Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996 10-15MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER, 15, 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, Charlie Rountree, Glenn Bentley, Ron Tolsma: OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, John McCreedy, Mark Smith, Wayne Forrey, Trye Carmack, Andy Miles, Jeff Beamguard, Betty Haumann, Brad Carmack, Mike Adolf, Paul Hoffman, Becky Bowcutt, Jonathan Seel, Peter Rockwell, Charles Eddy, Scott Cook, Tracey Persons, Robert Phillips, Doug Hill: MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD OCTOBER 1, 1996: Corrie: Are there any corrections or alterations to those minutes? Tolsma: Mr. Mayor I move they be approved as written. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we approve the minutes of the special meeting held October 1, 1996, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING HELD OCTOBER 1, 1996: Corrie: Do you have any corrections or alterations to those? Entertain a motion for acceptance. Morrow: So moved Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that minutes of the previous meeting held October 1, 1996 be approved as printed, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: I have a proclamation proclaiming the week and days of October 21 through October 25 to be Red Ribbon Week and Drug Free America Week. This proclamation is in conjunction with Idaho Parents and Youth Against Drug Abuse and the National Federation of Parents for Drug Free Use are sponsoring a grass root drug awareness program in Idaho. This will be posted in City Hall if anybody would like to see that. ITEM #1: TABLED OCTOBER 1, 1996: FINAL PLAT FOR BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Corrie: Council, we have received a transmittal that they would like to table that until the meeting of November 5. Morrow: So moved Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded that that we table item 1 until November 5, any further discussion? Rountree: That would actually be November 6 would it not? Corrie: They said the 5th but it would be the 6th, they made a mistake on theirs. Rountree: Well Election day is the 5th, they wouldn't have known that we weren't going to have a meeting on the 5th. Corrie: You are right, that is election day. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE FOR TURTLE CREEK SUBDIVISION NO. 1 BY JON STEELE: Corrie: Council you have those findings of fact in front of you tonight. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as written, any further discussion? Roll call vote ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: Motion for the decision? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I move that it is decided that the variance for 11-9-604 1 1 is hereby granted and the plat must be recorded on or before September 20, 1997. This then is an extension of approximately two years of the time requirements of 11-9-604 1 1. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to approve of the decision, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 1, 1996: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FOR HI -MICRO TOOL COMPANY BY NEWBERRY ENTERPRISES: Corrie: At this time I will re -open the public hearing, re -open the public hearing and invite a member from Hi -Micro Tool. We have a letter to that effect that they recently purchased the Reamon property east of their property therefore the request for the variance submitted to the City Council is no longer needed. Please withdraw our application at this time. Anybody from the public that would like to testify at this continued public hearing? Hearing none I will close the public hearing. Council? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we withdraw from the agenda the request for the variance for Hi -Micro Tool Company as per the request in the letter dated October 10, 1996. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley to approve the letter and request that the variance be stopped, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PROPOSED MERIDIAN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH: Corrie: Council, discussion? Rountree: Well the request I believe is for annexation of the corner of that piece of the property and it doesn't appear that we can consider annexation for any piece of property in that area since there is no contiguous section of the City going out that far. Hoffman: My name is Paul Hoffman, specifically the request is to actually, we are seeking, let me back up a little bit. We went to Ada County with the possibility of rezoning a portion of one lot, we own two lots at the corner, a portion of one lot and then splitting the lot and rezoning that smaller parcel up against Meridian Road. Ada County said to us well we are going to look to Meridian City for their comments. I got the impression that they would strongly consider your input. So it seemed logical to approach you even though technically it is a decision made by Ada County. With this possibility of rezoning those two lots that are approximately an acre each on Meridian Road at the intersection to an LOD use. Now I visited with the staff here and they tell me that the master plan does not specifically address that kind of zoning change at that intersection. They provide for commercial and office development a mile to the west and a mile to the east. But it seems logical to us that at that intersection that is going to be as it is going to get eventually that there are several good reasons to consider rezoning those parcels. Namely, it is going to be a very busy intersection and it seems unlikely that residences would want to locate immediately adjacent to the intersection. The second reason is that a LOD as opposed to a commercial type of rezone is a lot more compatible in a residential setting and it also offers the advantage that if there is a parking lot there and if the church manages correctly they can get into a shared parking kind of arrangement for the future with that parcel. In fact we are not sure whether, ideally we would retain control of the parcel and lease the ground to a developer to build like a health or an office type situation. The third reason of course is in the future when that becomes annexed it would be additional revenues for the City and also generate some revenues to support the church. The fourth reason is when you do that you get less traffic pushing through the City of Meridian to get to services, like if there is a dentist office or a doctor's office you are generating less trips. We wanted to approach you to get a sense of how you felt about the subject and so we aren't spinning our wheels with something that you are adamantly opposed to. If that is appropriate we would like to ask for your consideration. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, question Mr. Hoffman, have you approached neighboring properties so that there is a chain of annexation so it is possible to annex and zone this property? Hoffman: Mr. Berg has identified a parcel, well, there are actually 2 properties to the south that border the City. Apparently, two of the residents, well one of the residents that immediately borders us has expressed sentiment opposing that. We have not approached the other property owner but we would be happy to do that. In fact I intend to do that in the near future. Morrow: What about the properties across the street, is there an annexation route from that direction that is possible? Hoffman: I can't say for sure although I don't think so, I am not exactly sure about that. Berg: There are several more properties to the east where there is just maybe one property to deal with on the south. Morrow: I understand, it is still two avenues by which to get an annexation done. Corrie: Any further comments or questions of Mr. Hoffman? I guess we really can't zone it, it can't be annexed yet. I don't know what the Council's feeling would be to have that type of zoning. Does the County have an LO zoning, do you know Counselor? Crookston: To my knowledge they do not have an LO zone but they have other zones in which similar uses are allowed. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, if we might I would like to have a presentation from Shari and Gary concerning what the ramifications of this would be. How, and specifically my question is how the County's requirements for something like this differ from ours. What are the pros and cons of having this accomplished at this time with respect to landscape berms and those other kinds of issues that we would normally require from the development that was coming into the City. Do those requirements exist within the County and do we have input into that. Stiles: Councilman Morrow, Mayor and Council I am not aware of their specific requirements whether it is an LOD with the design review. I am still concerned even about the initial development as far as the landscaping that they have shown. Mr. Hoffman has indicated that there is some revision to be made to this site plan. Hoffman: Right, we have (inaudible) Stiles: To incorporate some landscaping along Ustick Road. I guess as always our preference would be if it is going to be changed in zoning that it should be the City's decision and the County shouldn't have anything to do with it whether that is requested at this time or not. It should wait until it is annexed. Morrow: How do you deal, now there are some differing issues in terms of specifications between for example the City and County with respect to sidewalk widths and other kinds of things. If this is soon to be annexed and if it is done underneath the County's guidelines do we have the capability of suggesting the County adopting the same guidelines we have for the City so that don't change sidewalk sizes in a matter of a short period of time. Stiles: Our agreement with Ada County is that anything within our impact area should meet the ordinance requirements of the City. It is kind of hard to enforce that if we are not involved with the actual development of the parcel, but at least they have referred this site plan to us. I believe that through that agreement they are required to meet whatever requirements the City has in effect at the time. Morrow: My next question will probably be for Gary, does that include utility setbacks and those other issues. I know we have talked about the water and the sewer already for this parcel. But other utility, are the setback requirements within the City any different from that of the county that you are aware of? Smith: Councilman Morrow, I am not aware of any differences between the County and the City and I am not sure I understand what you mean by setbacks. Morrow: Well in other words we have easement requirements for the setbacks for utilities such as power and cable T.V. and phone and those kinds of things. Smith: They are located in specific corridors within in the right of ways is that what you mean? Morrow: Well that is correct and then also along property lines we have easement requirements that those corridors there, I know in some entities they are five feet and some they are 10 is there a difference between the City and the County with respect to that? Smith: The easement question I don't know, I couldn't answer that question. Morrow: I have no further questions. Crookston: Mr. Mayor I have a question, Mr. Hoffman, what is the acreage size of the parcels adjacent to the Presbyterian land? That would then connect to the City of Meridian. Hoffman: If we could make the annexation happen, I don't know yet. I think they are fairly good size. Just from memory recalling from my looking at the maps they were at least 6 to 8 acres, something of that nature. Crookston: If they were less than 5 acre parcels, the City could annex on its own right. If they are larger than 5 acres the City cannot do that. Hoffman: I am not sure if those parcels along Meridian might be less than that directly to the south, I was thinking (inaudible) further west. Crookston: It wouldn't matter what direction we went as long as it became contiguous to the City boundaries. Hoffman: I would be more than happy to research that and then make that request to those owners. Crookston: I would inform the Council that the City has not to my knowledge other than annexing parcels that were surrounded by the City the City has not forcefully annexed any parcel. That is a City decision. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Hoffman, I have a question, looking at your diagram here concerning the berming and the landscaping that you have along Ustick. Is that what this is supposed to represent? Hoffman: (Inaudible) There are actually two parcels that the church owns, one parcel is just under 7 acres and that doesn't, that is not the one that (inaudible) the other parcel is 1.1 acres. What we are proposing is to take the 1.1 acres which is right at the corner where there is the house and the barn right now and rezone that, to something that is comparable to the limited office and then to create a new parcel in other words a lot split, carve out another acre out of that 6.7 acres that is adjacent to Meridian Road and make that the same zoning so that those two parcels fronting Meridian Road that are approximately an acre in size would be this new zoning. The rest of the parcel would remain as it is. I am sorry if you don't have, if that isn't a clear picture for you. Really I understand that you can't formally act on this proposal, we are just trying to get a sense for your sentiment for doing so. Corrie: Any other questions or discussion? Morrow: I guess for Mr. Hoffman from my perspective I would like to have our staff give us a lot more input on what the ramifications of doing something like this might be before I would be willing to commit to whether I was in favor or opposed to that. I personally favor the annexation route is really how I see it working the best for the City and the simplest probably in long term is the best (inaudible). Hoffman: How does that comment work in the test of rezoning a portion of the one lot and the other? Morrow: I think there again is if you could come up with an annexation chain and at that time you would request annexation and a rezone for that. Then it would be the full public hearing process and the staff would have their input into what was to be done and how it was to be done and it would be better defined would for sure meet our requirements in terms of our ordinances and statutes and we would know what we were getting and you would know what you would have to do. It wouldn't be a long term conflict. My concern is until we get better defined here, if the County has one set of standards that they are willing to zone to that are different than ours and three or four years from now then this becomes a property to be annexed. The new development is not compatible with the rest of the City's development. So I think before I make any kind of a decision or recommendation I would want really strong assurances that it is our ordinances and statutes that would be followed so that at some point in the future it is totally compatible to everything else we are doing there. Particularly because it is a corner piece that will front at the intersection of 2 major roads. Rountree: Mr. Mayor I feel the same way, if we consider anything for this corner it should be on our terms and our ordinances and not kind of open to the County for their interpretation of what they would like to have happen there. Hoffman: You will pardon the what if but if there were, if their zoning requirement for a type of use, there was one that was very compatible with the one that was a limited office development that the City adopts then that would serve as a reason to continue with this process and we may be able to come to an agreement, is that what I am hearing or did I not put that very well. Corrie: Well I think it is, we are looking at three things, your step over annexation, whether the standards are the same with the City and County if we do that and is the ordinance compatible with what the City has because that is going to be right in the middle of the City one of these days. So we want to make sure all of the ordinances are all compatible. So we need to have the staff check out, particularly (inaudible) and see if those other ordinances are coming into play and then we will have a little more information for you. It is a little difficult right now because we don't know those three answers. Hoffman: I will try to get all the information I can to you staff and perhaps later we can approach you with (inaudible). ITEM #5: FINAL PLAT: INTERSTATE CENTER BY W.H. MOORE COMPANY: Corrie: Becky? Bowcutt: We did receive staff's comments concerning the final plat. I did fax over statements in regards to those comments. The final plat that you see here is pretty much consistent with the preliminary plat that was approved by this body a few months ago with the exception of Lot 5. Previously that was four smaller lots and we have merged it into one large lot. That was due to the fact that we have a potential buyer for that particular lot and they needed a parcel of that size. Just to quickly go through these comments. The Kennedy lateral just to refresh your memory comes across Overland Road and runs in a westerly direction along our southerly boundary. That facility will be piped. We have submitted plans to Nampa Meridian Irrigation District to pipe the facility. We have had multiple meetings to coordinate this effort. Nampa Meridian has agreed that if we provide the materials and do the trenching that they will provide the labor if done during the off season in the winter so it is done exactly the way they want it. There is an existing 55 foot easement that will encroach into the right of way so therefore when we relocate the Kennedy outside of the future right of way we will have to provide an additional easement on the plat for that. It is not delineated on this plat because I am waiting for Nampa Meridian Irrigation District's response on the plans to see how wide that easement needs to be. A lot of times once we pipe a facility they no longer need such a wide easement, 55 fees is pretty wide. They will relinquish their rights to the existing easements once we have provided the new easement. To my knowledge we have no wells or septic systems on the property but however if one is found we will comply with the City ordinance on removal of those facilities in an appropriate manner. We are in the process of obtaining an geotechnical engineer to evaluate the soil conditions and ground water elevations. We will be providing that detail to staff. Restrictive covenants were submitted to the staff, I believe a revised version was faxed over just a few days ago or this week that addresses maintenance of common areas and the private roadway long term maintenance. The question on the comment sheet was on pressurized irrigation. Under the ordinance we are required even though it is commercial development to provide pressurized irrigation. We will comply with the ordinance. Our hopes that the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District will accept maintenance and ownership of the facility. So we have to submit plans to them for their review if constructed in accordance with their specifications then we typically have no problem with them accepting future ownership and maintenance. That is our intent. We have the floodplain that is along this area here staff asked that we delineate that on the plat. I have supplied staff with a revised final plat which delineates that floodplain. We will not be taking it out of the flood plain area, it is a 500 year floodplain and it just is right along this corner here. So the impact of that on the future development of the lots is almost nil. One question we did have, there was a comment on, the plat does border a potential greenbelt. We do abut the Ten Mile Creek, however there is no way to access that because it dead ends into Interstate 84 to the north. So I am not sure how we could incorporate that into a pedestrian or bicycle greenbelt. If they mean greenbelt by landscaping that is different. I guess I need a determination on what is the definition of greenbelt. Also we are cut off on the east side due to that overpass and there is another private property between us and the public right of way. But there is just now way to get people here that can't go anywhere. There is an existing easement on that Ten Mile Creek under Bureau of Reclamation. There is also a sewer easement running parallel along the Ten Mile that accommodates the trunk line. I think I have hit on most of the comments. The site specific comments were just things that they wanted either clarified or corrections on the plat. Which we have done with the exception of one item and that is item 4 and has a subsection 1. They asked us to delete the sentence on this first note, I think Mr. Seel is going to address that. The reason we did not is Mr. Seel had some questions concerning deletion of that language or incorporate an additional language. Do you have any questions that I can answer? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have a question, item 7, it says (inaudible) by the first development in each respective phase. What specifically does that mean? Bowcutt: We are platting this as in its entirety. However we are doing two construction phases. The first construction phase will incorporate these lots and we will come down here and bring this street here and we have this little knuckle here that will be a culdesac and then we will pull this lot in here. The second construction phase would go from this point over and out. Morrow: I guess my real question is when is the landscape construction slated to be done? Bowcutt: Mr. Seel I think will probably want to address that, they will go in and the developer is going to landscape the entrance, because the intent when we came through a preliminary was to have that landscaping in place and not done piece meal. However they want to do this stretch of landscaping along Overland Road that abuts these future lots when they go in and construct the second construction phase due to the fact that they are putting in the approaches and they fear that they will end up damaging the landscaped area when they install the utilities. Morrow: So the answer then is that after the construction, you are not meaning this to say that when the first building is built then the landscaping will be put in. You are indicating that it will be put in after the construction of the utilities and those kinds of things? Bowcutt: For this first construction phase. Yes, I believe that is what we agreed to on the preliminary plat was that it would be done in that fashion and not done as each lot developed. We did propose to do it as each lot developed however the Council disagreed with that because they wanted to see that entrance corridor right there at Overland completed. Morrow: That was the answer I was trying to get. My next question is under site specific comments number 16, 5 foot sidewalks will be provided on both sides of the interior private streets and along the north side of Overland Road abutting the parcel. I guess I don't have a problem with the north side of Overland Road abutting the parcel but on private streets why sidewalks on both sides of the streets in a commercial development? Bowcutt: What we were looking for was future dedication of the streets in order to qualify for dedication in the future if they see fit, ACHD would require 5 foot sidewalks on both sides. They only require sidewalks on one side in an industrial subdivision. Morrow: Thank you Bentley: Mr. Mayor, Becky I want to back up on that question, either I misunderstood or I don't think Walt caught what you said, on the landscaping, on the second phase when is that going to go in? Is it after the utility construction is done? Bowcutt: After the utility construction is done for the second phase. It is a two phase, we are platting the entire project, however we will only build and they would obviously only sell and occupy that which is constructed here. So therefore they would put in this landscaping here. When they construct the second phase then this would have to be put in, that corridor, after utilities are put in, sidewalks and so forth. One of the problems we have is they really tear up the landscaping when they go in and put utilities and they lay that sidewalk in. You create your parameters with you improvements and we wouldn't have that. Crookston: Mr. Mayor, just a comment, the Council can see quite well when you say here and here but when we try and transcribe it, it doesn't show what you are showing. Bowcutt: I can reference it by lot number. The first construction phase would consist of Lot 2, 3, 4, 5, 22 and 23 of Block 1. Crookston: Thank you. Seel: My name is Jonathan Seel with W.H. Moore Company. A couple of things that I would like to do as far as maybe getting some clarification on a few things. As Becky mentioned we initially proposed this as or visualize this as one phase. It (inaudible) with this development of this Lot 5 it has become evident to us as she discussed would be as two phases so I think there are a couple of questions which I would like to clarify. The first off, is if you recall back when we came for the plat, the desire was to have a 20 foot buffer zone or landscape zone along here. The idea being that this would give some, improve the aesthetics of the development and ensure that you have landscaping through here. At this point Select Development which you are going to be hearing on the CU just after this one is going to be bringing in a family entertainment center. The site plan is located over there. What they are going to do is they are going to carry a landscape theme through the entire thing. It is going to be the ponds, it is going to be the bumper pools, it is going to be park. I guess what I would like to suggest to you and ask you is given that it seems like it is not necessary at this point to go ahead and put a 20 foot buffer zone in here which has to be maintained by owners association. When the entire theme of this amusement park which is approximately 7 acres will be carried all the way through it. You are almost going to have a break between the landscape that potentially would be put up here and the landscape of the park. One of the things that I would ask here tonight is that with this and if you approve the CU and I am being presumptuous at this moment, but if you do this and as you can see the theme over there that you allow them to just go ahead and carry their theme right up to the edge and we eliminate this 20 foot buffer zone. Again I think you still get what you have been looking for which is an attractive appearance from 1-84. So I think you get that and we can avoid having two different types of landscapes and the difficulty of trying to have the two merge together. That is my first question. With respect to the setbacks, one of the clarifications we had and I think it is item, Becky mentioned it a little bit, it is on page 2, it is item 4-1 and there was some language that was taken out. Our understanding initially is when we put this 35 foot buffer zone up here on the front we are agreeable to doing that and certainly it has been approved with that. Our concern was if there are any setback requirements, those setback requirements are applied to the 35 feet. In other words we don't want to be penalized twice, we are giving up 35 feet of land which will be landscaped owned by a homeowners association. If in the event there is any set back requirements on the lots that adjoin this which is for transcribing 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 16 and 13 those those setback requirements are applied to the landscaped zone along here. Whatever that might be, if there is a 10 foot setback, I am not saying there is, but in the event there is, one of the things we did is we went ahead and put that language on the plat. Staff has asked that be taken off and we would ask that it remain on there because again you have 35 feet here. I think if there are any setbacks that is where they should be applied to and we shouldn't have to be penalized for the additional land. So I don't know if that is clear or not. I can certainly answer questions as I am going through them if you prefer. Another question that I have with respect to sidewalks, we are bonding for sidewalks with ACHD up here along Overland Road. We will be happy to dedicate additional right of way to ACHD approximately 20 feet. Our understanding and the way these are approaching is we will bond for these and at the time that Overland Road is widened and then the curb cut or sidewalk is put in at that point we will put in the curb, gutter and sidewalk. But until that point we are bonding. (Inaudible) that is our understanding. There is no sidewalk system through here, it seems again with construction, you always have the possibility of getting things torn up and the difficulty of maintaining it. This phase could be 6 months down the road it could be a year it could be several years down the road we don't quite know. I think that is mainly it, those are my questions with respect to the plat. I think as Becky said we would do the landscaping for this phase now and then the other phase would trigger at the time we started that phase or (inaudible) Are there any questions? Crookston: Just another comment, I want (inaudible) you say this phase and that phase and you point on your plat would you state where you are actually talking about? Seel: I think again where Becky referred to before the phases that she has referred I would be glad to give you the numbers if you would like. Crookston: It is just to help the record. Seel: Sure, you talk the first phase, again you are talking 23, 22, 1 thru 5, and then the phase 2 will be the remainder of the lots within the plat. Corrie: Any further questions of Jonathan? Rountree: As far as phase 1, you need to include in that a portion of lot 15 for landscaping. You are asking us to consider a consideration or elimination of lot 6 along the Interstate? Seel: Yes that is correct, and as I mentioned, next in line is a CU and I think you will see in there the kind of landscape theme that they are talking about. I think it is substantially more than you would have anticipated or expected had this been for example a warehouse facility or something. I think initially we all envisioned in fact that is what it probably would be or something to that extent. I don't think anybody envisioned that there would be a family entertainment center there with the ponds and the decorations and the amount of landscaping and waterworks and stuff that they are going to do. I think it is going to be very attractive the way it is. I think it is overkill to require to have a homeowners association and have another landscape scheme there that really isn't going to match and if anything will make it look worse. Rountree: My question to you is would it be the entire length of or the entire lot 6 that borders lot 5, 7 and 8 in Block 1 or just that portion of lot 6 that borders lot 5? Seel: I think we are agreeable to the fact that it would be lot 5, 1 think again your intention and we are not trying to skirt that is that for lot 7 you would want to carry that theme through or have something there to buffer. I don't know how you get around that part of it but if we have to we can certainly keep that within the homeowners association. Morrow: I would make a comment Mr. Mayor, I think Mr. Seel the intent of the homeowners association was so that you saw consistency in terms of landscaping from the freeway side so that it was presented in a uniform approach from what is now both phases of the subdivision. Until we hear the other proposal (inaudible) I think we need to think about that as a Council. Seel: I don't disagree with that and like I say I think you should look at it. It is a question of do you bring it up now or do you bring it up at the CU. Our feeling is we want to address it now and again I think from our own feeling was too that you have some assurance that you would have attractive looking landscaping this area. Again I think you are going to have that. I think both points are well taken. Corrie: If I hear you right then you are going to continue that landscaping theme onto Lot 7 and possibly (inaudible). Seel: Well it is going to be difficult to carry this completely over, so you are not going to see a break because you have a family entertainment center. Mostly what might be here let's say is an office building or some type of incubator space or something like that. So I think where we can, we don't want it to stand out like a sore thumb and all of the sudden you have one stop and you have black and white. But we certainly can't carry a theme of an entertainment park over and perfectly match it. I think it would be difficult but I guess I would say to you where we can and as much as we can blend one into the other we certainly would. So, again we are trying to address your concern (inaudible). Corrie: Any further questions of Mr. Seel? Thank you, Council questions of staff? Morrow: I would like to hear the staff address the issue with respect to the easement on the plat and then also your comments in terms of the landscaping issue please, Shari or Gary? Stiles: Councilman Morrow, the easement which easement are you talking about? Morrow: Well the easement setback, they want stricken from the plat as understand condition no. 1 which talks about the setbacks. Stiles: I think that the note is, can be misinterpreted by someone and I think that our existing ordinance that is in effect will take care of it. I know Mr. Seel is wanting to make sure that those lots aren't penalized an extra 15 feet for a front setback but really those lots, that will be considered a side setback for them. Alsc I don't want anyone purchasing the property thinking they are building right up adjacent to that landscape lot when the irrigation easement is going to be relocated and they will not be able to build on top of it. As far as the landscaping along Overland Road it was always my understanding that Council expected that to be done fully at the first, prior to development. I wasn't aware that they were wanting to just do a piece of it now. The piece that they are talking about now, I don't believe that Nampa Meridian will even allow any trees to be planted in there. If they did allow it, it would be a vast departure from anything else they have permitted in the City. (End of Tape) that are shown are subject to conditional use permit. I wouldn't see any problem with it if Council approves of the Fiesta Fun Center conditional use permit and the scheme they have shown there they do have encroachment of the development in that 20 foot strip but they do have what appears to be a lot of landscaped area. I wouldn't have any particular problem, it does seem very close to the interstate, but if they would just want to take that off so it is not, so it is only the responsibility of the Fiesta Fun Center and not of the entire development I wouldn't see any problem with that one lot. Morrow: I guess what my question is that obviously for every lot that borders that then you may ultimately see a different proposal. How are you going to develop a theme of consistency that we had originally intended? From my perspective I would like to hear the arguments that would persuade me to change from what it was we had originally intended and the purpose of having an owners association for maintenance of separate lots on both Overland and along the freeway was so that we had consistent landscaping the City only had one entity with which to deal. Now what the proposal that we are hearing is that well we are going to have a conditional use for this parcel, what prohibits all parcels from having a conditional use and then have you not begun to defeat the purpose in having the owners association and common landscape areas. Stiles: With the Fiesta Fun Center I don't think you are going to see any real consistency right next door to it. Morrow: I understand, but we had, our original intent here was that those landscape areas have a common ownership, common theme so that it presented itself in terms of both maintenance and aesthetic look to be pleasing to the City and its citizens. And that you didn't have five lot owners with five different landscape themes and then begin to have the problem from the standpoint of the city's zoning enforcement officer of trying to bring everybody into constant compliance. So I guess what I want to be persuaded of here is that why should we depart from that from the staff's point of view? Stiles: I think, the only way you are going to be assured of that is to have a common area. And to have it built up front and maintained consistently. I don't see that as actually happening on this piece even if it were built at one time. I would imagine that each lot owner is going to assume responsibility for the maintenance on that lot just because of the difficulty of getting to that area. Morrow: You are talking about the lot in the corner, lot 5? Stiles: And even the one adjacent to it. You are going to have to be crossing private property which may or may not have some security issues, fencing, unless they did build it up front and had that set aside as a common area, I don't see how it is going to be consistent. I don't see that it is not going to meet the intent of the Council to have that just included as part of their landscape theme. When you look at the Fiesta Fun Center and you see what they are proposing I think you will understand how difficult it will be to have that match up with what is going to be right next to it. Morrow: I guess the issue here is that we have not approved the Fiesta Fun Center we approved in terms of the preliminary plat a common theme. Now we are hearing a reason to change it. I am not persuaded as to why it is we should change that. Because if it stays as a common area you have access the full length of that common lot so that it is accessible from all lots by virtue of it is a common lot. Stiles: How would that access be given? Morrow: If it is a common lot Shari it comes the full length of the development along the, on the freeway and at this juncture, we are not addressing the issue now of some particular use we are addressing the issue of the preliminary plat and as I recall the stipulations of that were that the landscaping along Overland and the landscaping along the freeway be each be lots owned by an owners association and maintained by the association. This is not an issue, from my perspective in terms of the plat I don't think that we ought to be addressing the issue in terms of landscaping for a proposed use. That is what I am after. Thank you Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Gay any comments? Other Councilmen's comments or questions? Seel: (Inaudible) We are not trying, we have CC&R's which address owners association and the maintenance of those common lots. The only one that we are speaking about now and the only one we are asking for is Lot 5 and again I think it comes back to at least my thinking on this which may or may not be right on the mark, but is that I think when we intended this we envisioned this thing as more of a business park. That would be commercial developments. I don't think anyone every envisioned this as a family entertainment center. As you will see and we are not asking this, just making the decision now (inaudible) but I think as you will see it is a very unique landscaping theme. It is not the type of thing you will see anywhere else, I think it is apparition. Given that what we are asking for on this particular one is if you approve their conditional use permit and you approve the way that they are doing their landscaping that the landscaping theme be able to be continued all the way to the edge in other words to eliminate that 20 feet. With respect to the rest of the lots for the common area we will call it we are not asking for a change, that will be a consistent thing that is addressed in the CC&R's and we could put in there as we have language that will address, you have the consistency, in other words you are not going to see a hodge podge of different types of landscape throughout it. I think it is just simply with this particular one. I think that Shari is saying, I don't think whatever you are going to do you are going to get anything to match this. This is kind of like Disneyland. You are putting Disneyland in the middle of this thing and the other things may not look like it. As much as we can with the lot adjoining it we will try to carry that theme, we are practical. But you have a lot of water works and you have a lot of other stuff there that I think is very unique and would be very difficult to do. But at the same time I think it is going to be a very attractive theme. I think again it is going to accomplish what you are looking for which is to make something very nice looking. Again, we can address it in the CC&R's. With respect to Nampa Meridian I have talked to John Anderson, John Anderson is very comfortable with putting trees in there. We are going to tile that, we are going to have 42 inch concrete pipe in there. He is not particularly concerned. Obviously if you were going to come and put in huge trees in there that are going to grow 60 feet he might have a problem. But when I met with him face to face he didn't have a problem with the trees. He said if you want to put in trees you go ahead and do it. We suggested that because again we want to continue that theme of trees all the way through. We don't want 1200 feet of it being trees and then it all the sudden stops and it goes to just bushes. So we are trying to continue that theme. I think finally what we are asking for on the landscape, when we initially did it again we envisioned this as one phase. We have now come back and really said that the more economic way to do this is to do this in two phases. What we are asking for is not to have us have to put in a landscaping along approximately 1200 feet which will be nothing more than fields for who know's how long. At the time that we put those roads in and we start that infrastructure we would carry that theme but right now that is no more than a field next to this phase. It will be very difficult to maintain to make it look nice and I think we do it simply in the area that we are building and we have the infrastructure, the roads, the entrance way. I think again that will give you on this particular phase what you are looking for and we will put the second landscape phase in at the time that we start the second phase. But again we don't know when that will be. So we are asking for just some flexibility in terms of that phase. If we were going to initially as we thought develop it and put all the infrastructure and put the first building up we would put the landscaping all the way along. But at this point we are not sure. We are incurring a lot of cost here, having to relocate the Kennedy Lateral and tile that and some of the other things. We are trying to keep our cost to something where we can make this economically feasible to us. So that is all we are (inaudible) a little flexibility here. Corrie: Jonathan could you get us a letter from the Nampa Meridian of what they told you? Seel: Absolutely, I will talk to John Anderson when he gets back from hunting. Corrie: Thank you, any further comment or discussion from the Council? Rountree: I have a question for Counsel that a lot of these issues are issues that will be dealt with at development agreement is that correct? Crookston: Yes most of them could be. Morrow: I guess as a point of discussion from my perspective is that I don't have a problem with the phasing as long as the specs for each phase in terms of the landscaping along Overland Road are consistent and everybody understands that there will be no deviation from that. I am not personally very happy about having readjustments at a final plat point without having at some other time to think about it, a second issue. I think that in my mind a third issue is that we separate what may be coming later from what it is that we originally approved and deal with that in that manner. If we wish to grant a conditional use that alters what it was that we originally approved that is the proper place to do that in my mind. So, with respect to the language talking about the easement and the setbacks I think that can be clarified in the development agreement. And that seems to me to be a point of clarification. So, those are the four issues as I see them. Rountree: I am still trying to figure out your issue on the landscaping. You are saying that we look at this as it was given to us originally with the landscaping on Overland Road but given the condition of phasing that it would be acceptable to do the landscaping in two phases as long as there is continuous landscaping design and that lot 6 be landscaped. Morrow: What I am indicating Charlie is on Overland Road I don't have a problem with it being done in two phases as long as the plans and specs are consistent in the development agreement reflects that. With respect to the common lot along I- 84, 1 think at this juncture of this final plat is that stays as advertised. If we want to change something with that particular lot on a conditional use permit that is coming through later then that is the point in time to address that issue. Rountree: That is reasonable. Corrie: You will have the same continuity for 7, 8, 9 10, 11, 12 and 13, but the conditional use permit will take care of Lot 6 on that. Morrow: Well if the conditional use permit is granted (inaudible) they have to recognize that they are changing that landscape design for that lot. But I wouldn't see in my mind that it would take it out of the owners association. The owners association would still be responsible but that is an issue to be talked about underneath the conditional use permit in my mind. Rountree: There is another issue that is coming up with these phased in finalized platted projects and that is weed control for those portions that are not developed and I don't know whether we do it as a note on the plat or a condition in the development agreement but developers are going to have to take care of that property. We are having people take 3 and 4 months to get weeds cut and sprayed in some of these areas and I don't think that is acceptable. Morrow: We have a weed ordinance that basically gives them 10 days from time of notification. Rountree: I understand that but we need to get better enforcing that or get some language in here where there are some penalties. I don't know where you handled, it just mentioned that in the development agreement, the ordinance. And quit messing around with it and take care of it and back charge. Morrow: Well that is an issue for the City Attorney to do, we hired a zoning compliance officer to take care of those kinds of issues. Corrie: We could always handle them ourselves if we have to we can have somebody (inaudible) does that for us, but that is right, Walt is correct that is in the ordinance that they zoning ordinance officer would tell them they have ten days and if they don't do it we do it. So that whole area out there, that second phase out there as Jonathan has will have to be done. Morrow: I guess the issue is that apparently weeds have not (inaudible) Corrie: We could almost hire somebody full time to do it. Morrow: I guess then the issue is Mr. Mayor is that we ought to be giving those folk their notice then on the 11th day we ought to have somebody out there cutting the weeds because the citizens certainly have the right to expect those weeds to be gone given the fact that we have the ordinances and the capability of doing it. Corrie: Does that answer your question Charlie? Rountree: I just wondered if that would be an issue that would be part of a development agreement. Morrow: I don't think it hurts to have a paragraph in there (inaudible). Corrie: Any further discussion? Entertain a motion at this point. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the final plat for Interstate Center allowing the phasing of Interstate Center development. The landscaping plan must remain consistent with both phases and that along Overland Road and that the development agreement address the issue of the setbacks that were discussed here tonight and that all other conditions of the staff and ACHD and other agencies be complied with. Bentley: Second Corrie: Okay, you have heard the motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley for the approval of the final plat of Interstate Center as stated in the motion, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? ITEM #6: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT CENTER BY SELECT DEVELOPMENT AND CONTRACTING INC.: Corrie: Would a representative from the entertainment center come up please? Bowcutt: Becky Bowcutt, I am representing the applicant Select Development in this matter. Jut to give you a quick run down on this project they are proposing a family entertainment facility. It is on approximately 6.5 acres abuts 1-84, this is Mountain View Equipment. They are proposing a 14,400 square foot building. That building will have like family arcade, it will also have a snack bar facility and the offices associated with the facility will be in this building. They will have a 1500 square foot maintenance shop that will be for maintenance of their little go carts and their grounds, their ponds and so forth, that will be used so they will have all of their equipment and stuff stored in that shop. They are proposing a 7 stall batting cage, they have little kiddie bumper cars, kiddie electric cars, and then they have this go cart facility that adjoins the interstate. The question was asked when we went before the Planning and Zoning Commission on the noise generated by this facility, we did submit some documentation on what the decibel level would be. These are little honda engines and you are going to get far more engine noise from Interstate 84 than you will ever get from this little go cart track. They are also proposing a bumper boat pond, they are a gunnite construction. The water is recycled through the system, they chlorinate the water and then these ponds run here and the miniature golf area. There is, as you can see there is a lot of landscaping and trees and we did provide a detailed landscape plan basically stipulating all of the tree varieties. In my opinion we could duplicate the tree varieties on the next lot to get a consistent or a tie in so we have that corridor and you have a consistent look along 1-84. This particular area that they have on their plan designated as future is just going to be turfed at this time they will have picnic tables to provide an area for birthday parties or any special little events that they have. They constructed many of these facilities throughout the US, this company is out of St. George, Utah. They brought in some colored photographs of the previous sites that they have done, I did submit those with the conditional use application, I don't know if the Council has seen those pictures. took some photocopies of the pictures it really doesn't do it justice. As you can see it is well manicured, everything appears to be (inaudible) a lot of rocks that are made with gunnite and they incorporate trees, grass and pond areas. The gentlemen that are developing this project one of them is going to be moving to the Meridian area on a permanent basis, he will live here and do business out of the City of Meridian. So it is not like the owners are out of town and don't really care how the facility is maintained or ran. We submitted elevations, floor plans of the buildings, designs on how the, what the elevations of the golf course and the go cart track would look like. One of the questions that the Planning and Zoning Commission was operation, hours of operation. It will be 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. on week days and then 10 a.m. to midnight on weekends. The facility, they hope to have it open between 9 and 10 months out of the year, obviously weather permitting. They do have a (inaudible) they will have to provide a lighting plan to the City for review to make sure that we don't have it shining on adjoining properties or problems with glare on interstate 84. At the public hearing we had one property owner that did attend, she was not opposed she just had questions, they own rental property on the south side of Overland Road. She wasn't sure where this was located, she thought it was going to go right across the street from the homes. We showed her where it was located and what the distance was, the difference in elevation. This is going to kind of sit down in a hole, there is a 20 foot drop from the south side of the property to the north side. So this will have nice freeway visibility. It functions very similar to the wild waters facility like they had nice landscaping and water amenities. It was located next to the interstate and got good reviews until they mowed it down for the interchange. Do you have any questions that I can answer? Rountree: What does the future bring for that one vacant area? Bowcutt: I think that question was asked at the last public hearing and I believe Mr. Fulmer was present at that time. I just want to quote him correctly. His answer was they just don't have any plans for that at this time. Rountree: So it would be a grassed area with picnic tables? Bowcutt: Yes it would be a grass area with picnic tables, yes, future patio for company parties, no plans for the next 3 years to develop that area. One thing he and I did chat about it and he did say that they have incorporated, remember the little fun spot that they used to have, or maybe they still have over by the zoo he said that they have incorporated some little facilities like that into their sites, but they have no plans at this time. The primary intent is to use it as their picnic area for birthday parties and company parties etc. Rountree: You indicated you saw no problem with the (inaudible Bowcutt: I really don't, they have designated the varieties and basically to tie that in all you have to do is continue the varieties on down and the sod and underground sprinklers and the same shrubs and trees and that will tie it in. It is not like Mr. Seel said if this is an office building over here obviously it is going to look different but you can still tie that strip together with the same varieties. Morrow: Would you point out Becky on that map where the common area is? Bowcutt: Right here. Morrow: Does the dotted line signify that is the edge of the common area? Bowcutt: Yes it does Morrow: Under the original proposal that would be the ground that would be owned by the owners association. Bowcutt: That is correct. Morrow: This proposal clearly indicates that ground is being utilized by this entity is that correct? Bowcutt: The only thing that is encroaching is these two areas here, this is obviously landscaped. It is the little miniature golf area so it is landscaped. I think when we submitted the original proposal we proposed a landscape easement up on Overland and on Interstate 84. The Council as you mentioned earlier had concerns with that on future maintenance and consistency. I think one of the concerns is that everybody envisioned that a building will be located here or potentially a parking lot. With this type of facility yes you have a building but it is located on the front end and the parking lot is up on the front end internally within the Interstate project. This particular area is all landscape so what we are dealing with as far as encroachment into the so called 20 foot area is these two short stretches right here of this little go cart track. Morrow: I think the original approval was predicated upon those landscape areas being (inaudible) by an owners association. They would not in that format be usable by any property owner as a portion of their site. What you are asking us here is to deviate from that because clearly you are using that space that would belong to the owners association. Bowcutt: It is not being used for like a per say building but it is being used in a non -landscape fashion. Morrow: So what your proposal really is, is to take this in its entirety out of the owners association. Bowcutt: That is correct, just for this lot. Due to the fact that we have no building or no parking lot that is adjoining the interstate. I think the whole intent is the integrity of that corridor in creating something that is visibly attractive. I can understand the 20 or 30 foot requirement to set those building back off those interstates or those corridors and the same holds true for the parking lots. But where this is a flat type heavily landscaped development it is unusual in nature. Morrow: You are indicating this is all flat, there is no berming here? Bowcutt: I can't say that for a fact, I mean flat that it isn't elevated like a building would be. Morrow: No I am talking about the landscaping. Bowcutt: They do go in and deviate through here with berming because we did discuss setting elevations and so forth for the grading of the site to create kind of the rolling effect. They are not perfectly flat. Morrow: I am interested in next to the highway. Bowcutt: Next to the highway here, the have not indicated if that is bermed or if that is flat. If the City council sees fit that it be bermed then obviously that would be a requirement. Morrow: Well to go back to your prior comment then if this is going to set the theme for this particular subdivision then there would be a requirement by the developer to carry that theme out the full length of that subdivision both phases. Bowcutt: Correct Morrow: Is that how you see that? Bowcutt: That is how I see it, that would be the only way to assure that continuity. Morrow: So really what you are asking us to do is to deviate from what it was we had approved and make this lot not have (inaudible). Corrie: Becky, how much grass is between the edge of that race track and the property line there? Bowcutt: I believe it is, it deviates 10 to 12 feet. Corrie: How far is that from the highway? Bowcutt: You mean to the interstate? Corrie: Are we talking about 30 to 40 feet? Bowcutt: It would probably be 30 to 40, that is a pretty big right of way through there that far exceeds the edge of asphalt. One thing I did have a question about the findings of fact and conclusions of law. I believe the conditions of approval and everything are in order. In reference to agency comments on page nine, it basically regurgitates what was put in a memo or recommendation from Ada Planning Association. We did discuss this when we got our original packet and saw APA's comments. Obviously they are evaluating the site from a pedestrian and bicycle perspective and they asked that the sidewalks would be put in along the private roads which yes we are putting sidewalks along the private roads. Secondly they went into a discussion on providing sidewalks running between these parking rows and I did talk to my client and they said that they just don't have the room to do that however they would be willing to do some pedestrian striping. If you notice, take an Albertson's for example how they strip those areas where you are creating that pedestrian corridor to the facility however you don't have sidewalks running between the parking isles. That just doesn't make sense. It was not listed on the last page as a condition of approval or binding, their comments being binding, but I just want a clarification because it is mentioned in the findings of fact. Corrie: That was APA's request? Bowcutt: And it was just a recommendation. Corrie: That is their comment. Bowcutt: Yes, but when I go to page 15 where it says that we shall be required to do the following APA's requirements are not listed. I guess my point is I don't want to come in with the plans or utility plan and drainage plan and find out that we have to put sidewalks between all of these parking stalls because we don't have to do the room to do so. Morrow: I guess as a point of clarification from somebody here on the Council since when does APA recommend what we do internally in terms of sidewalks or any other issue? Corrie: I think it is was just a comment Mr. Morrow. Crookston: That is why they are not included as a requirement. Morrow: Why are they making the comment? Corrie: I guess primarily they are looking a pedestrian friendly sites, that is what they are looking for and that is one of their comments. They are doing all malls now, they are getting pretty well beat up on the Town Square mall being pedestrian friendly, that is just a comment they have which is exactly what it said on page 9 it was a comment. Crookston: To my knowledge we send the notices to APA and they submitted comments this time they have comments on a couple of other applications recently. Bowcutt: I was as surprised as you are, usually they are looking at pedestrian and bicycle transportation from the site and bus transportation. So they are looking at new public streets or private streets and exterior arterials but not commenting on internally what should be done and where sidewalks should go within the site. Morrow: I guess from my perspective is I was a little surprised to see this in this application and I think that is well outside the bounds of what APR's function is. Corrie: I agree, but they also have the right to make comment since we asked to make them. Again the Counselor didn't put them in as a demand which was correct. Any further comments or discussion? Rountree: I have a question for Becky, this discussion of pedestrian, is there going to be any consideration for signing or reinforcement of the right of way fence along the interstate to keep pedestrians from crossing the interstate into this area? That was a significant issue with wild waters and the area across the interstate from this is quickly developing and that is the shortest way to get there. Bowcutt: To prohibit people from going across the interstate? Rountree: That is already prohibited but that doesn't stop them. It was a problem at wild waters. Bowcutt: I think there is an existing ITD fence but it is only about 4 feet in height. Rountree: That is just a typical right of way fence it doesn't keep much out. I assume there will be some kind of fee charged for entrance into some of these areas. That is something your client may want to consider. If they don't do it now I suspect they are going to do in the near future if it is approved. Bowcutt: They could do like a chain link where you still get the visibility of the freeway, the landscaping could still be viewed but they could look at something like that. I will be sure and address it. Rountree: At least protect themselves with signing. Bowcutt: We obviously wouldn't want that to happen. Tolsma: Becky, I just come from Sacramento down there, are you familiar with Paradise Island down there (inaudible) they have a little amusement park down there that is similar in concept of what this one here is except that it is much larger. They are (inaudible) opposing 4 lane streets which would be equivalent to about the freeway out here. They have a seven foot high chain link fence that is sitting on a slight berm that goes completely around their facility around there. It is just for keeping outsiders out so you have to come into the main building when you pay to get into the facility. I was wondering if this one here is evidently going to be (inaudible) they have a little (inaudible) go cart track and the miniature golf and we just participated in a charity miniature golf tournament they have down there for cancer benefit. But their facility is the chain link fence they have around it is what they said they finally had to do because they had a street side chain link fence around there first and they said the people would drop the kids off on this four lane street which just has a sidewalk abutting it and the kids climb over the fence to get in. They said they increased their revenue enough to pay for the fence over the period of 6 months by raising the fence. I just mention that (inaudible) if there is a way to get there they will get there. (Inaudible) Bowcutt: I think you are probably right, I will definitely bring that up with them. Seel: Councilmen, I think if you want on that theme there as far as trees go what we can do in that next lot and we can put that as specifications is carry those trees over which I think again will capture what you wanting. We can put that in so whatever trees, I am assuming they are not exotic trees but whatever type of trees they are we can carry that over to the next lot and then you will have continuity between the two, and put that in the specifications. If you (inaudible) allow them to take this 20 feet and still keep what you want. Corrie: Thank you Jonathan. Council you have the findings of fact and conclusions of law that was done by the Planning and Zoning, accept, reject or do you wrong? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, can we have some comments by Gary Smith please? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council, one thing that didn't show up on our comments originally with concern the landscaping over the sanitary sewer easement along the east side of this project. We are not going to be able to allow any trees over that sewer easement and that is continuing our policy on other sewer easements. We are going to have to maintain access to that sewer line. Now there was some discussion with my staff that possibly that sewer line needs to be moved to the east side of Lot 7 so that might happen and if that is the case then that will eliminate this problem for this easement. (Inaudible) Seel: When we talked to John Anderson about the Ten Mile there is a 50 foot easement with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. John Anderson's comment was I will absolutely not allow anything other than grass or gravel in there. He made a comment about the Sandman Motel and something had happened over there and he wasn't going to let it happen again. So, again this is not my battle but it sounds like it is something that he is very adamant about and he said you can do that as grass or you can do that as gravel and I talked somewhat with Shari about that. Beyond that that is all he was going to allow there. Again that is not my words but his. Smith: We are in two different locations I think Jonathan. I am talking about along the east side of Lot 5. Seel: (Inaudible) because along there too he was very adamant about that. He was not going to allow any type of landscaping in that 50 foot area (inaudible). Morrow: A follow up question please Mr. Mayor for Gary. The area that we are talking that Mr. Seel raises the 50 foot area is the area that is adjacent to Ten Mile Creek is that correct and that is Nampa Meridian's? Smith: Yes Morrow: And then the common lot area is the dotted line on the plat map that is to the south of that easement area is that correct? Smith: No Councilman, there is no common lot along there. Morrow: No I meant in terms of, let me rephrase the question. On lots 7, 8 9, 10 and 11 there was no common lot for landscape purposes on 8, 9, 10 and 11? Smith: Most of 8, all of 9, all of 10 and all of 11 does not have a common lot. Lot number 6 exists along lot 7 and a portion of lot 8 and that is all that is listed or shown as common lot. Morrow: Lot 7 and a portion of lot 8. That portion is that it goes to the unplatted. Smith: Yes sir. Morrow: Thank you Corrie: Gary am I correct that you are not sure whether that sewer line, the sanitary sewer line is going down the east side of Five or down the east side of 7 is that correct? Smith: Correct, we may move it to the east side of Lot 7 just so that we don't have to deal with it in common lot number 6 where the distance that we would if it went down the east side of lot 5. 1 don't know how the depth of the sewer line will work out if it is relocated to the position. (End of Tape) east side of Lot 5 then we have a landscape issue to deal with. Thank you Morrow: I guess from my perspective is my thought along this common landscape area is that we approved the plat and the preliminary plat with those things in place. Talking about the fencing issue that Councilman Tolsma raises and that type of thing, if you have a flat landscape area the idea behind a landscape berm or buffering between the freeway was so that it worked both ways. So it was a very attractive presentable entrance to the City along the freeway. Also so that it diminished the noise the impact going both ways. It seems to me that with this particular use the go cart track comes well within what would have been or would be the common lot area. The question in my mind is the next lot. lot 7 the same case could easily be made for on piece meal basis in terms of what these lots are all about. And so the issue is that either we have a common lot area and get what it is we are after or we don't have common lot areas. So, I think from my perspective the proposal and project (inaudible) common lot area ought to be left intact. Corrie: Comments Council? Rountree: I was trying to find something in the findings of fact that addressed the landscape issue and I don't see anything pop out. Just an indication that all landscape requirements be met. Submit a landscape plan for approval, all consistent with what Mr. Morrow said that we maintain that common lot concept. Corrie: Then you are going to have to change the findings. Rountree: Item 3 on page 5, and then on page 15, items C and D. Morrow: I guess as point of clarification on page 5, number 3 the last sentence that says no improvements are proposed along Overland Road as part of this application. My question with that sentence is that if it is being developed in a phase and we just approved the preliminary plat subject to or allowing it to be done in two phases then that landscaping for this phase 1 along Overland Road and that common area lots 1 and 3, 1 mean 2 and 23 would be landscaped. Now does article 15 on page 15 Rountree: Well C and D speak to being consistent with City Planning & Zoning Administrators approval of landscape plan and meeting the landscape requirements. Corrie: You would have to strike that no improvements on page 5 it includes the improvements of the first phase. Improvements are proposed along Overland Road as a part of this application. Crookston: The comments that are on page 5 are comments that were made by Bruce Freckleton our Assistant to the City Engineer and Shari Stiles our Planning and Zoning Administrator. They are their comments that is all. Corrie: That is not part of the conclusion is that correct Counselor? Crookston: That is correct, other than the fact that the conclusions do state that they have to meet the requirements that are stated by Bruce Freckleton and Shari Stiles and if Gary Smith enters comments those are generally required as a requirement and the applicant has to meet those. But what is on page 5 are only those comments by those people. Corrie: So the landscaping still must meet their approval, (inaudible) Rountree: There is a comment here a statement made by the applicant on page 10, 3/4 the way down the page. Morrow: Your point there Mr. Rountree, are you talking about the sentence that says and also landscaping along Interstate corridor, is that the one that you are referring to? Rountree: The exterior of the facility will be landscaped along the track and also landscaped along the interstate corridor. No indication that the track would be within that common lot. So now we have a new wrinkle. Morrow: Mr. Rountree, on page 15, Counselor has pointed out to me that item F, it says meet all the representations of the applicant unless they are in conflict with the above requirements or City Ordinances. Counselor, can you give us a layman's version of what that means? Crookston: What it means is that if they made a representation to the City before the Planning and Zoning Commission or the City Council that is not in conflict with the City ordinances that they have to perform that and meet that representation. Morrow: Thank you Corrie: Are you comfortable enough with the conclusions or do you want to write new ones with what has been said tonight? They are asking for the conditional, that the landscaping primarily. Rountree: I would like to see the findings and the conclusions reflect what the applicant is requesting at this point in time. They are not the same. Morrow: Then would it be your desire to instruct the City Attorney to prepare findings and facts? Rountree: My question is, is this a public hearing on the conditional use or is this just a meeting? Corrie: This is just (inaudible) Rountree: I would like to see them redrafted to reflect what is being requested. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare new findings of fact and conclusions for the conditional use permit for a family entertainment center by Select Development and Contracting Inc. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to have the attorney draw up new findings and facts and conclusions of law based upon the Council's decision tonight on the conditional use permit for the family entertainment center, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? f•[0]1g[0] kJ[OL'1:�:]I��lI_11\'[1 Bentley: I move we take a five minute break. Rountree: Second FIVE MINUTE RECESS ITEM #7: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR TWO RESTAURANTS BY CHRIS MALLANE: Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the representative for the conditional use permit to come forward. Peter Rockwell, 413 S. 8th Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Rockwell: I am representing Chris Mallane and Louie's restaurant and we are requesting a conditional use permit for two restaurants on East Fairview Avenue at North Hickory Way. We have reviewed the findings of fact and P & Z minutes the 8-13-96 meeting and we are in agreement with them. I don't have anything new to present but I am here to answer any questions that anyone might have if I can. If I can't maybe Chris can help out. Corrie: Council any questions? Thank you, anybody else from the public that would like to offer testimony on the conditional permit? Council, discussion? Any questions of staff? I will close the public hearing. Rountree: Mr. Mayor I would move that the Meridian City Council adopt and approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared by the Planning and Zoning. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion is made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Tolsma that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions as sent on 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 Yea Corrie: Recommendation? Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that the City Council approve the conditional use for the planned commercial development with conditions set forth in these findings of fact and conclusions of law. That the applicant and the owners be specifically required to submit a final development plan, meet all the requirements of section 11-9-607 and the Limited Office requirements and all of the ordinances of the City of Meridian. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Bentley on the recommendation as set forth, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BRIDGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS BY BOISE VALLEY CONSTRUCTION: Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and ask that the representative come forward. Charles Eddy, 4345 South Timridge, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Eddy: Mayor and City Councilmen, I represent Boise Valley Construction, I stated everything I have to say in the findings of fact and conclusions of law and don't see the need to add anything. I am here to answer any of your questions? Bentley: Where are we at on the drainage problem? Eddy: The last I understood ACHD was working on making a permanent fix for the system and pumping it as needed currently. Bentley: I have a question on the landscaping for James Court that has been required of the apartments on the other side and then the adjoining properties to you do some fairly extensive landscaping. What is your plans to conform along with them? Eddy: Staff has asked that more trees be planted and that was acceptable to the applicant. (Inaudible) so we will take care of that (inaudible). Corrie: Other questions from Council? Morrow: I guess what I would like to hear from Mr. Eddy is I might a brief overview of your project for the record (inaudible) but I think that I would like to have (inaudible). Eddy: Okay, this is a resubdivision of Bridgewood Park Subdivision which is, we are resubdividing lots 1 through 12 of Block 1 (inaudible) Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Section 6. The existing zoning is R-15, this subdivision is allowed by a conditional use which we are applying for now. The comp plan designates the area as urban development. The existing site has 12 buildings on it with 4 units per building. Our plan is to create common area on all of the areas excluding the buildings. The buildings will be turned into condominiums for each unit. Then sold to prospective buyers. The applicant has been approved for a ten year warranty that covers the structures, that warranty transfers through the owners for the duration of the 10 years. The applicant has also arranged for the possibility of people who do not have the savings to put down on these condominiums to come in with zero down and they help them obtain the financing to become land owners. It is their opinion that the majority of the current renters in the buildings will become owners of the condominiums if this project is approved. It is a very (inaudible) very well maintained that will continue with the common area maintenance. I don't see any downgrading of this site happening after this project occurs. Morrow: I have a question with respect to the homeowners association, is there a CC&R's coming with this? Eddy: Yes, that is required by (inaudible) Morrow: And in that CC&R's is there a (inaudible) for this homeowners association? Eddy: I am assuming there will be I have not seen the CC&'R's. That is generally the case when there is a common area maintenance required. Morrow: Have you seen the CC&R's Counselor? Crookston: I don't believe that I have. Eddy: The CC&R's will be submitted prior to the hearing of the final plat by the Council. Crookston: Mr. Mayor I have a question, Mr. Eddy, how are or what are you doing as far as construction to convert the apartments to condominiums. There are different construction requirements are there not? Eddy: The, let me clarify are you talking from a legal standpoint in establishing the property lines for the condominiums? Are actual construction of the structures? Crookston: Construction of the structures, don't you have one hour fire walls and that type of thing that condominiums are required to have but apartments do not. Eddy: Building code is not my expertise, just from a common sense point of view the structures have to meet the building code of the City of Meridian when they were constructed. I guess I would ask are there different requirements for apartments than condominiums. Crookston: I don't think you will get the answer from me. Corrie: Gary do you know? Smith: I don't know right off hand Mr. Mayor but they would have to meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. They would have to prove that they could be separated for ownership from their original construction plans. I would assume that they can do that or they wouldn't progress to this point. Eddy: The condominiums or the existing requirements do have to meet the requirements of the UBC the Uniform Building Code, (Inaudible) Crookston: I just wondered because I know that there is, I believe that there is a difference between the requirements for a condominium and an apartment. Corrie: Any other questions of Mr. Eddy? Thank you, are there others in the audience that would like to issue testimony on this request? Council any further questions among yourself or staff? Then I will close the public hearing, entertain a motion. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for Planning and Zoning Commission. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared by the Planning and Zoning, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: Decision or recommendation? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that the City Council approve the conditional use 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 property be required to meet the water and sewer requirement, the fire and life safety codes and uniform building code and any other ordinances of the City of Meridian as they apply. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree on the decision and recommendation as set forth by the findings of fact and conclusions with the addition of as they apply at the end, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR BRIDGEWOOD CONDOMINIUMS BY BOISE VALLEY CONSTRUCTION: Corrie: I will now open the public hearing. Charles Eddy, 4345 S. Timridge, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Eddy: Is there anything you would like to me to add to what I previously stated. Can I answer anymore questions? Bentley: In reflection on discussing of the landscaping on James Street, I would also like to see incorporated in the landscaping plan that the north end of the buildings that front James Street have some landscaping on them too as do the apartments (inaudible). Corrie: Thank you Mr. Eddy, anybody else from the public that would like to enter testimony on the preliminary plat? Council, any further discussions? I will close the public hearing for the request for a preliminary plat. Council, ready for a vote or a motion on the preliminary plat? Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the preliminary plat for Bridgewood Condominiums by Boise Valley Construction subject to all staff conditions and City Ordinances and agency conditions. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley that we approve the preliminary plat based upon the motion, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY/FINAL PLAT FOR SUMMERFIELD SUBDIVISION NO. 4 BY MAX BOESIGER INC.: Corrie: I will now open the public hearing and have the representative come forward and testify. Scott Cook, 9550 Bethel Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Cook: This as staff has indicated in their report is kind of house cleaning item. We are resubdividing an existing lot in existing Summerfield Subdivision No. 3, it is to accommodate a pump station. I would entertain any questions that you might have. Corrie: Council, any questions? Is there anyone else that would like to enter testimony on the preliminary/final plat for Summerfield Subdivision No. 4? Council, any further questions or discussion? Hearing none I will close the public hearing. Entertain a motion on the preliminary/final plat for Summerfield Subdivision No. 4. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that the City Council approve the preliminary and final plat for Summerfield Subdivision No. 4 subject to all City and staff and agency review comments. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr Bentley, to approve the preliminary/final plat for Summerfield Subdivision No. 4 as motioned, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR GRANITE CREEK SUBDIVISION BY KEVIN HOWELL: Corrie: I will now open this public hearing for the request for preliminary plat and invite their representative to come forward. Tracey Persons, 1087 West River Street, Suite 250, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Persons: The preliminary plat and final plat for Granite Creek Subdivision were previously approved in 1994. The developer withheld development of this site at that time due to the market. Earlier this year when he was ready to proceed again it was discovered that a time extension for the plat was overlooked and the plat was null and void. So they are back before you with the preliminary plat. The preliminary plat has not changed from the originally approved preliminary plat. It contains 21 lots, 20 buildable and 1 non -buildable lot. It is located on 5.81 acres and zoned R-8 currently. Sewer and water and pressurized irrigation will be provided. The streets will be constructed to ACHD standards and 5 foot sidewalks will be provided. The site specific and general comments offered by Shari and Bruce I addressed their comments previously as requested. There are a few comments that I would like to go over. The first one is number 7 of the site specific, it talks about a 6 foot non-combustible perimeter fence being constructed. I believe the intent of that condition was that a 6 foot non- combustible fence be constructed along the Finch Lateral easement and not around the entire site. We will construct perimeter fencing on the remaining three sides just not (inaudible) is that what you meant? Stiles: I don't want to come up against the problem of having weeds on the east boundary there on the west boundary where it abuts that non-developed property. Persons: Do you mean on our side or their side? Stiles: On the west side of Granite Creek Subdivision where there is no development presently. I think we probably should still have a non-combustible fence along that boundary. Persons: Because it is not developed so if they want to burn it or whatever is that what you are thinking? That would be fine. Stiles: The other side is already developed. Persons: So 6 foot chain link on the westerly and southerly boundaries then. Okay, that will be great. The other two conditions were #12 and #13. Number 12 speaks about an existing garage located on an out parcel that is believe not to meet set back requirements on that out parcel. Number 13 discusses that the out parcel was originally annexed with the annexation request for this ground but was not included in the preliminary plat. The intent in 1994 was not to include it in the preliminary plat. That is why is wasn't (inaudible) since 1994 it was sold off and we no longer own that out parcel and haven't since then. As far as the garage not meeting setback requirements I don't know that is, since we don't own the land, that there is too much we can do about that ourselves. That is all have right now, can I answer any questions? Corrie: Questions from Council? Thank you Tracey, anybody else from the public that would like to give testimony on this request for preliminary plat? Council, further discussions? Morrow: I have questions for staff with respect to the issues with items 12 and 13. Can you bring us up to speed, apparently at the time that these were originally approved the owner had control over this parcel and it was, can you walk us through that. I don't remember this coming before us (inaudible). Stiles: Councilman Morrow, Mayor and Council, the property when it was annexed included this out parcel, had a development agreement been entered into at that time we could have taken care of this problem with the out parcel. As it is now there will be no landscaping and no right of way dedication for that piece of ground. I don't know really where we are at because the annexation did require an development agreement addressing the entire parcel. The garage it appears would be less than (inaudible) from the property line and I think with our ordinance we would have to require a minimum of 10 feet between the buildings. So there would be a special setback required on Lot 3, due to that existing structure. Morrow: Shari, my question is out of curiosity, how did this parcel escape complying with these things. What transpired so that it got out of site of the Council's original intent? Stiles: I don't believe it was ever brought up at that time. I had been here less than 2 months and I guess ignorance on my part was part of the problem. Morrow: At that particular time the developer was in control of that parcel of ground? Stiles: Yes Morrow: He was aware of the conditions that existed for that parcel of ground by virtue of the public hearing process? Stiles: I would have to go back and check, but I don't think it was ever included as part of the plat. It was included as part of the annexation. Morrow: I guess what I am trying to find out here is that was the developer aware of the conditions and the setback issues and those types of things at point of annexation and did he have an obligation to solve those issues prior to him selling the property. Because apparently if I have understood Ms. Persons right the property has now been sold and is outside the control of the developer. Stiles: I can't answer as to whether he knew about, I would think that he would know about the setback requirements. Basically what they have sold is a non- conforming lot. I don't know how to remedy that now except to require that adjacent lot be required to have an additional setback on the side to compensate for that problem. Morrow: If so that should appear on the deed and on the plat should it not? Stiles: Yes it should. Morrow: Do we have those conditions in writing someplace? Stiles: In regard to the setback? Morrow: The setback on the lot that you are talking about, lot 3. Stiles: I believe what the comments were is that the comment was that it doesn't appear that the required setback will be provided and that no variance from the setbacks have been applied for. Since there has been no variance applied for or granted they would need to note on the final plat that there was a special setback requirement on that lot. Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, Councilman Morrow, my own personal opinion is that regardless of whether the staff picked up on this or not it is a requirement of the developer to provide that setback. This piece of property if I understand is in the City now and so it falls under the guidelines of the City ordinance concerning setbacks. Whatever it takes for that setback to be provided, whether it is provided by a variance or whether it is provided by physically relocating that property line that needs to be done and that is a responsibility of the developer to do that. The fact that, in my opinion, the fact that wasn't brought up as a specific comment by the staff at the time that this was reviewed does not relieve the developer of that responsibility. Crookston: Mr. Mayor, what was the date of the annexation of this piece of property, if you know? Smith: Approximately June of 1994 Shari says. Crookston: I believe that we had our development agreement in effect at that time. The property would have to meet all of the ordinances that were in effect at the time that the property was annexed whether or not it was stated or not. Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, some of these things do fall through the cracks and, but it is apparent that if the property line stays where it is shown on the preliminary plat and this is an accurate representation of that the location of the property line with respect to the building and a fence is built along that property line there is no way to maintain the side of that garage. There has got to be a way to get between the structure and the fence. And of course if there was a fire I guess the firemen would have to stand on either end of the garage and squirt toward the middle. We are providing an easement for a sewer and water service to that out parcel so they do have the availability of city water and sewer or we have requested that easement be provided for a city sewer and water service line. My memory is not serving me very well but I almost remember that there was a discussion, it seems like a lady owned that house. don't recall for sure but it seems like there were discussions at the time originally this plat came toward or came into the City for review. There were discussions concerning that garage. Rountree: About relocating it? Smith: If I am thinking of the right plat. But don't quote me. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Smith: Yes it did, that is correct. Morrow: Thank you I have no further questions. Corrie: Anybody else from the public that would like enter testimony on this preliminary plat? (End of Tape) Morrow: (Inaudible) well I would suggest to you at this point, they only thing that they can do to remedy the problem is since somebody else owns garage they can't very well (inaudible) they have to do a lot line adjustment. They need to (inaudible) whoever owns where the garage is if it is going to comply with our ordinances for setbacks. Bentley: I agree. Rountree: It appears there is plenty of room on that lot to still meet the R-8 requirement. That way you don't have to (inaudible) Corrie: Any further questions of staff Council? Tolsma: Gary, a hypothetical question on the plat, if the road instead of ending in the culdesac was to go straight on through to Ustick Road could they move their lines around (Inaudible) move the lot line and (inaudible). Smith: I think Councilman Tolsma they could definitely move the line against the garage away from the garage but they would lose a lot in extending the road through to Ustick. Tolsma: The ground (inaudible) Smith: I don't believe so. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Smith: I think you would lose a lot. You would have lot 4 would be the same size as lot 6 and 7 and lot 3 would be a good size lot. Lot 2 would go away. Lot 3 would be about 80 feet deep well if you move the lot line so you had a 5 foot setback off that garage it would be about 75 feet deep and 110 feet wide. I think the other thing we would have to check is to see what the Highway District would say about extending that road through to Ustick if that would create a problem for them for an access point. Corrie: Any further discussion or comments? Hearing none I will close the public hearing at this time. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I guess from my perspective we can do one of two things here. We can approve the request for the preliminary plat subject to the conditions that we have talked about or we can have the developer resubmit a plat addressing the issues that we are discussing here. I guess what I would like to hear from the Council is what they are most comfortable with. Rountree: I would be comfortable with approving the plat with the condition that they adjust that westerly property line on lot 3, block 1. And if that is not acceptable to the applicant then can resubmit. Morrow: I think in that case I would be willing to move that we approve the preliminary plat for granite creek subdivision subject to all staff and agency conditions and the additional conditions that the sewer and water service easement as needed for the adjoining property be included and that there be a property line adjustment on Lot 3 Block 1 to correct the side setback requirement and that property be deeded to the owner of that lot. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley, any other comments? Hearing none, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #12: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT GENERAL BY WAYNE & KAREN FORREY: Corrie: Mr. Forrey, would you like to come up and (inaudible). Forrey: Thank you Mr. Mayor, I am going to take a moment and get the easel and a site plan. Mayor and members of the Council, my wife had to leave early, it is a school night and our children had to go home or Karen would be here. My name is Wayne Forrey and my wife Karen and I are purchasing 12.75 acres on East Pine Avenue to develop a planned unit development general which is allowed by conditional use permit on land zoned industrial, shown on page 48 of the Meridian zoning ordinance section 2-409 C. Our project includes a mix of community service uses and facilities, institutional uses, recreation facilities, residential, commercial and industrial uses to achieve a planned unit development general as defined in the Meridian zoning and development ordinance. Our project is a planned general development because of the mix of land uses and because the proposed interior and exterior spaces requires unusual design flexibility to achieve a completely logical and complimentary uses and functions. Our planned unit development general includes the following uses. If you have the site plan it is on blue colored paper you could follow along. We have proposed in this project an elderly living center 120 units, 3 story building including independent and assisted living. There are commercial uses within the elderly living center and the uses I am going to list are available to the community at large. A gift shop, bank, beauty shop, massage therapy, a chapel, a technology resource center which includes a library, computers and classroom space. A recreation, a large banquet room, small banquet room, entertainment stage area, counseling center and a commercial laundry, known as laundry A. There also within that elderly living center are residential uses and accessories to residential use. They are living units which are one, two and three bedroom, meeting all American with Disabilities Act requirements, dining room, interior courtyard and plaza which is enclosed at the third level but open at levels one and two, personal laundry, known as laundry B, a greenhouse solarium, garden space A and B, which is an outdoor are with raised beds accessible to the elderly. Activity room, van transportation, telecommunications wiring, security, 24 hour maintenance, and all facilities are fully handicapped accessible. Also in the project is a professional office building, a 40,000 square feet gross area, 3 story building for commercial use on a lease tenant basis. Two storage unit buildings, both single story, known as A & B on the site plan and therefore commercial use. Flexible space building A 23,000 square feet, single story including a variety of office, warehouse, commercial and industrial uses for industrial and commercial use on a lease tenant basis and that is the same with building B, flexible space building B which is 7,700 square feet. Two greenhouse structures, the larger 3,200 and the smaller which is greenhouse A is 1600 square feet. They are wholesale greenhouse operations to serve Meridian business landscaping needs. There is an 800 square foot central maintenance building. There is also a garden shed available to the elderly living center and we have 4 outdoor courtyards and plazas shown on the site plan as A which is available to the elderly living center, B and C are accessories to the professional office building and courtyard plaza D which is accessible and accessory to the commercial and industrial uses flexible space A and B. We also have site fencing, perimeter fencing and the entire site will be served by pressurized irrigation. Our conditional use permit for this project provides a workable and a functional transitional land use development between the present residential uses adjacent to the site and a transition to the industrial and commercial uses in the area. This conditional use permit is desirable because it provides a transitional land use buffer between the existing zoned residential and the zoned industrial land. This project is desirable because the elderly living center is located at the north portion of the planned development general site which is closest to the existing residential uses. The professional office building has been placed at mid -site as a transition between the elderly residentially and the industrial and commercial uses along the south portion of the site which are adjacent to the railroad right of way. By using this transitional and mixed development procedure we think this is a very desirable conditional use permit because the existing property values can be protected and maintained. Without this conditional use permit industrial uses could be located right next to existing residential uses and it could impact, severely impact property values and residential property values in that area. Also, there are irrigation easements on four sides of the property. The site has about 414 feet of frontage on Pine and it is 1185 feet deep, it is skinny, it is a deep parcel. It is exceptionally difficult to develop for single type of land use. The situation requires unusual design flexibility to achieve a logical and complimentary conjunction of uses and functions. It is the City's policy to encourage land developers to look at planned unit development procedures and utilize the zoning ordinance for that process. We went through that, we analyzed each of the 8 objectives in the zoning ordinance and we have complied with those 8 objectives. So, we feel we have an excellent project, we feel it addresses concerns expressed by the City. We have met the objectives, in short I would say we accept fully the staff comments that we received and agency comments and we will develop in accordance with those agency approvals and comments. I ask you to please accept and approve our planned unit development general request conditional use permit request. I would ask you to accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law that have been prepared and accepted by the Planning and Zoning Commission. There are four objectives that we have tried to addressed and I think we have. Number 1 is that our project will provide a very good tax base for the City. Secondly we will have a positive impact on schools, no new school children. Third, we have a very good transitional land use here, in fact from the rail road right of way, well let's go, from Builder's Masonry on the south side of the rail road right of way from the closest living center or living unit within the elderly living center, it is about 900 feet away to the south side of the rail road property. That is the equivalent of three City blocks and so we feel we have done a good job and tried to buffer and put good industrial and commercial and office facilities and create that transition. The public hearing has been closed we didn't have any verbal or written comments against the project, we feel good about it we are ready to move forward. We agree with the findings of fact and conclusions of law. I would like to ask our legal counsel Robert Phillips just to summarize for a minute and then we will be happy to answer questions. Phillips: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I will be real brief. I know the last time we went through this there as some concerns and there was some ambiguity that we talked with Counsel about in the statute. Mr. Forrey has redesigned this to clear up those ambiguities and to make sure that there is indeed a mixed use as opposed to accessory uses. Anyway those are taken care of so this is clearly a planned unit development general, Planning and Zoning didn't have a problem with the definitions like they did last time. Also, the second point is this is a good transition, you have residential on this side and residential on this side and this helps create that good transition and buffer to the commercial uses and industrial uses for that area and then off to the east. And also keep in mind the City ordinances specifically under section 9-607 encourage this type of use. With that I would ask if there are any questions? Corrie: Questions of Council? Rountree: Wayne, you have been pretty specific as to the type of building, guess a flexible building but at least a commercial industrial building and you have indicated greenhouses. Will those be built on a speculative nature or is that just a concept or what are you talking about? Forrey: It is not a concept, this is, we are applying for a conditional use permit to construct those facilities as shown. Rountree: What is the phasing of the construction? Forrey: I have given that some thought because Chairman Johnson asked that question and I answered it but I wasn't exactly specific so I came prepared tonight in case the Council asked that. Here is our, talking to our development team, we envision from approval of the conditional use permit to occupancy of everything, total build out, 54 months that is 4 1/2 years. Our phasing would be 3 phases 18 months each phase. That is going through the maximum down time that could occur during construction so that would be the outside window, it could be a 3 year construction, in other words 3 phases, a year per phase. But I am saying on the outside it would be 198 months per phase that is 4 1/2 years or 54 months. Phase 1 would be the elderly living center, Five Mile Creek Natural Park, the perimeter fence, the improvements to Pine Avenue and all of Penrith, construction of the central maintenance building, landscaping on the north, south, east and west of the elderly center, tiling of the Grubber lateral at the south and the northwest portions of the site. We need to, I will try and identify this for the minutes. Where you see the central maintenance building, right through there that line, this landscaping is there by design because this property irrigates two directions. This north portion irrigates one way, the south portion irrigates to the south. So it is possible that we can continue to farm this while the north side is being constructed. I wold like to do that, I would like to get one more crop off of the lower 7 acres. So phase one would be here and here and would still be allowed to farm a portion. Phase 2 would be flexible space buildings A and B and the storage buildings A and B and commercial street. That would be phase 2 which could follow 12 behind the elderly living center. So it is almost this is finished we would move into construction of phase 2 but it could be as long as 18 months. And then phase 3 would be the professional office and the greenhouse. That is our best guess and our development team, essentially that means there is continual construction from when we start here and take about 3 to 4 1/2 years to build out and occupy the entire facility, the entire site. Does that help? That is more specific than I was able to answer to Chairman Johnson. And we can commit to that schedule. Tolsma: I suppose you have seen the letter from Builders Masonry products, Corrie: No, I am not aware, the public hearing was closed. Tolsma: They are still not wanting that there because of the noise and such. Forrey: When was the letter received? Tolsma: October 11, one thing I was going to inquire about on here, being as you have industrial property to the northeast, industrial property to the south is this project going to be leased or is it going to be sold internally. Do all of the developments, people living here going to lease this property, rent it you might say? Forrey: Yes, in the retirement center, it won't be a condominium it will individual units rented, same in the office space and same in the commercial industrial space (inaudible) Tolsma: So there could be a clause in there that said that these people will not be complaining about industrial noises all the way around them. There couldn't be any complaints because this is built in an industrial zone. Forrey: I think that is appropriate, in fact, maybe Mark knows 7 to 9 months ago I sat in his office when we began and we talked about that and I mentioned that to him that you will never hear a complaint from us. We acknowledge they are in business and I hope they grow and I have stated that. Tolsma: The reason I have brought this up was (inaudible) is creating noise that is clear over where I live that is 3/4 mile away. I believe you were involved with that at one time or another when they found out it wasn't a decibel noise it is a cycle, that as something to do with the cycles in the air that noise can travel a long distance and settle into an area. That is why I was wondering if there were other industrial projects built around that area. It doesn't create problems, it is like the farmers out here trying to bale hay at 3 in the morning and getting (inaudible) been here for 100 years (inaudible). The dairies that are around here (inaudible) I don't want to see that happen to these industrial projects. Phillips: I am just curious that given this is residential right here and residential here and there is a home right here have there been complaints from those residential people in the past with regards to Builders Masonry? Tolsma: (Inaudible) Phillips: (Inaudible) homes on either side (inaudible). Tolsma: Well the only major industrial project that we have right now that is a noisy project and like they specified about starting the trucks at 5:00 in the morning and letting them idle in the winter time sometimes those trucks make a racket out there. There are industrial projects to the east of there also and there is warehouse industrial that is to the northeast of that which is Hi -Micro and that. just don't want to see those people put in a bind by allowing this to go in the middle of the industrial area. Forrey: We understand that and would be more than happy to whatever form it takes, CC&R's, conditions in the conditional use permit, I think that is appropriate. Corrie: That is not testimonial anyway, the public hearing was closed. Forrey: Yes, so that is why I didn't get a copy. I just received (inaudible) Corrie: We just got it. Forrey: Well it took my by surprise I thought I had all the agency comments. Corrie: Questions of the Council? Discussion Council, questions of staff? Rountree: I would have questions of Gary and Shari, have all of your issues and comments been addressed either by the applicant or within the findings of fact? Stiles: I believe all of my comments have been addressed yes. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for Wayne, what type of signage are you going to have on this? Forrey: Low on the entrance to Pine at the entrance to Penrith in front of the office building on Penrith and in front of each of these buildings but they would be low incorporated into the landscape, not high, masonry almost like the it is a ribbed form liner, a ribbed form liner with an arch. It is kind of like the podium here with the nice vertical stripes. Bentley: Thank you. Smith: I think in reference to your question Councilman Rountree that the applicant has agreed to all of our conditions. Morrow: Mr. Mayor if I might for point of discussion, this ground is already currently zoned industrial ground. The ground that will develop around it on all sides is industrial, particularly to the south and the east, to the northeast corner. It is true that the ground directly across the street is residential and the ground immediately adjacent on the west side is existing residential. It would appear to me that this type of project would be very difficult to provide the protection to the industrial users that may opt to use ground immediately close to this. At one point in time there was a truss company that had an ownership interest in a parcel of ground immediately adjacent to this. We just went through with Idaho Truss a situation earlier this year where the neighbors had moved in after the fact and there was substantial controversy and substantial time invested with respect to the Mayor's office, the Council in terms of trying to iron out those issues even though it was a prior existing industry and the folks that were complaining for the most part were rental type of folks that had not been there a long time there or had not preceded the industrial use going on there. So it appears to me that this concept with the residential component is not compatible with the zoning that it is currently zoned and with the uses that are likely to take place immediately adjacent to it. I do recognize that it is a planned development general, but it would appear to me at least for my perspective our intent for those types of projects within an industrial area and a parcel that is this small is to be primarily to be used for office commercial and things that would provide a buffer between light industrial uses such as the masonry buildings products place or manufacturing processes that may take place here or truss plants or whatever. It is that type of buffer that you try to have between existing residential and industrial users. And in my mind not add in another residential component. From that standpoint I have a problem with this conditional use permit and the surrounding and existing zones. Corrie: Any other comments from Council? Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I too am sensitive to the problems of possibility of noise affecting these people here and Walt comments about the possibility of another truss plant going in or something like that. But what would happen if a truss plant went in on the current property? Then you have the noise even closer to the existing residential. I too and I did on the original presentation when it came before us a month or so ago had the problem of are they going to be like the people that scream after they built their house next door to the airport. If conditions are listed that the people understand that the existing noise is there and they are going to have live with it, if it does indeed affect them. And I don't really have a problem, but I, in my own estimation this is a good project. There may be better sites but the problem I have this would act as a better buffer if something noisier came in on the other side to the existing residential. That is all I have. Corrie: Any other comments? According to the findings of fact it is legal, it is a planned unit development and it is permitted under a conditional use. Based upon the facts I would say that I have some doubts whether it might be good, bad or indifferent but that is not the point. The thing is it is a good buffer for other homes up there, and it is still within the facts of the law that it can be put there. That should be treated as it is stated in the findings of fact it should be treated as such as a planned unit development. I think it is a pretty good buffer where it is, it is a good tax base for the City. Rountree: I can recognize the desire to provide a buffer, I am a little put off with the idea that the elderly or warehousing or housing of the elderly is a reasonable buffer. Every year I get closer to that descriptor and am more sensitive to that. I think this is better thought out than the original plan but my concern from the original plan to this the same two concerns are still there. The continuation of residential housing, rentals whatever you want to call the elderly living center in an industrial zone and the loss of industrial land to something other than industrial uses. I guess given that concern, my question would be for Council, is what is our position because it appears that it does now meet the definition of a planned unit development which is allowed in this zoning. We can condition that activity not to provide for any residential. Am I correct or not? Crookston: Charlie that is a question that I am not capable of answering at this time. I would have to research that some and if that is the desire of the Council I would certainly do that. It is a conditional use, you can place conditions on it. would have to determine whether or not you could condition it to the extent of not allowing a residential use in the planned unit development. Rountree: Well I guess I don't understand given what you just said what my position could be on it. The residential aspect about the project I don't like. And some of the other uses of a residential or industrial ground being used for fairly non -intensive use is not particularly exciting to me either. So I guess I am just searching for what I can do in thinking of what the conditions could be placed on this particular planned unit development. What position the City is in. Crookston: Mr. Rountree, I am not certain right now, I have not addressed those questions before, I am saying that I would need to do some research to find out answers to your questions. Rountree: I would be more comfortable to have some kinds of answers. That is my comments and concerns. Corrie: You said there are homes north on Pine Street and there are homes to the west of that red line now? Forrey: Yes, there are homes on three sides on the west, on the north and on the east. Rountree: There is one home there Forrey: (Inaudible) Rountree: And they are still in the County correct? Corrie: Those are city on the West. Rountree: I think they are still in the County, I think they are in a rural transition. Corrie: So the connection is form the north (inaudible). County on the west, is the City on the east Shari? (Inaudible) Phillips: Can I make one comment, this is kind of directed at Counsel for his reflection to Council member Rountree's question. If the residential component is taken out as a condition then you just lost your PDG which requires a mixed use. Just as a reflection point you basically change the code by doing that. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move to table this pending research by the counselor to answer the questions that have been asked and have him give the Council an opinion from the ordinance standpoint. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that this be tabled until when November 6? Morrow: Let me ask the question, does that give you enough time to research this Counselor? Crookston: If you recall I am not going to be here on the 6th, I would assume that I would have the research done at that time. If you have any questions I would not be here. Morrow: Then I would move for the 19th. Rountree: Second Corrie: Any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: The attorney is instructed to find out some answers on the planned unit development and we will be back the 19th of November and we will get those answers. ITEM #13: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A JOHN DEERE DEALERSHIP BY CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT SUPPLY CO.: Corrie: Is there a representative of the Contractors Equipment Supply Co.? McCreedy: Mr. Mayor and Council members, John McCreedy representing CESCO. A brief overview of the proposal, CESCO would like to build a sales, service and parts dealership for a John Deere facility here in the City of Meridian. They are currently located in Boise where they have been since 1955. A very long standing company with a good history and a good reputation in the Boise area. They have to leave that facility because the airport in Boise is expanding and they need a new facility. They intend to expand the runway there. Their lease is up some time mid to late next year, I believe it is September of 1997. 