Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 08-06MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AUGUST 6, 1996 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Robert D. Corrie at 7:30 P.M.: MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Morrow, Glenn Bentley, Charlie Rountree, Ron Tolsma: OTHERS PRESENT: Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Chief Gordon, Anna Doty, D`Arlene Stutzman, Terry Trakel, Vernon Croft, Robert Morrison, Rod Linja, Ron Crow, Carl Stearns, Doug Hill, Kent Krohn, Dean Ehlert, Max Boesiger, Bob Daugherty, Dale Ownby, Keith Jacobs, Tom Eddy, Mike Ballantyne, Ronald Van Auker: MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JULY 10, 1996: Corrie: Any corrections or alterations to those minutes? Entertain a motion to accept. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we accept the minutes of the meeting Wednesday, July 10, 1996. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we accept the minutes as written on July 10, 1996, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JULY 16,1996: Corrie: You have those minutes, any corrections or alterations? Hearing none I will entertain a motion for their approval. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the minutes of Tuesday, July 16. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Tolsma that we approve the minutes on Tuesday, July 16, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD JULY 23,1996: Corrie: Any corrections or alterations to those minutes? Entertain a motion that we approve the special meeting held July 23. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the minutes of the special meeting held July 23, 1996. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Tolsma, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 2 of 53 Corrie: At this time I am going to move away from the agenda for just a moment, I would like to have the appointment of the new Code Enforcement Officer and the official oath, so will Dean Mitchell Ehlert come up please. MAYOR CORRIE SWEARS IN DEAN MITCHELL EHLERT AS CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I would like to officially introduce you to Dean Ehlert who is our new Code Enforcement Officer. He joins us from the Division of Environmental Quality; he has also done some work with the St. Luke's Medical Center as a security officer. And we are very happy to have him aboard. Corrie: Welcome aboard Dean. ITEM #1: TABLED JULY 16,1996: FINAL PLAT FOR FIELDSTONE MEADOWS NO. 5 SUBDIVISION BY GARY VOIGT: Corrie: Is there a representative of Fieldstone Meadows here tonight? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I believe this was tabled pending information for our staff. The question to the staff would be was that information forthcoming? Smith: No, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Councilman, we did not receive the development plans for the number 5 subdivision yet. I believe it was tabled last time for the lack of those plans. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we table until September 3, 1996 and instruct the staff to send a letter explaining the table and encourage the developer to take some action or have this item removed from our agenda. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree, any further discussion? All in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas ITEM #2: TABLED JULY 16,1996: REQUEST FOR A NON -DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR INTERSTATE CENTER: Corrie: That was requested that it be removed from the agenda. Morrow: Did they want it re -scheduled or just totally removed? Corrie: Totally removed Mr. Morrow. Morrow: So moved Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that it be totally removed, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas ITEM #3: TABLED JULY 16,1996: REQUEST FOR HOOK UP TO CITY SEWER FOR WILLIAM VAUGHN'S PROPERTY BY MAX BOESIGER: Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 3 of 53 Corrie: Is Mr. or Mrs. Vaughn here or Max Boesiger? Boesiger: Thank you Mayor, Mr. Mayor and members of the Council I am Richard Boesiger with Max Boesiger Inc. After our last meeting we looked at the site again and determined that the shortest distance for the service line from the existing house would be straight out the front of the house and tie into the main line in Ustick. With the actual location of the line being 2 to 3 feet off of property line. This is the shortest distance and it is also in compliance with the staff's recommendation or preferences that the service line be all on the property that it is serving. I would also like to add we agree with the concept of growth paying its own way, every developer knows that he has to bring, in order to develop a subdivision he has to bring sewer to it and through it. If you are also unlucky enough to be adjacent to an arterial or main line you also have to carry that through also. We have done all of that. We don't feel like this request has anything to do with new growth, this is a simple request by the owner of a 40 year old house to hook up to sewer now that it is available. Again we are just asking your permission to hook up that existing house to sewer and to pay the double fee. Thank you Corrie: Any questions or discussion of Council? Morrow: So do I understand that the sewer line now goes, the main sewer line goes across the front of this property to their easterly property boundary, Gary is that correct? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Morrow, I understood from Richard's letter that I received on the 31 st of July or that he wrote on the 31 st of July that he was going to extend that across the front of that property. So I assume that has been done, I haven't verified that. Boesiger: I can confirm that, my sewer contractor is installing that line adjacent to Summerfield right now. I had assumed that he would be getting to that long before now, he had troubles with ACHD's requirements in closing the street. I made an assumption on how you might rule and wrote the letter to Gary. However, he will be approaching that eastern most boundary tomorrow. Corrie: Thank you Morrow: So the staff has no problems then with this request. Smith: No I don't Morrow: I have no further questions. Corrie: I will entertain a motion on the request. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we grant the request for the hook up to the City sewer for William Vaughn's property by Richard Boesiger subject to staff conditions and applicable fees. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST BY CAMERON CORDOVA: Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have no questions or no problems with the findings of fact and as prepared for us. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 4 of 53 Corrie: Any other discussion of Council? Rountree: I think the findings reflect the discussion that we had at our previous meeting quite well. I have no problem with them. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, if there is no further discussion I would move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written for us for the variance request by Cameron Cordova. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions as written, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Bentley - Yea, Rountree - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas Corrie: Decision motion? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, it is decided that the application for a variance to the front setback requirements for Lot 2, Block 11 Tract Subdivision No. 4 are hereby granted as it relates to the placement of the garage only. It must be placed at a setback of 18 feet or more. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion was made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree on the decision, any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas ITEM #5: ORDINANCE #736 - KOUBA ANNEXATION: Corrie: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 7, T.3N, R.1 E, B.M., ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anybody from the audience that would like to have Ordinance #736 read in its entirety? Hearing none I will entertain a motion on Ordinance #736. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that the City of Meridian adopt Ordinance #736 with the suspension of rules. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree that we approve Ordinance #736 with suspension of the rules, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Bentley - Yea, Rountree - Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JULY 16,1996: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE USE BY LAMONT KOUBA: Corrie: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant to start. Bob Daugherty, 5001 N. Eugene, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Daugherty: Mr. Mayor and Council members, we are before you again this evening and requesting the conditional use permit for Mr. Lamont Kouba. I believe during the last meeting we pretty much covered all of the issues, we were waiting however for the annexation. I don't Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 5 of 53 believe that there were any additional concerns if you have any I guess I would be prepared to answer those at this time. If not I guess we would just seek approval. Corrie: Council, questions? Morrow: I have just for recap, Mr. Daugherty, this is the parcel that is 3.87 acres, and there is an access agreement between yourself and the adjoining parcel? Daugherty: That is in the process right now. There has been a draft that has been forwarded to their attorney and they are in the process of reviewing that right now. Morrow: It seems to me that there was a little sliver of property at the very bottom of this parcel of ground that someone was supposed to research and see who owned with respect to access. Did your owner own that property? Daugherty: There is a property directly to the south that according to the tax roles an owner by the name of Daley with no address owns it, we have no further information on that. Morrow: So there is no information with respect to that piece of property that we are able to get other than the name of the person that owns it, it is a very small piece of property. Daugherty: That is correct. Crookston: I am sorry what was the name of the owner again? Daugherty: I believe it is Daley. Morrow: I would ask a question of Gary Smith, does that mean that this parcel of property is effectively landlocked? Smith: I am going to need to look at the map and see where that piece of property, was that the sliver of property that was just Morrow: It was very narrow and very long. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, if my memory serves me correctly weren't we talking about the one map we had showed I can't think of the name of the street but it has been extended but our map and the drawing they gave us didn't show that on there. Was Washington Street the one? Smith: Yes, Washington Street was the one proposed for vacation by another person. Bentley: What is the next street north, we had talked and we said the one street had been extended farther than it showed on the diagram that we had. Smith: Badly is north of Washington. Bentley: Does it extend into this property that we are talking about? Smith: No Daugherty: The property in question according to my employer indicates that there seems to be some errors with the deeds that could have created that problem there. The fact that Daley's doesn't seem to have any address and they haven't been able to send out the taxes. Our information was that it was a possibility that it was going to be going up for tax sale. But currently we haven't been able to ascertain who or where the owner is located of if in deed there is an owner there. The information that we have was taken directly off of the tax information at the County level. The last meeting, the concern primarily that was addressed was over the Crow Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 6 of 53 property and I though that we had pretty much resolved that issue that there is access to that property. Morrow: Let me ask you this, is this property right here part of the annexation chain, the one that is directly below this sliver? (Inaudible) (Discussion Inaudible) Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have a question of Gary, how does this particular piece of property get, how do we address the issue with respect to the property in terms of access or in terms of determining whether or not it is a lot or if there is a property right there? Smith: The only thing I can think of would be a title search process. I don't know of any other way to determine who the owner is. Morrow: How do we keep it from becoming landlocked? Smith: Well, we know that if this property is developed as it is proposed it would restrict access from the north. There isn't any access from the east because that existing subdivision Danbury Fair. The only access and then I believe Five Mile Creek is on its west boundary. So it could be accessed from the west but it only appears to be 60 feet in width, is that about right? Daugherty: I think it is approximately 40 feet. Smith: 40 feet, so it is very possible as Richard said it is a result of the survey lines that didn't match from one property parcel to another. And depending on the direction from which surveys were done they left gaps. There are gaps and overlaps that you see on these assessor maps all the time. I don't recall seeing one this width or the fact that it has a name attached to it. It makes it a little suspicious that it is a survey overlap or a gap. Daugherty: Mr. Johnson indicates that the Daley's owned the parent property prior to the subdividing it, Daley was the original owner of that parcel. It might give a little better indication it was an error in the actual deed recordings. Which also, the property only being 40 feet in width would limit the availability of anybody to really develop that parcel in any case. It seems like that it would either become owned by Mr. Kouba or the Johnson parcel which is directly to the south of it. Corrie: Counselor, would a title search would that show this up that it could either an error or actually held by somebody, would it show whether it is actually owned or it is just an error? Crookston: It would not show necessarily that it was an error, we can get the deeds for the property and the adjacent property from the title company, it would tell us who the owner of the property was. Morrow: I believe Shari has a comment. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, the property to the south of this which includes the parcels that you are talking about as well as the Ruth Crow property have several splits in them that are not really understandable. One of them is owned by Trakel that is part of, or adjacent to the property where in a later item on the agenda the Stutzman vacation there is a small narrow piece that is owned by someone else. To the south of the Ruth Crow property there is another little piece that is where Carlton comes in from the west. This little piece is a landlocked piece, I wasn't aware that there was yet another piece to the north of that. I have no idea how those subdivisions took place because they don't make any sense. Either they were meant to be part of a future right of way, I just don't know what happened to them. There is a big question about the property to the south of this and how and why these divisions took place. It doesn't help you any. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 7 of 53 Crookston: Shari, is there not then a problem with maintenance of that property because at this juncture we don't know who the owner is and probably the adjacent land owners have no obligation to maintain it so doesn't it just lie there in essence in seed and growing weeds? Stiles: I could look the owners up on the information that we have here at City Hall if that is Council's wish if they want to research that further. But if it is landlocked it is worthless property really to someone. It should be either incorporated as part of this project or I don't know how you enforce that when there has been possibly illegal splitting of property that hasn't been detected by the County. I don't know the history whether it had to do with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and their easements for Adkins Drain or I really don't know why that would take place and it would take a title search and some investigation to find out why that was the way it was. Crookston: If a piece of property is sold without access there are provisions that provide that the buyer can obtain access through the property adjacent to it. If access is necessary for the use of that property. Stiles: I would think that would be true. Corrie: So where are we now? Crookston: Well I am not sure that the conditional use, it is my understanding that Mr. Kouba is only going to use the land for the conditional use of which he owns, the problem becomes what is going to happen with that property. If we can't find out who the owner is and even if we do find out who the owner is the owner can just say I don't care. He can say I will sell it if somebody wants to come and pay me $5 million for it or whatever price. But I am not sure that it is a problem for the applicant because it is not included in his conditional use. It is, the biggest problem I see is what it going to happen to the property who is going to maintain it. Corrie: Do I have the understanding that it really has nothing to do with the conditional use permit they are requesting now but they will later who owns some land as far as being landlocked it could come from the south and also the west. Morrow: I guess my question to the Counselor Mr. Mayor is do we have any potential liability with respect to the property in terms of land locking it by actions that we may take. Historically when we add properties that have the potential of land locking we have tried to guarantee an access or stub road or something like that to the property does that in this case apply? Crookston: I think that it applies, but I think that it is more applicable in the annexation then it is in the conditional use. Rountree: That can be addressed with the future annexation that needs to take place for the rest of this property since it is not in the City at this point in time. Crookston: It could but at this juncture we don't know that an annexation application would ever be filed and requested. The problem as I said earlier the problem becomes who is going to care for that property? Bentley: Well who is caring for it now? Crookston: Do you know Mr. Daugherty? Daugherty: I would suggest that nobody is caring for it currently, as you had stated, I don't believe that piece of property, we are not asking for a conditional use with reference to that piece of property. If that property is going to be landlocked with the conditional use permit it is currently landlocked. You are not changing the disposition of that property by granting our conditional use. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 8 of 53 Crookston: I think that is very correct. We are not land locking it by granting a conditional use, if the property is landlocked that was committed between the prior people that deeded property let's say surrounding it and if the city desires to ensure that property has access I think that is more of an issue that should be addressed in the annexation and not in the conditional use. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, one more question to the Counselor, what would your advice be for us then at this point from a legal standpoint? Crookston: I think that you have the ability to revoke the annexation ordinance and try and resolve the matter. I think it would be appropriate possibly to do that but I think the real problem is finding out who the owner of that property is and contacting them and see if they have any problem in either having Mr. Kouba use it or Mrs. Crow or any adjacent owner. Stiles: Would it be possible to table this for just either to the end of the meeting or a couple items and let me look that up on the information we have and see if we can determine that ownership? Crookston: That would be fine with me, that is up to the Council. Rountree: Do you have that information available? Stiles: I am not sure an owner will show up but I do have that information from the Assessor's office. Crookston: I think the question for the Council is whether or not they want to consider withdrawing the approval of the annexation ordinance and holding that for whatever period of time that the Council desires so that there could be an attempt to find out who the owner is and see what can be done with that. Shari is this property at all in line with where a roadway might be? Stiles: It is really hard for me to determine whether that, what the purpose was for that split. I would think that a lot of the remnant left and some of the parcels that have been created in this area are worthless unless they are determined to be a future right of way or a drainage easement or something like that that perhaps Nampa Meridian or Ada County put up on the block someday and said here is an extra 40 feet that we have no use for it is for sale. Crookston: If the property is where a roadway would be located which we don't know but if it was Ada County Highway District could condemn that land if it is adjacent to the Five Mile Drain Nampa Meridian Irrigation District could also condemn it and use it for either one of them for their governmental purpose. I don't know that the City has a purpose for that land because we don't provide road service. Even if it is where a road should be. Morrow: If I might suggest let's defer this for a minute and let Shari do some research and maybe move on to the two ordinances and then bring this back and take a look at it. I guess so we can move forward. Daugherty: Could I interject one thing before we do that, at the last hearing there was a lot of discussion as far as that northerly line of the subdivision that is adjacent to our property. It was indicated during that time that was somewhat of a defining line and that there was some discussion as far as to the north of that line was primarily like commercial type developments and to the south was residential areas. I would like to interject that parcel that is in question is indeed to the south of that line as referenced in the previous meeting and that it might be more appropriate that should that ownership be determined no matter who owns it that would be more appropriate that would be residential which would be accessed from the south or from the west. And that perhaps it might not be as much of a consideration as we are making it here. Corrie: Were you making that as a motion to hold that until after 7 and 8 are done and then come back to it. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 9 of 53 Morrow: Yes Tolsma: Second Corrie: All those in favor of the motion? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas ITEM #7: ORDINANCE #737 - HASKIN/GREEN ANNEXATION - C -G: Corrie: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING A CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 8, T.3N, R.1 E, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have Ordinance #737 read in its entirety? Hearing none I will entertain a motion for Ordinance #737. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Ordinance #737 with suspension of rules. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Tolsma to approve Ordinance #737 with suspension of the rules, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Bentley - Yea, Rountree - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas Smith: Mr. Mayor, is the applicant aware of the conditions of the annexation? The conditions that are written into this annexation ordinance. Crookston: I don't know if the applicant is aware but they were sited in the motion for preparation of the ordinance. Mr. Ownby is here maybe he can represent Smith: There is a sewer and water connection requirement and I just want to be sure that they understand that this is what is required otherwise the property could be de -annexed according to this ordinance. Ownby: Mr. Mayor and Council members, as I recall in Planning and Zoning meeting it was requested at that time that there would be no connection necessary, no extensions of any lines until the point in time of a development agreement was reached. That was in the public testimony. I think it was my understanding that was included within the motion. I haven't seen the ordinance but I have read everything up to the ordinance. Smith: Mr. Mayor may I read the first paragraph, Section 2 on page 1, it states that the property shall be subject to de -annexation if the owner shall not meet the following requirements: a, that the applicant will be required to connect to Meridian Water and Sewer at his expense and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land. Ownby: Well as I recall and I have the testimony in my file but I didn't bring my file, was that the ownership, both ownerships would go along with a latecomer's fee at the point in time that sewer and water was available. That was the agreement that was made. Smith: The reason that I bring this up is that we have gone through a similar requirement in an annexation for the Van Auker property and it was a condition of that annexation as well and they did prepare sewer extension plans and have had some problems in getting started but that was a Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 10 of 53 requirement. When I read this I just wanted to be sure that everyone understood that this was part of the annexation ordinance so no one would be surprised, unless I am reading this wrong. Ownby: Well it certainly isn't the intent of the ownership because this was, the reason for this in the first place was to correct an illegal split. Until a point in time that the property is developed it is their understanding that it will stay the way it is now. Where the difference being in the Van Auker property the development is to take place immediately or as soon as possible. Where there is no intent to develop this property immediately. Smith: I will leave the interpretation up to the Council and our City Attorney. But I just wanted to bring it up as a point of question. Ownby: I appreciate that. Crookston: I think it is very good that has been brought up. The ordinance is not a mandatory situation that the developer or owner has to connect at this time. But the property must be connected and if it isn't then the property can be de -annexed and there is a development agreement requirement required in the ordinance also. Ownby: Yes that would come at the point in time that the property is developed. When there is someone comes before the P & Z and Council to perform that. But until that time you say it must be hooked up and must be a development agreement, that will come in time there is no specific date, am I correct? Crookston: There is no specific date in the ordinance. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, in item 21 of the findings of fact and conclusions of law from the P & Z it states that the applicant will be required to connect to Meridian sewer and water and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land. That the development of this property shall be subject and controlled by the subdivision and development ordinance and the development agreement. It is shall only be developed as a commercial general planned development under the conditional use process. So it was stated in the P & Z. Ownby: My interpretation of that as we discussed it with P & Z was that sure they are going to be hooking up to sewer when the development agreement is reached. Crookston: The findings of fact nor the ordinance require immediate connection. But the property could be de -annexed if the property owner did not perform that. Let's say a property owner an adjacent property owner that needed that land to have sewer and water run through it before it could get sewer and water the City could come back and say you have to put it in. Ownby: Well I don't know what my answer is other than the owners do not wish to hook to City water and City sewer at this point in time. Crookston: That is a requirement of our ordinances, it is not a mandatory requirement that it be done right now but if the situation arises where that sewer and or water needs to go through to provide sewer and or water to another piece of property the City could say that it has to be done. (End of Tape) Ownby: In response to that if I am understanding it correctly let's assume the property immediately north of this requested it why would it have to go through this property if he also adjoins the road and the sewer is available for him? Crookston: Dale I think that is just a question as to how whatever property is best supplied in what fashion is supplied sewer and water. It may work out where this property doesn't have to have sewer and water through but it may be that it does. It is an, that is an engineering decision Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 11 of 53 and if the Engineer decides that is the best way to provide sewer and or water service then it has to be done. Ownby: I guess my opinion would be without speaking to or having spoken to an engineer I would probably like to have it tabled until that can be done and get this resolved. I don't foresee any reason for them to have to hook up to sewer, in other words no other property is adjoining there would require the sewer and water to go through it. Crookston: Well you are kind of like me, I don't know what the engineering would say. Morrow: Mr. Mayor if I might make a comment here, it looks to me like on this particular deal we have a couple of folks that are annexing property, obviously they are speculating in terms of looking for a user. I think that the price of that speculation is that they have to understand that should a circumstance come up where there be demand made on them to meet the provisions of the annexation ordinance, the development agreement provision and the findings of fact and conclusions that at that point in time either they meet those conditions and meet them immediately or they will be subject to de -annexation just as immediately. That is the risk that they are taking by not doing those items as required in both of these documents up front. As long as the understand that and understand it well then so be it from my perspective. I don't see that it needs to have the water and sewer hooked up immediately. But I also understand that what we are really talking about here is a little speculation. Typically with projects, although this is a very small parcel we are requiring in terms of regular subdivisions that those folks go ahead and proceed on a subdivision process and meet all of these other criteria. So I guess my word of caution there would be is that from my perspective, I don't have a problem with doing this like what you are doing now but the owner also has to understand that it could come back in the future. And under the circumstances that the Counselor has brought up that demand be made and either they perform or they get de -annexed Ownby: I think with that understanding Councilman Morrow I think I would recommend you go ahead and approve the ordinance. Corrie: This is the one on Franklin? Crookston: It is Franklin and Eagle Road, NW quadrant of the intersection. Corrie: That is your understanding then of what he said? Ownby: Yes Corrie: We have approved it under those conditions anyway so you know. ITEM #8: ORDINANCE #738 - AIR QUALITY ORDINANCE: Tolsma: Mayor, I have a question on this ordinance, before we read it. They haven't provided any date of a sunset clause in here and yet they are planning for a five year or ten year plan with a five year inspection. But according to this ordinance here there is no cut off date and I belief the cut off date should be 2001 because the ordinance (inaudible) ten year plan I would suggest that sunset date be in there of January 1, 2001. Otherwise this thing could go on for eternity. Corrie: Actually what they are trying to do Mr. Tolsma is to get by that termination date of this year, December 1996. If the Council wishes to put a sunset clause in their ordinance you can certainly do that, that would be in effect for them, I think that you will probably find that ordinance the way it is reading for this is going to be out of Air Quality Ordinance is going to be gone by 1999 anyway but we can certainly put a sunset for our ordinance, you are absolutely correct. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 12 of 53 Tolsma: Well I would like to see a sunset date of at least 2001 that gives them a ten year plan in there for attainment. Corrie: Any other further comments from Council? Rountree: When is your effective repeal date, December 31? Tolsma: Their effective date is January 1, 1991. 1 was thinking their termination date should be January 1, 2001 that gives them their ten year plan. Rountree: I would assume based on what I know of their planning process that the maintenance plan for air quality will probably run some 20 years and probably will have (inaudible) for that length of time. So I would say we have to have it run a little longer than 5 years. Morrow: Let me ask a question here, the third paragraph about 2/3 the way through the sentence starts when a continued emissions testing program is required to maintain health standards the US Environmental Protection Agency will not accept a new SIP if its legal basis has an expiration date, now does that refer to a sunset clause. Corrie: That would be a sunset clause yes. Morrow: So is that saying it is not acceptable if there is a sunset clause involved in it. Crookston: That is why they requested this amendment. Tolsma: This states right above that this has a ten year plan with a five year plan for testing programs. Corrie: It would take at least five years to push the requirement into the future so in other words you are talking still five more years that they are asking for. The air quality SIP will not accept the sunset clause of December 31, 1996 that is the problem. Morrow: Will it accept our sunset clause? Corrie: You can have your sunset clause you can put a sunset clause, you would have to address it again should they ask for it, but you can address it again. You can do anything you want as far as a sunset clause for this Council. You can put a sunset on there of December 31, 2005 or whatever you want. All they are asking is there ought to be a sunset clause of December 31, 1996 and all of the ordinances in the valley and Ada County. That is what they did on the Joint Powers Agreement empowering the Air Quality Board if they put a sunset clause and the SIP says they can't have it as December 31 because they have to be specific and meet that air quality carbon monoxide point. I guess if you would like and I can get a reading from Dennis on the Air Quality Board. Rountree: Their request is actually to remove an expiration date period. Corrie: Right and that is exactly what we are doing in this ordinance. Tolsma: Well this establishes a bureaucracy forever. Morrow: Well Ron basically this is an amendment to the ordinance to delete the expiration date of December 1, 1996. In terms of our position is that if we approve this amendment let me see if I understand this Wayne, if we approve this amendment to this existing ordinance and we put a sunset for re -approval within a five year period as per Ron's request then automatically in five years this Council will re-examine its position concerning this. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 13 of 53 Crookston: No, if you put a sunset clause in it the ordinance is how to (inaudible) that the sunset clause states that it does. If you pass this ordinance right now that doesn't prohibit you from passing another ordinance at the next Council meeting or in five years stating the sunset clause. But the problem with, there are two problems, if you put the sunset clause in and you don't do anything, when the sunset clause is reached the ordinances lapses. If you put something in there that says will reconsider it, or if you say it is going to continue unless the Council enacts something that does the opposite the ordinance is effective and whether it says it lapses or it goes on that is what will be done unless the Council brings it up again. Bentley: So in essence we can stop it at any time. Crookston: That is correct. Morrow: But I think also that Ron's point of view is very well taken and we ought be at some periodic interval we ought to review it that is what we are doing with contracts now (inaudible) Rountree: So put in a reconsideration date in ten years. Crookston: If there is a reconsideration date the reconsideration provision should state if the Council does not or the Council should reconsider it but the provision should also state that if it does not reconsider it whether or not the ordinance will continue or whether or not it will lapse which is a Council decision. Morrow: I guess from my perspective I would like to see that state that it would lapse. I can see that if we automatically put in there and say it needs to be reconsidered in ten years that is going to get lost in the shuffle. There needs to be some kind of action that causes it to be brought to somebody's attention and causes some action to be taken at whatever point in time that is going to be. Corrie: So you want it on a ten year basis and it would lapse unless revisited then? And have a new ordinance made to that effect (inaudible) any other discussion from Council? Rountree: I think before we act on it that concept probably ought to be discussed with the Air Quality Board, Corrie: I will do it Wednesday, there is an Air Quality Board on Wednesday I will get a reading on it. Bentley: I move to table. Rountree: Second Corrie: Moved by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree to table this to the August 20 meeting for a report back from the Air Quality Board, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JULY 16,1996: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE USE BY LAMONT KOUBA: Corrie: Shari do you want to let us know what is going on here? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I submitted the map that was generated from our GIS information, there is a .223 acre piece directly south of the referenced property that is valued at $1500. They Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 14 of 53 have an ownership shown as James and Susan Daley with an unknown address. So I don't know how they are getting any tax revenue from a property with an unknown address. Directly below that is a .969 acre property owned by Elnora Johnson that owns the Rountree Chevrolet piece. I don't have any answers for you here, I don't know how those subdivisions came to be in effect whether they were part of a previous drainage system as I mentioned before. Whether they were auctioned off as unusable property by perhaps an irrigation district but the properties are not usable in their present configuration. It would seem that either the property to the North would have to provide access to them or the property to the South it seems more logical that the property to the south would provide access as an extension of a residential development as it is entirely adjacent to single family residential development. I don't see what purpose an access from Fairview Avenue to these properties would serve. Unfortunately that is all the information that I have. Crookston: Well if the taxes aren't paid the County will have the right to take it back in three years, it usually doesn't occur in four years. Stiles: I don't know how they would be assessing any taxes if they have no address for an ownership on that property. Crookston: They can assess the taxes but they can't inform the owner which is a problem. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I guess what I would like to see with this from my perspective we press on with the conditional use for the recreational automotive thing and at the same time instruct staff to notify both Ms. Johnson who I am sure is aware since she is an owner of the Rountree property immediately north and these folk if it is possible to find that these are potentially land locked properties and they need to be noticed that it is up to them to protect their interest as best they can. If anything has developed in terms of the Crow property and it and looks like if one other piece of property develops then that truly does landlocked them. The Council has already approved a locking system to the east, unless we withdraw the annexation ordinance we have approved a lock out from the north and we are rapidly getting into a position where with the other properties we are not going to be able to approve anything with them in terms of locking these two properties out. And so I guess from my perspective I would like to see those property owners notified in some manner of record that they need to be protecting their interest. Crookston: I am sorry Mr. Mayor and Council the other avenue to proceed with and it is totally up to the Council is to provide a means of access through the property through the Kouba property so that there is at least for lack of a better statement a curb cut so that you can get into the property or across it or whatever. But that is totally up to the Council. You would have to go back and change the annexation ordinance or at least make that a condition. Tolsma: I have a question for Counsel, there are still two other forms of access to this property, one to the south and one to west. Crookston: There is no road access to my knowledge. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Rountree: I don't see that we are any farther along then we were last meeting. Access can be provided to those parcels from the south or the west. I don't see any reason to reconsider the annexation. The folks that own those properties have been noticed for both hearings. (Discussion Inaudible) Morrow: I guess from my perspective Charlie I just want to make sure that those folks that own those, I don't want to see somebody show up here a year from now saying I didn't know. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 15 of 53 Rountree: I understand. Morrow: I am in favor of pressing ahead of approval of the conditional use and getting on down the road but also at the same time making sure that those folk are notified by us the City of Meridian that it is their responsibility to look out for their own interest because they now are land locked on two sides and they need to be a little protective of their property rights. Rountree: I agree and I think we ought to do that in concert with the County since they are partners in this thing as well. Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none I will entertain a motion from Council. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the request for a conditional use permit for recreational automotive use by Lamont Kouba, also to instruct our staff to inform the property owners to the south, the Daley's and Johnson's of the situation that the properties are now land locked on the north end and east side and it is in their best interest to protect their property rights by representing themselves in any future actions that may come with surrounding properties. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley, you heard the motion any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? kyiEel IEel ►[fl_1NNI=1QW-0IVMP ITEM #9: FINAL PLAT: THE LANDING SUBDIVISION NO. 9 BY LEON BLASER: Corrie: Is there a representative? Council any questions? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to see a brief presentation concerning the property and the response. I know we have a written response that Mr. Jacobs has provided to us concerning the questions asked by staff. Jacobs: The general comments, I probably should identify myself, Keith Jacobs, Pacific Land Surveyors. We have reviewed these comments, general comments 1 through 8 and agree with them. We indicate that this is in the flood plain, flood plain X and it is only less than a foot deep and it shouldn't be a problem we can protect the homes from being flooded. We will of course submit our plans to Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and have them approve them and have the letter and agreement in that respect hopefully we can work out an agreement where Nampa Meridian this winter will place the Kennedy lateral in a pipe. They have done that in I believe Landing No. 7 when that was developed by Skyline. Existing ditches of course we will pipe, as I know it there aren't any domestic wells or septic systems on this property however there are some monitoring wells for ground water. I have data in our file as to where that ground water and it will be provided to Gary for this review. We will provide a restrictive covenants I presume it will be fashioned after what has been presented for the Landing NO. 7 and 8 and the other previously developments in the area. I am not aware of any restrictive covenants at this time or deed restrictions are this time. Pressure Irrigation will be provided in accordance with the City's ordinance it will be an extension of the existing Landing system. We will upgrade that system and make the improvements so it will not impact the existing owners and users of that system. Site specific comments, Gary has indicated that the plat generally conforms with the preliminary plat that was approved. Street name committee approval letter I haven't received that yet but as soon as we do we will provide the City with a copy and when we submit the final plat mylars to the City we will also submit another copy with that. Lot 19 we have adjusted it is not 70 foot on the frontage and we have deleted note #9. We have shown graphically the setback line on lots 14 though 16 on block 14. We deleted notes 12 and 13. We are negotiating the easement on the Kennedy lateral since it will be piped obviously Nampa Meridian will not require full width to be Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 16 of 53 maintained for their access. The similar situation which we had worked out on The Landing No. 7. Street lights and street signs will be in place and fire hydrants active prior to building permits. We will then verify again the square footage of each lot and that verification will be submitted to the City for review. We have made the changes to the notes as noted in 10. Land surveyor has signed the front page and back page and the back page of the plat. We have revised the notes 2 and 4 as noted in item 12. We are in the process of completing the certificate of owners and the acknowledgement that we have complied with item 14. We have created a new note on the plat to cover a blanket easement for lot 15, block 9 which is a park and drainage pond. We will provide a letter from the Ada County Highway District accepting heavy maintenance of that particular lot with the homeowners association being responsible for the general upkeep of the landscaping. There will be a detailed landscape plan for that park area to work out the details between the pond will be and how it will flood into various storms that we have experienced in the valley. We have graphically shown the 5 foot wide permanent easement fro public utilities drainage and irrigation on the final as stated in item 18. We have added a symbol for those easement lines. We have shown the 50 dimensions on all roads and we did submit three copies of the revised first page. Do you have any other questions? Rountree: Just a question for Gary, do these comments respond to your concerns satisfactorily? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council my associate Bruce Freckleton informed that everything was in accordance with what he had discussed in his review comments except for one item and that had to do with the Kennedy lateral. He talks about a common lot area and I don't know if that is something that has come up between, because I didn't question him whether this is something the irrigation district has brought up or if you are aware of it Keith? Jacobs: I am not aware of it, I would presume that would be the right of way that Nampa Meridian would want to maintain their pipe. Smith: On the Landing No. 7 they specified where a fence could be built in relation to the centerline of the ditch. It kind of created a no man's land in there. Property owners out there have been calling periodically and they are concerned about if I put my fence here and my property line is ten feet away who takes care of this ten feet. Well it is by plat their property and they are responsible for it. But, I don't know who is actually going to take care of it. I don't know if this common area thing is something that has come up since that point in time and in order to resolve who is going to maintain that area or if there is a fence line specified for this. Jacobs: We haven't worked out the details of that fence line yet, I presume it will be a similar situation as we experienced in number 7. We will need to work with Nampa Meridian and come up with some kind of common lot in there to cover that weed area which essentially it becomes because it is fenced out. We will have to deal with that through Nampa Meridian and we will get that ironed out before we come back to the City. And that will be in an agreement if we have to have an agreement for that setback, moving the fence, establishing where the fence is within that right of way or easement for the Kennedy lateral. Our experience has been with number 7 that the Nampa Meridian would not relinquish any of that easement that they now maintain through there. But they would allow us to occupy part of that easement and fence that within the lot and thereby creates part of a no man's land. So we will address that in that issue with them and it will be in that agreement and we will submit that to the City. Smith: That was the only item that Bruce had any question on from Keith's response to his comments. Corrie: Thank you Gary. Crookston: With the land included in this, the Landing No. 9 that wasn't annexed individually was it, that was with some more land and that has been developed or could be developed? Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 17 of 53 Jacobs: As I understand it the preliminary plat on this and the annexation went to the south boundary or north boundary of 1-84. So there is some land south of number 9 that is part of that original plat and annexation. Crookston: Are you meeting all of the requirements of the findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding the entire area that was annexed? Jacobs: As I am aware of today yes. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would have a question of Shari, concerning this apparently there is a change of ownership in this particular phase from what was originally approved. Now does, is there an original development agreement that was put in place for this Landing area? Stiles: No there is not. Morrow: So there was no development agreement that these phases of the subdivision have to meet? Stiles: There was a preliminary plat approval for the entire Landing Subdivision that included all of the property clear to the Interstate, but the ordinance had not yet been passed when this property was annexed that would allow us to require a development agreement. Morrow: One follow up question, the homeowners association and CC&R's is there a master one of those in place for The Landing so that this phase would comply with that master? Stiles: There is a master in place that has been amended for each subsequent phase but I don't know if they are going to adopt the same covenants, I would imagine that they would for this phase. The park that is shown as part of this development was proposed originally and has not yet been built at all. This phase does incorporate the park that was originally proposed to serve the entire area of the Landing. Jacobs: If I may, yes, we would have to amend the original CC&R's to include this particular and any agreements we would have to honor because we are intending to just be an extension of what has been built thus far and connecting into pressure irrigation system. If we aren't in tune with them I am sure that the people in the subdivision would not allow us in and we would be back before you. Morrow: I have a question with reference to this park that Shari is addressing, is it up to you to develop that park since that park ground is within the land that is being platted? Jacobs: Yes that is correct, Morrow: Is there a set of specifications for the development of that park that would have to be met that exists? Jacobs: Not that I am aware of, if I may, under the Landing No. 8 there is a small portion of this total park that was to be developed at that phase and we are developing the remainder of that. We will work with the City to provide a park that is pleasing and may be able, if it is accepted into the City's system in the future if that ever happens. Morrow: I don't think so, I think the design here is that it is a subdivision park to be maintained by the homeowners association as opposed to being part of the City system. That is generally what we are doing with these neighborhood parks, Shari? Stiles: A condition of the approval of this entire project was that, the park was just a project improvement, it is also used for drainage so, it is too small. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 18 of 53 Tolsma: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for Shari, Shari, on the request for subdivision approval it lists the zoning classification as R-4 but it has the, and the minimum square footage for lots is 8000 feet but the minimum square footage for houses is 1100, is that a typo? Stiles: Councilman Tolsma, Mayor and Council, no that is not a typo, it is based on when the property was annexed and when it was preliminarily platted. That is those square footage are a condition of the annexation and a preliminary plat it is very difficult to try to enforce today's standard on something that has already been approved as a preliminary plat and annexed under a different ordinance. They are proceeding in an orderly manner and this is just the ninth phase of an already approved plat. Corrie: Any further questions? Crookston: Mr. Mayor, regarding that, I would have to look at the ordinances and possibly the State law but there may be provisions that if it is not developed within certain time periods that preliminary plat approval lapses. So it would apply to whatever, to my knowledge it would apply to whatever land was approved in the initial preliminary plat, do you know Shari? Stiles: They have developed this project in subsequent phases within a year of each other. The plat is not void, they did get an extension within the last year for the subsequent phase to come through. Another problem I see with trying to enforce a 1400 square foot minimum in this area is because the closer you get to the freeway the less desirable those lots become. And I don't think people are going to want to come off Linder Road and go towards the freeways toward their homes when through 1100, 1200 1300 square foot homes to get a 1400 square foot home. It just doesn't seem to make any sense to me as to try and require that. They have gone in subsequent phases of one year and have got the appropriate extensions. Crookston: If the have the proper extensions that would (inaudible) Stiles: I believe the annexation ordinance itself also mentions the house size in this area. couldn't guarantee that but I believe it does have some mention of the house size as a condition of the annexation. Crookston: Thank you Corrie: Any further discussion of Council? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the final plat for the Landing Subdivision No. 9 subject to all staff conditions, ACHD, Nampa Meridian conditions and pre-existing conditions which may be part of the findings of fact original preliminary plat and annexation ordinance for the Landing Subdivision. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma that the final plat for Landing Subdivision No. 9 be approved subject to all conditions of the motion, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas ITEM #10: FINAL PLAT: CENTRAL VALLEY CORPORATE PARK NO. 5 (FORMERLY NO. 6) BY RT NAHAS COMPANY: Corrie: Is there a representative from Central Valley Corporate Park here? Shari any comment or Gary? Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 19 of 53 Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council Mr. Nahas called me just prior to this meeting tonight and indicated he could not be here. He agreed with all of the conditions of staff and the agencies. If you are not familiar with this piece it is basically the same piece that has been platted previously only they are vacating a small cul-de-sac in there to give them a little more flexibility on accesses and to better accommodate the occupants of those lots. We have received a letter from the applicant's representative agreeing to all of the comments and I would ask that you approve this final plat of Central Valley No. 5. Morrow: I have no questions or comments. Corrie: Hearing none I will entertain a motion for final plat of Central Valley Corporate Park No. 5 formerly No. 6. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the final plat for Central Valley Corporate Park No. 5 formerly No. 6 subject to all staff conditions, ACHD, Nampa Meridian, development agreement conditions that may exist and the original annexation findings of fact conditions that exist for this subdivision. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that the final plat for Central Valley Corporate Park No. 5 formerly No. 6 be approved subject to all conditions of the motion, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas ITEM #11: FINAL PLAT FOR RAILSIDE SUBDIVISION BY RON YANKE: Corrie: Is there a representative for Mr. Yanke? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, Bruce Freckleton talked to JUB Engineers today and Gary Lee has been ill so he is not in attendance tonight. Public Works Department doesn't have a problem with their plat and the review comments. They weren't able to respond because of Gary's illness I guess but we have never had any cause to have problems with him as the engineer of the project on any other projects that they have submitted to us. The comments that we had on the review of the plat were of a minor nature. I would just like you to take that into account in your decision. Corrie: Thank you Mr. Smith, any comments or questions from Council? Hearing none I will entertain a motion for final plat of Railside Subdivision. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the final plat for Railside Subdivision subject to all staff, ACHD, Nampa Meridian, annexation, development agreement conditions being met. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma that the final plat of Railside Subdivision by Ron Yanke be approved with the conditions of the motion, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas ITEM #12: FINAL PLAT: CHAMBERLAIN ESTATES NO. 2 BY KEVIN HOWELL: Corrie: This was asked to be tabled until the August 20 meeting. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 20 of 53 Rountree: So moved Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Bentley that we table the final plat of Chamberlain Estates No. 2 until the August 20 meeting, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas FIVE MINUTE RECESS ITEM #13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VACATION OF PORTIONS OF W. 1ST STREET, STATE AVENUE AND ALLEY NORTH OF PINE AVENUE BY MERIDIAN JOINT SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2: Corrie: I will now open the public hearing and invite a member from the school district to step forward and speak to the Council. Kent Krohn, 5829 Oriana, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Krohn: Mr. Mayor and Council I am Kent Krohn of Leatham Architects representing the school district tonight. I don't know if you have any kind of picture there in your packet indicating which property we are talking about. The Meridian Elementary School property here is shown in green, the yellow portion on State here and West 1st is the portion and the little bit in the alley is a portion requesting vacation. All of the property for which vacation is requested is bordered by school property. We have been before the Planning and Zoning Commission and received approval from them. They had a couple of conditions which the school district is willing to abide by providing continuing one way alley down the alley here and also giving use easements to the property owners whose property comes onto the alley who would have to come here and use school property to go one way on the alley behind their properties. Vacation of this property would allow the school district to resolve several issues and several problems inherent with the school site. If I might come forward a little closer so you can see what is going on here. Right now there is some concern about school bus parking, staff parking, visitor parking, drop off of children by their parents and pedestrian student access to the school. If this property were vacated it would allow some development out in the front of the school that would help resolve those issues. School bus parking could be back on W. 1st Street, these properties could be developed for staff and visitor parking. We would achieve a complete separation of parent drop off of students which would greatly enhance the safety of the school and we would also have the well defined walk ways for pedestrian access to the school not to mention the possibility of really enhancing the appearance of the front of Meridian elementary school by developing this landscaping and so on. This is just a concept plan that we have developed to show what the intent of the district is for that property. Any questions that I might answer? Corrie: Is there anyone else from the public that would like to enter testimony at this time? Hearing none, Council discussion? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I don't have any problem with this, it seems to me that the P & Z did, after reading their minutes, they did a very good job in terms of protecting the interest of those neighbors that are immediately there with the access easement that Mr. Krohn has eluded to. So from my perspective I think everything is in order. Corrie: Any further comment from Council? Rountree: I have no comment about the proposal, I would have an editorial that I will refrain from. Corrie: Alright I will close the public hearing, any further discussion with Council? Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 21 of 53 Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the vacation requested by the Meridian School board subject to the conditions set forth by P & Z and the easements identified in the minutes of the Planning and Zoning meeting. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Bentley to approve the request for vacation of the properties subject to the conditions of the motion, further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas ITEM #14: REQUEST FOR VACATION OF SE 30 FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY OF WASHINGTON STREET BY D'ARLENE STUTZMAN: Corrie: I will now open the public hearing. D'Arlene Stutzman, 1154 Cathy Lane, was sworn by the City Attorney. Stutzman: I have these (inaudible). This is really interesting because I was so sure until I talked to Mr. Putman this morning that I wanted this vacated now because it is white cap and everything at this point. As he said there is no intention that this street will go all the way through and if it is it would require a cul-de-sac. At first he talked about the cul-de-sac down here at the bottom, the first one that I have shown. But then as he talked about it he said it would actually be more logical when Washington Street comes through to put the cul-de-sac up at the top where I have B shown. Because that would give access to everybody's property. Then he said and I thought that this was true because I had talked to him at length before, so he pointed out that if it isn't vacated at this point that it most likely would be vacated sometime in the future because there is no intention for a bridge to ever go across Five Mile or anything like that. Should the public right of way, this is what he typed on my paper here at the top, should this public right of way be vacated then it would revert back to the source from whence it was dedicated, a portion of Catherine Park and that I would automatically own that. This happened to me a year ago on one of my properties and I got a buck a square foot for the ground. So I am in a win win situation. I do agree with Mr. Putman that it would be more logical to vacate it at this time because if my 30 feet is vacated then the 30 feet belonging with a little tiny narrow property owned immediately to the north or me could also be vacated and that could become part of that property. And he didn't take time to look up the size of that property but we said if Washington Street were to go all the way through that small property might be too small to build on. So I guess what I am saying is I really don't care. Whichever you think is more practical or more logical he did point out that if Washington Street were to go all the way through to Five Mile Creek and then another street go north that it could make that little piece of property right there to the north of me too small to build on. So it wouldn't be a usable property. So I am in a win win situation I don't really care. Whichever you think makes more sense. Corrie: Any further questions for Ms. Stutzman? Anyone else from the public that would like to give testimony? Carl Stearns, 250 S. Beechwood Avenue, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Stearns: I am here tonight representing Mrs. Ruth Crow who owns the property just to the, about 9 acres just to the north of this vacated property, do you have a copy of a map that shows this. I was wondering if I could take a look at what Mrs. Stutzman (Inaudible). Mrs. Crow is opposed to this vacation for the following reasons. First of all the 9 acres of property to the north of the subject right of way, when you consider the surrounding zoning and the surrounding properties, surrounding density of the development also the proximity of Mrs. Crow's property to the Meridian City boundary it is likely to concur that this property will be annexed into the City in the Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 22 of 53 future. It is also likely that the zoning of that parcel when it is annexed will be similar to surrounding zoning. So that would give medium to high density residential development potential to this property. So we could be talking about anywhere from 40 plus lots depending on the type of zoning. Surrounding zoning right now is R-8 up to R-15. In considering that the potential for single family development on this property and by vacating this right of way there could be a problem with future development that the property may need that right of way in the future for access or for fire access may require it at that time or it may be necessary for public services. I think that though it may look unnecessary at this time that property is 9 acres, has the potential for some medium density to high density development and it may be necessary at that time to use that right of way. I think it would be premature to vacate that property knowing that there is potentially developable property in that area. Mrs. Crow does not have any plans at this time to develop the property but her concerns are that it will limit future access to the development. On behalf of Mrs. Crow I respectfully request that the City Council deny this vacation request. Do you have any questions? Thank you Corrie: Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony? Terry Trakel, 928 East 5th Street, was sworn by the City Attorney. Trakel: The Washington easement has been looked forward to by from our family for over 30 years that it has been on the plot and been there. We own the gap, what they call a real estate gap. It is 60 feet by 301 feet. The gap runs from the end of the Crow property directly over to the Danbury. So our access is going to be Washington Avenue. Whatever the Crow's do we are going to be in line with the Washington Avenue Road. The gap was created by what we found out to be a survey error over 20 years ago the land was surveyed the wrong direction thus creating the gaps that answered your earlier question. Mrs. Overton is opposed to giving up the access of Washington Avenue and we want it left there not only for access into the property but also to write the fire protection of that lien. We have had two fires in that area already and we want to make sure that the fire trucks can get in there. One of the ways would be Washington Avenue would be the quickest way if the access road is ever continued through as a street. Any questions? Corrie: Any further testimony from the public? Council, questions? Morrow: Questions of staff, Shari and Gary concerning this issue. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council you have read our comments and the testimony that was given at the public hearing for the Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend denial, do you have that noted in your packet? Morrow: I also noticed that in your comments that you were opposed to approval of this, you were recommending denial also because it took away some planning capabilities, do you still stand by that position? Stiles: Yes I do. Corrie: Mrs. Stutzman the hearing is still open you can make your comment is you would like. Stutzman: I just wanted to re-emphasize what Mr. Putman stated that vacating just beyond my property doesn't limit anything at all because the cul-de-sac would bring access to this piece of property directly to the north of me on all the way through the Crow property. And of course my vacating it I would be maintain it now, but I did also find out from Mr. Putnam today, he told me exactly how to write the letter and who to address it to and everything and they will come out and mow that for me because it hasn't been maintained for all of these hears. It is this deep in weeds now with white caps just totally destroying the rest of us. He said that if I request this and he told me where to write and everything that they will come out and mow it and round up it. So I am very comfortable really either direction because my needs are met. Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 23 of 53 Corrie: I will close the public hearing now, Council comments and discussion. Morrow: Mr. Mayor from my perspective I would be opposed to the vacation of the 30 feet of right of way for Washington Street. Bentley: Mr. Mayor I too would oppose this at this time, I think we are a little premature with the planning stages on this. Rountree: I would echo that but I would also indicate that I think we need to assist and work with ACHD to get the area cleaned up. Corrie: Any further comments? Tolsma: I was just going to echo everybody else's, I would just make the motion that we deny the vacation of the SE 30 feet of Washington Street easement. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Tolsma, second by Mr. Rountree that the request for vacation of the SE 30 foot of right of way of Washington Street be denied, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas ITEM #15: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR BALLANTYNE TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK BY JIM BALLANTYNE: Corrie: I will invite Mike Ballantyne to come up. Mike Ballantyne, 2690 North Mule Deer Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Ballantyne: Mayor Corrie, members of the Council we are just requesting 2 items as for variance at the Troutner Business Park, the first is a temporary turn around on a street greater than 450 feet, that is SW 3rd feet and we are requesting that so that the City grid of streets will be able to continue down the SW area of the City and also so that the neighbor to the north would be able to have some street running through his property. The second item was the (inaudible) Eight Mile lateral, we requested that lateral not be tiled as per City requirements. The 5500 inches of water, think it is 110 CFS that is required or that runs through the pipe is or runs through the lateral would require a 72 inch pipe. The City has indicated that a lateral requiring greater than 48 inches need not be tiled. We would not, there fore we ask that we not have to tile that. We will fence the lateral and one of the items there on the variance is that we fence the south side of the canal against the water edge and that was approved by Nampa Meridian Irrigation District they want to change their easement off of the canal but it would allow us to have more green area in the business park that would be maintained and less area that would be in weeds. So that is basically it. I would be glad to entertain any questions as long as they don't relate to my new haircut. Corrie: Any questions of the Council? Rountree: I just have a procedural question of Counsel that we are hearing a variance before we have heard the preliminary plat. (Inaudible) Crookston: It would be appropriate to act on them together or to have the variance subsequent to the plat approval or denial what ever the Council's decision is. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I think my preference would be to hear the variance after we have dealt with the preliminary plat. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 24 of 53 Crookston: Since it has been noticed is appropriate that we have the public hearing. Rountree: And act afterward. Corrie: I will also open the public hearing, well (inaudible) can I keep both of them open Mr. Counselor? Do I need to close the variance public hearing and open up the other or can I open the both up. Crookston: It is whatever the Council and Mayor approve, you can close it, you can keep it open. Corrie: We are going to hear them both. Crookston: You are going to hear both matters but you can close the public hearing on the first variance or you can keep it open pending action both of the variances after both of the public hearings. Corrie: Is it the Council's approval that we open the public hearing for the preliminary plat at the same and we will take the plat first and then the variance the second, after the plat. Morrow: My preference would be that we continue the hearing for the variance and move onto the (inaudible) Corrie: I will continue the public hearing for the request for the variance and open the public hearing for request for the preliminary plat on Ballantyne Troutner Business Park. ITEM #16: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BALLANTYNE TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK BY JIM BALLANTYNE: Mike Ballantyne, 2690 N. Mule Deer Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Ballantyne: Mayor Corrie and members of the City Council we, the applicant came before the City of Meridian August 8, 1995 with an annexation request for the subject property. The City said that they wanted to see a plat at that time. A plat was provided and it was recommended for approval by Planning and Zoning. After that recommendation for approval the plat was altered because of requests by the neighbors, Ada County Highway District Requirements, Nampa Meridian Irrigation District requests and requirements and requests of the City of Meridian. I provided you today hopefully you all received a copy of both plats identifying the ten changes that were made, there was a green sheet and a yellow sheet. Those items were changed on June 4 of this year City Council sent the applicant back to Planning and Zoning because of the changes feeling that the P & Z Commission should review those changes to make sure they were consistent with the approval that they gave previously. P & Z reviewed the changes and recommended that the plat be approved and we are not before the City Council asking that you approve this plat. So that would be our first request, our second request would be for the sake of time primarily for one of the individuals which is purchasing some property in the business park mainly the US Department of Agriculture and chatting with Shari we kind of discussed whether it would be possible for the ordinance for annexation and rezone be prepared for the August 20 meeting rather than the September 3 meeting just to save a little bit of time. If that is acceptable to staff and City Council we would ask that you approve that request too. So those are the items, I would be glad to entertain any questions. Crookston: Excuse me, this property has not been annexed yet? Ballantyne: Correct. Crookston: I am not recalling but what is the status of the annexation application? Ballantyne: The City, Shari maybe could speak to that better than I could but the City held off annexation pending a preliminary plat that was acceptable to the City. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 25 of 53 Tolsma: Is this project going to be done in phases? Ballantyne: Most likely it will be done in two phases, that is the way we have it set up in the covenants. The first phase would be SW 5th Street and the second phase would be the balance of the property to the east. It is our hope that the balance of the property because of the timing we believe that the balance of the property won't be developed until other access points other than the easement through Norm Fuller's property. Other access points will be developed. But they do meet all of, with that easement we meet all requirements of Ada County Highway District. Tolsma: The hammerheads that are set up in there, ACHD approved the hammer heads coming off of (inaudible) Ballantyne: Correct Tolsma: I know the Fire Chief had a comment that they need to be bigger (inaudible) Ballantyne: They are indeed. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I have some procedural questions, it seems to me that we last heard something on this essentially in June or thereabouts. At that point in time the, Mr. Ballantyne needed to make some decisions about whether he was going to pursue the annexations and so on and so forth. In the interim we approved the water and sewer hook for the USDA building that is going to be built within the County. So my question to both Wayne and Shari is what is the status of the annexation and where are we with that, just hanging out there in limbo. Stiles: Councilman Morrow, Mayor and Council it was an oversight on my part that the annexation and zoning that has been tabled for some time was not included on this agenda. In going over the applicant extensively with the possible schedule for this project I thought tonight would be the variance public hearing. The public hearing for the preliminary plat and that the annexation would be also on this agenda. In the normal course of events you would request that findings be prepared for the variance so at the following meeting the findings could be approved for the variance then the plat, excuse me, that the annexation ordinance could be approved if it were ordered to be prepared by Council. That the variance application could be approved via the findings that are prepared for August 20 and that the preliminary plat be approved on the August 20 meeting, this is the schedule that I had given the applicant as the possible scenario. I don't think that P & Z or Council has ever had a problem with the zoning for this parcel of ground. It has merely been the mechanics of the plat and the other detailed items of this plat that have been in question. I know it is confusing and I apologize that the annexation is not included tonight but it has been tabled, it has been approved by P & Z for the zoning they have requested. I would ask that you, I don't know if you are able to but to ask that an ordinance be prepared in case the plat and the variance are approved so that they are not delayed any further then they have been. This is all in order to get a building permit for the USDA building. They will come in later with conditional use permits for each use they have agreed to that. They have agreed to all of the staff conditions, they will provide the necessary details of the landscaping, covenants, prior to approval of the final plat. Crookston: Mr. Mayor and Council I have not reviewed the file, I can't state any different than what Shari has said. I have no reason at this time to state that is not correct. I would like to look at the file and see what the status is, but the, and additionally I am not recalling how far the annexation had progressed. Shari had the City Council had its hearing on the annexation? The Council then would need to consider whether or not the desires to address the findings of fact if they desire to approve of the Planning and Zoning findings of fact, they could request that an ordinance be prepared then the plat could be acted on once the annexation is completed and the variance there needs to be findings of fact on the requested variances. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 26 of 53 Crookston: Question for Counselor Mr. Mayor, the findings of fact that were originally prepared for P & Z would have been based on or in terms of the annexation would have been based on a potential preliminary plat. This has been completely changed, would this preliminary plat or the answers to these questions, the changes that are being that were given to us and the staff today would they constitute significant change in the (inaudible) for the annexation? Crookston: The platting of the property has nothing to do with the annexation. Morrow: I understand that Crookston: If you desire to have a plat so that you can see what the proposed development is that is totally up to the Council. Morrow: I guess I am asking do we do that to begin with that we were making our decisions and those findings were being based on what it was we buying for the property so to speak. If we have got, if we approve the annexation we were saying with this annexation we were getting essentially this type of development. Is that where we were at with that annexation when it was suspended in June or whatever? Crookston: Mr. Morrow, I don't know, I haven't looked at the file to try and determine that. Morrow: One final question with respect to the annexation, if it is not a noticed agenda item can we act on an annexation, anything to do with the annexation tonight? Crookston: No because it is not on the agenda. You wouldn't have to have an additional public hearing unless you desired to have one. Since it is not on the agenda you don't have the authority to act on the annexation. Morrow: Even to order an annexation ordinance. Crookston: That is correct. (Inaudible) Rountree: That answers my question whether we can take action on it or not. I wouldn't be opposed to doing that if it was doable. Crookston: You cannot on the annexation. Corrie: We could take the public hearing on the preliminary plat and the variance and act on the annexation on the 20th as well as the variance on the preliminary plat as well, do all 3 at that time as long as we notice the annexation for the 20th. Should we go ahead and do the (inaudible) Crookston: If you desired to have, the annexation is not on the agenda, you cannot even ask that prepare an annexation ordinance. Corrie: That I understand, what I am trying to get at is what do we do with the variance and preliminary plat now. We can have the annexation on the 20th, can we just put all of it on the 20th and do it all or do the annexation and the variance, and the preliminary now. Morrow: If I am understanding you right we can have the public hearing for that stuff now and continue it, the only thing we can do on the 20 is as a Council it will appear on our agenda that the annexation issue is going to appear and then at that point in time the Council's desire to move for preparation of an ordinance that is all that happens on the 20th and then the first meeting in September the ordinance is read, we approve the ordinance and then at that point in time the annexation has occurred then we can do the preliminary plat and the variance in that sequence. Corrie: Is that correct Counselor? Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 27 of 53 Crookston: Basically yes it is, since the preliminary plat and the variance are on the agenda, and you have held the public hearings on them you can request that findings be prepared on the variance. There are no findings required on the plat. You can table the plat until and you cannot act on the plat until the property is annexed. Morrow: We can't act on the variance until it is annexed either. Crookston: That is correct, but you also need findings on that. Corrie: We can ask for findings. Crookston: Yes you can Corrie: Do you see what we are in here Mike? Ballantyne: Certainly, it has to be, by the way on June 4 the City Council, I was looking through my notes tabled the annexation request until August 20, 1 believe it was August 20. So it would be brought up August 20 anyway. (Inaudible) Corrie: Any further comment or questions of Mike in reference to the preliminary plat? Ballantyne: Let me make sure I have this clear, on August 20 we come back we go through the annexation, if the City Council so desires an ordinance is prepared for September 3, at the same time we would do the preliminary plat and the variance or we would have to wait until September 3 for that? So on September 3 could the annexation, preliminary plat and variance all be approved? Corrie: We may do the findings of fact of the variance tonight and then we will have to table until the 20 on the preliminary plat. Ballantyne: You can do findings of fact for a variance for a piece of property that isn't annexed yet. Corrie: We can write them. Ballantyne: I just don't want 30 days from now to have the same discussion. Crookston: What is your comment Shari? Stiles: I know it is unusual but is it at all possible that Council and staff be able to review more closely what has transpired on this project and that to have an ordinance ready for the 20th? Crookston: You cannot have that because the annexation is not on the agenda tonight. Stiles: But it was tabled to the 20th at least according to Mr. Ballantyne. Morrow: Either way what it amounts to is that you can't order an annexation ordinance until the 20th of August whether you go with what it is we are doing tonight or whether you went with the original tabling from the June meeting. So it is a very short agenda item on the 20th that the Council simply requests an annexation ordinance to be prepared. Then it is prepared and acted on, I believe it would be the September 3 meeting, the first Tuesday. Stiles: Would Council entertain the idea of having a special meeting should that be approved on the 20th to enact that ordinance prior to the 3rd? Morrow: Well I think that you have to consider the whole month of August we are spending in budget meetings and special meetings as it is. Plus we have at the end the Labor day weekend Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 28 of 53 and we will have adoption of the final budget the first part of September is that correct. Corrie: What is the essence of time here Shari, I feel urgency of some reason here. Is it with USDA? Stiles: Yes it is, they have instead of going through the Ada County process and to get their building permit through Ada County they wanted to go through the City and to be able to obtain their building permit through the City. If it is not annexed we can't issue a building permit. Morrow: Well I recognize you can't issue a building permit, have their plans and specs been submitted yet? Stiles: Yes they have. Morrow: When were they submitted? Stiles: Mr. Whitman agreed to put those through in anticipation of this annexation coming about and it has probably been, I don't know you will have to help me Mike? Ballantyne: I am not sure when Mr. Northrop submitted those, it has been a month approximately is that right Shari maybe less. Stiles: I just feel responsible because I tried to inform them of their critical path and I feel it is my fault. Corrie: Does August 27th give you any better breathing room of them? Ballantyne: I think the difference between August 27 and September 3 is insignificant. I don't believe there is any reason for the City Council to sit in special session for a week. I appreciate the efforts that Shari is making. Corrie: So the September 3 would be okay for you. Any questions on the preliminary plat to Mike? Thank you Mike any other public testimony on the request for preliminary plat for Ballantyne Troutner Business Park? Crookston: I think that you still need to ask if there is any testimony on the variance. Corrie: Okay, now is there any further public testimony on the variance for Ballantyne Troutner Business Park. Council, discussions on the preliminary plat, we probably need to table that one to the September 3. Bentley: Do we need to continue? Corrie: No we don't need to continue the public hearing on it. Bentley: Then we need to close. Corrie: Well that is what your discussion is going to be and then if we are ready to do that. If we are I will close the public hearing for the preliminary plat, entertain a motion on the table for the preliminary plat. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we table the preliminary until September 3 Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that we table the preliminary plat until September 3, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 29 of 53 MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas (End of Tape) Corrie: I will now close the public hearing for the variance on the Ballantyne Troutner Business Park, and any discussion? We are looking for a motion for the findings of fact for the variance. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions of law for the variance for the block length for the cul-de-sac in excess of 450 lineal feet and for the tiling of the Eight Mile lateral. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to request findings of fact and conclusions of law be drawn up for the variance, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas Corrie: Then we will order the annexation be heard on the 20th as well, and then you come back on the 20th to hear the findings of fact on the other as well. ITEM #17: REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARY BUILDING FOR AN ITINERANT MERCHANT PERMIT BY DOUGLAS HILL: Corrie: Mr. Hill? Hill: I am Douglas Hill representing the Hill's Farmer's Market in Meridian. We are here to request for a temporary building for an itinerant merchant permit. I think most of you are aware of the reason why. I have talked to most of you on the phone anyway. I had one plot drawn up for you earlier and I turned it in with my application for the itinerant merchant permit. I also had some done up (inaudible) Anyway I guess I just open this up for questions of what, do you have any on what our intent is and what we would like to do? Corrie: Council, any questions for Mr. Hill? Bentley: I would like to hear for the record what your intent on the move. Hill: Our intent on the move is because where we are not we were given notice not too long ago that they would no longer renew our lease. And so we had to kind of scramble for a new spot. Knowing that the Foodtown was going out and that Idaho Youth Ranch had purchased that property I approached them about moving there. Something we have done, we went ahead and purchased the building where we are, I have got with Daunt your Building Inspector, had him go down and inspect the building to get his opinion about how it was structurally to be moved and everything. He thought it would be just fine. Our intent is once we get over there and get set up on a temporary basis is go through the proper procedures which I am just learning about, so I don't know all the right words. Anyway go through all the proper procedures to turn our building into a permanent structure and bring it all up to code according to what the City Ordinances are and to become a firm part of the City here and have more of a stable situation for a business. Morrow: Mr. Hill are you purchasing this property or leasing this property? Hill: We are going to be leasing the property. Idaho Youth Ranch has put under consideration the possibility of us buying the property. I have proposed a proposal to them but in the meantime they are considering that proposal. They seem in favor of it but I can't speak for them of course. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 30 of 53 Morrow: One final question is will there be adequate parking at this site for your facility? Hill: Yes there is, on the preliminary plat that I had drawn up before that I turned in with my application, one thing we did on that is I don't know how many of you are aware with how the parking is down there but before the configuration of the parking had the cars going in at 2 different angles like this and parking. Part of the parking actually went into King Street there. What we proposed is just to make single parking going in the straight I guess it would be north and south direction and then get those cars off of that public road there and make that a better situation for getting in and out and increase safety that way. Also, Idaho Youth Ranch is planning to submit plans to you to put extra parking in back of the existing Foodtown building there. Shari knows about how many parking spaces we need per square foot but basically we are going to end up with about 2000 square foot of merchandising space. Was it a parking space for every 400 or every 200 for parking? Stiles: The parking space requirement is per 200 square feet of the gross floor area. Hill: We figured about 12 spaces in there so we would have more than adequate parking. That seemed to be Shari's major concern about that. The one thing we do want to express to the Mayor and Council is that we have a desire to bring that property up and the looks of it improvement as far as improving the looks of it. Plus when we go through and updating our building and getting it all up to code and everything we want to work with the City and get it just the way you would like to have it because we feel it is in our advantage to have a beautiful safe building for the public to come shopping at. I think it will only enhance our building and help the City of Meridian. Corrie: Thank you, Council discussion? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I don't have any problem with this application, the Hill's run a nice neat operation where they are currently located and I have no reason to believe that they wouldn't at this location. It seems to fill a need within the community for fresh produces. Tolsma: I know that I have had a lot of comments from the people living in that area (Inaudible) that they are tickled to death that this is coming back in there. Corrie: Any further comments? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we grant a temporary building permit and itinerant merchant permit to Douglas Hill, I am sorry I have a comment or question from the Counselor concerning a time period, elaborate please. Crookston: I am not aware of an ordinance provision that provides for a temporary building. If it is the Council's desire as the Council has indicated I don't think it is wise to allow that temporary building to exist past any period of time that the Council says. Morrow: Well historically have we not done one-year temporaries on sales offices for subdivisions, the bank is a good example (inaudible). Crookston: I think the past there have been years but I think predominantly it has been 6 months. Bentley: May I ask a question of Mr. Hill, what is your expected time frame on this? Hill: Our intent is that if we can possibly do it I am not sure what all the time frames are for going through and getting all of the necessary approvals and requirements met. I have learned a lot here listening to you guys here tonight but our intent is if we could we would like to get it up and going for this winter. But I don't know if we could actually do that according to what the laws are. We want to be up and going full time year round by this coming spring. I would like to definitely have it all the way done by March, completely done. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 31 of 53 Morrow: Mr. Mayor, it seems to me that based on Mr. Hill's comments that a year might be too short of a period for a temporary maybe what it would be in our benefit to do and his benefit to do is to do it for a two year period and then in that interim either it can become a permanent situation or at the end of 2 years he could come and request an extension of the temporary from the Council in some time period. Rountree: And that would be language of the interim itinerant merchant permit as opposed to a building permit type of thing. Corrie: So you have 24 months temporary approval (inaudible) Morrow: Are we not dealing with 2 issues here that the itinerant merchant permit is a separate issue from the temporary permit for the building. Crookston: Correct Morrow: So I think what my motion would be is that we grant the temporary permit for the building for a two year time period and that we grant the itinerant merchant permit as per those provisions. Hill: So it would be concurrent with one another. Morrow: (Inaudible) Crookston: The itinerant merchant permit I think under the ordinance can only go for 90 days. Hill: They sent me a lot of information on that. Morrow: So let me ask you this then, does that mean every 90 days we need to renew the itinerant merchant permit, (inaudible) Crookston: He would need to come back and request that permit be renewed. Morrow: Can we not get him a better permit then? (Inaudible) why is he doing an itinerant permit if we are doing a 2 year time frame on the building. Hill: May I interject here, I believe the reason they are having us do that and Mayor Corrie mentioned this, due to the fact that we have almost zip time to get moved and warning that we weren't going to be allowed where we are anymore Mayor Corrie suggested the itinerant merchant so we could legally operate. Then I think from (inaudible) from the time we get our itinerant merchant permit if we started right now within the next three months we could probably be approved to go ahead and get everything going for our permanent deal where we would have (inaudible) conditional use permit. Corrie: I believe the City Clerk issues the itinerant merchant permit for 90 days at a time and all we need to do tonight is approve his building for 24 months or whatever you want. The City Clerk can issue those as he needs to. But we need to get the permit for the building. Morrow: So if I understand Counselor you concur then the Council doesn't need to take any action on the itinerant merchant permit that is something that is done by the clerk without the Council action. Crookston: That is correct, he has to pay whatever fees are involved (inaudible) Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 32 of 53 Morrow: So then what we want to do is we want to separate that from the motion. The motion would be that we grant a temporary building occupancy site for a 2 year period. Corrie: (Inaudible) I didn't want Doug to move the building and then suddenly he couldn't do it. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion is made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to approve a 24 month temporary building on this site, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas Corrie: Okay you have 24 months, you can move that building down there for 24 months or until you get it put on a permanent basis and get your itinerant merchant permit from the City Clerk for 90 days at a time. Hill: Just by the way, since we are done here, I just want to thank everybody from the Mayor down through all the people that (inaudible) have been very considerate and thoughtful towards. We want to express our thanks to you. ITEM #18: REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TEMPORARY SEPTIC TANK BY RON VAN AUKER: Corrie: Is Mr. Van Auker here? Van Auker: Mr. Mayor and Council members and staff, what we are here to do tonight is to request an extension actually of a permit that had expired for a septic tank on Commercial Court which will service the building where (inaudible). The reason for the expiration, you gave us one year and as you know the sewer has been in the planning stages is now totally engineered. We had an agreement with all of the people that had attended the meetings, both some of the industries and some of the property owners that we had to come across. As you recall you helped us get across a portion of that with some easements and then one of the people that had attended all of the meetings and then elected not to allow the permit. I believe that was Elixir Industries. Mr. Roland (inaudible) will be in again next week and we are working with them and I think they have an urgency to get it done because they need a building permit over there. This is all kind of coming together but it is a little bit late based upon us having a tenant that is going t need sewer service. We can service that industry with a septic tank short term and converting then obviously as we had originally anticipated to sanitary sewer when it gets there. My request is that you extend the time or the permit status and then Tom Schmalz and their group at Central District Health can then go ahead and issue that permit. I think they have to issue the septic tank permit you have to give us the right of the extension to use the septic tank on that particular location. Because obviously we are in the city with that lot. Have I confused that? Morrow: I have a question, with respect to Elixir, was it not Mr. Clayton that represented those folk at the meetings that we (inaudible). As I recall there were adamant supporters of this what has gone south, why are we upside down here. Van Auker: I think quite frankly Mr. Clayton and it had been the representation to us and Albertson and all of the parties out there and as you recall it was really rather interesting not to belabor the point here but Santa Clara Plastics was looking forward to taking the building which Albertson's presently is in but soon will vacate because they are building a 76,000 square foot addition, but they are not in the City so obviously they don't need necessarily the permits. But at that time they were desperately interested, and if you recall we were kind of all for the annexation and to bringing the sewer across. There was a period of time where we said we don't need it now so we will back away. And they said please don't because we have this deal with Santa Clara. We reinstated our permit status with Gary and anyway we were moving along at a pretty good Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 33 of 53 clip and we spent $57,000 with Power Engineers for a complete engineered sewage system and ready to build it and they pulled the plug and I have no idea why. Roland will be in as I said next week, Mr. Clayton has said that he has been working to assist to get that. I think quite frankly there is a lot of things happening out there. There are two things that are going to have to happen, number one somebody is going to have to have a permit, they have a piece of property they want to sell it and we will require a permit. I think that is what is bring this all to a head. Morrow: Who is Roland? Van Auker: Roland (inaudible) is gentleman that owns the major portion of the stock of Elixir Industries. Morrow: So he is the one that can make it happen. Van Auker: He can make it happen and technically and I don't believe in litigation but they kind of have us strung out a long ways. It was surely represented to us by their representative that we should go forward with it not only on our behalf but their behalf. But again time has a way of taking care of things like this. I think what we are requesting is the right to use the tank, the beneficial right to use the tank by the City. Extending that one year time period that you gave us. We will then get with Central District Health with your permission. Then the minute we get that right for the easements down through there we are ready (inaudible) go forward with the sewer. It is kind of a long story to get around to where we are at tonight. Corrie: You are asking for an extension of one year? Van Auker: Yes and I only say that because I guess we had the right for one year, if you did it in a one year increment but that does not mean we will wait a year to get it done. Corrie: Other questions? Any further questions from Council to staff? Morrow: Do either of you have any comments? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members I don't, no. Mr. Van Auker is responding to a letter that I wrote to him concerning the one year time limit. I might say that Mr. Clayton came and talked to me one day and asked the possibility of locating the sewer line along the south side of their paved roadway rather than in the paved roadway. I told him that I would take a look at it, that paved roadway is a private road and they didn't want to disturb the asphalt apparently. I don't know how good the asphalt is but if they are going to develop they are also going to need to put a water line down there. I don't know if that means that they would then request that the water line be located off the north side of the asphalt or not, I suspect they would. I haven't returned an answer to him on that. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we grant a one year extension for the septic permit for septic tank to July 12, 1997. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma to extend the septic tank approval to July 12, 1997, is there any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas Corrie: When is Richards and Brothers moving in, do you have a time, just for my own edification? ITEM #19: REQUEST FOR A PRIVATE ROAD BY ST. LUKE'S HOSPITAL: Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 34 of 53 Corrie: Anybody from St. Luke's that wants to speak at this time. Morrow: Is anybody familiar with what the issue is, there is no documentation in my packet other than that private road evaluation sheet. Rountree: Is it their approach off the signal? Corrie: Is it Shari? Rountree: That is just a parking lot approach at this point. Stiles: I don't know where this request is coming from unless it has to do with the property across the street they are proposing a public street to be dedicated. Rountree: And the way I read this is if that is the case then that little stub there gets the same name if they want to put a name on it. Otherwise they can leave it without a street sign. Stiles: Yes Tolsma: Is this the stop light street or the next street out? (Inaudible) Stiles: I don't even know where the request came from except that we have this from the Street Name Committee, private streets do need to be approved by the City Council. If it is just because they want to put a name up I would think that is fine. If it is some kind of posturing so that the street across Eagle Road won't be considered public I don't know, I don't know what the purpose is except to maybe just put a sign up. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would suggest that we table this to August 20 for clarification on the part of St. Luke's or whoever is submitting this application. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to table to August 20 until we find out some information from St. Luke's Hospital, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? ITEM #20: COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS FOR WINGATE NO. 2: Corrie: Counselor or somebody have that? Crookston: I have reviewed it and I have approved it. I submitted the covenants to Will. I submitted them to him before the end of last week, even before that. Corrie: So you have looked at them and you have approved them? Crookston: I requested some changes and those changes were made. (Inaudible) Morrow: (Inaudible) approve the covenants conditions and restrictions for Wingate No. 2 subject to the Attorney confirming that his approved set is in fact what we are adopting. I don't have a problem with doing it in that manner. So moved Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 35 of 53 Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma, any further discussion of the motion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas ITEM #21: WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES: Corrie: This is to inform you in writing if you choose to you have the right to a predetermination hearing at 7:30 P.M. August 6, 1996 before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and defend the claim made by this City that your water, sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain Counsel. This service will be discontinued on August 7, 1996 unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present that wishes to contest their water, sewer or trash delinquency? Hearing none, you are hereby informed you may appeal or have this decision of the City reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho Code. Even though they appeal their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn off list is $13,860.07, Council, entertain a motion. Morrow: So moved Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made that the turn off list be approved, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas ITEM #22: APPROVE BILLS: Morrow: So moved Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma to approve the bills, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas ITEM #23: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: Corrie: Mr. Smith? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, first item that I have is late comers agreement for Nelson McAlvain for extension of a water line on Eagle Road. I guess the question that I have maybe is more directed to City Attorney. But they have requested and I think you have a copy of it in your packet a reimbursement of all of those costs for the installation of that water line. I just need to know how many of those costs are attributable to the construction of the water line. I guess the big question would be overhead and profit. Morrow: I have some questions there, concerning this. Their request, are these numbers subtracting the amount of water line it takes to service their property? Is this a net number? Smith: I don't know that it is a net number, but we would have to take their property out of the formula. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 36 of 53 Morrow: The other thing is with respect to the profit and overhead and all do respect to McAlvain and Construction but the industry standard is a gross of 10% not a cost plus 5% overhead plus 10% add on top of that. Capitalism is great but the rest of us labor under a different pricing structure. Those are the two questions that I have. Smith: I don't know the answer to the first question, but the serving of their property by this line would have to be deducted from the formula. Crookston: A late comers agreement hasn't been prepared has it? Smith: No it has not. The Ordinance 5-124 B states that the actual engineering and construction cost is what is to be used. Morrow: And that excludes profit and overhead numbers? Smith: That is my question, I don't know if construction costs include overhead and profit or not. We do make an adjustment on an annual basis of that latecomers fee which would give consideration to interest earned on the money if they had not invested it in the water or sewer line, whatever has been constructed. Morrow: How would we determine what we have done in the past then with respect to those costs? Smith: This is the first time I guess that we have seen the overhead and profit come in on the cost of a project. Typically we see a contractor's bill to install the facility. Overhead and profit hasn't been split out as separate items. It has just been a construction cost of so much and I suppose that overhead and profit would have been included in that construction cost by a contractor as part of their bid. Morrow: Is this something that we maybe need to talk about as a Council in a planning session and determine what the definition of cost is going to be. Is that appropriate? Smith: Yes Rountree: Unless there is a specific definition then for the ordinance. Smith: There isn't in our ordinance in our definition of terms cost is not an item Corrie: Then that is what we had better do. Rountree: We need to clarify that. But then all you see in the billing is it hidden in the construction cost you don't see it broken out as overhead or profit or fixed fee or whatever. Morrow: What we can do by virtue of the late comers agreement we can spell out what it is we want to see in the billing format does as. Smith: Do you just want to take it up at a planning session then and decide what cost is. Morrow: I think for speed sake we will do it on the 27th of this month. Smith: Thank you, do I have a second item for the Golf Course. The first item is an addition to the pump house required for the second nine holes to house the new pump or an additional pump. They have submitted an estimated cost of or a bid for $6900 to construct that pump house addition. Do you have a copy of that in your packet? Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 37 of 53 Morrow: I think the issue here is, that is well below the required limit for the bid but since it was submitted on a proposal (inaudible) we needed to as a Council authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. So that is the reason for this being an agenda item. Corrie: Are we going to include the $270 Walt with that $6900, the second item electrical bid at $270 is not included in the above price, we are going to include that in there. Morrow: Yes that will make it $7170 or we can just accept the proposal as written. Gary in terms of, do you want to accept it as $7170 or $6900 plus the $270? Smith: I don't know what the electrical bid includes Walt. Morrow: I guess the other side of the coin is that based on what the proposal is broken down and the Council raises a good point is that he is proposing to do the work as spelled out in terms of the plans and specs for $6900, he is also calling to our attention that the $270 worth of electrical work is not included in his price. So we will stay with the $6900 if it is our desire to have him or his subcontractor do the $270 then we can do that by change order since that is well under the $25,0000 and it would be presented to us in a different format. So I think we stay with the $6900. If there is no objection on the part of the Council then I would move that we accept the proposal from Bob Frost Construction in the amount of $6900 for the pump house addition of Cherry Lane Golf Course. Rountree: Second Morrow: Authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest. Rountree: Second again Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to accept the additional building of the 10 foot by 12 foot pump house for $6900, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas Smith: Thank you, we have two contract change orders on the golf course construction, one is schedule one and that had to do with the changing of the sprinkler heads from plastic to stainless steel, a net increase in price of $6,440. Corrie: I don't have that one Gary. Smith: Let me run and make copies. Morrow: While he is gone I will bring you up to speed where we are with the golf course construction. We have got all of our costs in (inaudible) the last thing that we are doing is putting up a temporary (inaudible) the rest of the items he will be discussing is changes we have made in sprinkler heads also in the size of the lateral lines off of the main line so we don't have any supply problems with respect to water. We are on budget, the next committee meeting will be the 19th. So we will be (inaudible) construction superintendents as to where we are at. We should anticipate seeing seeding in the early part of September (inaudible). Tolsma: (Inaudible) Morrow: Who did the layout originally? Tolsma: (Inaudible) Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 38 of 53 Morrow: Silver Creek is doing the supply stuff but it came from Evergreen, the person that works for Evergreen (inaudible) it was designed for (inaudible) Silver Creek was the successful materials bidder. (Discussion Inaudible) Corrie: Would you like to tell us about Whitestone Estates Subdivision development agreement while we are waiting? Crookston: Yes, the development agreement is pretty much, I have given it to Will and Shari and have gone over it somewhat. I am going to contact Whitestone's attorney and talk to him about the proposed changes that Shari and I talked about. I have not done that yet, we talked about it Monday and I will do that. But also the same idea pertains to the lift station agreement for Whitestone. Morrow: So it doesn't take any action on our part it is just a status report Crookston: That is correct, you would have to approve the development agreement when we get it all done and they agree and we agree. You won't know whether we agree until I get it to you. At least I can tell you then I think it is acceptable and then you can decide whether or not to agree or not. Corrie: Do you have anything else sir while we are waiting? Crookston: Not while we are waiting no. Corrie: Chief, moving right along here. I have one for you, I guess I can bring it up it is that agreement between the police departments do you want to touch on that mutual aid agreement real quick. I think each one of them has this synopsis of it to just explain what it is and what we are doing. Gordon: The memorandum of agreement is a mutual aid contact between the City of Boise Police Department and the Meridian City Police Department. What this entails is that now our City limits touch there is a lot of times where our cars are in their areas and their cars are starting to end up in our areas. This allows us to assist them in emergency situations and vice versa. This basically is just a legal agreement that covers both officers and both departments. This is the one I mentioned last night and the Chief of Police in Nampa has approached me to also sign one because of the amusement park going on the east end of his boundaries. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, has our Counselor reviewed this? Corrie: Not yet, he just got it and I want him to review it and then Crookston: Excuse me I have reviewed it and there are some minor comments that I had and I believe that a copy was brought down to City Hall. Corrie: Of your comments? Crookston: Yes Corrie: I haven't see it yet. Gordon: This agreement has been signed, this particular agreement has been signed between Boise and Garden City so we are not the first. Corrie: The Mayor's met Monday and we all went over this, Garden City has done it. Gary Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 39 of 53 Smith: This is a proposed contract change order for Schedule No. 1 which has to do with furnishing of the supplies, the irrigation supplies. It is a delete of the plastic sprinkler heads of which there are 805 and an addition of supplying stainless steel sprinkler heads 805 for a net increase of cost of $6,440. The reason for this change is that the sprinkler heads will not provide suitable durability as originally bid. Attached, there are no additional days involved in the contract time. I didn't copy the back page of that change order form for you but there is specified no additional days. (End of Tape) Morrow: Motion to approve the change order in the amount of $6440 for the stainless steel sprinkler heads. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma, any further discussion? So the contract price would be then $72,714.51 Gary? Smith: Yes Corrie: Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas Smith: There is another change order that has been requested on the golf course project for the Schedules 2 and 3 and I will pass a copy of that out to you. The description of the changes that are requested are listed in the table, pumping system, addition of $14,900, adding a pond pipe line, and adding disking, land planning and seed bed tool and seeding. Corrie: Where does this put our grand total? Morrow: Our grand total in terms of the entire project right now in terms of these and with these change orders in our contingency monies is slightly less than $350,000. Corrie: So we are under the $350,000 that includes all of the gifts and all of that is that correct? Morrow: No Corrie: So we are at the $350,000 below the $350,000 in the City? Morrow: Well the City actual amount is an excess of $350,000 the actual number is like $360,750 or something like that, it is 555 lots times $650 is what the actual amount of the City borrowing is. At this point in time, I don't remember the exact numbers but we were right around $350,000 some dollars and we had contingency monies of $10,000 some odd dollars. So at this point we are within budget. What I will prepare for the Council for our next meeting is that when we (inaudible) we are still waiting for some numbers from Janice with respect to the Paul White and the Dennis Marshall monies. When we have that all defined then at our Council meeting on the 20th I will make a total budget presentation available to all of the members of the Council and staff. At this point in time we are under budget. Corrie: I was just curious because we had a $322,000 approved last time and then we got another $56,000 that would make it $370,000 something if my math is halfway close. So as long as you have looked at the figures I guess we are under that. Did we not approve $322,000 something last time? Smith: I don't know Mayor I can't recall Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 40 of 53 Morrow: Bob we didn't do it in that format, we approved components. Corrie: I mean we approved that amount of money to be done but we are adding $56,000 and eleven more to it. Smith: The original contract price on schedules 2 and 3 according to this document was $167,355 and then on the number one schedule the original contract that price was $66,000 so that would have been about $224,000 for schedules 1, 2 and 3 unless there was some other work being done at the same time. I just don't recall. Corrie: Well as long as we are in that budget frame I don't have any problem with it. I was thinking, there was something at $322,000 we approved and I was just curious if this was added to that and just how much more we have. Smith: I will have Brad double check those contract amounts that we have awarded tomorrow morning first thing. Corrie: I am sure Walt has been on top of it. Rountree: I have a question for Gary or Walt, are these items that were just overlooked in the bid or deleted for clarification later that were anticipated to be supplemental. Morrow: Very candidly they were items that we had no bidders on. So the issue is that what we have done with the exception of the sprinkler heads, they were bid, everybody, the three bidders that bid there all bid the plastics and we determined that wasn't the thing to do. With respect to the adding of the pump system there was no bidders for that, there was no bidders for the pipe line, the disking, the land planning the seeding we solicited that from Cloverdale because that is what they do in terms of their sod farm operation. The original proposal that we had through local agricultural guys were somewhere in the neighborhood of $9000 to $12,000, we thought we could get a better deal and better presentation from Cloverdale because we were using their equipment for the land leveling, the final land leveling and shaping and their number came back to be the $4050. So originally we had budgeted or proposal some $9000 for that and we were able to get that done for this amount of money. Rountree: So in actuality it isn't a contract change it is an additional contract for these unbid items. Morrow: That is absolutely correct. (Inaudible) Corrie: That doesn't require a bid that amount of money? Morrow: No Corrie: Any further discussion? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the change order, additional work order schedules numbers 2 and 3. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made that we approve the schedule 2 and 3 work order by Mr. Morrow and second by Mr. Rountree in the amount of $56,897, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 41 of 53 Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council, the next item that I have also concerns the golf course construction project and it has to do with perimeter staking for fairways 4 through 9 and part of number 3. Brad had included some money in the construction cost estimate for the staking and Hubble Engineering has provided us with an estimate of $2500 to do this work. This is an estimate so he is not sure exactly how long it will take to do it because of the high weeds out there. But this what he is anticipating. Morrow: Word of explanation, the purpose of this is there was staking and stuff there provided originally to Hubble's folks or the people that did the work for Ashford Greens. It was our desire to have those rehighlighted so that we had no sprinkler heads off of our property since we are taking the sprinkler heads to the property line and then sprinkling back in a 180 degree sweep. So, we have asked Hubble to do that, restaking that so that as installation goes it can be done one time and we don't have to worry about other utilities fences or contractors breaking our lines. Any questions? Rountree: Is this estimate close to what was in your estimated budget monies? Smith: He said it was within $60 of what we estimated in the construction. Corrie: Does this need Council approval? Morrow: Bob, my method of dealing with the Golf Course committee is that I want the Council to approve basically everything that we were doing so that everybody was on board with what it was (inaudible). It probably doesn't require Council approval, it could be done by purchase order but for sake of everybody being on board. (Inaudible) Corrie: I will entertain a motion for the $2500 for staking. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the $2500 for staking. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas Smith: Thank you, did you want to sign that or did you want me to sign that or how do you want to proceed? (Inaudible) I think the next item I have on the agenda is the City of Boise engineering department public works called me about a request to look at an adjustment to our impact boundary line. (Inaudible) I don't know what this is that Shari is given me this Ordinance #282 from the County. John Tenson called me from Boise City and asked me the possibility of including five lots from this Castlewood Subdivision I guess it is into their impact boundary for sewer service purposes. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Smith: I remember it distinctly north of here up on Edgeview. Corrie: This is the other side of the highway? Smith: This is the other side of the Interstate yes correct. Crookston: This is on the south side of the Interstate? Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 42 of 53 Smith: Yes Crookston: One that we previously did was on the north side and it is right along 1/4 mile west of Cloverdale Road. Because of the Ridenbaugh Canal Smith: Yes, correct, John Tenson faxed this to me and asked me if we would have any problems with proceeding to have them proceed to amend that area of impact boundary line. When Shari and I looked at the comp plat it already shows this piece as being excluded form our area of impact. So maybe this has happened previously and people had forgotten about it. Tolsma: I thought we addressed this before because the first one between Franklin and the Freeway and I thought they said we have this other one similar (inaudible) maybe we just talked about it (inaudible). Rountree: What is our action, just let them push forth with it or do we have to have an ordinance. Crookston: Unless it is already in the comprehensive plan as to the area of impact of the City it is up to the Council to do it. But it really is an amendment to the Comprehensive plan for our area of impact. Corrie: (Inaudible) it is in our original area of impact so it is (inaudible). I Crookston: This is a larger area than was done north of the freeway. Smith: He sent this out to me and he says as discussed sketch a proposed area of impact modification for your informal review and comment. Corrie: Can we send a letter to Sara Baker and (inaudible) they will just leave our north sector alone now and we will let them have that. Morrow: (Inaudible) voted against this type of thing because it is my belief that common sense dictates that the area of impact ought to be on the center line of a section line road now a 1/4 mile east, north or south of anything. But the second issue is and I am going to vote against this but the second issue here is I don't think that we ought be extending any niceties until in fact we get some issues resolved in the NE corner. I am kind of tired of being the guy on the bottom of the pole here all the time taking it down from the top. There is going to be a hearing this month that Shari is attending concerning a property that is the exact same (inaudible) also favors the City of Boise. Crookston: That hearing was supposed to be last night and Shari had always planned on going and she told me that she had requested some Council to go and the Mayor and you had a meeting last night of course. But the Council does need to attend those types of meetings when we are dealing with the area of impact. Corrie: They didn't have a quorum so they didn't have the meeting, it is going to be August 14. Crookston: They said that this particular matter was set off until September 4 or something like that. Stiles: (Inaudible) Corrie: September 9 then. Crookston: I would encourage the Council when it comes up again that to go to those meetings and testify. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 43 of 53 Rountree: I don't have quite as strong convictions about this as Walt does. I think I would probably accept this but the other matter he brings up I agree 100% that let them wait until we get our issues resolved. Bentley: I agree Smith: Do you want me to put that in the form of a letter to John Tenson or how would you like me to proceed? Rountree: Maybe you get the words from Walt. Corrie: I think I would just pen a letter to him Gary to tell him that we are still in negotiation with the Ada County Commissioners for the area of impact and until we get that settled we want to review all of our options. Crookston: And we would appreciate Boise's support of our position. Smith: I guess the last item that I have is the agreement that I gave you a copy of the scope of the agreement that Keller Associates has submitted to us for work to be done at the Waste Water plant. I don't know if you had a chance to review through that or not. We are needing to get into the bioselector analysis and primary clarifier design to increase the capacity of the plant to get it up to 8 million gallons per day. There is quite a dissertation on the work that they would do in order to accomplish these tasks. Rountree: Gary do we ever get into a situation where we have either value engineering or an outside evaluation of not only the scope of work that commits us to so much money for design activities but the amount of money it would commit us to for future infrastructure improvements. Or do we just accept this and you are comfortable based on your experience that what they are telling us is up to speed. Smith: We haven't had any value engineering done on anything such as this. I guess what we have been trying to do at this point is to upgrade the facilities so that they are as efficient as possible. Granted we are putting some money into that facility and not only to upgrade it efficiencies but also because of its age. Rountree: I understand. Smith: The next step is to from Keller's standpoint anyway is to add the primary clarifier which is one of the elements in the front end of the plant which effects the ability of the plant down stream to treat the waste. The primary clarification is of prime importance. But I didn't go out for a request for proposals for the work. We have been very pleased with Keller's work and his project engineer Dennis Suikonen has done a good job, had very few change orders. Everything has been covered; the bids have been good from the contractors. The preparation plans have been good. Things have worked as designed and so my interest some years ago was to get an engineer on line to do waste water work at the plant. To have an engineer on line not necessarily the same one perhaps a different one to do water design for us. I have used Keller at the plant pretty consistently and Tim Burgess on our pump houses and CH2M otherwise in our water system. Morrow: I think the other part of the answer to the question Charlie is that in our discussions in terms of the long term planning it was my desire that we get a menu of events that (inaudible) give us the biggest bang for the buck in terms of increase of capacity as quickly as possible so that we could get to where we needed to be with the 4 million gallons by November and follow right up with the 8 million gallons. So that menu has come forth and this was the first item. I think this gives us an extra 700,000 gallons or thereabouts Gary, once this is completed. Was that what we had talked about? Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 44 of 53 Smith: No, I think we are talking about 8 million gallons per day Walt. Morrow: No, I meant in terms of increments, like if the clarifier was the first thing done in the sequence getting from 4 million to 8 million if we got that done we would have 700,000 gallons coming on line or the capability of the 700,000. So instead of jumping immediately from 4 to 8 say, at the end of 1997 we would be 4,700,000 and then the next step we would take would be the next one that would give us the most increase in capacity. Smith: Right, and part of this work includes a hydraulic analysis of our pipes within the plant those pipes that lead from one element of the treatment process to the other and make sure we have the hydraulic capacity there for 8 million gallons there too. But as we have talked about in the past we are 13 months away from being out of capacity. Rountree: I just asked primarily to see where your comfort level is and if you are satisfied with the product you are getting. Smith: I am, and I have had a talk with Mr. Keller and Dennis Suikonen and a pretty frank discussion that we are spending some bucks with their firm and we expect to be treated a little differently than their average joe client as far as hourly rates. And they have responded in that regard. It wasn't a major reduction but it was a reduction. (Inaudible) Rountree: Well if that is a loaded rate then that is not too bad. Smith: I think Dennis is $70 something, I know when we are talking to CH2M's upper echelon they are well over $100 an hour. These guys have been very responsive to; they have been really good to work with. Rountree: That is all I needed, I just wanted to make sure that your comfort level was there. Smith: It is Corrie: This is the first phase Gary? Smith: Right, this gets us into this bioselector business and the primary clarifier which is the first kind of step or kick off point for getting to the 8 million gallons. Morrow: (Inaudible) Smith: Did you see the amount of money that they are requesting, we need to enter that into the minutes (inaudible) $56,468 is the lump sum amount. Then they would do the construction is done on an hourly rate time and material basis. Rountree: So this gets you through your design through bidding? Smith: Yes Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the proposal by Keller and Associates in the amount of $56,468 for the bioselector (inaudible) primary clarifier design work. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma to approve the agreement of $56,468, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 45 of 53 MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas Smith: I believe that is all I have unless you have any questions of me that has come up in the last couple of weeks. Corrie: Thank you Gary, Bill? Shari? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I had several items that should have been on the agenda tonight however I have not completed my work in regard to those items. I will try to have something to you within the next week so that you can at least have something to look at before the next meeting. Those were the (inaudible) space or the modular space we were talking about. I am waiting for some quotes on those. My dissertation on the capital improvements plan. And the fee schedule, I am still working on some rates from other cities. Particularly with regard to Boise City, it appears that our rates are not that far out of line but they charge for a great number of services that we provide that we don't currently charge any fee for. One item I would like to bring up tonight, I have an appointment with Larry Peterson who has the property directly south of the waste water treatment plant that we discussed before. He would like an answer, if you would like me to tell him the City is not at all interested in his property and to go ahead and sell his property to a developer I would like to be able to tell him the City has no interest or that we do. Morrow: I think from my perspective we discussed that before, I don't personally have any interest in that property. Rountree: I don't have any great aspiration for it. Stiles: Thank you, no buffer or nothing along the creek? Morrow: The buffer will be on our side of the creek Stiles: And the bike path. Morrow: The thing is that ultimately we went through this before, what is the definition of a buffer, how far does it ultimately get? The sewer plant has been there for 16 or 17 years, it is fairly obvious, and it is kind of a buyer before kind of deal. Knowing that there is an odor there, the odor goes several hundreds of yards away and to existing subdivisions that are already there. Stiles: How do we resolve the fact that his property is shown as a park and agricultural use if he wants to develop it. Rountree: We don't have to annex it. Stiles: True Corrie: I guess he can bring it in and ask for anything he wants I guess. Morrow: We show it on the comprehensive plan as being a potential park or slash residential site is that what the issue is? Stiles: It shows as a park agricultural, no single family homes. Morrow: Well his property is no different than anybody else that is on the comprehensive plan, he can come in (inaudible) go through the process and the Council has the option of either annexing or not annexing. (Inaudible) Stiles: Thank you, that is all. Corrie: Wayne? Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 46 of 53 Crookston: Rick Skinner the attorney for the bond for the economic development corporation desired to have a meeting on the 14 of August at 6:00 is that acceptable for those that are on the economic development corporation. I talked to the Mayor and he said it was. Corrie: I haven't had a chance to talk to Tom but I will talk to him tomorrow. Crookston: I talked to Tom, I initially set it up on the 12th and he told me he was going to be out of town but he was going to be back on the next Tuesday. (Inaudible) Corrie: If he can be there I have no problem, I guess the only one right now is Walt, we are going to have to get a couple more. Did you find out about appointments. Crookston: I did, this is about appointments of vacancies on economic development corporation and it states, these are your copies Bob, (inaudible) it says all vacancies on the board of directors however caused shall be filled by appointment of the City Council of the City of Meridian. What I have given you is a copy of the charter and the bylaws. I believe that (inaudible) Corrie: To be filled by them does that mean, who does the appointment here, Council appoints and approves or how does it work? Crookston: Council does really have any action other than approving things that it desires to do after the economic development corporation which is the board has acted. The City has to approve of the issuance of the bonds. What this is talking about is the corporation and how it functions. It says that the board of the economic development corporation fulfills the vacancies. Corrie: The board does the vacancies? Crookston: That is what it says. Corrie: So we have (Inaudible) Crookston: One of those is the by laws the other one is the charter that was granted by the City to the corporation. Those are not signed copies Bob but those are in fact copies of the signed copies. The City should have the initial document signed. Morrow: So what it amounts to Bob is at our next meeting we need to as a board of directors we will have to do two things. One is that we have got to appoint the board of directors has to appoint to fill the vacancies and then we would need to hold elections of officers for the board of directors since we didn't do it in January of this year when we should have done it. Crookston: That is correct, the Mayor is the President of the economic development corporation because he is the Mayor. The Secretary of the corporation is the President of the Council because he is the President of the Council. But we have elected Vice Presidents in the past. Morrow: Well actually Wayne of the five members of the board of members four of them are officers or elected officers. Crookston: (Inaudible) Corrie: So we are going to have to get two more for the board to fill the vacancies. Crookston: Walt was on the board because he was appointed and now that he is President of the Council the charter and bylaws say that the President of the Council is the Secretary, he can't fill two positions by one body (inaudible) Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 47 of 53 Corrie: So the 14th we can do that right? Crookston: Yes, that is all I have. Corrie: I had one question on this mutual agreement, were there any major changes? If there are no major changes I would like to get it to the Council and have a look at it or get this thing so we can approve it. Crookton: There were not any drastic changes. There were some changes, they are proposed changes (inaudible) Corrie: Chief, is that going to be okay for the next meeting? (Inaudible) Corrie: What else? Crookston: That is all. Corrie: Walt? Morrow: Nothing Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bentley? Bentley: I have a long list of things. Ordinance 649 that the great attorney sent us, why did we get this? Crookston: You got that because that is a change, the initial ordinance states that the noise violations would occur, I believe it is in paragraph B or C of I can't remember what the initial thing is now in paragraph that is number 2. It said that the (inaudible) between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. and that is the only place in the ordinance that said the time period. The new ordinance says all those things in the ordinance however they are described cannot be committed during the hours of 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. It shouldn't be adopted tonight because it is not on the agenda. I just wanted to inform you of it and have you thinking about it. Bentley: Okay, next, I think the Council needs to take a stand publicly on the 1 % initiative. Rountree: I agree (Inaudible) Morrow: (Inaudible) I think we ought to discuss it have some sort of formal press release that (inaudible) Corrie: (Inaudible) AIC has it written up. (Inaudible) Bentley: We got a letter here about a dog problem chewing up the cats. Do we have any comments on this Chief? Gordon: We have two dogs in custody down at the pound. They were, we had a complaint of them running at large, one is a large Dalmatian, and the other one is a large German Shepherd. This was approximately 3 or 4 weeks ago. The owner was sited, the dogs got out 2 or 3 days Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 48 of 53 ago and killed a neighbors cat. They were put back in the yard and we were unable to find the owner. They got out again today and they killed two more cats and were charging people. They charged the neighbor, we put her back into the house and the dogs were then incarcerated. We still have not, we found out that the owner of the dogs did not appear on the original complaint so there is a warrant issued for his arrest. We can't find him now to charge him with the additional charges of today which would be three more. I was going to talk with Council tomorrow on declaring the dogs a nuisance. The owner was to be notified tonight and served the summons, the additional summons and going to be requested to contact me and give me reasons why the dogs should not be destroyed. But that is going to be at the next meeting. Hopefully we are not going to do anything, the ordinance, animal ordinance says within 5 days we can destroy the animals if they are declared a nuisance. I think we probably should wait the two weeks and see if this guy contacts us. So that is where I am at there. The dogs are locked up they will not be out again. I know that neighborhood is really in an uproar we spent all day out there. So that is where I am on that. (Inaudible) Bentley: I have another question while you are here, how did the Remax party go? Gordon: Good, there weren't any problems this year. Other than the noise, it was the one individual that complained the year prior. (Inaudible) Bentley: Also, Bob, did Claire Bowman call you tonight? Corrie: Yes, he called the secretary and I said it was for the 20th, can we have it here at 7:00 on the 20th? (Inaudible) Bentley: He was going to show up tonight because he did not break his hip again. Corrie: (Inaudible) Bentley: One last thing, since we have the golf course fully underway now, I would like to see the Council request Mr. Lovan to come talk to us on two issues. One I would like to see a or hear from him a plan of action within a time frame on a clubhouse. And also I would like to have discussions with him on renegotiating the lease. Morrow: Well I think the issues there in terms of the clubhouse are yes; there should be some conversations there with respect to renegotiating the lease. The lease was signed and entered into in good faith some 17 years ago, I want be party of any renegotiation you live by a deal (inaudible). Mr. Lovan automatically wants to change the lease on his own that is an entirely different story. But in terms of us as a City aggressively pursuing renegotiation for a mistake that was made by the original Council if it is a mistake the mistake was that the lease was too long. The reality is that when his group leased that golf course in 1978 they did so with the expectation of having 18 holes within 2 years. 17 years later there -abouts they still don't have 18 holes. And so it is a two-sided street. (Inaudible) I kind of see it as a deal is a deal and word is a word. Good or bad you stick by it. That is as I see it now. (End of Tape) club house facilities although there are several other options there should he wish not to pursue a club house in the short term. There are other options that we have discussed within our golf course committee. (Inaudible) Morrow: The other options are that you can have somebody else build the club house and lease to a user. You could have somebody else operate a golf course club house and serve those functions and then at the end of a period of time (inaudible) such as typical lease hold Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 49 of 53 improvements are. Similar to what went on at Warm Springs Golf Course in Boise City with (inaudible). That particular golf course was built at no expense to the City but it was also (inaudible) I believe it was a 25 year period and then came (inaudible) at the end of that period of time which is about now. So there are all kinds of options that can go on there. The other thing is that Mr. Lovan's contract has a pick up date of I believe 5 years. He may choose to not pick up he may choose to pick up you don't know. The other is that (inaudible) Corrie: At one time he did mention that he was willing to talk about more than $6000 a year to me and I am not adverse to talking to him about it. Morrow: Well that is fine if he wishes to initiate the conversation Corrie: No, he told me he would at one time agree to that to talk about it and I think we should take him up on it. That is where I am coming from, he did say he thought that was not enough and he might negotiate more money for this lease. He said that so I think that is what he meant and take him up on it. Morrow: The only thing I can tell you at this point in time in terms of the bulk of work that we have done with the golf course expansion has not been a topic of conversation. Corrie: I am sure it hasn't. Morrow: The issue that has been a topic of conversation is getting the commitment on the road as we have discussed from the Ashford Green folks that (inaudible) brought to conclusion and say (inaudible) June of next year we should be having some plans with respect to the club house at that point in time. Corrie: I agree with that too, he doesn't own the land that he is sitting on now. That is Mr. Fuller's property. If the Council members want to (inaudible) Rountree: I would like to hear, I would like to get a full run down on that is going on with the golf course. I think Walt is prepared to do that at the next meeting. I think it would be good to have Wally tell us in terms of what we can hold him to what his plans are going to be. I am not opposed to asking but I don't know that it is worth a great amount of effort. I think if Mr. Lovan is not receptive to talking about the terms of the lease then there is no point in pursuing because I think the legal fees it would cost us way more than we benefit. I mean it is a pretty tight lease the way I read it. I wouldn't be opposed to ask him if he would be willing to talk about it. If he says now then that is it is a done deal. Morrow: I don't disagree with that. Bentley: I have one other question, the taxicab situation? Corrie: They are coming in to get their CUP and then we will have, I think you are working on the ordinances at this point. Crookston: I am working on a tax cab licensing. Corrie: I told Mike Daily that he had to get a CUP, he was working without one. He is coming in and seeing Planning and Zoning Director, hopefully he is, (inaudible). We have been in conversation to get that CUP done and I got a letter saying he was. Charlie? Rountree: Walt I mentioned earlier that Job Corps has approached me about wanting to come and talk to the City about what they are going to be doing in the community or have available to the community. I would request that we provide them whatever time you might have 15 minutes, 20 minutes, and a half hour at the next strategic planning meeting. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 50 of 53 Morrow: I think if they want to use 15 or 20 minutes or so I don't think it should exceed 1/2 hour Rountree: That is the 27th. I got a phone call from Mr. Aschenbrenner about his property. He seems to think he wants to sell it to the City for a park. I didn't carry on much of a conversation with him. He apparently has a building out there he thinks we might need as well. But I did mention Walt's name and he seems to think that Walt is an okay guy. He would like maybe you and I to go out and visit the property and (inaudible) off of Ustick. Corrie: He is not negotiating with the school district anymore? Rountree: He sold half of it to the school but he has a piece left that he would make us a real good deal on. The price didn't sound like a real good deal. Morrow: (Inaudible) touches about the east end of the Aschenbrenner Rountree: He apparently has a Quonset but that he feels. Morrow: I have been in his Quonset hut. Rountree: Well then you know what he is talking about, I haven't paid him a visit yet Morrow; Well it is just from years of acquaintance. So whenever you are ready to go out we will go out, we will get our scolding and be on down the road. Crookston: He is also a board member of Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. (Inaudible) Rountree: That is all I have. Bentley: Can I back up one more thing, I don't know if this was taken care of when I was gone or what but the letter from the Hawley Troxell (inaudible) concerning the (inaudible) Crookston: I have talked to Mayor Corrie about that. I suggested to him that I inquire a couple of other law firms to see what their charges for tax attorneys. I have done that, I got some reasonable figures from some people, from one that I know quite well. He is not a tax attorney, he is from Holland and Hart, and he told me that their billing is $155 to $165 an hour for the senior individual, that the junior partners would be $125 to $135. 1 got figures from Steven Bradbury at Everly Berlin, Mr. Bradbury is not a tax attorney but I just called him because I know him. He got the figures from their tax attorney, he said their tax attorney was $135 an hour junior or senior. I talked to (inaudible) I am not sure of the individual I talked to (inaudible) he said their fees were $160 an hour. Corrie: So we are in a ball park? Crookston: I don't think you are. Corrie: What are the figures they are giving us? Crookston: Holland Hart which is a national firm said $155 to $165 an hour for the senior tax person, $125 to $135 for the junior individual. Steven Bradbury I asked him and he said $135 an hour for the younger, he put me on hold and talked to another attorney and said that would be the fee for the senior attorney also. Corrie: What are our charges from Hawley Troxell? Crookston: It is $170 for Mr. Erickson and $160 for Mr. Taylor. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 51 of 53 Corrie: And they are both tax attorneys and Erickson has been with the IRS. Crookston: That is correct. Morrow: Well I think you have to analyze not only what you are paying for (inaudible) Corrie: And I think Erikson is one fine attorney, he sure is doing a good job, for us and Eagle both and he is cutting the prices, even at those prices he is cutting it half and half with Eagle right now. We are doing the same thing. So figure about half those hours Crookston: Well the fee is the same (Inaudible) Corrie: My suggestion is we stay where we are and get this thing done. Morrow: (Inaudible) Corrie: Ron? Okay, I have two things, Planning and Zoning Board replacement for Tim. I need to appoint a person for the vacancy there and get your approval. I would be appointing Keith Borup of Borup Construction to fill Tim's place. So I need either a yea or nay on him. Morrow: Let me ask you this Bob did you interview him and discuss the things you and I discussed (inaudible) Corrie: I felt comfortable, he was quite emphatic that even though he was a member of that which Tim was also it had no bearing on his decisions of what the Planning and Zoning would do and he would follow what the Council wants. I am very comfortable with Keith, I did pursue that pretty heavily with him to make sure (inaudible) I am quite comfortable with Keith and so is Jim Johnson and so are the other members of the board. So I have appointed him and I need your approval. Morrow: I would move for approval. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded for Keith Borup to replace Tim, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas Corrie: Also I have been requested from the ordinance to appoint the nine members for the Parks and Recreation Commission. We have Charlie Rountree will be for the City, Jim Keller Meridian School District, Walt Casey from Western Ada Recreation District. Keith Bird, Meridian Athletic Association, Wally Lovan from Cherry Lane Golf Course, City Planning and Zoning would be Keith Borup, The Mayor's Parks and Recreation Committee would be Tammy DeWeerd, and the other two would be Dave Costello with PAL and Vern Croft from the general public and ex officio Dennis Summers. That gives you your nine with (inaudible) Dennis Summers. Morrow: I have a question on a couple of those. With respect to Keith Borup is it fair to put Keith Borup on something this soon when he has very little experience in terms of City stuff as opposed to somebody else from P & Z or is there not anybody else? Corrie: There is not anybody else interested in doing it. I talked to him already. (Inaudible) Morrow: I want to make sure, you also have the guy doing some transportation stuff and it looks to me like Corrie: He might cancel out on that one. Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 52 of 53 Morrow: It is going to over power him and he has not a lot of experience and we can't expect a lot of stuff from him. I just want to make sure that you don't have somebody here that is overburdened (inaudible) not enough background to make decisions. Corrie: I understand your point there but the others don't want to do it. Morrow: If the others don't want to do it then that is the choice that you have got. I guess I have a question with respect to Dave Costello in terms of PAL, I recognize that is the Police Activities League but I wonder if we ought to have somebody in the general at large that has a specific interest and we would be (inaudible) criticism from some of the other organizations (inaudible) the decision may have gone against something that they may have wanted (inaudible) not quite what it is. (Inaudible) What I am hearing is amongst all of these organizations there are lots of turf wars and it may be in our best interest to have folk on that committee and those three general public positions that have no turf. Corrie: The only turf that is brought up is with the CYSL which is in Boise. Dave Costello has the backing of about 1400 parents, I think you start playing with that you are going to ask for trouble. know you are under no obligation but I am just saying he is very active and he wants to see that the kids and the parks and rec gets going. He is very active and I thought that would be a good place to have feedback from 1400 parents. That is what we are after (Inaudible) Bentley: I also think they would have a better chance of maybe helping to quell the turf wars (inaudible) Corrie: Actually the turf war is not a turf war, it is a matter of trying to find space to have soccer. Rountree: PAL I think has taken care of their issue as far as that goes. They have gone out and have agreements on spaces identified and areas that they are going to improve. I don't, I would like to think about the mix and I would like you to give me those names Bob so I could think about before I did anything tonight. My first reaction is having talked to all have them with the exception of DeWeerd Corrie: That is the one that the Mayor's Parks and Recreation Commission recommended. Rountree: Yes I know who Tammy is. Corrie: I will get this list to each one of you in your box, who they are, phone numbers if you want to contact and talk to them. I am trying to think of the timing on this, I had to get this to you by this meeting and then you have to approve them within 21 days after the nominations. I will get you the names and phone numbers if you want to contact them. Rountree: I would appreciate that. (Inaudible) Corrie: One other thing, Rick Heller has been certified as a home study in arboriculture on this Arbor Day Foundation. He is moving right along, he is going to help us quite a bit on our Arbor Day program. I just wanted to mention to the Council and on record congratulating him for finishing that course. With that I have nothing unless you have something? Bentley: 7:00 tomorrow (inaudible) I move we adjourn. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded to adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed? Meridian City Council Meeting August 6, 1996 Page 53 of 53 MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:55 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE FOR THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVE: ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK