Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 07-16MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JULY 16. 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: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Lee Stucker, Tony McDonald, Paula and Russell Rice, Jerry Cobler, Greg Crow, Gary Lee, Carl Stucker, Mike Kouba, Chief Gordon, Carla Olson, Greg Crow, Bob Daugherty, Cameron Cordova, Dale Ownby, Robert Morrison, D'Arlene Stutzman, Jennifer Lovan-Holloway, Guy Valentine, Jonathan Steele, John Van Zante, Mike Conner, Richard Boesiger, Craig Groves, John Fitzgerald, Jack Riddlemoser: Corrie: Council with your approval I would like to move item number 8 to number 1 since the acting City Attorney has a conflict of interest and Mr. Riddlemoser is here so he can get that out of the way if it meets your approval. ITEM #8: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RETAIL SALE OF ALCOHOL BY DWAYNE WINN: Corrie: Chief Gordon, do you have some insight on this particular one? Gordon: Mr. Mayor and Council as of 12:00 today the State of Idaho has revoked the liquor license for Mr. Winn, he no longer has a State liquor license. Corrie: Any questions from Council? Morrow: I guess my question would be, if he doesn't have a liquor license, there can't be any retail sale of alcohol is that what you are saying? Gordon: Yes sir that is correct. It was a permanent revocation. Corrie: Does the Council have any questions of the attorney, Mr. Riddlemoser your opinion on that? Riddlemoser: My opinion on that with it being revoked this matter here is now moot and terminated. Corrie: Do we need a motion? Riddlemoser: I think there I would just move that based upon the representation by the Police Chief that this matter is declared moot and null and the application denied tonight. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that based on the information from Chief of Police Gordon that the alcohol liquor license was suspended by the State of Idaho that we declare the point moot and that the application for the conditional use permit for the retail sale of alcohol as requested by Dwayne Winn be denied. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 2 of 51 ITEM #1: TABLED MAY 7,1996: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Morrow: Mr. Mayor, as requested by Mr. Turnbull we have not as of yet reconciled by committee the Nampa Meridian change in handling the covering of ditches and the City ordinance. So, by virtue of his letter that I received late this afternoon with request to table that until August 20th, hopefully that will give us the time to deal with the issues that we had talked about before. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that we table item 1 the variance request until August 20, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas ITEM #2: FINAL PLAT: HUMMING BIRD SUBDIVISION BY GARY & CYNTHIA BIRD: Corrie: Is Gary or Cynthia or the representative here tonight? Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I need to address the Council on this issue. Although I have no ties to this project monetarily or otherwise Gary Bird is a very close friend of mine and I want to let you know in case there is a conflict. Morrow: I don't perceive that to be a conflict Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Okay, Mr. Bird. Does Council have any questions of Mr. Bird? Morrow: I would like to have him review his project for us please. Bird: Review of the project would be that we are trying to make two lots out of two existing lots plus a third parcel of land. Twenty-five years ago the Ada County surveyed it and proceeded to run a lot line through our house. So now we are trying to get the lot line moved and to get an acre in the lot that we are selling off. We have to incorporate part of this third parcel. It would have been nice to have just done a lot line adjustment but we weren't allowed to do that because we had to go outside the subdivision. This parcel is unplatted ground who was deeded to the original owner about 25 years ago. And another subdivision was put in and this land just kind of sits there and we can't do anything with it so we get it platted into the subdivision and then to do that we need to make a 2 acre subdivision and we are basically just using two lots to start with and adjusting some lot lines and making no other changes or conditions that weren't there originally. Morrow: So you are attempting to make everything legitimate that the perception was to begin with. Corrie: Any further questions of the Council? Questions of staff? Morrow: Gary and Shari, do you have any comments on this project? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Councilman Morrow, we did file a review letter with the City Clerk and there were some comments that my associate Bruce Freckleton had in his review of the plat that need to be addressed before the City Engineer will sign off which is before the City Clerk will sign. I don't know if the applicant has a copy of that information or not. The applicant does know about it and he will have that information back to the next day or us tomorrow. So when we get that if all of our questions are addressed then we don't have a problem. Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 3 of 51 Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would like to ask Mr. Bird for the record to, are you agreeable to those conditions? Corrie: Mr. Bird would you come up here please, since this is (inaudible) thank you. Bird: Yes we are agreeable to them, they were just some reconciliations of some numbers. It is just redrawing it. Morrow: So you have no problem with the six conditions of Bruce Freckleton's letter then? Bird: No Corrie: Any further discussion, Council or staff? Entertain a motion from Council. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the final plat for Hummingbird Subdivision by Gary Bird subject to staff conditions. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley that the final plat for Humming Bird Subdivision be approved subject to conditions of the Engineer, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas ITEM #3: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHILD CARE CENTER BY JERRY COBLER: Corrie: I will know open the public hearing and invite the representative from the childcare center to speak first. Carla Olson, 4735 East Castlewood Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Olson: Mr. Mayor and Council members I am here tonight as a planning consultant representing Jerry Cobler the applicant for this neighborhood childcare center that he is proposing as the lot that is directly across the best way I can describe where it is, it is the lot that is directly across the street from Chief Joseph elementary school. We feel that this is an ideal existing building; it is unusual to find in a neighborhood in terms of being able to convert it to a childcare center. We also feel that it is an ideal location. It is a large one level home; again it is located directly across the street from Chief Joseph School so there is a lot of child activity in the area anyway. It is within a neighborhood, it is largely single-family detached housing with many young families. The childcare is really not expected to draw children from all over the valley, there appears to be an existing need within this neighborhood for quality childcare. The proximity of the child care center to the elementary school will make it handy for before and after school care of elementary students as well as a one stop destination for parents delivering older children to school and younger children to the child care center. Because the childcare center expects to attract clients within the neighborhood many of whom are already traveling to Chief Joseph School the childcare center should not noticeably increase traffic levels. The size and the layout of this existing home lends itself nicely to conversion to a childcare center. The rooms are spacious, airy and well lighted with separate areas for playing, sleeping and eating. It has two restrooms for boys and girls rooms. There is a fenced yard, actually two fenced yards suitable for outdoor play. The childcare operators plan to accommodate two different play levels playing out doors at one time. We have worked extensively with your staff and with other agencies to meet all the requirements that apply to day care centers. The applicant is very concerned about wanting to be a good neighbor in this area. He has done a great deal of out reach to the neighborhood; he is hoping the neighborhood will support his center that neighborhood children will come to his center. And that he certainly wants to fit in and be an amenity to the neighborhood. We kind of went the extra mile in contacting people before submitting this application. We contacted adjacent Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 4 of 51 landowners before applying. We individually delivered notices after applying to each resident within 300 feet. Before tonight's meeting we contacted everyone by phone that had expressed any interest or concerns throughout the process. In every contact we have asked that if the neighbors have any site plans concerned that we would certainly try to accommodate them. Again it is very important that we will be a good neighbor. I will try to keep this brief tonight I can see that you have a horrendous agenda ahead of you. I guess in summary your planning staff; APA's planning staff and your planning commission have all recommended approval of this application. The applicant Jerry Cobler is here to answer any questions that you might have. We would request that if in this hearing that new issues are raised that we have not had an opportunity to address we would request that you allow us time by continuing to the next meeting so that we can address them. Are there any questions? Morrow: I have one, in the draft copy of the findings of fact and conclusions it indicates that it is concluded that if the owners consent of this use is not delivered to the City this should be denied, has that consent been in fact delivered to the City? Olson: Yes, that is actually not an issue; the application included their signatures approving of the application being submitted. In fact in the meanwhile Mr. Cobler has obtained the property, has purchased the property. Corrie: Any further questions of Ms. Olson? Thank you, anybody else from the public that would like to enter testimony on this agenda item? Greg Crow, 2162 Jericho Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Crow: I live at 2162 Jericho Way, which sits directly behind the proposed site in question. I wanted to express my opposition to the permit for the childcare. I can probably sum it up in one word and that is more, more traffic and more noise. I moved here about a year and a half ago and once I moved in there the people directly across the street on Jericho wanted to have a day care and I didn't object to that one at the time. And that was for four or five children. Since then there has been traffic across the road there and in this day care being behind me it is going to be a day care basically in front and behind me which is going to be added traffic coming in and out. More noise, during the school hours which she made the point that it would be an excellent location for the school and that I agree on but also I think it will contribute to the traffic that is coming and going out of the school there. And possibly even a safety violation for kids walking along the street. I have counted between 90 and 120 cars that pass through there in the morning to drop their kids off or pick their kids up which they park along both sides of the roads when they pick them and also when they take them to school. So, in my feeling it would be just too much congestion there. And plus through the normal day hours, more traffic more people coming in and out of the area. My personal opinion is I would have no problem if it was something smaller but I think something this scale would be a little too large. And I, the final thing would be the monetary or financial losses to me if I decide to resale my home if the day care wasn't kept in the appropriate manner. Thank you Council. Corrie: Council, any questions? Rountree: You indicated you wouldn't have a problem if it were smaller, could you quantify what that means? Crow: Well the one across the road is 4 to 5 children is what they have and again there are cars parked in front of their house. So I could live with something like that or that would be feasible I would expect. Corrie: Any further questions from Council? Thank you, anybody else from the public that would like to enter testimony? Council, discussion. Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 5 of 51 Rountree: My comments would be is that it appears that Planning and Zoning draft findings of fact has been available for some weeks pretty much covers the issues. And conditions the day care to be within City ordinances, requiring off street parking, pick up spot for children, play areas, fencing, State licensing, and meeting all other conditions of the City. I think with those conditions it appears that this would be something that I could look upon favorably. Morrow: I don't think that there was substantial different testimony here in the findings of fact and conclusions. I do think that by ordinance you would not limit the size or number of children that can be in this particular day care at this location. Rountree: Yes and I think Shari can give us the numbers on those. Stiles: I am sorry Councilman Rountree, what did you ask? Rountree: The break down of numbers and the various types of day care facilities. Stiles: The family day care is 5 or fewer children, the group day care would be 6 to 12 and over 12 would be a regular day care center. Tolsma: How high is your fence in the proposed front yard (inaudible) Olson: Councilman Tolsma, the front fence, the chain link fence along the front is four feet high, the remainder of the fence along the sides and the back of the property is an existing wood fence that is six feet high. Tolsma: Did you get a copy of the letter (inaudible) Olson: I received the letter that was submitted in advance of the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting unless there is a more recent one. Tolsma: They wanted a chain link fence to protect (inaudible) Olson: Yes, and I have talked with Mrs. Hihath a couple of times about that issue. Apparently the wood fence is actually on the Cobler's property it is their fence. But of course being a boundary fence they were concerned that it not be broken down by the activity of the children. In talking with other day care operators and so forth it is typically not a problem because the children unlike even a regular single family home situation children are constantly supervised when they are outside. So they wouldn't be allowed to climb on the fence that would be unsafe for the children as well as a problem for the fence. We feel that will be dealt with by good management in the day care center. Tolsma: But the fence (inaudible) because of the lower fence. Olson: That would probably be the case, in addition to the four foot fence there is a row of rose bushes that have been planted between the fence and the street which we think will provide an even better buffer than the fence. (Inaudible) Tolsma: That is all that I had. Corrie: Are there other questions from Council? Hearing none I will close the public hearing. Council your pleasure? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions as prepared for us by Planning and Zoning Commission. Tolsma: Second Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 6 of 51 Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared by the Planning and Zoning Commission, any further discussion? Roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Bentley - Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas Corrie: Decision or recommendation? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, The City Council of the City of Meridian approves the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law that the use should be denied if the owner does not give his consent. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree on the decision and recommendation any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C -G BY LAMONT KOUBA AND RICHARD JOHNSON: Corrie: I will open the public hearing now, and is there a representative. Bob Daugherty, 5001 N. Eugene, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Daugherty: Mr. Mayor and Council members we are here on behalf of Lamont Kouba, he has a piece of property that is situated at 835 East Fairview Avenue in Meridian. He is proposing a commercial development; the property is a little under 4 acres, 3.78 acres. The commercial development he is planning on that is he is proposing would be geared towards the automotive and recreational industries, primarily sales and service. In your packet you can see the initial building that is facing Fairview, he is proposing a Jet Ski dealership and an automotive parts store that would be in the first two buildings. The other three smaller units to the south are, would be unoccupied at this point but he has been talking about the possibility of like an espresso shop, something similar in that nature and the rear buildings. That area is more conceptual in nature and that is something that we had discussed with staff members. Those buildings would be geared even more so toward the automotive type industry, as far as service type facilities. There has been discussion of items such as a welding shop, perhaps automotive detail, RV repair, and things similar to that. I believe that through the Planning and Zoning Commission we have pretty much met all of the staff requirements as far as our set backs, our requirements as far as the utilities. Currently on the site or previously on the site there was a single-family residence and various out buildings and the remaining of the property was in pasture. To the east of our property is Rountree Chevrolet and to the west is Meridian Auto Sales. The property primarily to the south is vacant and there is a residential area that is to the south and east which overlaps our southerly property line by approximately 21 feet. In our discussions with staff members they have indicated the required set back as being 20 feet from a separation of any commercial development. They specifically required a planting strip from the residential area which we have adhered to in our site plan. I guess at this point if you have any questions I would go ahead and entertain those. We do also have a few items that we would like to discuss as far as the facts and findings. There are a couple of issues that we would like to bring up. Corrie: Do you want to bring those up now? Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 7 of 51 Daugherty: I will, on page 23, item 21, it was indicating that all waterways so forth be tiled. In this southwest corner of our project we have Five Mile Creek drainage that runs through there. My discussions with Ms. Shari Stiles indicated that we wouldn't be required to tile that anyway. I guess what I wanted to do was to bring that up now so that we can perhaps eliminate the possibilities of confusion down the road. Perhaps we can get that Five Mile Creek omitted from that statement there. Our property owner is in agreement with signing the development agreement. There was also an issue -taking place as far as the access; we are currently in negotiation with the property owner to the east which is Eleanor Johnson. They have leased their property to LB Industries and we are in the process of negotiating with both of those folks to obtain an easement on the east side of our property, the west side of theirs. There was a 40 foot strip that was left vacant to access the rear of that property should and when they develop it. In our discussions with ACHD they required our access to be moved to the east side of our property which ACHD's requirements would be that 40 foot strip would no longer be able to be used because it would be too close a proximity to our ingress and egress. So what we are trying to do there is a shared access with them, them providing the ground and us constructing the entryway and that would also provide access to the rear of their property when they decide to develop it. There were also some concerns as far as the EPA that were brought up in the testimony with the Planning and Zoning. I guess I would like to relay a little bit of information with regards to that. I am sorry it was DEQ. There was a pest site previously on the property and there was some concerns as far as contamination. DEQ has sunk some test hole wells and they have done a lot of monitoring. Mr. Kouba has employed Mark Torf Environmental Management Company to do some work there. He since then has cleaned up the property. We have a verbal okay from Eileen Lorch from DEQ that says that the property is clean but it is going to take about two weeks to get those reports and get everything back to us. So that is an issue that has been addressed and I believe that it has been handled. There is a letter that we received also as a concern from one of the property owners which is Ruth Crow. She has a property that is two parcels to the south of us. She was indicating that her concern that her property would be landlocked if we don't provide a public access. Currently there is no public access through our property or through the property that is directly to the south of us. She does however according to our legal description we have drawn up some pictures and have a copy of her deed that if you care to see those we can show you that there is access provided to her property from the west side of her property. No less than 3 different streets and two alleys it looks like that go into her property. I guess that, I do have one more thing. The site plans that you have were revised site plans which indicated that the initial building that is up front facing Fairview Avenue there is 340 by 25 foot areas, your plans may indicate a 50 -foot that was a change that we had submitted. The second part of the planning and zoning process since then our architect has suggested that we reduce that to 40 feet. I have some new site plans which just reflect that change if you care to see those. I think that is all have if you have any questions I would be more than happy to try and answer those. Rountree: I just wanted to reaffirm that you had no other comments on the draft findings of facts? Daugherty: I believe that is all. Rountree: I would like to see both of those items that you mentioned, the deed showing access and your new site plan. Daugherty: The shaded area on the drawing is reflecting the deed on Mrs. Crow's property. In our initial evaluation there seems to be some problems with the deed itself. But nevertheless there would still be access. Rountree: I have no more questions. Morrow: I have a couple of questions, the new site plan that you are showing us is basically flopped over and that is for the common access point off of Fairview that you addressed earlier. Daugherty: That is correct. That was actually addressed in the second part of our Planning and Zoning meeting, when we had gone to them we had indicated that was a requirement of ACHD. Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 8 of 51 We provided them updated drawings and I was assuming that you had those updated drawings that showed the building basically where it is. The only change we were doing from that from the site plan that they had was 40 foot buildings or that you should have would be the updated 50 foot wide building which would be the C, D and E and those we have reduced back to 40. 1 believe that they were 40 on that original plan on the very first one that showed that building on the east side of the property. So if that is the one that you are having then yes it is basically kind of flipped. Morrow: That is correct and then there is a difference in terms of apparently spaces J, K, I mean F, G H, L, 1, J, K, M. Daugherty: From the original site plan that is correct. The last one we had submitted to Planning and Zoning and to Ms. Shari Stiles you must not have the updated version then. Morrow: It is apparently not part of this packet. Unless it is buried somewhere else in here. My next question is this site is proposed to be under one ownership is that correct? Daugherty: That is correct. Morrow: So this is not a subdivision process anticipated here? Daugherty: No sir. Morrow: You are aware that at some point in time if it is to be subdivided it will have to go through the subdivision process? Daugherty: Yes Morrow: That is all the questions that I have. Corrie: Any further questions from Council? Thank you sir, anybody else from the public that would like to enter testimony on the request for annexation and zoning? Gary Lee, JUB, 250 South Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lee: I would like to hand out a vicinity map showing the property in question. We were contacted by Ron Crow who is Ruth Crow's son last Friday. Apparently he had been discussing some issues with his mother and she brought up this particular conditional use and annexation to him and he started looking at some of the paperwork that she received in the mail and was a little bit concerned with the property. As stated earlier a letter had been sent to the City by Mrs. Crow requesting that a public street be considered to provide access through this proposed development to their south boundary. As you can see on the vicinity map is probably similar to what you received earlier where her property is located in relation to the planned development. We show that there is one public street access in the property on the west boundary that being Washington Avenue. There is a small private road in that Catherine Park Subdivision kind of down on the South end but it is not a public standard road, it is quite narrow and probably would never be convertible to a public road. As you can see there is no access into Danbury. Badley Avenue which is to the west through another parcel could eventually be extended to this property at some future point. The concern that we had noticed looking at this not only the Five Mile Creek being an obstacle to cross but to service her property north and east of the File Mile. But the length of the proposed street coming off Washington into the subject property would be the 450 maximum length allowed by the City of Meridian for access to properties. We see a real need there for a secondary access point somewhere in that northern say 30 or 40% of the property. The comp plan calls for mixed planned development in this particular area. I suppose that could mean a number of things, although there is no specific plan in mind at this point. I can see probably some mixture of single family, maybe some duplex and maybe even some apartments. There are apartments now that border her property along the west boundary so maybe there could be some transitional things going in there. But in any event we would have to have an adequate public road system to service this area. Particularly if we have some higher density Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 9 of 51 developments in there it is going to generate some additional traffic that would probably be better to exit to Fairview rather than going into the local streets that are in that Washington Avenue area. And again we would like to reaffirm Mrs. Crow's request that the City consider a public street through the property that is before you tonight. If you have any questions I would be glad to answer them the best that I can. (Inaudible) Morrow: Gary, I have a question here, on the northern boundary of the Crow property and the southern boundary of this property before us it doesn't look to me like the are contiguous, what is the little, what is this and what is this? Lee: That is separate ownership. Morrow: Both parcels they are two different parcels of ground here? Lee: Yes Morrow: And are they the same ownership or separate or different for those two? Lee: I don't know for sure if they are or not. Any road that would come down there would obviously have to go through there. That particular parcel is going to need access as well. Morrow: So really the bigger issue here is access, the Crow property at least has one access and potential another one on Badley. But these two properties here have no access. Lee: They are in worse condition, absolutely. Morrow: Thank you. Corrie: Any further questions of Council? Thank you Gary. Anybody else from the public that would like to give testimony at this time? Council, questions? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have some questions of Gary and Shari, either or both. With respect to these two parcels that we have identified, Gary do you know if they are under different ownership and what the status of those properties? Smith: No I don't Councilman Morrow. Morrow: And would you have a proposal for access to those two properties? Smith: No Morrow: Shari, do you have any thoughts? Stiles: I don't know how they would get access except through the Ruth Crow property if there is no access through Fairview. Morrow: Let me ask you this, what does our comp plan call for those two properties? Stiles: Those are in mixed planned use development area. Morrow: Thank you Corrie: Any other questions from Council or staff? Rountree: I would have a question for the applicant. It appears that there would be an enclave of non -annexed property that would have no access with this proposal and the way the property boundaries fall to the south. Would the joint use of the access off of Fairview be one that the applicant and the owner would consider either permanent easement or public access to provide that access to that parcel of land? Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 10 of 51 Daugherty: I guess currently what we are looking at is there are two other properties that are in between that parcel of ground and they actually do have access to that property off of Washington. I guess because of the fact that Five Mile Drainage in is in there that is just a problem with the parcel of ground itself I guess. I don't see that us granting an easement is going to solve their problem. Tolsma: Are you speaking of the two parcels of ground directly south? Daugherty: No, there are two parcel of ground that sit, they would be to the south of us and north of the Crow property, and there are two separate parcels there. There is a one -acre parcel and then there is another strip in there that they are under separate ownership they are not under the same ownership. (End of Tape) sent to the Mrs. Johnson who is also the property owner of Rountree which is to the east of us. And then there is another, the smaller parcel there is property held by I believe it is Daily so it is two separate individuals. I guess what we are saying is the property basically has this problem to begin with and I don't believe that should be something that we should have to resolve. I guess that is something where they do have access there are ways to get over Five Mile Creek and access that property and we believe that should be their responsibility to handle that. Tolsma: Have you talked to the two property owners that are directly south of you, those two small parcels? Daugherty: Specifically I have not. Tolsma: So you don't know what their thoughts are about being land locked in there? Daugherty: I believe that Mr. Kouba has talked to the Johnson's about that parcel but we haven't been able to contact the Dailey's at all. At this point there, I don't believe that there are any current negotiations to purchase that property now. I guess I might add one more thing, the gentleman from JUB had indicated that they might look at something like, I guess it was hard to say, something like apartments or town houses I guess in that area. We don't feel that a street I guess going right down the west or the east side of our property to access a bunch of residential units going right down through the middle of strictly commercial development, I just don't feel that would be an appropriate use of the site the way that we are proposing it. In addition, the access that we are proposing is on the east side of our property which is actually on the Rountree property. If you follow that line down that easement that we have worked, that we are in the process of working out with them, what it would do it go directly into the back part of that Danbury Subdivision without having to make a right turn and then go south, go to the west and then south. think that we are basically putting our project in jeopardy by doing that. Corrie: Mr. Daugherty, are you aware of a letter from the APA to the Planning and Zoning Administrator, did you get a copy of that? Daugherty: Yes sir I did, it clarified a couple of issues. Their initial statement was that they wanted a sidewalk constructed from our front building to the sidewalks along Fairview Avenue. In that particular location there are no sidewalks along Fairview Avenue. They have indicated that what they would still like to see and I think we would be willing to go ahead and do that is to construct a sidewalk from our front building there to the right of way of Fairview Avenue. I believe that was their preferred option. Corrie: Any further discussion from Council? I will close the public hearing. Council discussion or pleasure? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, if I might with respect to the issue of access, it is a very difficult issue. However, what we are doing here on Fairview, particularly on this site is we are creating a line that exists between residential uses and commercial retail types of uses. If we extend the line that Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 11 of 51 has been drawn for Danbury Fair that would seem to indicate that everything south of that line is a residential use in some nature. Now it appears to me that it is going to take some operation amongst property owners in that area for those folks to get their properties developed at any rate, no matter what is done with this particular property. So, it is a tough issue with respect to access but I don't think you access the two parcels that we are talking about here when we are talking about a joint access along a common property line between the Rountree parcel and this parcel. And so, I don't think you can get to these two properties without effectively taking away the use of the property before us. With respect to the issue of the sidewalk and APA there is provision within the findings for the staff report to deposit to ACHD's trust fund I think that is an appropriate manner of handling the sidewalk issue. There are no sidewalks anyplace along Fairview in this area. So I don't think it is reasonable to expect to have those built now, there are also no specs for those. So the logical course of action to me seems to be to deposit to the trust fund and at such time as they are built they are funded by ACHD. Those would be my two thoughts concerning the two issues that were brought up. Corrie: Any other comments from Council? Mr. Rountree? Rountree: I agree with Walt with what he said with respect to the sidewalks. I am somewhat concerned with the potential difficulty of providing access to that parcel. And by acting on an annexation and or use when the property on Fairview potentially land locking that site particularly being the middle property being owned by one of the owners that is involved in this and I don't know that there is recognition that they are doing this to themselves. I would like to see that some kind of an effort made with those property owners that they are aware of what is going on. Even though they have been notified of the hearing I believe some effort should be made with the Johnson property to make sure that they understand that they are severing any ties with the adjacent property. Morrow: Question, Charlie, what would you do with that property? The thing is if you are going to have a line between commercial and residential at what point is potential access, what benefit is it? Rountree: I guess I am more concerned with the access proposed for this site is actually on property owned by that middle, by the people that own that middle property at least that is how it was represented that is who is paying taxes on that property. I guess if I was assured they do that was going and they wouldn't find out at a later date and all of a sudden get into a situation where they got contrary about providing access to this property and then seeing this thing again. Because access shifts or changes on Fairview. That is the only concern that I have. As far as what I would do with it I would sell it. Tolsma: I might ask a question of Mr. Smith over there, Gary, do you have a copy of this, well directly to the west of Mrs. Crow's property right about in the middle Isn't that where the apartment complex is located? Smith: Yes, correct. Tolsma: And wasn't that in future phases supposed to have access to Fairview Avenue? Smith: That is what they reported yes. Tolsma: And they were also going to tie into Badley Avenue at that time? Smith: Badley does tie into the complex right now. Tolsma: And when the future development then would go to Fairview Avenue. Smith: Yes Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 12 of 51 Tolsma: So then at that time then possibly Badley could run into the northern part of Mrs. Crow's property? Smith: Yes sir. Tolsma: And then we could probably also have partial access or provide for access to this property then to the west those two little parcel that is between Mrs. Crow's property and the proposed project. Smith: You would have to cross Five Mile Creek with a bridge. We also have a sewer line a trunk line that extends from East Crossbill Court to the west through that second parcel of property over to Five Mile Creek and then north along Five Mile. Tolsma: It goes down Badley to Five Mile Creek? Smith: No, Crossbill Court in Danbury Fair Subdivision to the east of the larger of those two parcels between Crow's property and the proposed project. Tolsma: The little strip to the east that is in there that goes to the property line at the end of the cul-de-sac? Smith: Yes off the cul-de-sac yes. There is a sewer line trunk in there that extends to the west across that, see where that stub drain is, it is just north of that stub drain and it runs over to Five Mile Creek and then north on Five Mile. So that property has a sewer trunk that crosses through it also. It might be a good spot for a small neighborhood park. Morrow: If I may ask, Gary, with that easement extending to the west that means that there is no building on top of that easement through that property. It appears to me that it leaves just a little; it would leave a very small sliver on the south side of the easement. Smith: If that stub drain is correct, if everything is in scale on this drawing that is correct. Morrow: So we are rapidly looking at a piece of property is pretty much consumed with as Charlie says there is not much developable there anymore. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Corrie: I must assume that we are waiting on a comment from Gary. Smith: I am sorry; I am going to have to ask for you to repeat that. Morrow: It was a comment from the standpoint that with the easement to the west for the sewer interceptor and with the stub drain and the Five Mile Drain we are not talking about a piece of property that there is much left of is that correct based on this drawing that we are seeing? Smith: Yes sir correct. Morrow: And for the most part that is not buildable or it wouldn't be buildable except for the stuff to the north of the easement it appears according to this. Smith: Yes Morrow: And Ron has indicated there may be an access to this property from this piece right here where the multi family is. Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 13 of 51 Tolsma: It might be that you have to build a bridge Morrow: Across Five Mile. Smith: If you extended 5th Street where R-15 is noted down there, Washington and 5th, 5th Street right now extends north through that parcel that is numbered 1304 and it ties into Badley Avenue, which extends from the west to the east. That exists right now, it doesn't show on this map but that is in place out there. It is a private road through the apartment through that 1304 parcel. Badley I believe is a public road over to the boundary of that parcel and I am not sure if it continues on or not but it does connect with an extension of 5th that is a private road. The gentleman that developed the apartments on parcel 1304 had plans to extend 5th Street north to Fairview. I don't know if he owns that property above 1304 or whether that just has a zero in it, it is labeled R-8 open field. What the plan was to extend 5th Street north of Fairview and continue the apartment development (inaudible). As Councilman Tolsma mentioned at that time Badley could conceivably be extended over to the Crow property for access to that property. And it would have to cross Five Mile Creek to get to her property that is on the east and the north of Five Mile. If there was any access needed for that property between this project that is being proposed and the crow property it could be provided from the crow property but again there are several what ifs in that line. Rountree: Given that explanation I am a little more at ease about being able to access those parcels. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Morrow: I have no further questions. Corrie: Any other comments from Council? Entertain a motion on the request for annexation and zoning to C -G. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, we need to do something with the findings of fact and conclusions as prepared for Planning and Zoning. I guess my inclination would be to adopt these with the added phrase that exempts the tiling of Five Mile Creek. Bentley: Second Rountree: Was that a motion? Morrow: That was just a point of discussion. I will make it a motion, I move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for P & Z to be amended that under article 21 of the conclusions that we add the phrase not required to tile Five Mile Creek. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law by Planning and Zoning with the addition to item 21 on page 23 not to tile Five Mile Creek, any further discussion? Roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Bentley - Yea, Rountree - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move to instruct the City Attorney to prepare an annexation ordinance. Rountree: Second Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 14 of 51 Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree for the attorney to draw up an ordinance, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas ITEM #5: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE USE BY LAMONT KOUBA AND RICHARD JOHNSON: Corrie: I will now open the public hearing, Mr. Daugherty. Bob Daugherty was sworn by the City Attorney. Daugherty: Again we are here on behalf of Lamont Kouba, just a continuation of the annexation and zoning in requesting a conditional use permit for construction of a block building facing Fairview Avenue which is reflective of your site plans. We have brought along some pictures and also an architectural rendition of what we anticipate the front building looking like. The pictures are of a development that is over in Boise that is very similar in construction. The artist rendition will actually show more along the lines of what our building would actual look like. If you would like to see any of these. The small picture down at the bottom we are anticipating that those will be R & M Steel type prefabricated buildings and those would be the buildings that would be located to the south of our project and those we would anticipate would be very similar in nature to the ones at Rountree Chevrolet. We have had several discussions with staff members along with Public Works Department and the various utilities. All of the utilities are on site; we have as previously discussed a sewer main at the southwest corner of the property. There is power and basically all of the other services are located off of Fairview Avenue. We believe that everything is pretty much handled, with the exception of getting the drawing and the engineering done to submit to the appropriate agencies. If you have any questions with regard to this conditional use, I guess I would be more than happy to try and answer those for you. Corrie: Council, any questions. Rountree: On how you represented the photographs, are those a likeness of what you propose to build or is that actually a development that has been done by the applicant? Daugherty: No, that is similar in construction, that is a similarly constructed development over in Boise that doesn't have anything to do with our applicant. That was just primarily to show the construction type standards. Tolsma: Have you seen all the comments of Bruce Freckleton and Shari Stiles? Daugherty: Yes I have. Tolsma: And you have no problems with those? Daugherty: No sir we don't. Rountree: I have a procedural question; can we act on a conditional use permit without the annexation having been acted on? Fitzgerald: No, you and go ahead and have your public hearing and then we will adopt the annexation ordinance and then we can move on the conditional use permit. Morrow: I think normally do we not continue the public hearing for the next meeting in case there is any additional testimony? Fitzgerald: That would be fine. Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 15 of 51 Morrow: I have a question for staff; I don't have any questions for Mr. Daugherty. Shari and Gary, is this conditional use permit application for a single building or for the entire project. Are your comments directed to the entire project as proposed to us or just for the first building? Stiles: Councilman Morrow, Mayor and Council, I haven't looked at this specific plan that was presented tonight. I want the applicant to realize that this approval shouldn't be for total development, this is just the first part. For one thing I think the parking requirements haven't been met in the phase 2 even if they were all if it was entirely to be used for warehouse they would be short on the parking space. So, I think they just presented this because they wanted to annex and zone the entire property at this time and the have specific plans for phase 1. But they still would need to meet all of the findings and (inaudible) changed significantly from what they presented. (Inaudible) Morrow: So if I understand what you are saying correctly and your comments were directed towards uses A, B, C, D and E which is assumed to be one building with multiple tenants based on the pictures that we saw is that your understanding? Stiles: My comments as far as the Five Mile Creek and the buffering of the adjacent subdivision would apply to the whole project. Morrow: I understand that, what I am after here is the conditional use, I understand the protection on the perimeter but with respect to are you telling us that we are looking at a single building and the conditional use requirements for that single building which is similar to the picture that we saw which is at the corner of Plantation Lane and State Street at Boise. This picture, it has multiple uses in a single building. Stiles: I think that the development agreement could still address the entire parcel as part of the annexation but I just basically think they are asking for approval of the first main building. Daugherty: Perhaps I can clarify that, in our discussions with Planning and Zoning what we were seeking was a conditional use permit on that front building, with the understanding that once that is developed then what we would do is proceed with the back portion of the property, the R & M Steel type buildings and that would fall under a separate conditional use permit, does that help clarify it. Morrow: That clarifies your position and based on that Shari is telling me that her comments are two fold therefore the perimeter plus the first building. Stiles: Yes Morrow: Gary yours are the same? Smith: Looking through my assistant's comments they are pretty generic to the whole site. Morrow: Thank you, I have no other questions. Corrie: Anything further from the Council? Anybody else from the public that would like to give additional testimony? Gary Lee, JUB, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lee: I would just like to reaffirm our client's position, Mrs. Ruth Crow about her desires to see a public street access in the north of her parcel. Thank you Corrie: Thank you Gary. Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony? I guess we need a motion to continue the public hearing. Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 16 of 51 Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we continue the public hearing on the request for conditional use permit for recreational automotive use by Lamont Kouba and Richard Johnson to August 6. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to continue the public hearing on item 5 to the Council meeting on August 6, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE ON FRONT SETBACK BY CAMERON CORDOVA: Corrie: I will open the public hearing on the request for variance. Is Cameron Cordova here? Cameron Cordova, 8706 Fircrest, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Cordova: Mr. Mayor and Council you have all the notes on this request. I filled out the application and the outline provided, I filled that out to the best of my knowledge. I guess, I don't have any idea whether there was anybody within that 300 feet that were contacted that opposed that variance or if there any concerns that I need to address. Corrie: Does Council have any questions? Morrow: Well the obvious question, how come you are in this fix? Cordova: We were under construction when we found the pin in off the sidewalk there. Fact we never would have found if the inspector wouldn't have tripped over it. Upon digging the driveway and getting ready to pour the garage that is when we found the pin. Morrow: You are talking about the pin in front of the garage? Cordova: Right Morrow: Were not your other property pins when you staked out the house off set from the sidewalk? Cordova: No, none of those were located. It was, on my part, I thought the set back was off the top side of sidewalk and that was an oversight and mistake on my part. Morrow: Do you build houses for a living? Cordova: Yes sir, they are usually up in the mountains, the only other houses I have built here in town are on 5 to ten acre parcels where I don't have this kind of problem. Morrow: Let me ask the question in this manner, in order to get this house on this lot with these setbacks it appears to me that you would have had to have had some property pins sited when you laid the house out is that correct? Cordova: Right, the two lots on either side, this is a corner lot, there is another lot, Lot 13, that is also a corner lot and then Lot 2 they are both developed, the whole subdivision is basically developed, I think that was the second to the last lot to be built on there. So I did have the property lines stamped in the sidewalk there and then I had the corner where the fenced came in. staked it out in fact went out and put the prospective buyers and we staked it all out and went over the setbacks and made sure the house was going to fit on there the way we needed to. Like Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 17 of 51 said I was off 2 feet because I went off the back topside of sidewalk. And no I did not find, I did not know those property pins were inside two feet. Morrow: On the other corner, you have a broomed off corner on the house that is right on the setback line and then you are touching on the five foot line, and so how, and you touch at another point on that line. I guess my question is how are you getting all of those points and then missing this one point? Cordova: Upon the inspector finding that we changed that on the spot. That corner wasn't shaved off like that; we ended up making a bay window there and then that front corner, that was a den we had to take two feet off of that also. Actually it was only 16 inches I believe is what we had to take off of that. And this area that you asking for the variance on I assuming is the garage area? Cordova: We attempted to take 2 feet off of that also but it would have made it a dysfunctional garage Morrow: What does dysfunctional mean? Cordova: As far as getting vehicles in there? Morrow: How deep would it make the bays? Cordova: The deepest bay would be 19 feet and then the next would be 17 and 15 1 believe. Morrow: I have no more questions. Corrie: Are you aware of Bruce Freckleton, Assistant to the City Engineer's comments, did you get a copy of that? Cordova: Yes sir I just got a copy of that this evening and that would be no problem to ballard that in fact I have talked that over with some ideas on how to do that and make it aesthetically right. Corrie: Any further questions from Council? Morrow: I have none for Mr. Cordova. Corrie: Mr. Cordova thank you very much. Anybody else that would like to issue testimony on this request? Council, comments? Morrow: I would like to ask Gary precedence for this that you are aware of? Smith: Mayor and Council, Councilman Morrow, the only one that I can recall was a setback problem that we had in Chateau Meadows Subdivision. In that particular case the developer and his engineer had established the street width that was less than but still acceptable by the Highway District and ultimately the City but less than our normal right of way width. In conjunction with that they provided a street easement. When the standard street section was built property pins on the front fell under the sidewalk. The property owner or the builder laid out his house he went off the sidewalk and that pushed the house back on the lot to the point where they had a problem with the rear yard setback. They had impacted the 15 feet required and so they were less than the allowed setback in the rear yard. In that case I don't remember the exact conditions of the Council action but they did approve of the variance for that home. It was I believe framed and sited and was in the process of being finished interior wise. The concrete driveway had been poured. That is the only other case of a setback variance that I can recall. Morrow: Your thoughts concerning this one? Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 18 of 51 Smith: Well, I guess typically or technically it is obviously not in compliance. Typically the property owners are utilizing the two foot area between the property line and the back of sidewalk as their property. That includes landscaping, fences, legal or otherwise are built up to the back of sidewalk. The Highway District doesn't look at it as an infringement upon their rights although it is their right of way. So I guess from a technical stand point it is in violation from a practical standpoint. It probably wouldn't be seen I wasn't at the site so I can't say that for certain. Morrow: Thank you I have no other questions. Corrie: Any other questions? Tolsma: I have a question for Walt, what is your typical depth of a garage? Morrow: Typical depth of a garage, 20 to 24 feet. (Discussion Inaudible) Morrow: In a three car garage a short bay will be 20 feet, the longer two bays will be either 22 feet deep or 24 feet deep. So his comment about it being an undersized non-functional garage at 16, 18 and 19 are accurate. Tolsma: Now my garage then is 20 feet and I have a freezer sitting in one end and we still run the car in the garage up against the freezer and still walk between the car and the freezer. Morrow: Well I think your garage is 20 feet wide and 22 feet deep Isn't it. Tolsma: No because we shortened it. (Inaudible) Tolsma: That is why I was wondering because 19 feet is not functional and an average car fits in an 18 foot garage, a full size car fits in a 19 foot garage, it is tight but it will go in. Morrow: Generally speaking you don't see houses with much less than 20 feet in the short bay, 22 to 24 feet in the long bays. (Inaudible) Cordova: Did you all receive a copy of this here? The way that is cocked over just the corners are sticking out there instead of the full face, I don't know if that would make a difference or not but the way that is turned there. Another thing is it is under construction I wanting to know if upon approval if I could commence construction also at this point. Tolsma: If we grant this tonight you are not going to build anymore like are you? Cordova: No sir. Morrow: Are you going back to the mountains? Cordova: Yes sir. Corrie: Thank you Cameron, any further comments of the Council? Hearing none I will close the public hearing. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings of fact and conclusions. Rountree: Second Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 19 of 51 Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow second by Mr. Rountree to have the attorney draw up the findings of fact for the variance, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas Corrie: Mr. Cordova, you have to wait until we get that approved on the findings of fact. We will approve the findings of fact and then you can start if they approve it. Cordova: Okay, and that will be on the 6th? Corrie: Right Morrow: I guess from my perspective, I will be in favor of the variance. But that doesn't mean that you can do anything between now and the 6th. Cameron: Right, I have the rest of the house under construction I just have the garage is not staked out. (Inaudible) ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C -G BY JAMES AND DONNA HASKIN AND MAYME ELLEN GREEN: Corrie: Is there a representative? Dale Ownby, 1824 Sportsman Way, was sworn by the City Attorney. Ownby: Mr. Mayor and Council members I have read the transcript of the public testimony at the Planning and Zoning meeting on the 14th and agree with those. I have read the findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared by the City Attorney and agree with those and do not have any problems. The owners Jim and Donna Haskin and Mayme Ellen Green have also read the transcript and the findings of fact and conclusions and have no problems with those. One comment in regard to the letter to Planning and Zoning and Mayor and Council from Shari Stiles dated May 10, 1996, paragraph five, states landscape setbacks are required on Eagle and Franklin Road, 35 feet would be excessive due to the available property. However a minimum of 20 feet should be provided. So I would just comment that when that point in time comes I would like consideration for that. Morrow: Excuse me Mr. Mayor, a question, is that reflected in the findings of fact and conclusions? Ownby: Yes it is. Rountree: Yes page 14, item (End of Tape) Corrie: (Inaudible) reference to the annexation and zoning. Guy Valentine, 2770 East Franklin Road, was sworn by the City Attorney. Valentine: I wasn't present at the Planning and Zoning hearing but I have no problem with this application. I did want to mention and state for the record that there were some restrictive covenants for this property that was prepared years ago by Mr. and Mrs. Green and I don't know whether that came out in the Planning and Zoning hearing or not. I am all in favor of what they are wanting to do, but I want to inform the City Council that there are these covenants just for the record. I have copies here that I can give you on these. Number one on the covenants states Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 20 of 51 restriction against business use that under any conveyance shall not at any time conduct or permit to be conducted on premises any trade or business of any description. Nor shall said premises be used for any other purpose whatsoever except for the purpose of a private dwelling or residence. I don't have a problem with them having a commercial property there a commercial business or anything else that they want to do but I wanted to point this out that the other property owners along that rim are included in these covenants and they don't appear to be here tonight to voice any objections. So, if you would like a copy of this I could give it to you and just for the record, that is all I have to say. Corrie: Counselor, any comment on that? Fitzgerald: Well, not being familiar with this property or exactly what we are talking about, when we are talking about CC&R's or covenants, conditions and restrictions certainly those are binding on the piece of property and they run with the property. The question I would have in my mind is who or what properties have the ability to enforce them. I do not know frankly right off the top of my head what application it would have to the request that is being made or the application. But certainly I would think that in terms of the use of the property and the people that are bound by these CC&R's would certainly have a basis in which to institute some litigation to prohibit the use of the property which is contrary to the CC&R's. Corrie: Would that be even if we annex and rezone it, it would still go with the land? Fitzgerald: Yes, I believe it would. Morrow: If I might Mr. Mayor, historically it has gone with the land and it has been found that we cannot take those into consideration when we are taking an action. Remember that has always been a point of contention with respect to day cares and so on and so forth or home operated businesses within a subdivision. Where City Attorney Crookston has always come down is that is a civil issue or a civil matter for the homeowners association if one exists and for individual homeowners if one does not exist. Corrie: Any other questions? Valentine: Would you like a copy of these? Tolsma: Let me ask you a question while you are there, these restrictive covenants, how many parcels of land do they entail? Valentine: I believe that according to the legal description here it says whereas Glenn E. Green and Mayme Ellen Green, husband and wife, are owner of that certain tract of land designated as part of the SE 1/4 of Section 8, it runs along from the corner of Section 8 towards Meridian along Franklin Road. It goes down, I think it includes, it would include (inaudible) I think about 9 lots along Franklin Road there. I don't know exactly how many, it runs down to at least 2690 from Eagle Road all the way down to at least 2690. Tolsma: So the covenants basically include all the parcels of property that are in this annexation or are the covenants (inaudible) Valentine: I believe the way I read it is that it starts right there at Eagle Road and Franklin and it runs along Franklin Road and that would include these 4 lots I guess it is. Tolsma: Are there properties outside of this plat here that will be under those covenants? Valentine: Yes, and apparently they are not interested in objecting or anything to it even though there are covenants and I am certainly not objecting to it. I am all in favor or it personally. Thank you Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 21 of 51 Corrie: Thank you, anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony on this request? Council, discussion? I will entertain a motion on the annexation and zoning, I am sorry on the findings. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the findings of fact and the conclusions of law as prepared for us by P & Z with item 10, page 14 amended to read 20 instead of 35 feet. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma to approve the findings of fact of fact and conclusions of law of the Planning & Zoning Commission with the amendment of page 14, item 10 to 35 feet landscape to 20 feet, any further discussion? Roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Bentley - Yea, Rountree - Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas Morrow: I have a question for counsel with respect to under the recommendation this parcel of property should probably be subject to the late comers agreement or to add a late comers agreement for services that have been extended with respect to sewer and water. I would ask Gary if that is the case? Smith: It, Councilman Morrow, Mayor and Council, it would be subject to extension of a water line in Franklin Road from Eagle. Right now the water line only exits at the west side of, at the northwest corner of the intersection of Eagle and Franklin Road. It would need to be extended; the water line would need to be extended west in Franklin Road. Morrow: So they would be extending to and through? Smith: They would need to yes, correct. As far as the sewer line is concerned that is a little more difficult, there is no sewer in Franklin, there is no sewer in Eagle Road. This is kind of on the hill you might say. It would sewer probably to the north along Eagle Road and tie into what will be extended, sewer extended by Van Auker in Lanark Street. Whether it ties in with an extension Eagle Road or ties in through the Olson Bush Annexation into Lanark I guess would need to be determined. But they would be subject to a late comers fee both sewer and water along with the extension requirements. So I guess that these extension requirements would need to be part of the annexation ordinance if it is your desire to do that. Similar to what was required of Van Auker. Mayor and Council, also if I could jump back to this declaration of restrictions that was handed to you this evening. I will check the legal description against the legal description of the parcel that is being requested for annexation. It appears in just reading this boundary of property involved in this declaration that it starts 727.88 feet west of the section corner and then continues for 1343 feet to the west. But I don't know how it comes back so we will have to chase that legal description out and see how it conforms to the description of this parcel that is being requested for annexation. Morrow: Once you do that you can relate to the owners and Mr. Ownby and the representatives so they can handle that, as they need to handle it. Smith: Correct Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I am prepared to make a recommendation, I move that the City Council approve the application for annexation and zoning under the conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law including that the applicant or his assigns enters into a development agreement prior to the issuance of building permits or final plat whichever comes first. That the property only be developed as commercial or general planned development or Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 22 of 51 under the conditional use permit process. If the applicant is not agreeable with these findings of fact and conclusions and is not agreeable with entering into a development agreement the property should not be annexed. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree on the recommendation, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas Corrie: Point of information I will close the public hearing at this time. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I am prepared to move to instruct the City Attorney to prepare an annexation ordinance for this property. I would like to include in that the extension of the water and sewer requirements as necessary and a late comers fee if applicable. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree on the ordinance, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas FIVE MINUTE RECESS ITEM #9: REQUEST FOR A NON -DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR INTERSTATE CENTER: (Inaudible) Morrow: Let me ask you this Shari, have we not done development agreements before at various stages from preliminary plat to final plat? I guess my question here is why do we have to approve a final plat without construction drawings to do a non -development agreement? Stiles: The non -development agreement would have no use unless you have a recorded plat. We don't do non -development agreements on non -recorded subdivisions. Seel: Jonathan Seel, I am with the W.H. Moore Company, the purpose of being here tonight is just to give you a very brief history, this is Interstate Center which has been referred to at different times as Valley Center Marketplace. But the final name is Interstate Center. The preliminary plat was approved back in November of last year. We came in with the final this year and started providing documentation and was instructed by staff that we needed to provide construction drawings as part of the process of getting the final. The purpose of being here tonight is to ask I think very simply that we go ahead and in lieu of doing construction drawings we can provide a non -development agreement. I will explain the reason, in essence the way this has been set up is it has given us a certain degree of flexibility in terms of whether we might go in the direction of more retail or we might go in terms of a business park. Given that depending on how it turns out the construction drawings we may spend up to $20,000 could turn out to be very useless. Another point that is very important and we are finding out and I think the more important point in this thing is that as we are talking to particular investors people who are looking at purchasing this land or doing developments within this project one of the main concerns is the land plated. Our comment right now is it isn't and that creates a great deal of concern to them. As an example right now we have a plat into the County and it has been in there 7 weeks and it will most likely be in there another 2 or 3. There is plenty of land if you go down Nampa or Caldwell or you go towards Boise as I think you are all very aware that it is platted right now and very suitable to develop it. Most people out there do not want to take the chance of saying great we will go ahead and proceed Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 23 of 51 and then find out that this land is not platted at the time they are ready to go in there and develop. It puts us way behind the curve on this and it puts us in position where we really can't effectively market this project to the various people out there. What we are suggesting is that if we can go ahead and do a non -development agreement and at the time we know what we are going to do then we can come in with the construction plans because we will know. Things may change over time as we are talking to different people. People are saying well this is our requirements, this is what we need, these are the modifications that we want and what have you. Those can change from what we see right here. They may not but they could potentially. Our feeling is if we provide you with a non -development agreement it will give you the comfort of what I think you are looking for in terms of assuring that we don't sell some dirt to somebody, they go in there and get ready to develop and then they find out that there is not roads and infrastructure in there. As Mr. Moore said when I met with him we are not trying to pull anything fast here, we are not trying to slip something by the City, all we are asking very simply to the point that we know what we are going to do that we don't have to spend the amount of money on construction drawings that as I have said potentially will be useless and that we will provide the development agreement that I think will be structured in such a way that will give you the comfort and allow us to go ahead and get the plat finalized so we can talk to the people out there and potentially talk to the businesses that will come to this community and I think without saying will create the enjoyment and the of environment for the City that I think we are striving for. We want this to be a quality project; we simply need your assistance in getting to that point. Corrie: Council, questions? Discussion Morrow: I guess discussion from my standpoint is that in terms of trying to do construction drawings at this point when we can make those conditions of the non -development agreement prior to re -activating the parcel does seem like a waste of money because it is difficult to do construction drawings when you don't know who your tenants are and what their desires might be. Other than just concept renderings and of course there is not a lot there that is very meaningful. So I don't have a problem with doing a non -development agreement and crafting within that development agreement some of the staff conditions and concerns. Also the City Attorney's concerns. Rountree: I would like to have Gary respond to that. Smith: Mr. Mayor and Councilmen, I believe and I will paraphrase this a little because I am not sure of the exact wording, but in the ordinance part of the final plat submittal requires that development plans be submitted five sets with the plat. That is a package; it all comes in at the same time. From my standpoint if the applicant wants to do something different then what the ordinance requires then a variance would be required from the ordinance requirements. The second thing is that the preliminary plat on this project has been approved I believe by Council but the final plat has not, there is a one year time limit between the approval of the preliminary plat and the required approval of the final plat or the preliminary plat approval goes away. There is also a one year time limit from final plat approval to required recording of the final plat or final plat approval goes away. I don't know what the applicant time line is in marketing the property on the second part of those comments. But on the first part it seems to me that if the development plans are not forth coming with the final plat then a variance should be requested from the ordinance requirements because it is a shall requirement. I might be commenting here when Shari should be commenting but I believe that is what the ordinance says. Morrow: Now the construction information you are referring to is site construction, sewer, water, it is not necessarily building construction. Smith: That is correct, it is what I call the off site construction. Sewer, water plans, street plans. Which in effect is defining the alignment of the streets within the subdivision which in turn defines the lot configurations of the subdivision. Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 24 of 51 Seel: (Inaudible) One of the things too that was requested of us was to meet with Mr. Crookston who is unfortunately not here tonight. I did meet with him and discuss this thing just as I have discussed it today. His comment was he did not see any problem with it again and anyone is certainly welcome to talk to him I am not going to try and put words in his mouth. That was his comment to us which gave us the comfort to move forward. Again I think and I just want to emphasize it is not so much the time frame of this, that is really not the issue. When we are sitting down with an investor across the table one of his questions is do you have a final plat. No we don't have a final plat, at that point you can kind of see the light goes dim and you can see them looking in different directions. We are at a disadvantage right now in order to compete with what is a lot of other land available in the market Mr. Moore as you are probably aware owns Meridian Business Park. We did a non -development agreement with that and I know that goes back a ways. But we put the infrastructure in before we really began to talk as far as any type of development we would have done if that infrastructure was in. I think the key thing is here we need help in terms of being able to market to people out there in the community. Whether we had 2 years, five years or two weeks between the preliminary and final is really irrelevant in my opinion. It is whether we can respond to that and say we have the final. That and whether or not there are other hurdles out there that we have to achieve. They don't hear that, they hear no we don't have a final plat. So again what we are really trying to do is put ourselves in the position where we can go out there and talk to these people and compete. We are talking to people; this is not a pipe dream. But you can easily have 16, 20 weeks or better between the time it takes to get a final plat approved. As I say we are one right now in the County and it is 8 weeks. As another example on a project we did in Boise and I understand this is not Boise. We went ahead because it was platted we were able to go ahead and consummate a transaction with (inaudible) Medical and in that particular case the road wasn't in yet. But they were comfortable enough to proceed with it because they knew the plat was in place, they knew we could move forward with the road. Had that plat not been in place and it is only speculation I would have to venture a guess that it was unlikely that they would have taken that risk. So, again without beating this too much we are simply asking for your assistance. We are asking for a way that we can move forward, be in that ring with both hands in front of us instead of one tied behind our back and be able to go after those types of companies that I think you want within this community. With a preliminary plat we are at a disadvantage, whether again that is 2 years or 3 years between now and the final. So that is really in many respects the key thing here. Rountree: I have a question for Gary, and maybe Mr. Seel, how would one go about advancing roadwork on a final plat that had not construction plans with ACHD? Smith: Councilman Rountree you couldn't proceed without approval from ACHD on the street plans. You could proceed with sewer and water without approval from the City of Meridian public works department. If they have a final plat in hand and they are selling, is that what I am understanding that the applicant is going to proceed with final plat for approval and then market the property? The final plat outlines the street alignment. Rountree: If that were to change then the plat would have to be modified. Smith: Right, so I guess I don't understand the rationale here to have a final plat but not have development plans that are drawn around the final plat. If streets start changing in the final plat and lots are delineated on the final plats and lots start changing then that comes back to the City Council for approval again. Or back to P & Z. What have I missed, obviously there.. ? Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering, I think I can answer Gary's questions. One of the problems that we have had with the commercial developments and having the utility easements either in prior to the buyer coming in and purchasing a lot is utility locations and sizing of like our water lines and so forth. We have had some cases where we had to tear out streets and they had to be reconstructed. It had to be moved over. The example that Jonathan gave of the Westpark project it was a previously platted development, it had been done quite awhile. We came in and did plans and we went through the City of Boise with our sewer plans, United Water with our Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 25 of 51 water, ACHD with our street plans and we put that street and sized and the lot configuration we did a lot line adjustment to accommodate (inaudible) who was relocating from downtown. So that the lot line adjustments and the fact that we don't have any dedicated right of way internally within this project. The utilities are to the property; there is central sewer to our north boundary. There is central water on our southeast corner. So we don't have any off site design that would be required, everything is internal within the project. Ada County Highway District will sign a plat without plans if you bond for improvements or you sign a non -development agreement with them. They do allow us to do that under certain circumstances. We will have some flexibility on this plat think with the lot line adjustments. We have never; we have sized these lots based on what we can guess a typical user however they always change. One thing problem we have is relocating of seepage beds. We did on a project just a few months ago over where the Bureau of Land Management building was going in. The building ending up having to be placed right where we had a $30,000 seepage bed. It was torn up, it was relocated and moved. In doing so irrigation was damaged that went onto an adjoining property that had to be repaired. It is just really difficult these are totally unlike a residential subdivision in how they are developed and over the long term how they build out and what the needs are. Every user has a different need. Based on the ordinance this concept that we brought forward to this body is the most flexible concept that we could come up with within the confines of the ordinance. We understand that you do not have carte blanche, we can't come back and it just turns this loop road that is already a recorded plat turns into just a cul-de-sac, we understand that but it does give us the flexibility to make some minor modifications based on the State code and the City of Meridian code. So we are just basically trying to work within the confines and figure out a solution to these peoples problems and based on our experience with problems on other commercial developments. Thank you. Corrie: Thank you Becky. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, it seems to me that there are some legal issues that need to be resolved and it might be to our benefit, to the applicant's benefit and the staff's benefit to have City Attorney Crookston here or between now and our next meeting prepare some information as to some guidelines as to how we ought to be going here. Gary has some valid issues to address that we need to cover. I think it is beneficial to table to the next meeting and in between now and then have City Attorney Crookston address the issues that we have got to deal with this from or what standpoint we need to deal with it or the direction that we need to deal with it. So I would move that we table until August 6. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion was made to table this to August 6, second by Mr. Tolsma, motion by Mr. Morrow, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas (Inaudible) Fitzgerald: Mr. Crookston will be back on the 22nd of July. ITEM #10: CONCERNS REGARDING FENCE VARIANCE FOR LOT 13 AND 14, BLOCK 2 OF HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION: Corrie: Is Russ or Paula Rice, or John and Suzanne Van Zante here? Would you like to come up please and address the Council? Van Zante: My name is John Van Zante I live at 2642 West Leonard, Russ Rice is here as well and he would like to express some of his concerns as well. We live in Haven Cove Subdivision and currently a variance has been granted to fence off the two lots directly to the east of my property. After talking with Mr. Stucker the owner his has informed me that he intends to use Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 26 of 51 these lots for storage, to store RV's and whatever. He even mentioned offering storing other neighbors RV's within in this particular area. My concern first of all is that fencing off two lots in the middle of his subdivision is not harmonious to the rest of the property owners. My concern is property values will be decreased, I bought in a subdivision, there were several undeveloped lots within that subdivision. It wasn't a big deal, these two were no exception. Now come to find out the owner wants to fence them off and put a storage unit next to my house. It kind of upsets me. So my concern, I am not an attorney, I don't understand all of the legal ramifications but I am not sure that it would be legal for him to do this. I don't think it would be legal if I were to go into the middle of anybody else's subdivision and buy a lot fence it off and park a boat. The lots are zoned residential, the primary use is for residential. Yes ultimately they are not going to be used residentially. There have been rumors going around the neighborhood as to what exactly Mr. Stucker's final end use will be. And frankly I don't wish to share those because I am not Mr. Stucker and I can't tell you. I guess all I am looking for is an answer, can he, is it, can he fence these two lots off in the middle of our subdivision and do anything with it other than a house? You have granted him a variance which basically in my understanding gives him permission to do that. don't think that like I mentioned before that I can go out in the middle of some subdivision buy a lot and fence it off and park my RV's and my boats in there. Russ has some comments that I think would like to have him address right now. So that is my concern. Corrie: Council any questions? Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I might make a point, the variance that was given was for fence which can be built on a residential lot, there was no variance for use. The use was specified in the variance letter that it would be used for residential use. Van Zante: Can you build a fence without a house? Rountree: Certainly Van Zante: So he can fence it off and leave it for all eternity? Rountree: As long as it is maintained. Van Zante: That is some questions that Russ has is concerning maintenance. Rountree: It is still zoned residential. Bentley: That would be no different than if you had a house and you had two lots and you didn't build a house on the second one you just used it as your yard. Van Zante: I wouldn't have a problem using it as a yard. There are concerns, a six foot fence a variance of 10 foot from the road so we are backing out of our driveway we wont be able to see down the road. (Inaudible) Van Zante: So there is a safety concern there as well. Your comments didn't make me happy but I understand that is the way it is. I do need to understand that if he begins to start parking other people's RV's or his own stuff on that lot I think it needs to be made clear that he cannot do that, he cannot use that lot for anything other than residence. In my limited conversation with him he has some clear intentions of using that lot for something other than what it is zoned for. If I had known that I wouldn't have moved where I moved. Thank you. Rice: My name is Russ Rice, I live at 2628 West Leonard, right next door to Mr. Van Zante. He has expressed our concerns pretty well, a few of the things that I want to address is first of all one thing he mentioned about the ten foot, if you are backing out of a driveway how much room is Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 27 of 51 required for a visual, to back out of the driveway for oncoming traffic. I don't know if there is a law or whatever but I think that needs to be addressed. Also, the landscaping in front of the fence, we would like to find out and get it on record what he plans to do for landscaping. Is it going to be rock, is it going to be grass, it is something that is going to match along what the rest of the neighborhood is. We have single family dwellings all along the streets, everyone has lawns. I don't think it would look very good to have a non -growing landscaping in front of that. And the end use, I would just like to get it on record what Mr. Stucker's end use plans are for the inside of that six foot fence. I spoke with Mr. Stucker, he seems like a very good neighbor and I just would like to get it on record what his plans are for this property. Corrie: Anyone else out of the two parties here, that you want to say to us? Council, anything? I think that this was requested by just two parties that they wanted an audience with the City Council, I guess I can ask the City Council if they would like to hear anything further on it. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, was this request in the form of an appeal of the findings of the fence committee? Corrie: There is nothing here that says it is an appeal, it just says they want an audience with the City Council. Morrow: It may not be, it sounds to me like it may not be a formal appeal but certainly they are appealing the issues under which it was approved. It sounds to me like their desire would be the Council reverse the approval and I think the courtesy would indicate at least Mr. Stucker who is the one that owns the property and has asked for the fence variance be given an opportunity to answer some of the questions. Corrie: Is Mr. Stucker here? Stucker: I am Lee Stucker, I live at 2695, 2641 West Leroy Court. Mr. Mayor and Council my full intentions are to be a good neighbor. I asked for the fence variance with the idea that it was going to please some of the neighbors more than leaving it there. I have, as the use of the lots, I have not indicated, I did not say that I was going to store RV's. I have had some neighbors say it would be a good idea and I think it would be a good idea if it could be and when I asked for the variance and met with Mr. Smith I think I indicated to him that I would not do that without City approval we discussed that. So stating that I said that I did not state that. I do not intend to unless we develop an agreement a proper agreement with the City as such. As far as the fence is concerned my thought was to agree to build the fence with the idea that it would come here pleasing some of the neighbors but it doesn't please others. I stated to Mr. Smith I would just assume not build a fence as far as I am concerned it is $1100 out of my pocket that I have no reason to spend. I have not stored anything on the two lots 2698 West Leonard and 2670 West Leonard the two lots being referred to. One of the neighbors had a trailer sitting on the back corner for a short time, it is not there now. There has never been anything stored there, the lot is totally vacant. I have mowed them twice, I have sprayed them once. I spot (inaudible) once and I mowed them again the other day. I would welcome anybody to come out and look at them and they are not weedy or trashy. I own some of the property there, these two lots have nothing on them. Corrie: I might add Mr. Stucker I have gotten phone calls just the other way around. They did want it fenced so you are between a rock and a hard place. I apologize for not recognizing you Mr. Stucker. Morrow: Mr. Stucker do you live adjacent to these two lots? Is your residence adjacent to these? Stucker: Yes, that takes a little explanation; I did own the existing farmhouse at one time, the original farmhouse. I did live there awhile. I sold that five or six years ago and my son is living there. He, that is 2695 West Cherry Lane, he has the house and a 1/2 acre only. The rest, I live at 2641 West Leroy Court which backs up to the house that has the out buildings on it. Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 28 of 51 Morrow: Then these two lots that you are proposing to fence off there is nothing on the lots? Stucker: No, the existing barn the one that has been there for 50 years extends does extend into one of the back of one of those lots. That barn extends into it but as far as that goes there is nothing else there. I do not know, I have no plans specifically for that. Morrow: Your intent to fence off here then is to fence off while it is you are deciding what to do with these lots. Stucker: Right Morrow: They are residential lots? Stucker: Absolutely, yes, I know that. Morrow: So your only use of that at some point in time to sell them is as buildable lots is that correct? Stucker: Yes as the present zoning is yes Morrow: And your fencing them, is there a requirement by the subdivision that either you landscape them or fence them is that the issue here? Stucker: If I build a fence the City has asked me to landscape the front. Morrow: I understand that but from the neighbors the adjacent property owners view is the issue here that you are fencing them so that you don't have to plant the remainder of the lot in grass or something like that for weed and dust control. Stucker: Basically I guess that would be true but I have no intent to make a total yard out of it. I just intend to keep them clear and sit on them for awhile and see (End of Tape) Morrow: (Inaudible) no requirement in the covenants and restrictions in this subdivision that you build on this lot within a certain period of time? Stucker: Not to my knowledge no. Once a house is started then there are some time elements. Morrow: Well most subdivisions nowadays require no land banking which is essentially what you are doing. And they require that you actually start construction on a lot within a 2 -year period or something like that. And so maybe that doesn't exist in this subdivision. Stucker: Not to my knowledge. Morrow: Thank you Corrie: Council do you want to hear anything further since (inaudible) a couple others that said they would like to. Morrow: I don't have a problem with that. Cooner: My name is Mike Cooner, I live at 2707 West Leonard, Mr. Stucker's property is right in front of me, it is a field. He keeps it mowed, keeps it clean. I would rather not see a fence but like you said he is between a rock and a hard spot. If he did he has no water out there that would be an extra expense dragging water out there. I told him that I would be happy just to see some decorative rock down there. I am the guy looking at the fence, nobody else is, it is not in front of anybody else but me. I know the weeds; you are going to get weeds I don't care where you live. Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 29 of 51 Perma-Green isn't going to kill them all and everybody spends 30 or 40 a month there. The fence if it goes up it goes up and if gets an of 10 feet back my neighbor I give them an easement, I don't have a problem with backing out of my driveway. There are not a lot of kids, besides that the dogs that they run in the neighborhood they all go poop over there and that takes the pressure off of my shrubs. So he can put shrubs over there he is just going to relieve me a little bit. I just see decorative rock or something like farther out I don't see any shrubs because I don't know if he wants to carry a bucket of water out there every day or spend another $500 and get it or run a pipe out there. Thanks for listening. Corrie: Thank you, anybody else that has a comment? Do I assume then that you are asking the Council to reconsider the variance that was granted? I mean the fence be, the fence committee said they can't have the fence. Are you asking the Council that they rescind that variance, is that what you are wanting to do? Okay you need an appeal, Counselor does that have to come under a separate appeal or could they do it tonight? Smith: Mr. Mayor, when we held the hearing for the variance request by Mr. Stucker we didn't make a decision at that meeting because there was a question that was raised and that had to do with whether or not Mr. Stucker could go back 20 feet from the property line and build a fence with nothing more than a fence permit. I talked to City Attorney and he said yes, there is no restriction. At that point Mr. Stucker's request for a variance to ten feet seemed to the fence committee to be in the best interest of the neighbors. And we granted that variance. Corrie: So folks your request would be that the ten foot or not that there be a fence there but that it be ten foot or 20 fence. If he wants to put a 20 foot fence there he can. If he wants, the variance committee gave him a variance for ten foot so you are probably going to get a fence there if he wants to put a fence at 20 foot or stay where it is at 10. So I guess I ask you once more do you still wish the Council to consider the ten foot? Rice: When you were asking about the, (inaudible) the first time the fence was denied because Mr. Stucker wasn't able to attend because his wife was ill and then there was a letter sent to Mr. Stucker on April 21 that they had rescinded it and he could build the fence. Well the rest of us didn't get the letter until June 21 so there has been a little bit of emotions stirring in the neighborhood. Everybody just wants it to look nice. We all want to live (inaudible). Corrie: I think Mr. Stucker has agreed that the fence he would do the landscaping and the best he could. So I guess Council, my original question to you I guess, Counselor is it in the proper form now that we can address that at this time? Fitzgerald: Well in looking at this letter dated July 1 from Mr. & Mrs. Rice and Mr. & Mrs. Van Zante. It does not appear to be a request for an appeal. I believe that there are specific procedures in which you follow to file an appeal to such a variance. So my answer would be no that I don't believe that this is the time to take up such an issue. If they would look back at the methods and procedures and file an appeal if that is what they desire to do. Corrie: Do you understand what we are saying here, if you want to appeal that variance than there is a procedure to follow we will put it on the agenda and go at that point with it. Rice: It wasn't so much to appeal it, it was just in working with the developers and real estate we just wanted it in black and white, we wanted it before the Council and we talked to Shari and Shari said to be able to get it before you guys that we needed to request an audience. That is what the letter was doing was requesting an audience. Just so that it would be black and white on tape and we all would know what is going to happen. Corrie: I might suggest that you talk with Mr. Stucker maybe you get a plan of the landscaping, I think could be worked out. It would be much easier and much better if you could do it that way rather than to come back with it, it is entirely up to you how you want to handle it. If you want to Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 30 of 51 handle it the other way then we will get it on the agenda and we will get you the proper procedure. Thank you. ITEM #11: REQUEST FOR HOOK UP TO CITY SEWER FOR WILLIAM VAUGHN BY MAX BOESIGER: Corrie: Richard? Boesiger: Good evening Mayor and members of the Council, I am Richard Boesiger. When we purchased the Summerfield 3 property from Bill Vaughn a little over a year ago, he requested that we hook his existing house up to sewer and I admit we didn't think to discuss or we didn't think of the annexation issue. We agreed to that of course and that we would do it when we built the subdivision. Now we started building the subdivision and we looked into what it was going to take to get it hooked up and realized that it is Council's general preference that the property be annexed. So I called Bill, I have had three or four calls to Bill and he has expressed an unwillingness to be annexed at this time. He does recognize that when, I forget his name, the farmer next door, when Tom (inaudible) becomes annexed he recognizes that he will have to go in at that time because he will be surrounded. At the present time he is just on the boundary. I really am not sure what exactly his reasoning is, he never really did say. He just basically said he prefers not to be annexed at this time. We are aware of the additional fee involved when we are not in the City. I guess that is it. I will answer any questions that you might have. Corrie: Council? Morrow: I have a question Mr. Mayor, generally speaking these requests are for sewer and water and of course there are the double fees that are involved in that. What he is asking for is just sewer and not water? Boesiger: That is correct, he, well part of our agreement was that we would hook him up to sewer and stuff the pressurized irrigation to him which we have, that is now done. He says his well on the site currently is fine. With pressurized irrigation all of the well would be used for is domestic water inside the house so he felt like he didn't need water. He did want to be assured that the main would be available if he ever did want to hook up to it which it will be. We are carrying the water line down Ustick to just past his boundary line. So, if he ever wants to hook up in the future then he would have the ability to do that. Corrie: Any further questions from Council? Rountree: I would have a question for Gary Smith on the do -ability of this? Smith: The ability? Rountree: The do -ability of making this connection. Smith: I need to ask Richard a question, this is the house that is at the southeast corner of the parcel that you purchased is that correct? Boesiger: Right this is that one small out parcel with that one existing house on it. Smith: It would be connecting to an interior street, sewer at an interior street? Boesiger: No, we are extending sewer and water down Ustick just past the line and Smith: Past his east boundary or your subdivision Boesiger: Past his west boundary Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 31 of 51 Smith: Just past his west boundary so you are proposing to hook in at that point then, his southwest corner? Boesiger: That is correct, basically travel through his lot to the Ustick right of way. Morrow: Explain this to me, is this property not between their subdivision and the Davis property? Smith: Yes right. (Inaudible) Morrow: So the agreement, are they going to the western boundary with the sewer and water line at this property line of this property? Smith: Yes Morrow: Then who pays to go across the front of the property to the Davis property does this property do it at some point in the future with the sewer and water lines? The to and through issue? Smith: Well, Morrow: If we are going to extend sewer service to this property don't we by ordinance have to go through to the east boundary of this property? Smith: Well it is to and through the development, the developed property. This Isn't part of the development although the development is along the north side of this property. I don't know, that is a fair question and a good question. I don't know, typically it, we don't have these out parcels or if they are out they are in the middle of the development and they just continue the extension right on past them. Where they are in the corner like this I don't know. Morrow: My question to you is how you get, if you are going to allow sewer hook up know how do you get at some point, and let's assume the Davis's develop ten years from now. How do you get the sewer and water line from the west boundary of this property to its east boundary at the property's expense? Smith: Well you don't, Vaughn would not be very amenable to paying the cost of an extension across the front of his property if he is already connected to it you are exactly right. It would be up to Davis to front the bill unless the Summerfield Development was required to extend it. Morrow: Well normally when somebody fronts it like the Davis's then we give them a late comers agreement that allows them to recapture their cost. But in this case if we granted the sewer hook up this guy has already got his sewer and he is never going to pay the late comers. Smith: It would be very difficult, impossible to collect a late comers fee from him if he is already connected. I guess the other part is if you allow him to connect to it then you require him to extend it across the front of his property so that Davis could connect to it at his west boundary. That you would look at it as a mini development whatever the size of that parcel is. That is a 12 inch water line and an 8 inch sewer line. Is that right Richard? Boesiger: I believe that is correct. Smith: It is a main transmission water line and that is a lateral sewer line. So for his connection then for a single family house that throws another iron in the fire, that is not the right word, that throws a kink. Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 32 of 51 Boesiger: I guess my comment would be is that all developers have to do some off site sewer and water extension. We are all used to that, this is only 150 feet. When that parcel develops, having sewer and water within 150 feet of your parcel is quite an advantage nowadays. Morrow: (Inaudible) in terms of the Davis's? Boesiger: Correct Smith: There would also be sewer and water stubbed into Davis's property from your subdivision right, from Summerfield No. 3, it stubs into Davis's west boundary, Isn't that correct Richard? Boesiger: No Smith: Isn't there a stub road out of your property into Davis? Where your pressure irrigation pump station is? Boesiger: Yes, you are correct, you know the plat better than I do. Smith: So there is a sewer and water stub into Davis from Summerfield that Boesiger (inaudible) Boesiger: That is right we are stubbing sewer and water right to his property line. So he won't even need to tie onto that Ustick Line. Smith: He will have to extend it because it is a main section line road extension Morrow: What I am having trouble with here is that basically you are talking about 150 feet of property that was left out of the subdivision and you are suggesting that at some point somebody else ought to pay for it or the tax payer ought to pay for it when in reality either the property owner which in this case is Mr. Vaughn ought to be paying for it because that is the same rules that everybody else plays by. And you are into a loop system so it is going to go through there at some point in the future anyway. It is a tough break for him but if he would have sold to Max and Richard then it would have been part of their subdivision and the house wouldn't have been there and it would have been developed into whatever and it would have been a requirement of them to take it to that Davis property line. Is that correct? Smith: Yes, I might ask another question of Richard, perhaps he can answer on the basis of the Highway District, when they have an out parcel like this do they make any kind of recommendation for extension of, if curb, gutter and sidewalk was to be built for extension of that past parcel that is not included in the subdivision boundary? Boesiger: ACHD it is a little more complicated, it kind of depends. It depends on whether impact fees are involved or not. To be honest with you I have never run into one of these things since the impact fee ordinance was into effect. I believe in one of their discussions their general guidelines were that if you are making less than 600 feet worth of improvements you wouldn't have but if it was less you would. Like I said there has been a lot of water under the bridge since then and I am really not sure what their policies are. Smith: I think that had to do more with the parcel that was surrounded by a subdivision, in other words it was an out parcel an existing homestead that was being subdivided around. Boesiger: That is right, in this case you have a legitimate split, one time split of a pre -ordinance lot. They can't force a developer to make the improvements in front of that, somebody else's property unless that property was included in the plat. Which of course this one wasn't . So I would think in this case they wouldn't require you to. Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 33 of 51 Smith: As I remember there was a distance a maximum distance that they would allow to exist as undeveloped. Below that distance they would require the development to take place the improvements to take place by the developer even though the parcel was outside the boundaries of the subdivision. I don't remember what those distances are but it seemed to me that there was a criteria that was established by the Highway District. Boesiger: But that had to do with could the developer get impact fee refunds for that work. I don't think it had specifically to do with whether it was an actual requirement or not. Smith: I don't remember and maybe that doesn't play into your decision tonight Council. Boesiger: I take that back that is not 150 feet that is 90 feet wide. Morrow: (Inaudible) is 90 feet wide? Boesiger: Right Corrie: Any recommendation Gary? Smith: Well, Richard is right in most cases development or a developer is going to need to extend sewer and or water a distance to get to their boundary for development. Not always but generally speaking they will. However, in those cases the developer does have an opportunity to recover some of that cost of extension in a late comers agreement. In this case Mr. Vaughn connects to the sewer, there wouldn't be an opportunity for Davis or whoever purchases and develops Davis's property to collect a late comer fee from Mr. Vaughn. Unless, well I don't even know if legally he could. If the City allowed him to extend that sewer line or connect to that sewer line without extending it. Unless perhaps a compromise could be reached where the sewer line could be extended for a distance across his property to allow him to connect rather than allow a service line to come out at an angle and connect at his southwest corner. I don't know how deep that sewer line is right in there. So again that is not going to be an expense coupled with the double hook up fee. And, I would suspect that if they are having troubled based on other incidents that we have observed recently that if they are having trouble with their septic tank and City sewer is at their southwest corner Central District Health is not going to allow that septic tank drain field to be replaced. They will require Mr. Vaughn to connect. And when I questioned the authority of them to make that requirement I was advised that yes they do have that authority. I took him at his word. So I think that it is a done deal as far as the connection is concerned and I guess the only matter is the terms of the connection from a cost standpoint. And whether or not an extension would be necessary on the sewer line. Boesiger: This is turning out to be a little more complicated than I thought it would. I should have come and talked to you first Gary. Smith: Has it failed? Boesiger: No, it still works he just has to pump it out every once and a while. Smith: Maybe that is his best alternate right now I don't know. If it is still functioning. Of course you have made an agreement to connect him haven't you? Boesiger: Yes, that is where we are kind of between a rock and a hard spot. We agreed to hook him up, granted we made a mistake by not thinking about the annexation issue when we agreed to that it just never crossed our minds. Smith: Is he connectable any where besides to Ustick? Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 34 of 51 Boesiger: Well there are two property lines between lots in Summerfield 3 that we need to go through to get to his lot that we were under the understanding that you preferred not to do that. Smith: Service lines are not our jurisdiction. Boesiger: We did that in the Vineyards on that existing house in the Vineyards and it seems like shortly after that somebody at the staff said they preferred not to do it that way. Smith: Well I think the preference would be to not do that, but if you use a schedule 40 sewer pipe and don't cheap up on the pipe material and do a good job in laying the pipe and it has some depth to it so it is not disturbed by fence posts and others digging that over the long run it will last for a long time. But again over the long run there is a possibility of interference from lot improvements. And or other things happening underground that could cause distress to the pipe and require access to the pipe. Then you have problems with the neighbors. Boesiger: Boy I wish I had come and talked to you Gary. Smith: So the preference is to not do that. Boesiger: But if it is an option it would be a lot cleaner way of handling this because that would get us a lot closer to his house. Smith: I suspect his septic tank is in the back yard anyway. Boesiger: Well the house is towards the back of the lot plus the septic tank. Well the septic tank is actually on the side. That would actually be a shorter run, the service line would actually be shorter to come in between those two lots between Lot 30 and 31 then it would be to come off of Ustick. It would be twice as long to come off of Ustick. Can I suggest that maybe I postpone this and talk it over with Gary and go over what our options are. Morrow: I would move to table to August 6. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to table this request for hook up to the August 6 meeting, any further discussion? Al those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas ITEM #12: DEED FOR GOLF COURSE PROPERTY: Corrie: Council you received a fax from Spink and Butler. I don't know if you have had a chance to read it yet. I guess how clean is this Walt in what we were looking for. Morrow: In terms of the deed we are light years ahead of where we were. We are within a couple of hours of getting that completed. The desire by Mr. Turnbull is to link the recording of the deed and the side agreement together to be signed at the same time. Really where we are at here is that there have been two revisions or two re -writes of the side agreement. There are still some things in there that I am uncomfortable with. I won't speak for the counselor but I think in terms of the deed, the deed is just about there, the side agreement needs some fine tuning yet. Having said that I would have the counselor take it from there. Fitzgerald: Mr. Mayor and Council I kind of got in on this actually on Saturday so I have been having a quick education into the status of this. As I understand it there are basically three issues presently the one is the deed to the property, the second is the side agreement, third is an easement agreement. As I understood it originally although the easement agreement is somewhat separate and distinct it is a related issue to this. Focusing in on the deed which is exhibit B to the facts that you received as Councilman Morrow indicated it has been cleaned up. Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 35 of 51 But in terms of concern one of the issues is item 2 which is the easements and right of ways for roads, ditches, tunnels, utilities and other purposes on the date hereof. To my knowledge the City has not received a legal description of that property. So they have not been able to obtain a title report. So in essence what we are dealing with is these easements and rights of way for roads etc., not know what those are until a title report is done. Also coupled with that is item 3, exceptions, reservations, terms, covenants and conditions of record. Again that would be shown in the title report. So we are in somewhat in the dark on that. Based upon my conversations with Joann Butler today and this fax the message on that fax Mr. Turnbull is to fax over to our office a legal description. From that we can obtain presumptively a title report to find out what exactly those easements and rights of ways and etc. any exceptions or reservations are to clean up that issue. In terms of the agreement my understanding is as Councilman Morrow indicated is that they want to execute the deed of gift with this agreement concurrently. There are some issues with regards to this agreement that BRC who is the grantor wants to have some so to speak protection in terms of the development and use of this. My concern is how do these relate to obligations that exist under the current lease agreement with Cherry Lane Recreation Inc. for the operations and maintenance of the golf course. That in my mind is a very big issue. So that the City is not agreeing with BRC to do something that it has no capability of performing or ability to perform. In terms of the maintenance, there are issues of what is a material change and BRC having the ability to approve or disapprove of that development. So in terms of the agreement itself I see some real issues that need to be ironed out. Again given my quick education in this and the long history I think that it is an extensive examination of the lease and this agreement and how the two inter -relate needs to be given some careful consideration. So at this point in time I think that we are or I would advise the Council that given the status of this agreement and the issues that are out there that it is not ready to necessarily proceed with the absolute approval of the agreement and correspondingly with the deed until that examination can be made. However I would indicate based upon my review of where we were previously and where we are this evening it is moving forward. Corrie: Thank you counselor, I guess my question would be to Walt how are we as far as time? Morrow: I think what we can do here is that we are really close. I think we can authorize as a Council we can authorize the Mayor to accept and also the Mayor and Clerk to sign and attest the agreement and the deed because I am fairly convinced within the next few days these will both be coming and we don't meet as a Council for these technical issues to review those if the Council is comfortable with that. From the standpoint of the next steps that we will be talking about that is awarding of the bids that we have that Brad will discuss here in the next agenda item believe. So it would be beneficial to be able to have the capability to at least award those bids and be moving on with that. And then in the interim we don't meet for almost a regular meeting for almost three weeks. And given the progress that we made today my anticipation that we need to have the Counselor's do a little bit of work cross referencing the existing lease agreement with the conditions in terms of maintenance and have the title policy to define what easements do exist. Those are really the only two major issues left and once those are resolved then there is no reason not to accept the deed and not to accept the side agreement. And we are on down the road. One of the other things after we are done discussing this and you also have a copy of a letter of commitment today by Brighton Corporation and David Turnbull in terms of extending the road to the club house site by the latest next Spring depended on weather conditions. That takes it out of the discussion that we had at our last meeting with Gary and comments of an agreement between Mr. Lovan and Mr. Turnbull which the City wasn't a party really too and it didn't do us any good for them to have an agreement because it didn't get the road built in order to get a club house built. With this letter of commitment that Mr. Turnbull has as a first draft then essentially what happens is the road is constructed to the club house site next Spring and it is simply up to us as a City to say okay everything is ready to go what is the schedule and design of the club house and the disposition of such. So we have made substantial progress on both of those issues that is where we are at now. Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 36 of 51 Fitzgerald: I just want to interject two comments, number one, I noticed that in the facts from Joann Butler that it says that please note that Dave Turnbull has not reviewed this document so that it must remain subject to his final review. And then in terms of my comments I also then address this other easement agreement although I think that needs to be taken into consideration just in simply my understanding of how the whole package is put together. We don't know at this where those easements are going to be or any information in that regard as to that easement agreement. Corrie: Do we have a written agreement with Cherry Lane Golf Course Inc. that they will build a club house? Morrow: Not to this, what has been happening is that the tail has been chasing the rabbit wit the road and the club house. By virtue of this letter then we are getting ourselves into position of saying okay here is the schedule for the road, now we want these other issues resolved. We can do that now that we have something concrete in terms of the schedule. Prior to this Mr. Lovan's position and rightfully so was that I can't build a club house if I don't have a road to it. Mr. Turnbull's position was that he didn't know exactly when he was going to build a road. And so in the course of the last couple weeks and ultimately today we have got the position now where based on our last meeting we made the recommendation to Gary as a Council that we weren't releasing the approvals for Ashford Greens No. 1 until we got the issue resolved with respect to a letter between he and Wally Lovan. Where we ended up with is we didn't want a letter of agreement between the two of them because that did us no good. What we wanted was an agreement between us the City and Mr. Turnbull first. Once we have the road in position then we deal with the issue of Mr. Lovan and the club house. Rountree: A process or a timing question, Walt you are suggesting doing something this evening in terms of an action on this. Could we not, it would be my preference to deal with this at our planning session if that is possible given the situation with Mr. Turnbull's comments about not having had an opportunity to review this. I would certainly like to sit down and read this. If I do have comments that gets to my second question not having a meeting for 3 weeks, should I direct them to Mayor (inaudible) for discussion and incorporation or consideration of change so the Council can consider those if I have any. What I am telling you now is that I am not in a position to take action on this, this evening, if it means a special meeting because of the criticality of timing on this I am all for that. I want to move it but I am uncomfortable given the information or lack of information I have had an opportunity to review. Morrow: I think it is certainly appropriate then the night of our strategic planning meeting we could notice that as a special meeting for a 6:30 start and that gives us, I really think that at the rate we went at today that a week from today we are essentially a done deal plus we have the familiarity of Wayne being back so that if there are any little hidden issues there we are not thinking of he has it covered. So I think it is appropriate that we have a half hour special meeting and then move on into our planning session. Rountree: That would be my preference. Corrie: A quick question on that one, we have one Councilman that is not going to be here, can we have it on the 30th if he wishes to be involved in it? Morrow: Well the question is if you are going to, you have to understand this only applies to 2 and 1/3 holes approximately. Corrie: It is required for the whole nine as you say, this deed (inaudible) Morrow: Well not it is not required for the other 6 and 2/3 holes. Corrie: Well it is if you want to use the money, it has to be deed in hand. Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 37 of 51 Morrow: Well if you recall there are two different layouts, if this whole thing falls apart and we never got the property we have another layout to make use of the property hat we have in terms of the nine holes. We can do nine holes in two different manners and always could from the very beginning. And so the issue is that we have designed this with this property for these nine holes the Ashford Greens property comprises approximately 2 and 1/3 holes. The point is that if we were never to get the property then we switch to the other design and develop the nine holes with the existing property. Where we are at right now is that we are close to getting these. If we are going to tie the award of the deed to the award of the bids we can't wait to the 30th it has to be next week. The issue is that we have the bids 26th of June and they are 30 day bids which expire the 26th of July. Corrie: I guess my only problem with that is you are eliminating, if that happen to be the case, you go to the original nine holes how many homes are we eliminating to pay back the $350,000? Morrow: All of the homes that (inaudible) they are part of the agreement. Corrie: They are part of the agreement? So they would have to pay regardless of whether they are on the golf course or not? Morrow: You have to pay now whether you are on the golf course or not. There are a lot of homes that don't have (inaudible) 3 different subdivisions or 4 different subdivisions. Corrie: I guess I would have to go back, we are talking about 600 and some homes that took in total and I would I guess I would like Mr. Turnbull (End of Tape) that is your call. I just had some questions if you go with the original back nine and you say it is I would assume it was correct but we call it, would Turnbull's group be involved in that anymore? Because they are not even in part of that back nine. Morrow: No, Bob, they were required like anybody else it is a condition of their approval to pay the fee within the subdivisions, whether they have frontage on the golf course or not. Corrie: If that be true than that is fine, I just didn't know what it was, I would have to look at that. I want to make darn sure that they are involved in it because there are a lot of homes. Morrow: At this point it is in Mr. Turnbull's best interest to proceed with this because his entire design of the subdivision and those homes are contingent upon them being on the golf course. The whole reason for the signed agreement is his concern that the golf course be an amenity to help sell his homes. So at this point he has everything to lose by no proceeding forward with the deeding of the 200 1/3 acres. We as a council and City by virtue of expiration of the bids make our decision at next Tuesday's meeting. There is no other option. By virtue of the construction time schedule we need to be making that decision and awarding those bids either tonight subject to work starting once we have the deed in hand or we award those bids next week based on having deed in hand. Corrie: I guess my original question is (Inaudible) it is your call. Charlie? Rountree: I don't have any problem with awarding the bids tonight with the condition that we get the deed in hand. That just takes care of the legal time line I assume we could cancel it if the deed fell through (inaudible) but as far as the agreement I would just like to see that in fairly final form. Morrow: I don't disagree with that and it needs to be next week because you also have a construction time line (inaudible) all of a sudden you are in August and it is too late to get (inaudible) very little seeding growth. Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 38 of 51 Corrie: Any further comments of the Council? Morrow: So let me ask you this, do we need a motion? Corrie: If everybody is in agreement I will call a special meeting on the 23rd, along with the planning meeting there will be a special meeting if nobody has any objections. Bentley: So we need a motion to table? Corrie: No I will just call a special meeting for the agreement and deed. Rountree: So likewise defer item 13 until the 23 or is there any advantage Morrow: No, let's award the bids tonight so that we have got them out there and ready to go. Rountree: With the conditions? Morrow: Yes with the conditions that we accept the deed and the side agreement Rountree: Is that a motion? Morrow: Yes Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that we award the bids, I guess we have to look at the bids, I guess there is only one in each category, well we will look at the bids at that point, to award the bids based upon the agreement and the deed easement agreement (inaudible) with Council. Fitzgerald: I don't know if this is necessarily appropriate but in terms of the motion the acceptance of the bids is subject to and conditioned upon the deed, the side agreement and easement agreement is that correct? Corrie: That is correct, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas ITEM #13: AWARD BID FOR GOLF COURSE CONSTRUCTION: Corrie: Brad, are you going to do that? Watson: Mayor and Council we together with the Golf Course Committee have put together a budget, construction budget. There are twelve items on there. We went out for on three large items and received bids for two of those. The one that we received a formal bid for was the irrigation equipment. That is from Silver Creek Irrigation they were the low bidder. The greens construction, we received a formal bid from Cloverdale Nursery. The other one that was put out for formal bid was for an irrigation system installation. We received no bids for that, I have since talked to four or five people that provided quotes. The firm that provided the lowest quote is Hillside Nursery. That was provided actually through Cloverdale Nursery who is doing the greens construction, the one that submitted the only bid for the greens construction. The Golf Course Committee I think recommended them since they would work hand in hand with greens contractor. We have obtained quotes for nine other items, those weren't put out for bid because they are all under the $25,000 limit. There is one item on here, I haven't talked to Walt about this yet, it is for construction of pipe line between the ponds. The quotes that I have gotten so far Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 39 of 51 indicate that it would over the $25,000 limit and possibly may have to be put out for bid. The total dollar amount that I came up with adding all of these quotes and bids together is $339,099. Corrie: Do you know what we have in the account? Morrow: In the $350,000 account? Well actually we have been paying off the $350,000 and haven't borrowed any of the money as of yet. And so the issue is that we have had some payments off there, we had the $350,000 plus the last financial report we had is we had approximately $22,000 from the donation account thereabouts and we have never been able to get the information from the City of Meridian concerning the balance of the accounts from Paul White within Cherry Lane Subdivision nor from Gary Marshall in Golf View Estates. Paul White donated for a period of a time $100 per lot we don't know what that balance is we have requested that information since this committee was formed, we have not been able to get it. The same is the issue with Gary Marshall in the Golf View Estates monies, don't know how much it is, there is money there. Dennis Marshall, I am sorry. Corrie: We are not being able to get anything from the Treasurer's office? Morrow: That is what I am trying to tell you. Corrie: I hear you but Morrow: The former Mayor Kingsford has made two or three requests, I have requested as of yet we do not have a handle nor have we found that money through our financial reports. So I need help getting that money or at least finding out what it is and where it is. Corrie: You have it. So you are well within, we are $372,000 (inaudible). The only thing we really have to worry about is that $25,000 plus if it is over that then we have to go bid on that. Watson: Possibly Morrow: There is some design work there and then there is some question in terms of specs. Rountree: And timing of asking for quotes. Watson: There is only one thing that I wanted to bring up, in the bid documents I specified a 60 day bid open period because I knew there was a possibility of this. That is kind of irrelevant because this needs to be done like you said the time line. I just wanted to clarify that. The only other thing on this total that I gave you, there is a possibility for this pond pipe line that some engineering and construction staking would have to be done but the cost for that wouldn't be any more than $3000 1 estimate. Morrow: I guess the gray area to bring you up to speed on the pipe (inaudible) whether it is a drain line or just a supply line and whether it is a deep set line graded or whether it is a shallow setline that just gravity flows between the ponds. Because at the end of the pond there is a provision for it to drain into a ditch, what is the name of the drain ditch Gary? Drain ditch 1 (inaudible) Watson: Right it is on Black Cat. Corrie: So we are looking at 12 items one possible bid yet? Watson: Yes, and the only thing as far as I am concerned that needs to be taken care of like Walt has said is these two formal bids they need to be notified soon. Corrie: Thank you Brad, any further questions? Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 40 of 51 Morrow: Excuse me, we did have the motion to award those bids. Corrie: Yes subject to the (inaudible). ITEM #14: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: Corrie: Gary? Smith: I would like to acknowledge Brad for all of his good work, hard work on that golf course project, I think he pulled together a lot of information and was able to present it in a very concise format for the golf course committee. Morrow: He has done a heck of a job for us on the golf course committee and brings a lot of expertise by virtue of having dealt with some of these folk that we are working with before when he was in northern Idaho somewhere well above Moscow. So he is not in the same position as our Counselors might be. Smith: The two items that you have in front of you on my department report concern easements for an extension of a sewer line from the Five Mile Trunk Sewer that was done as part of the St. Luke's project under the interstate to the south to Overland Road. That line would ultimately serve the Voigt property which was known as Sundance subdivision and I believe now that 50 some acres has been purchased of that site by Meridian School District for a future high school. So this sewer line would service that future high school site. Along with property to the east and west of the extension basically from Eagle Road west to the Playground where the driving range is and south of Overland Road which would include the Sundance development. Anyway, easements were obtained by the developer for that extension some time ago. In fact it was, it has been at least a year ago. During that period of time one of those easements they have found a need to change the alignment on one of the easements or change the alignment of the sewer line which changes the easements. So a new sewer easement has been obtained by the developer which is Mr. Voigt and Mr. Craig Groves from the Thomas family and in turn they have the developers Mr. Voigt and Mr. Groves have obtained a recision agreement from, recision and termination of easement agreement from Mr. and Mrs. Peck which eliminates the easement across the Peck property and establishes an easement across the Thomas property for this sewer line extension. The terms of the easement for the Thomas property are basically identical to the terms of the easement that you approved for the Peck property. So the reason that this is before you tonight and I don't think I erred and didn't get you a copy of the agreement but for you to approve the easement for the Thomas property and approve of the recision of the easement for the Peck property. The Peck's have signed the recision and termination of easement agreement. Mr. Groves delivered a copy of that to me and I have it in my possession. I have a copy of the easement of the agreement for the Thomas's in my possession and they have signed that agreement. So I would request your approval Mayor to sign and City Clerk to attest both of those documents. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we accept the sanitary sewer easement for the Thomas parcel and the recision agreement for the Pecks' and that we authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest both of those agreements. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas Smith: Thank you Corrie: Shari? Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 41 of 51 Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I had two items today. One has come up recently on Sportsman Point No. 5 this would be at the southwest corner of Locust Grove and Overland. The developer got approval for his final plat originally in April of 1995. Wait maybe that is wrong, he got an extension to record the final plat on June 20 of 1995 which would mean by June 20 of this year he was required to have the final plat recorded. He has not done that, he has not made any requests to the City. He wants to get a pre -construction conference approved and when Rick asked him about the expiration of his plat he said that is okay go ahead. But I really don't think that is a staff issue and it is not up to the developer to tell us what our ordinance. It is very clear about the final plat shall be recorded unless the Council gives the maximum of one year extension and he has exceeded that time. I just, do I direct the developer to apply for a variance, do we tell him his plat is null and void, do we over look it and give him an extra two months. I don't know if Gary has any issues that are unresolved with this plat. We are running into this more and more lately, I would like us to either go with what the ordinance says or change it. It gets a little difficult when somebody comes in two years after the fact and then all of the sudden wants to hurry and have us drop everything and look at his plat again. Corrie: Gary? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council, Mr. Johnson the developer of this project told me that one of the reasons that he hadn't recorded the plat was that he was waiting for approval on the construction plans. I have admittedly been hassling him on the construction plans because of some irrigation, pressure irrigation issues. I don't know if that is the absolute truth or not but I can only assume that it is. He does have streets cut out there and he is very anxious to proceed with construction of the subdivision. We did give him approval of the development plans and he has taken that approval along with the plans to DEQ for their approval. Upon receipt of that he can schedule a preconstruction meeting with the City of Meridian. So it is his intent to proceed with the project. (Inaudible) Groves: My name is Craig Groves, I would like to address this issue. My capacity I am speaking with you as a partner in Gem Park No. 2 which is the development company that is developing Sportsman No. 5. 1 wanted to just clarify and reiterate a couple of issues. Development financing for that project was obtained and closed in April of this year. We proceeded to schedule some site clean up and grading work and at the same time submitted plans to the City of Meridian. Mr. Smith had some issues in regards to the pressurized irrigation system. My partner Mr. Johnson didn't have construction drawings on the pressurized irrigation system detailed enough to meet Mr. Smith's requirements. And did have some issues regarding that pressurized irrigation system that they went back and forth on. Mr. Johnson felt that since the pressurized irrigation system was going to be owned by the homeowners association and not operated by the City he was questioning why the City had to approve all of those plans. So they kind of went back and forth a little bit on that. So I think Gary had a little bit of a position there to hold the project up. If there is any way that you can see yourselves allowing us to move forward I believe all of those issues have been resolved. We would sure like to get started on it. Corrie: Thank you, Council, discussion? Smith: Mr. Mayor, I might ask Mr. Groves what is the timing for you to record that plat then if that is the issue and it is not so much the construction of the project as the issue right now is just the recording of the plat. Groves: (Inaudible) Gary, my knowledge, we needed the construction drawings approved so that we could obtain the necessary letter of credits to take to the agencies so we can record it. Bank financing is in place and the bank will issue the letters of credits but we have to have construction drawings, approved construction drawings to proceed. Smith: So that you can get the signatures of the agencies on the plat? Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 42 of 51 Groves: Right. Smith: Do you have a time line as to when that is all going to happen? Groves: It takes a little while to run those plats through the agencies, it was, it is our intention to just move as quickly as we can. I think the least amount of time that we need to get a plat recorded by the time that you get it to all of the various agencies and have them sign off on it is going to be 90 days. We will have the project built and paved out within 90 days, we will have it built and paved out before we can get it recorded. Smith: Thank you Morrow: So Shari would you recap for me exactly what the issue seems to have been that there was not an application for extension on the plat within the required time because there was information going on back and forth between the developer and the public works department, is that where we are at here? Stiles: Councilman Morrow, Mayor and Council the issue is that the ordinance is very clear, I don't think it is subject to my interpretation or anyone else's interpretation. It says that the final plat shall be recorded within one year unless the Council grants an extension up to a maximum of one year. That time has come and gone and if the Council in their discretion wants to give them another 90 days that is fine but I would like that to be the direction of the Council and not a staff decision. Morrow: I believe that we have done 90 and 100 day extensions before for other folk as I recall. You are nodding in the affirmative Mr. Smith? Corrie: Was that a formal request, Gary, was that done by formal request? We don't have a request at this point from them to do that. Smith: No, that is correct. Golf View was one, I don't know if that was, I think we had a two-year situation on that, it lapsed on year and then the Council granted another year for an extension on that through a variance. Groves: I would like to say; it was truly just a complete oversight. Our extension expired what did you say June 21 or 22, 20. We got approved construction drawings and letters back from Gary I think just after the 4th of July. I guess if you will take a request for a 90 -day extension right here and now I would like to ask you for that please. Morrow: Is it inappropriate to grant a 6 -month extension from the day of expiration? Corrie: I suppose you can do anything you want, the Council can extend if they want. Fitzgerald: Without reading the statute, and or the ordinance and if it is as clear as it is it would seem to me that the only way you could do it is through a variance the way it has been done before. I have trouble in my mind saying that the Council can disregard the language of the ordinance and grant an extension in its discretion unless there is some basis whether it be through a variance or not. Rountree: So I guess what you are saying is that would be inappropriate to act on the request received. Fitzgerald: Based upon what I have heard tonight yes. If you want to give me some Rountree: That is as close to a yes as I am going to get I think. (Inaudible) Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 43 of 51 Corrie: It is ordinance 9-604, any request for extension must be filed with the zoning administrator prior to the lapse of the original one year it must be written. Fitzgerald: That sounds pretty defining to me. Morrow: So I guess the direction then to Mr. Grove is to request through the formal channels what we have do here and proceed forward. There is no other option unfortunately. Corrie: Okay so then a variance request. Shari? Stiles: I had another issue come up today and actually Gary did too, somebody has submitted a building permit application in La Playa Subdivision, I want to hand out these maps to you. As you know we have had some recent experience and we are on a learning curve on planned developments as witnessed by the Ashford Greens Subdivision and this La Playa Manner Estates subdivision. The owner came in today, wants to build single family zero lot lines development on some of these lots. I don't think that was made clear during the process and apparently they said that they wanted the duplex lots because they said they were having trouble with the Water Superintendent as to where those utility locations would be. This is another case where the ordinance says that even in zero lot line development there will be a ten foot separation between buildings. The developer is requesting that he be allowed to have his five foot setback or a five foot distance between buildings to be able to build single family homes on the lot line. In that case they would also have to dedicate an easement as Gary and I discussed about so that they can maintain that site of their building that was on the lot line. Morrow: Let me ask you this Shari, so what is the total distance between the two buildings? Stiles: There would be five Morrow: Five feet? Stiles: Yes Morrow: Well normally in this kind of a zero lot line you will have, for example you might have zero on one side and then a 3 and a seven or something like that for a composite of ten on the other side that allowed space for service lines like sewer and water lines and so on and so forth. What you are asking for on this is that total distance be five feet and then an easement for use to maintain the site of the house I guess, is that what you are saying? Stiles: Yes, the easement would be within the five feet between the buildings. Morrow: That allows both parties access to maintain their houses? Stiles: Yes, they have drawn on this map what might happen. But they had a real problem with the ten feet between the buildings. The ten feet is in our ordinance in regard to zero lot lines. Morrow: Ten feet meaning on the off side. Stiles: Just ten feet between buildings. Morrow: Your zero on one side of your building, the next side, it doesn't matter how the property is divided, it could be any multiple of ten feet but for a total of ten on the other side. Stiles: Yes Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 44 of 51 Rountree: I would have to say I would want to hold with that. What are they asking, for a variance? Stiles: Mr. Kirby when he came in, he seemed to be of the understanding was this was always what he was asking for. I don't think it was ever presented that way. He says that the lots are unusable if he is not allowed to do it this way. I guess what I always saw when they were discussing it is duplex and single family development was that the narrow 42.5 foot frontage lots would all be duplex lots and that the larger lots that could accommodate single family homes would be built as single family homes. He was very adamant that this goes on in surrounding communities all of the time and I just, I don't have the experience with these kinds of developments to know. I could do some research on that and get back to you but from planning and zoning standpoint it doesn't make that much of a difference but as the utilities and sewer and water and any kind of other utility easement I don't know what that does. I probably should have had Mr. Kirby come tonight to explain his concept better to you. Morrow: Shari I can't give you an answer, from my own personal experience I am trying to recall right now and I just need to think it through. I don't ever recall working in a deal where there was a total of a five-foot separation on the off side. So I need to ask some other folk within the industry and so on and so forth. I am not prepared to give you an answer. Stiles: Is there a way that you could maybe individually get back to me. Rountree: I will get back to you right now, it would be my opinion that you hold to the ordinance the way it is and that off side minimum is ten feet. Bentley: Mine too. Tolsma: Same here Corrie: I think your answer has been given to you, they want a variance then they can come for it. But it, you have your answer. Morrow: Let me ask one other question here, if he can furnish documentation that he was approved with what he thinks he was of the five foot then that is another matter. Stiles: I will research that, I didn't have much time to look through the file but I will research that and make sure it wasn't presented. Corrie: But at that time he can bring it to Council. Stiles: Thank you Corrie: Chief? Gordon: Nothing your honor. Corrie: Counselor, do you have anything you want to (inaudible). Fitzgerald: I have two things, two quick things. There is a guy by the name of Mike Dailey called today concerning Meridian Taxi Cab and an ordinance reciprocal, I just mention that to make the Council and Mayor aware of that. Then I do have a question and if you can answer, there is a Gordon Slyter who is developing or I believe is trying to enter into a development agreement with two lots, one is to the north of Spicewood and the other is to the south of Spicewood. He represented to me today in the conversation that the Council has previously approved that if he got it straightened out that the Mayor could just go ahead and sign off on it. Wayne didn't recall anything like that. Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 45 of 51 Rountree: Is that the wedding chapel Berg: No the church. Stiles: That would be the Treasure Valley Worship Center, was he saying anything about not wanting to include both of those parcels? Fitzgerald: Yes, what he is trying to do is exclude as I understand the south parcel or the south lot and he just wants it for the north lot. Stiles: I told him, I think the language is pretty clear as to what is determined for each lot and it is all part of one annexation or one rezone so that was the reason I put that restriction on there so that both of these properties are covered with this development agreement. So he doesn't sell off his piece of property without those people knowing that there are some restrictions on the property and what they can do with it. That was the reason that they were both included. As far as the Mayor being able to sign, I had asked him, there is a clause on the signature page that it is not effective until it is approved by the board of the Four Square Gospel so I told him to get the board to sign it first and then submit it to the City when it had all of their approvals on it. Fitzgerald: Okay Stiles: Is Mr. Daily going to be calling you back? Fitzgerald: I told him after talking to Mr. Crookston that it was a Council matter. Corrie: I think that there is a little more to this, the legal, you and the City of Boise is going to have to get together with their legal department. He is under the impression that if we have a license in Meridian he has a license reciprocated to Boise. I don't think the City Council of Boise is going to approve that in any way shape or form where he can get in line like anybody else and not pay his or her fees. So I think that we need to have some questions asked like from our Council to their Council and also Moony had some definite ideas, a taxicab from here can go there and drop off people and come back. And he said he wants to pick up the people there and bring them back here, but he was getting in line with the other taxi's and not paying the fee to get a license. So whether reciprocity is involved there not that is a legal thing we have to discuss too. Morrow: Do we even have reciprocity on taxicabs? Corrie: We don't and I don't think Boise does either Stiles: This is related to that issue, we have been trying for several months to get Mr. Daily to come in and get a conditional use permit. It is not a permitted use where he is at, he keeps saying it is going to be next month, next month and now all of a sudden he wants us to bend over backwards and come up with some agreement with Boise City and I don't think we owe the guy anything at all. Corrie: This is the agreement he says if he gets it from us then the reciprocity is there. I think that is a legal matter that we need to get straightened out first. Fitzgerald: Like I said I just brought this to the Council's attention. Corrie: Just so you know if he calls you and I need to talk a little more tomorrow about that. Mr. Morrow? Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 46 of 51 Morrow: Two or three issues, one is that Will handed us an issue under department reports for the release of the non -development agreement for Bedford Place Subdivision No. 2. The necessary letters of credit and such were filed is that correct? Berg: Yes, I received those late yesterday, but like everything else I want to make sure it is all okay with Wayne Crookston. They have not returned the release or the formal release as to the other department report item I had with Haven Cove No. 5 we have an actual release of a non - development agreement. Morrow: So we could approve that like we have done the other ones subject to the attorney review. Berg: I would recommend that yes. Morrow: So I would move that we approve the release of the non -development agreement for Bedford Place Subdivision phase 2 subject to the City Attorney's approval. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: Corrie: Do you want to do the other one too Walt on Haven Cove? Morrow: Yes sir, what phase of Haven Cove is that? Berg: It is number 5 but it is phase 2. Morrow: I would move that we approve the or that we approve the release of the non - development agreement for Haven Cove No. 5 phase 2 subject to the City Attorney's approval. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas Morrow: Okay, next couple of issues quickly is to remind you on our strategic planning meeting we will be talking about further discussions in determining the Council President, President term limits, Vice President, Districts, size of Council, staff and future City hall building, update on sewer and water fees and level pay and delinquency and when we are going to take care of those. The first item on the agenda, Mr. Corrie will based on a promise that you and I made to Ms. Stiles will be the Capital Improvements Plan. She got short circuited last time. (End of Tape) Morrow: (Inaudible) tiling ordinance and try to develop some sense of direction with that. That takes care of those, in line with our Commissioner ordinance from last week I am prepared to assign Councilmen to departments. My assignment would be Mr. Tolsma to the Fire Department, Mr. Rountree to Parks and Recreation, Mr. Bentley to Police and I would continue with the Public Works. I think commensurate with that ordinance that Council would have to vote to approve those assignments. Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 47 of 51 Bentley: When is that effective? Morrow: It would be effective immediately. Bentley: Isn't that kind of, since everybody has sat down and gone through the budget process with these people and turn around and switching now. Morrow: We wouldn't be switching now because from an effective standpoint we wouldn't be meeting with those folks and doing the purchase orders and those kinds of things until well into August anyway when we are basically done with our budgeting process. Corrie: You said Fire was Tolsma, who was Parks and Rec was Rountree and Police was Bentley and Morrow is Public Works. I don't know how the rest of the Council feels about it, they either accept or reject it. Bentley: Who is going to present the budgets that have been put together then? Morrow: We will be presenting those; we have already done the preliminary stuff on two of them we will just continue through with what we are doing from a practical standpoint. You have given us the tentative budget from the Fire Department, that presentation will come as soon as you are back from vacation. While you are gone we will do as per our discussion we will do the City Clerk's issue. We need to decide tonight also about times for that, we will do the City Clerk and we should have everything done except fire and police. Mr. Gordon has already submitted a preliminary budget he was working with Charlie on that. So by effectively by the first part of August we will have those things all done. Corrie: I guess you have to decide whether you want to accept the position that he has asked you to do or you could refuse it and try some other combination. Rountree: I guess for discussion I as Mr. Bentley has pointed out I have been working with the Police with their budget, I don't have a strong feeling either way in four years we are all going to have a whack at all of these the way we are set up. It doesn't give me any heartburn to I guess jump ship at this point in time. But I would like to continue on at least through the budget process with efforts we have done with the Police Department. Morrow: I absolutely concur I don't see any change in that. Bentley: Refresh my memory with the ordinance when was the changes supposed to take place, the yearly changes or the yearly appointments? Morrow: The yearly appointments take effect at the start of the fiscal year, October 1 st. Bentley: So why don't we just hang in place until October 1 st and then take the changes. Morrow: Well I think as we get through the budget process it makes a certain amount of sense to start familiarizing ourselves with the new departments as soon as possible. Tolsma: It makes no difference to me. Rountree: Would it be a motion by Council? Mr. Mayor, I would move that Meridian City Council accept the appointments as identified by Council President Morrow. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Okay, now each individual according to that ordinance has the right to refuse to take that one too is that correct? Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 48 of 51 Morrow: No, with the vote, the only way that it is refused is through the vote system. If the Council votes 3 to no or 2 to 1 not to accept the assignments then the assignments are redone. If the Council votes in the majority of the assignments then the assignments are binding on all four. Corrie: And this becomes effective what time? Rountree: Do you want me to restate by motion or just add a clarification? Would be effective August 1. Tolsma: Still second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Tolsma, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: 2 Yea, 1 Nay Morrow: The last item is for a time for budget presentation by the City Clerk's department and P & Z for next week. Rountree: Didn't we have one set up for Monday? Morrow: I thought we were shooting for Monday to get in and out before the school board met. Tolsma: (Inaudible) (Discussion Inaudible) Berg: The 22nd is fine. Morrow: Can both of you have yours ready by then? So we will plan on hearing both of yours on Monday night at 5:30 Smith: Mr. Mayor, may I have a point of clarification for Councilman Morrow, I received a copy of a letter that was written to Councilman Morrow from Brighton Corporation concerning Ashford Greens and extension of road to clubhouse area. Am I to release based on that letter am I to release those approved plans for Ashford Greens No. 1. Morrow: I think it would be appropriate for Council to take that action once deed is in hand. Corrie: We haven't approved it yet. Smith: Okay, so I will hang on to those plans then until the Mayor and Council has received the deeds for the golf course property. Morrow: I think that was the discussion that we had last week, I think that maybe it is appropriate that each Councilman indicate whether they still support that position. Last week was that we get that deed issue resolved that those things are to be released and on down the road. If this letter constitutes and agreement that the Council is happy with or acceptable to them then the letter becomes the agreement, we have the deed and the construction drawings are released. That is as I see this. Bob, is that how you remember it to be? Corrie: Yes after everything was in to be released not until. Morrow: And we had changed, originally it was Mr. Lovan and Mr. Turnbull that was the presentation last week. In our meeting last week we changed that to have the agreement between the City and Mr. Turnbull once we had that in place then we would negotiate. However with Mr. Lovan for the club house and in the mean time Gary was to continue to keep those based on the receipt of that letter continue to keep Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 49 of 51 those plans until we had the deed concluded. So, If the letter is acceptable as an agreement between us and Mr. Turnbull that is fine. But we don't release anything until we have the deed done. Corrie: Because phase 2 is already in effect and Morrow: So that is my position. Corrie: That thing is going to be released until we know until the 23rd, it will be the 23rd before we know about. Morrow: We should know before then if everything is fine. You would have to ask the other three guys if that is their position too. Smith: Is that what the rest of the Council feels that you want me to do then? Is to hang onto these approved plans until that deed transfer takes place? (Inaudible) Smith: Thank you Corrie: Anything else Mr. Morrow? Morrow: That is it. Corrie: Mr. Bentley? Bentley: I talked to all the Council members after Ron and Gary and I had met on the proposed changes to the Tulley park plan. I believe that we might have to take a vote on that, we discussed changing out the two tennis courts to sand volleyball courts, possibly eliminating one basketball court to give more room for a picnic area. So if everybody is still in agreement I would make a motion to that effect if that is what it takes on those plans. Rountree: I will second that. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley and seconded by Mr. Rountree, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas Corrie: Mr. Bentley anything further? Bentley: No Corrie: Mr. Rountree? Mr. Tolsma? Tolsma: We had a couple of ladies from town that went down and do some beautification for our little flag pole on the corner lot, Mrs. Hoyle and Mrs. Marks, went down and planted some petunias and did some weeding down there. (Inaudible) Corrie: Do you want me to send them a letter? Tolsma: It might be good to send them a letter. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I have one more thing, I have phoned a message into Cynda down at APA to get Claire out here on the, at 7:00 on the 6th to meet us early to discuss the off ramp situation. If that is not acceptable he was gone for the day. He will call back or she will call back and talk to the Mayor. We asked if 30 minutes would suffice if not they will let us know of any changes. Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 50 of 51 Corrie: Does that meet with the approval of the Council? Morrow: I don't have any problems with that. (Inaudible) Corrie: Anything else, I have one thing on the Fire Department, there is a mutual aid agreement between the Bureau of Land Management Department of Idaho Lands, Boise Fire Department, Eagle Fire District, Kuna Fire District, Meridian City and Rural Fire District, North Ada County Fire and Rescue District, Star Fire District and Whitney Fire District. What this is, if they have a land fire let's say in ground by Kuna and Kuna is already on another fire this gives them the opportunity to call the one closest to the fire without having to go through Kuna to Meridian. It is just a mutual aid agreement it is pretty standard. It has been signed by the Rural Fire Commissioner President. All it does is cut out a little bit of middleman there. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest the mutual aid agreement with BLM. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded, any discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas Corrie: That is all I have. Berg: You have one thing is ACHD meeting time for our next workshop. We had mentioned some time maybe end of July or beginning of August. They are working on budgets as well as we are, I just need to tell Alice a time frame. They have a couple of people that are going on vacation and so it looks like maybe the first week of August or the second week of August area. Morrow: Let me ask you this are you sure it makes sense for us to even meet them in July and August and maybe does it make sense to do it in September because they have tremendous budget loads Berg: Alice and I talked about that and the only question is if you had some arguments or concerns to where they should budget some of their money. Morrow: Well they should budget it all here, can we mail that into to them? Berg: Sign the letter and I will mail it into them. That was the only concern, if there Isn't any then we can just push off. She just Morrow: I don't have a strong emotion about it one way or another, I think we made our feelings felt and they seem to be pretty well set on what I have seen on this proposed budget for next year, they are pretty well set on a path already. I don't know that we are going to impact that a lot. Berg: I am just throwing it out on the table, you can step on it or hand it back to me. I will inquire back to her and ask if after September would be okay with them. Rountree: September I think would be the soonest I would think would be even necessary. Berg: The middle of September. Corrie: Anything else? I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Rountree: So moved Meridian City Council Meeting July 16, 1996 Page 51 of 51 Tolsma: Second Corrie: All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yeas MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:55 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE FOR THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK