fe ~v~ Cendi2i~,.r P~C/uG~ih~ ~~~I~~Me~f' 0~ C'vei-b g~-ol Jcv~fter ~--2~l~cerr~~-t ~ . 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. REQUEST FOR CDNDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CAR STEREO SALES ~~~c/` AND INSTALLATION BY RICHARD CESLER: ~s,b~ra~'z ~~e~~°~ ~ ~~rov~ ~'e~~rio~ Qx:C/~c~l;n9 -~tn~rtn~or~~~~ ~c~d r~~a~~a~~u~-.~ a~r REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR MR. SANDMAN SUBDIVISION NO. 2 BY BRYCE JOHNSON AND RUSS HUNEMILLER: c~~rov~~re/ ~~%~~a~i~~/a~t S'G~~G~ect forn~~~hn~ ~f'~~~Cd~Ali~~' G~ ~L /'~~O/vi~~ REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONVENIENCE ~`rb~9``~~~'~ ~ STORE BY BRYCE JOHNSON AND RUSS HUNEMILLER: d/J ~~~~ g~'~'fo~G~ G~r~ohde~ ,G~~ ~I e/l G~r~v~ e ~a~~~i~ivna~~rfe ~v~ Cai~di~i~res REVISED PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5: aPp~ove. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR WATERBURY PARK SUBDIVISION NO. 5: app~Ve. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: ~/G~~h e ~r~~/~ Sl~~,. -~- ~oh - GlQvg /o~rn 2n.t ~~rt~r~Zwf ~ ~o~- G.os ~7~g~ifDf D~r~ .~5~'~. b ~h~.re / Ch i e~' C o~~ - ~'4.d~ %'/cGUL.~1L ~v,-..- G) Pw./f" ~ Pc y rcv..,. O J Gr~n cz-,f ed ~ p ol:~ vek~`c,Ze ~a.ced ~ h d r~e~-e~r /oc a;~'o-•~ WGI,~f ~? Br/-o~.•~ -- ~~ffGc.e- viR.e G~th q Z o h iY~ q~ C~e v~~oP ~, eh t o v-c~ ~vn c.a~ / J /'1?~A.' yehhhJc t~n - /S35 E~ Firr~- ~ahba.5e ~a~.~t. ;QGZ~ o~ h-ot~iLz ~ 7`Pvr~ G~/~oa~wrvcce - ? /~oh CeF~~e - ~h~~a.~t ~e~ f~-a~ b.e- Gli.r ~u 51 Gdi fs~. e~c c~ ,E/v~-/cJl~,o~ ~~. 7'~s~.Q - p~-~ ~r~ ~~~ e r~~Fw~~ 6~d f/.ezf rzfh~.~s~-- c~ o-r.-p,?.e. ~e ~' -~u~.k.~ f,~o~ e ~~ ~ CITY OF MERIDIAi~ PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET ~'"i~ ~~~~~ ~7.e.e~i~q ~Y1~ ~h 2~, / Q~~ NAME PHONE NUMBER ~ ~ 1-, ~ ~ ~ ~ G ~.~~ g ~ `~ - `~I ~-1 I ~ ~-~ w ~' ~ L, o ,~ ~, d ~. N ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ y y I -L I ~ CITY OF MERIDIAI~ I~~, PUBLIC MEETING SIGN-UP SHEET ! ~', ~, l~~h ~.~ l~.e~ ~rn~ l~/~~~ zr, ~~~.~" '~ NAME PHONE NUMBER ~)"~~/11 ~ fz ~ ~~ ~'~7-l y ~c'~ ~ ~~ - `~ ~d ~~- 6G~3 ~ t~~~ ~GU2~ 4v~ 3~' 2- S~}'O U r.z ` S~acc~vwt 3~-3- l~~s a--~ .~,~-~-J~ 5~-- Ss- sS'~ .~' ~' si ~ '~ - OR4GlNAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL ~ APPLICATION OF ALBERTSON'S INC. FOR A VARIANCE FROM 11-2-410 A- MINIMUM YARD SETBACK FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled variance request having come on for consideration on March 7, 1995, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall., 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, the Applicant's representative, Gordon Anderson, appearing and the City Council having heard and taken oral and written testimony, the City Council of the City of Meridian makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of the public hearing on the variance was published for two consecutive weeks prior to the scheduled hearing for March 7, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the March 7, 1995, hearing; that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That notice o€ public hearing is required to be sent to property owners within 300 feet of the externa~l boundaries of the land being considered pursuant to 11-2-416 E. , 11-2-419 D. , and 11- 9-612 B. l.b of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that his requirement has been met. 3. That the property is zoned Neighborhood Business District, C-N, which is defined in the Zoning Ordinance, Section FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 1' • • . 11-2-408 B 8. as follows: fC-N) Neighborhood Business District - The. purpose of the (C-N) District is to permit the establishment of small scale convenience busines:s uses which are intended to meet the daily needs of the, residents of an immediate neighborhood (as defined by the policies of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan); to encourage clustering and strategic siting of such businesses to provide service to the neighborhood and avoid intrusion of such uses. into tHe adjoining residential distri.cts. All such districts shall give direct access to transportation arterial_s or collectors, be connected to the Municipal Water and Sewer systems of the City of I~Ieridian, and shall not constitute all or any part of a strip development concept. 4. That Ordinance 11-2-410 ZONING SCHEDULE OF BULK AND COVE~RAGE CONTROLS, A, for the C-N District, requires that there be a ten (10) foot side yard setback. 5. That the Applicaiit, Albertson's Inc., has requested that they be granted a variance from the above side yard setback requirement to have a 0.00 foot side yard setback only on the proposed lot lines common to lots 1 and 2 of the proposed two lot subdivision and it was stated that it was Applicant's intent to leave the side yard setback adjacent to residential property at the designated ten.feet. 6. The Applicant further stated in the Application that the proposed use would be a neighborhood shopping center including an Albertsons grocery store and a 6,000 square foot retail shop space adjacent to an west of the proposed Albertsons store; that the irregular shape of the subject property makes it difficult to place a retail shop building in an area that will not disrupt parking lot traffic flows and handicap access to the proposed store facilities; also that this property is bounded to the south by Nampa-Meridian FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 2 • . Irrigations District's Eight Mile Lateral which has a 30.00 foot wide easement lying northerly of the property line, which makes this parcel very restrictive and difficult to clevelop; that if the minimum requirements of this Ordinance were applied to this property, it could create a loss of the shops lot entirely; that the retail shops lot, is proposed in part to offset some of the financial hardships associated with development costs of this site; that other sits in the same district do not have the easement and parcel shape restriction to contend with, as does this site; that because of these conditions and restrictive shape of this parcel, the Applicant will not be given special privileges, but will be able to develop this site with the goals of th~e Comprehensive Plan in mind, which is to meet the needs of the residents of the immediate neighborhood and to avoid intrusions into the adjoining residential districts; that the buildings shown on the site plan will create a better buffer from the residential district to the west, thus requiring zero lot line variance approval; that granting this variance on the proposed lot line would allow Albertsons to sell the adjacent parcel and help recover a portion of the land or development costs for this site; and that Albertsons would prefer the retail shops building and Yot be owned outright, because they are not structured to manage real property. 7. That the drawing submitted with Application shows the 0- lot line to be the entire length between Lot 1 and lot 2 of the subdivision plat; that at the public hearing the Applicant's representative stated the 0-lot line need not encompass the entire FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 3 • • length of the lot line, but did request that it go from the building to the south lot line. 8. That the Meridian Police and Fire Departments, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and the Central District Health Department submitted comments, which are incorporated herein by this reference; that the Fire Department's comments was that the variance was not a problem if a four hour fire wall was constructed (between the buildings). 9. That zero lot line defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11- 2-403 B, as follows: Zero Lot Line - A building design which allows for a dwelling to be built to the side lot line and which may include an easement to a neighboring lot for the pur.pose of upkeep and maintenance of each dwelling. Zero lot line developments can be either dwelling units detached or attached. 10. That zero lot lines are discussed in the Subdivision and Development Ordinance, where it is stated in 11-9-405 F, LOTS,~i.n part as follows: "Zero-Lot-Line Buildina Lots ~ a. Yard Setbacks: In no case shall a zero lot line be allowed adjacent to a property line which is not part of the development application. .. A minimum ! distance of ten feet (10') shall be maintained i between buildings or potential buildings on ; separate lots. b. Easements: A perpetual six-foot (6') wide maintenance/drainage easement shall be provided on the lot adjacent to the zero-lot-line property line which shall be kept clear of structures with the exception of fences, patios and slabs at grade. Roof overhangs and below grade foundation footings may penetrate the easement on the adjacent lot a maximum of twelve inches (12"), but shall be so designed that runoff from the dwelling place on the lot line is limited to the easement are~. The FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 4 • • easement shall be shown on the development plan/plat arid incorporated into each deed transferring the title to the property.'° 11. Katie Brown testified stating that her concerns were the noise and light impacts on her property; she also stated that she wanted to know who she should contact about the impacts on her property. 12. That the entire property in question is described in the variance application and is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet. of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City has authority to grant variances pursuant to Section 11-2-419 of the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to Section 11-9-612 of the Development Ordinances. 3. That the ~ity Council has judged this application by the guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in the Subdivision and Development Ordinance upon which it may take judicial notice. 4. That the Council" may take judicial notice of its own proceedings, those of the Commission, governmental statutes, ordinances, and po~icies, and of actual conditions existing within FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5 . ~ the City and the State. 5. That the specific requirements regarding a variance that must be evicienced and found by the City Council are as follows: "11-9-612 A. 2., FINDINGSz No variance shall be favorably acted upon by the Council unless there is a finding, as a result of a public hearing, that all of the following exist: a. That there.are such special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that.~he strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would be clearly impracticable or unreasonable; in such cases, the subdivider sfiall first state his reasons in writing as to the specific provision or requirement involved; b. That strict compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the subdivider because of unusual topography, the nature of condition of adjacent development, o~her physical conditions or other conditions that make strict compliance with this Ordinance unreasonable under the circumstances, or that the conditions and requirements of this Ordinance will result in inhibiting t h e achievement or objectives of this Ordinance. c. That the granting of the specified variance will be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the property is situated; d. That such variance will not violate the provisions of the Idaho code; and e. That such variance will not have the effect of nullifying the interest and purpose of this Ordinance and the ' Comprehensive Development Plan. 6. That there does appear to be a specific benefit or profit, economic gain or convenience to the Ap'plicant if the variance of the 0-lot line is granted; however, to require would mean that the Albertson store would be ten (10) feet from the retail shop, the spaces would, at least initially, be under the same ownership, and it is not uncommon in the City of Meridian and other areas in Treasure Valley to have commercial businesses abutting each other. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 6 ~ • 7. That regarding Section 11-9-612 A. 2., regarding the variance of 11-1-410 A, it is specifically concluded as follows: a. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that the strict application of the provisions of the ten (10) foot set back Ordinance would clearly be unreasonable. b. That strict compliance with the requirements of the ten (10) foot set back Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the Applicant. c. That the granting of a variance would not be detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to the public. d. That the variance would not have the effect of altering the interests and purposes of the ten (10) foot set back Ordirnance which is included in the Zoning Ordinance. 8. That it is further concluded that 0-lot line development has been allowed in residential developments all along lot lines, but the lot lines have been in one plane and not varying in direction; that it does make sense to allow a zero lot line between commercial buildings that the owner, or owners, of the lots desire to have their buildings be adjacent and abutting; it is concluded c that a zero lot line all along the boundary between two deferent lot lines when it is likely that no buildings would be constructed along the lot line makes no sense whatsoever. 9. That it is concluded that the variance of 11-2-41U A should be granted to the Applicant, but only along the lot line between lots 1 and 2 where the building to be constructed will abut. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 7 • ~ , ,., APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby adopt and approve these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL: COUNCILMAN COUNCILMAN COUNCILMAN COUNCILMAN MAYOR KING~ YERRINGTON VOTED MORROW VOTED CORRIE VOTED` TOLSMA VOTED_~~~ SFORD (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION That it is decided the Application for a variance from 11-2- 410 A, in the C-N District is granted to the Applicant, but only along the lot line between lots 1 and 2 where the buildirig to be constructed will abut. APPROVED: v ~~ DISAPPROVED: t FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 8 ~ ~ ORDINANCE NO. 695 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN REPEALING SECTION 2-1001 (A) OF THE REVISED AND COMPILED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AND RE-ENACTING SAID SECTION PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE UNIFORM FIRE CODE, AS AMENDED, WITH CHANGES TO SECTIONS 2.303, 4.108, AND 10.507.(H), ARTICLE 78, ARTICLE 79, AND THE ADOPTION OF THE FOLLOWING APPENDICES: II-F, III-A, III-B, III-C, V-A-STANDARDS, VI- A-HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CLASSIFICATION, AND VI-UBC REFERENCES TABLES; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Mayor and the City Council of the City of Meridian, State of Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of the said City to repeal Section 2-1001 (A) of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and to re- enact said section to adopt the Uniform Fire Code, as it may be amended, with certain changes, and to adopt the following appendices II-F, III-A, III-B, III-C, V-A-STANDARDS, VI-A-HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CLASSIFICATION, AND VI-UBC Reference Tables; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO: SECTION 1: That Section 2-1001 (A) is hereby repealed. SECTION 2: That Section 2-1001 (A) is hereby re-enacted and shall read as follows: "2-1001 (A): ADOPTION OF FIRE CODES: (A) Uniform Fire Code. The Uniform Fire Code is adopted for the purpose of regulating and governing conditions hazardous to life and property from fire. The Uniform Fire Code, as it may be amended, including Appendices II-F, III-A, III-B, III-C, V-A- STANDARDS, VI-A-HAZARDOUS MATERIALS CLASSIFICATION, AND VI-UBC REFERENCES TABLES is hereby adopted with the following exceptions to the Code: 1. Section 2.303 shall read as follows: ORDINANCE - READOPTING 2-1001 Page - 1 • ~ 2.303 BOARD OF APPEALS AND LIMITATIONS OF AUTHORITY To determine the suitability of alternate materials and types of construction and to provide for reasonable interpretations of the provisions of this code, there shall be and hereby is created a board of appeals consisting of five members who are qualified by experience and training to pass upon pertinent matters. The chief shall be an ex officio member and shall act as secretary of the board. The board of appeals shall be appointed by the executive body and shall hold office at their pleasure. The board shall adopt reasonable rules and regulations for conductinq its investigations and shall render decisions and findings in writing to the fire chief, with a duplicate copy to the appellant. The board of appeals shall have no authority relati:ve to interpretation of the administrative provision of the code, nor shall the board be empowered to waive requirements of this code. 2.That the first paragraph of Section 4.108 shall read as follows: "4.108 PERMIT REQUIRED A permit may be obtained from the bureau of fire prevention prior to engaging in the following activities, operations, practices or functions." 3. That Section 10.507.(h), Required Installations of Automatic Fire-Extinguishing Systems: Group R, Division 1 Occupancies, shall read as follows: "An automatic sprinkler system shall be installed throughout apartment houses three or more floors in height or containing 6 or more dwelling units, in congregate residences three or more floors in height and having an occupant load of 31 or more and in hotels three or more floors in height or containing 13 or more guest rooms. Residential or quick-response standard sprinklers shall be us8d in the dwelling units and guest room portions of the building. For purposes of this requirement, in determining the number of floors, the word "floors" include those floors that are below surface grade, at surface grade, and those above surface grade." 4. That in Article 78 only Section 78.103 (b) and Section 78.203 through 78.309 are adopted and the rest of the Article is not adopted. 5. That the first paragraph of Section 79 .116 ( e) shall read as follows: ORDINANCE - READOPTING 2-1001 Page - 2 . ~. "Underground Tanks Out of Service for One Year. Underground tanks, except EPA approved tanks, which have been out of service for a period of one year shall be removed from the ground in a manner approved by the chief and the site shall be restored in an approved manner. When the chief determines that the removal of the tank is not necessary, abandonment in place is allowed." 6. That the third paragraph of Section 79.605 (c) shall read as follows: "Devices used for final testing of tanks shall be capable of detecting leaks as small as 0.10 gallons per hour. Leaking piping and equipment shall not be used until repaired or replaced. For leaking tanks, see Section 79.601 (d)." SECTION 3: EFFECTIVE DATE: WHEREAS, there is an emergency therefor, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication according to law. S ~j PASSED AND APPROVED This ~~ ~ day of /~G~- ~ 1995. CITY OF MERIDIAN GRANT P. KINGSF RD - YOR ATTEST: /~~~~ ~ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR - CITY CLERK ~` '~ "~~'~''~ ~ n~~ : ~ ~.~~ ~~~' ~~~ `~ ~ £,~~:s~"~ v ~~x, j~o 5~. °~T ; }:' nt• ~a, ~, ~ ;~,g2 .~e ~ Y ;1~~D A~'pSt g~.tt ~, y. ~N Si_ e~Cl S~ ~ g~ mVU ~w' 3e In N.~'~ ~;a M ~: K~. f.:.~ N+L`8~ , ~' }1 ~~ `s\' ~y~ ~ <~ . :•`t„ ye`~ ;; 3 ~i:J ~'Z~;.'~ ~ _ . 4;; 1:.• +~~ ~Y~ ~+ .•u ~ m .~s = ~ `, ' ~. A ~`.° ~~v? , e~~~l,~' ~ : ~.:y'(~'.."ii•~..:+ , . ':._ ~` O V i ) . ~(Y;:. ORDINANCE - READOPTING 2-1001 Page - 3