1 think the Council probably knows some about this property, it is now known as what is called the playground property. It was annexed first in 1993, there was a development agreement that was signed with Mike and Sue Clarke at that time as the owners of the Playground Inc. There was an amended ordinance #615 in 1994 that changed the zoning on the property to C -G commercial general. A retail equipment dealer, rental and sales would be an allowed use under a C -G zoning here in the City of Meridian. This City Council did recently approve a final plat which subdivided the Playground Subdivision into 3 lots, this is lot 1 of that subdivision. It is currently a driving range. That is the use that is restricted under the development agreement with the Clark's. Last fall CESCO representatives started meeting the Clark's and City officials to determine the possibility of locating the facility here. The purchase was complete after many months of negotiations with the Clark's and the Playground just this last June we were informed by the City that they wanted a conditional use permit in order to accomplish two things one, to get the use in place, two, it was my understanding that was the procedure that would be needed to amend the existing development agreement that is on the property to allow an alternate use. CESCO has put together a very comprehensive development team. They have CSHQA as the architect, Wright Brothers as the builder, Jensen Belts is the landscaper, Hubble Engineering has done some of the engineering, J.J. Howard who is here to speak to the sewer issue has done some engineering on the sewer. The building for the site, we do have the landscape plan here, is approximately 24,000 to 25,000 square feet. You will notice it is setback quite a ways from Overland Road in excess of 200 feet to provide as much distance from the road as possible. The neighboring uses, I understand that lot 2 of the Playground Subdivision which would be located here is now up for sale by the Clark's. Lot one is the RV facility that they have. On the east side you have the Howell facility that was recently approved by the City Council that is a truck and tractor sales and service facility. The freeway, on this end, you might note from the staff report that the (End of Tape) equipment dealership, very extensive landscaping for the facility. There is bermed and raised landscaping along the freeway. I think they put a lot of time and detail into it. On the back side of this we have a little bit of a layout of the building and an example of what the sign would look like. Very low profile sign, very low wattage on the sign. Very attractive building, plenty of parking, 66 spaces, it is my understanding plenty of handicapped parking. It complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Screened trash receptacles for the facility. You may remember that there was a lot of testimony about the glaring lights on the driving range that you have heard over the last couple of years. That problem will be eliminated. The lighting that will be along the freeway will be low wattage, low intensity and the lights that are now on the driving range will be removed. The comp plan calls for mixed use in this area, I believe it complies with that requirement. The public hearing was held there was no written or oral testimony in opposition. I believe it is harmonious and appropriate for the area. You do have two other equipment dealers in the immediate vicinity, Arnold and Western States. Really just two outstanding issues that we have been wrestling a little bit with. One that I think is fairly easily resolved and that is do we need an amended development agreement, we have indicated to staff and to Mr. Crookston that we will do whatever the City wants on that issue of a development agreement. It is my opinion that since you have an existing development agreement out there and since it does restrict the use to the property an amended development agreement would be appropriate. I have put one together in a draft form after Shari's office sent me an example of a development agreement you have done with another facility. I have sent that to Mr. Crookston and hopefully get some comments from him and work that issue out prior to issuance of a building permit if this application is appropriate. I think the more sticky issue is sewer, it is my understanding and Mr. Howard can speak to this tonight that sewer is available for this facility. I did the negotiations for CESCO when we were buying the property from Playground. I can assure you and I did provide a copy of the agreement to staff that there is an easement in place for CESCO to connect to the existing sewer system that exists on Lot 2 and 3 of the Playground Subdivision. That easement allows us to connect to it, to increase the size if we need to, to move the location if we need to, so I think CESCO has full legal right and access to that sewer system. The question of capacity for that sewer line has been answered by Mr. Howard, I think you have a letter. I did fax over another copy of it again today to make sure you had an opportunity to look at that. It is his opinion that there is plenty of capacity and I think he does have quite a bit of familiarity with it as he was the engineer that worked on the project quite some time ago. I think the better issue or the issue that we have been wrestling a little bit with staff is the policy of allowing this facility to hook up outside the drainage area for the sewer facilities in that area. It is my understanding that the Five Mile Trunk Extension and the plans for that include connecting this piece of property to the Five Mile Trunk Extension. All be it the other two lots in the same subdivision are connected the other way to the City system. The question I think of whether that is an appropriate area to divide it but that is more of an engineering question. I do note that this is all one subdivision that is platted all as one subdivision now. It seems to make some sense that entire subdivision be connected to the same system. But I want to let you know that CESCO really doesn't have a lot of dispute with that, their proposal is that they be allowed to temporarily connect to that system. They have indicated several times that they will participate financially with the other existing and coming users to get that Five Mile Trunk Extension accomplished. We would like to try to look to a solution that gets that accomplished. I think if the facility gets approved and you have a good tax base and you have a very good long standing history with this company in Boise I think it hopefully will be the last time you have a land use application on this piece of property for at least a couple of years, maybe for quite a long time after that. I think also you get an owner in there that is willing to participate financially in the Five Mile Trunk Extension and that seems to be quite an advantage. I don't think they had the ability to pay for the entire thing themselves. But they certainly have the ability to pay as they should for their fair share. We have indicated that all along. So I think there are some advantages to approving the conditional use permit, allowing them to temporarily connect to the existing system that does have the capacity. And then given them some breathing room or some time to work with the other owners in the area to get that Five Mile Trunk Extension extended in compliance with the City Attorney's objectives. I did fax over a letter today, I am not criticizing, but I find a couple portions of the proposed findings and conclusions confusing on the sewer issue. On page 4, we have a couple of statements, one it does reflect our desire to temporarily hook to the existing system. And then it indicates that details for that arrangement need to be addressed in a development agreement and we agree with those two statements on page 4. We need the temporary hook up or basically we have no facility. At least not in the time that we need it in order to get moved out of Boise and into Meridian in compliance with some lawful leases. Second we do want to work out the details of that in an amended development agreement. However if you turn to page nine, and I am not arguing on a technical basis I am just concerned with what might be a later interpretation of these findings and conclusions. It is my opinion that they might be a tad bit ambiguous on the sewer issue. In paragraph 17, it says that it isn't know whether it is physically possible to sewer into the existing system. I think we do know that it is possible to do that. The next page on page 10 there is a phrase that says the City does not have a time table for the extension of the Five Mile Creek sewer line. So I think if one of the conditions of approval is that we connect to the Five Mile Creek sewer line I have some real concerns with that because if there is no time table for that happen then I don't think we have a facility that we can move into in time. So I really think the temporary hook up is absolutely essential for this facility. Then I think those are primarily comments and as Mr. Crookston explained earlier tonight they might not be the final say so. But what is the final say so is the conclusion on page 14 and 15 which would be 7 B, or actually excuse me, let me back up. Page 13 and 14 which would be 5 E on page 14, excuse me where it says the property does not have sufficient sewer service and the phrase that concerns me is and provisions for applicant at its cost to supply the necessary sewer service must be worked out as a condition of granting this conditional use permit. I guess it is that phrase provisions for applicant at its cost to supply the necessary sewer service. If the interpretation of that is the applicant has to pay to connect to the existing service then I don't need to say anything more and I can go. But if the interpretation of that is that they have got to pay for the Five Mile Trunk extension then I think there are some real concerns there. So I think that language needs to be clarified. We need some guidance as to exactly what the City Council is looking for. Our request is that we be given that temporary hook up. I think maybe a reasonable proposal would be to set a time frame on the temporary hook up and then perhaps indicate that when that time runs out if an extension is necessary then so be it. But we are more than willing to include in the amended development agreement a statement that we will pay our fair share for the Five Mile Trunk Extension. So I would ask that even if we can tonight (inaudible) some language on that paragraph 5 E on page 14. Then on page 15, 7 B, I think that needs to be changed to read that applicant shall enter into an amended development agreement with the City prior to issuance of a building permit. That is 7 B on page 15. The language that is there that requires us to comply with the existing development agreement be taken out because I don't think we would be able to comply with that existing development agreement, it limits the use to a driving range. We are clearly contemplating something different. I think there is also substantial concern about that development agreement every being fully complied with in the first place. We kind of want to have a fresh start with a new amended development agreement and this company and opportunity to show you that it is serious about keeping its word on those things. I would certainly stand for any questions, I do have Bob Nemick who is a representative of CESCO, Mark Canfield couldn't make it tonight, he is the president of CESCO, he is actually up in Vancouver looking at some building designs to compliment what we have going here. Corrie: Questions from Council? Bentley: I have a question for staff, Gary, I would like to have your interpretation and views on the sewer issue. Smith: Okay, Mr. Mayor and Council members, some years ago we established, the City of Meridian established a policy that we tried very hard to contain sewer service in sewer service areas, drainage areas. We felt that we didn't want to get outside of a drainage area with sewer service because of possible future impacts on the sewer mains within a designated drainage area. For instance if we were pumping from one drainage area into another drainage and then a heavy use was proposed in the drainage area to which we were pumping we could have an impact on the capacity of the sewer line in that drainage area. So we pretty much stayed with a couple of exceptions I guess to keeping sewer drainage in or sewer service to specified drainage areas. I don't recall the date but when Dr. Clark was the owner of this property he came to me and asked for a letter of sewer service to Lot 1 which is the driving range. I did give him a letter stating to the effect that sewer service could be extended to a support facility for the driving range. Basically the intent of that was to provide a sewer line for the building that housed the driving range operation. And possibly a small concession stand perhaps. But my intent was not to authorize any sewer service beyond that type of flow. I don't doubt what Jim Howard has said, I haven't had a chance to look at it myself but I don't doubt that there is capacity in the line if it was extended. I don't have any record that it was extended across lot 1, that is something that I will have to check with our plumbing inspector because it was a service line it is not a public facility. It was built to serve the lot. But again we would be putting a use, a sewer use back into a different drainage area. The drainage area is delineated by the Hunter lateral as the high ground, that property to the east of the Hunter Lateral was destined to flow into the Five Mile Trunk Extension property to the west flows into the Nine Mile Trunk Extension. The R.V. park that exists out there flows into the Nine Mile because it is on the west side of the Hunter lateral. These sewer drainage areas are not defined by lines etched in stone. Obviously there are places that service can be provided outside of these magical drainage area lines. It depends on the use that is being proposed. The quantity of sewage that is going to be generated from that use and possible impact that it would have on the drainage area that it is going to be discharged into. I doubt very seriously that this use this particular use would be of that great of an impact. What Jim Howard is saying is that there is capacity in that line and as I mentioned I don't discount that. I guess it is a policy thing that we have tried to maintain for several years. We need to be cognizant that when this happens if it happens that the property is or could be taken out of financially taken out of financially participating in the extension of a trunk line. This applicant has indicated that they would participate financially as far as their fair share, I don't know what that amounts to. It is a temporary connection and I agree there needs to be, if possible a time placed on that connection. I don't know if that is possible. Everybody gets fired up to extend a sewer line until it comes time to write a check. Then it becomes well you do it, I will just stand by and you do it and I will connect later. The school district as you know purchased 50 some acres from Gary Voigt and in order for that the property to develop as a high school site the sewer line is going to have to be extended under the interstate. When that happens I don't know, someone said within 5 years, within 3 years, I am not sure what their plans are, what their requirements are for a high school. But when the high school is needed that sewer line will have to be extended. There is another piece of property to the east of this piece that is being touted as a truck transport facility and there is a property to the east of that that for a long time has been interested in being developed as a residential subdivision. So there is a lot of property out there that needs the sewer or can use the sewer once the sewer is extended that property is going to be developed. It is not just a matter of connecting this property, it is a matter of getting this property getting sewer to this property once the sewer gets under the interstate. And I think there are some financial questions that need to be answered if this applicant is interested in participating financially, I think those dollars needed to be generated to see what that participation is going to be like. I don't want to see this property taken out of the picture in terms of participating financially because it is in the drainage area to the Five Mile Trunk. Bentley: Thank you, that is all I have. Corrie: Any other comments or questions from Council? Do you have anything further? McCreedy: I just want to add that if we need to start generating some proposed or potential numbers for the sewer line extension I think they would be willing to look at that. We tried to look at that and we got concerned about it being so vague that it is not possible to do that. I think if we can get a date that we can have a temporary hook up for a period of 3 or 5 years and then the right to extend that if necessary. And then during that time period I am sure the numbers will become more concrete but I just want to assure you that this company is willing to participate financially and pay their fair share for that and that seems to be the important thing. I don't know if Wayne and I can massage some language in the development agreement to accomplish those goals, we will do that. (Inaudible) Morrow: Mr. Mayor, if I might, as a comment towards the sewer coming under the freeway, I think that we currently are beginning to deal with some modifications to our late comers agreement. Part of that has been motivated by development that has gone on. It is also a request by Mr. Roylance's office for some clarification with respect to I believe Mr. Howell's property and wanting to see some adjustments in how that latecomers agreement was being done. I guess the point of the observation is that there might be in Mr. Howell's case some pressure to do that crossing in the very near term because he does not have the capability of having temporary service. So (inaudible) benefit is that the City was the lead group with respect to the extension of the St. Luke's site and will not be the lead group with the extension of any trunk line to any place in the short term. So that is not an avenue that is available to this project or any other project. So, (inaudible) that would be my comments on the sewer issue. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I would have a question for Council, is the development agreement the place to address something like that given the condition to do that in the conditional use permit. It seems that we have a willing party but we don't have a time table or a dollar amount and yet have the ability to put them on line on a temporary basis. How do we best look at that from the City's standpoint? Crookston: Well the development agreement as Mr. McCreedy said it may or may not fit into what CESCO desires to do. We need to determine or I need to determine a recommendation for the City as to whether or not the City can even or should even work with that agreement or request that a new development agreement be entered into because we are talking about different parties. We are talking about the same land but we do have different parties. At this juncture I am not certain as to how that development agreement affects this applicant. The development agreements do state that they are binding upon the heirs, executors and administrators and assigns. That is something we need to consider. Any party if it is agreeable can amend an agreement even if they are bound by a different one. But I think that the financing of the sewer line could be addressed in a new development agreement. Corrie: (Inaudible) if you are bound by an agreement you can agree to have another agreement, (inaudible) Crookston: If two parties have an agreement that is binding upon both of them they can agree to change that agreement. Corrie: I was thinking a third party (inaudible) Crookston: I thought that is what I said, but it was clearer the second go around. McCreedy: (Inaudible) plus the limitation in the old agreement the property only be used for a driving range. Crookston: Why did I understand you and I don't him. Rountree: I have a question for you, you just indicated you wanted a new agreement but previously you indicated you wanted to enter into an amended agreement. McCreedy: And those are the same thing, an amended agreement is the same as a new one. It would just indicate that there (Inaudible) now know there has been an original and an amended. Morrow: Well for point of discussion here I am supportive of the project in terms of the temporary sewer hook up I think that is a do able deal and I think we qualify that with a 3 to 5 year time frame to allow this extension of the sewer service to come under the freeway. I think we also qualify it with setting the payment terms or conditions, some method to get to fair share which would be done through the City engineer's office in conjunction with the City Attorney. I think the last thing is that from my perspective amended or new doesn't make any difference it seems to me like there is a lot in this development agreement that needs to be changed. So that whatever you two wish to call it we get something that reflects what is really going to go on here. I don't have any dispute with Mr. Howards engineering expertise it is well known around the valley. So I agree with Gary Smith's acceptance of that. So those would be my thoughts with this project. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I too agree with the project concept and (inaudible) the sooner we get some commitments from people to do an extension maybe we can get some more of them on line and get the line moving. Corrie: Have we significantly answered your question on page 14, number E, the property does not have sufficient sewer service available (inaudible) for the applicant at its cost to supply sanitary sewer service, have we taken care of that for you? McCreedy: I think maybe the facts are that it does have sufficient sewer. Corrie: That is what I want to make sure that you are understanding that we are saying. The City Engineer says it is a possibility but we need to find out where the sewer line is. McCreedy: I think we know where the sewer line is (Inaudible) Morrow: Being as there are findings of fact and conclusions here and we are going to do things that reflect major changes in these findings of fact and conclusions I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare new findings of fact and conclusions. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion is made and seconded that we have the attorney draw up new findings o fact and conclusions of law based upon the testimony tonight, any discussion? Bentley: Yes, would that include the Morrow: The new findings would be inclusive of everything that we have discussed here this evening in terms of making the adjustments to the development agreement and the temporary sewer to everything else. So that appears to me to be the fastest way to get to the objective and the simplest way that we can get to where we need to be. Rountree: Sounds reasonable to me. Crookston: I have a question, just on the date, when you want those done. Morrow: By the next meeting. Crookston: As I said I am not going to be here on the 6th, I can do those before (inaudible). I think that we do have, because you are talking about the development agreement we are talking about some time. Rountree: Are we talking about redrafting the development agreement or just the findings and then entering into the development agreement. Crookston: The way I heard the motion it included changing everything. Morrow: The motion was to change the findings to reflect the issues that we are discussing here. Now the findings can state that we need to enter into a development agreement (inaudible). Crookston: I did not understand that. Morrow: My intent was to get the very first hurdle out of the way which was to clean up the findings of fact and conclusions to reflect all that we have discussed (inaudible). Corrie: Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #14: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR A THRIFT STORE AND FARMERS MARKET BY IDAHO YOUTH RANCH INC.: Corrie: Is there a representative here? Beamguard: My name is Jeff Beamguard, I am with the Idaho Youth Ranch, Council and Mayor, the Idaho Youth Ranch is non-profit organization founded in 1954 in Rupert, Idaho. Approximately 12 years ago the thrift store concept came about in Boise and since then there have been 14 thrift store locations, 13 in Idaho, 1 in Ontario, Oregon. The purchase of the Food Town grocery store was done about 2 1/2 years ago and leased back to David Foods. They have since vacated September 1, at that time we took over. Didn't know exactly what the procedures were to get that building occupied and running. I personally have been involved in 11 other locations and did not know, did not have to go through the steps I've had to go through here. So there has been some stumbling and some help that I got from Planning and Zoning I have had to hire an architect and engineer all of which has been done. I think now we are basically ready to proceed, I have got the signed engineered drainage plan for the parking lot which is one of the requirements that was presented by Planning and Zoning. The one change I need to make to the application is to remove Doug Hill and Farmers Market from the application. I talked to Doug on Monday, he has completely withdrawn his desire to lease that piece of property on the corner of King and 1 st adjacent to the thrift store property on the grounds that he does not have the money to do so. He has completely dismantled that building on Fairview in pieces that he was going to move over in one whole section, I saw on Tuesday it was in pieces and parts on a trailer. He just feels that it is just too much money. I don't think he really knew what he was getting into at the beginning. I think he thought he could just kind of set up a tent seasonally and shut down when the weather got cold and that is basically what he was doing on Fairview. That was not what the City Council Planning and Zoning had in mind for Doug. They wanted him to construct a building on a foundation with sewer, water hook ups and he was not prepared to do that. He was just intending on building just basically a fruit and vegetable stand without the need for electricity or water and sewer. We had tentatively made an agreement to go in jointly to save some money to let Doug save some money on his application in exchange he was going to let his customers use our restroom facilities if need be and hook into our power which is on that light post there on the sign post. I guess just use bottled water if need be. But anyway that is no longer an issue and that needs to be stricken from the application. So the project would be and I think that you have got it on your at least a very shrunk down version is on Ada County's picture of the site. I have a drawing of the site where it pictures the existing building with new sidewalk in accordance to Ada County Highway Department. And all of their conditions are being followed by Idaho Youth Ranch. The parking lot I have a signed approved copy of a drainage, French drain program for the parking lot that is going to be done just as soon as, actually it could be done right with the signed drainage plan. But there is enough parking, handicap parking on site that I proposed that we completely omit the property that was originally designated as the Farmers Market location. It would be on the northwest corner of King and First Street. Just completely leave that untouched. And thus doing all of the improvements to the southwest portion where the existing building is now. The one recommendation from Shari was that the landscaping was not going to fit into the scheme due to the gas pump arrangements which we are going to leave intact managed by United Oil out of Caldwell doing the CFN cardlock system. It would be managed completely by them and then we would just get 2.5 cents per gallon on every gallon pumped through the system. Basically we have no handling in that operation whatsoever. It is completely handled by them. The landscaping requirements although not on First Street would be handled down the southwest corner of the property parallel to the alley. Improvements also would be done to the alley, completely paved at our expense and that is right of way. But the landscaping would be on our property with the required amounts of trees, shrubs, irrigation, along the whole, it would be completely down the alley along the back chain link fence against those apartments and then along First Street up to the curb cut. There would be 37 parking spaces which is the exact number based on the amount of square footage inside the building for retail and for storage. Any questions? Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I have a couple. One do you know what the, if those gas tanks have been changed out or if there is a (inaudible) Beamguard: No they were installed in 1984, they are metal, we have installed cathodic protection which is an EPA law that has to be in place by 1999. We put that in now just because we are going to do the asphalting and we wanted it to be under ground. What that is, is a device that actually takes metal out of the ground. Not metal, it takes, it is an electronic that takes the deterioration away from the tank, away from the metal. They pump the fuel out of those tanks, tankology went down and sent a scope into the tank and took a picture of the tanks and I haven't got that report back. That report would be made available to you just as soon as I can get it. Bentley: The next question, if the Farmer Market is not going to be there what is going to happen with all of the equipment you have stored across the street? Beamguard: I talked to Doug about that equipment which was in the back of the property, back behind the store in the dirt, what he had planned on doing with that. I told him to move it because we were getting ready to do the parking lot. Well he just took it upon himself to move it across the street. I told him that needs to get out of there. He asked me if it would be okay if he left it there over the winter covered up and I said no that would be a complete eye sore especially for that neighbor that is next door an older gentleman that I have talked to is already concerned about it. So I have told him personally that stuff would be out of there. I just haven't been able to find Doug since Monday. Corrie: Jeff, is there only one entrance into that building? Beamguard: No, there are several , probably six. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have questions of Gary and Shari, comments? Stiles: I just had one comment that I have noticed since the application was submitted that there are some off premise signs affixed to the fence and the front of the building. Beamguard: That fence is going down (inaudible) Stiles: I think they have done quite a bit of work, it is looking pretty nice and then I think it will be a great improvement to that area. Bentley: Did you get all of the bicycles fixed? Beamguard: (Inaudible) Smith: Mr. Mayor I had to leave the meeting for the short time, does the applicant have any problems with the comments that were provided to him by Public Works, were there any concerns. Morrow: Did you hear that the Hill portion his request was to drop that portion of it. Smith: That is what I understood, Shari mentioned that to me before I left. Beamguard: No, most of the questions and comments dealt basically with Doug, let me go through them again, you are talking about the Planning and Zoning Meeting on the 16th, your recommendations. Smith: The memorandum that was written dated September 12. Memorandum to the Mayor and Council and Planning and Zoning. Beamguard: Oh, the general comments? Smith: Yes, general comments and site specific comments. Beamguard: Absolutely not, all of that is going to be followed exactly. The parking lot was the main obstacle and that has been approved and picked up just today. Smith: Thank you, I don't have any other comments. Corrie: I guess I have a question of Counselor, do we need to redo this since some of the portions the Farmers market was taken out? Crookston: You could approve them and strike them. I would mention though that with regards to the Farmers Market, the City needs the request from Mr. Hill to withdraw his part of the application. We need to send a letter to him (inaudible) but we do need the written acknowledgement of the fact that he wants to be withdrawn. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions as prepared by P & Z with all references to the Hills Farmers Market being stricken (inaudible) Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law as set forth by the Planning and Zoning with the exclusion of all references to Hills Food market, any further discussion? Roll call vote ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley - Yea, Rountree - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: Decisions and recommendation? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that the City Council approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the amended findings of fact and conclusions and subject to a receipt of letter from Mr. Hill requesting to be withdrawn from the application. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley on the decision and recommendation as stated in the motion the amended findings and subject to a letter from Mr. Hill, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea (END OF TAPE) ITEM #15: RESOLUTION #164: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING TIME: Corrie: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF MERIDIAN ESTABLISHING THE MEETING LOCATION, TIME AND PLACE OF THE MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETINGS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anybody from the public that wishes to have this resolution read in its entirety? Hearing none I will entertain a motion. Bentley: Mr. Mayor I move the City of Meridian adopt Resolution #164. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Tolsma to approve of Resolution #164, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #16: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: Corrie: Gary Smith? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, the contract change order item that you have before you concerns the construction of 12 inch water main in Linder Road. That project extended from the north side of the railroad tracks to through the intersection of Franklin and Linder south to Ten Mile Drain. The contractor experienced some difficulties when it came time to cross under the Eight Mile Lateral which is north of Franklin Road. It required the installation of some casing by method of boring, jacking and boring rather than being able to dig with a hoe as he had originally planned to do. So the increase here has to do with the boring under Eight Mile Lateral and there were some additions to the unit price items or quantities on the unit price items as they were bid for the total job. The net change is $10,716.21. Morrow: Question, did, was he originally planning on making this crossing of the Eight Mile when the water was out? Smith: No Morrow: How was he going to use a back hoe to get under it then? Smith: They ran into, he was going to just dig up to each side of it and figuring that it was a pipe clear across from head wall, what he ran into was an old head wall. When they extended the culvert for the Eight Mile Lateral they didn't take out the head wall they just tied a pipe into the head wall and it has wing walls on it. So rather than digging under a 48 inch pipe from both sides and being able to push a casing under that he was having to deal now with a concrete head wall that was twice or more that depth or that width and he just could dig and push that kind of a length. It was unknown to anybody until he hit it with his back hoe when he was digging. Morrow: Thank you for the clarification. Smith: We, City Engineer and his assistant would recommend approval of the change order. Corrie: So the contract price now will be $94,495.26? Smith: Yes Morrow: Mr .Mayor, I would move that we approve the change order in the amount of $10,716.21. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Smith: I have one other item that came to my office late this afternoon and I am not sure how appropriate it is but it is kind of a rush deal. There is a license agreement that was drafted by Nampa Meridian Irrigation District for some crossings of the Eight Mile Lateral as part of the golf course construction project for the second nine holes. This is a license agreement that allows two crossings of pressure irrigation lines and also installs, removes two lengths of 36 inch diameter CNP and installs two lengths of 48 inch diameter CNP. One crossing is on one of the golf course holes and the other crossing is near the proposed club house. The Nampa Meridian Irrigation District Board of Directors approved this agreement today at their meeting. Usually they request the City approve of it before it goes back to them for their approval but they were meeting today, you are also meeting today so they reviewed it and signed it and sent it over here. Obviously you haven't looked at it because I just got it. What I would ask I guess is if we could between Wayne Crookston and I if we could review the language in it and I think we have pretty well established some general verbiage in these license agreements stays the same. The main body of the agreement the special conditions actually address the specific crossings. In this particular case the special conditions are very brief. So I guess I would be open to your comments. think there is some kind of, the work needs to be done of course, the water is out of the ditch I believe. So they have set up a construction time here that some time between October 15, 1996 and March 15, 1997. Time is of the essence they say. Corrie: Okay, I will entertain a motion if you so desire that Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the license agreement with Nampa Meridian for the crossings with respect to the golf course, authorizing City Engineer Smith and Attorney Crookston to review and approve those agreements and upon their approval authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest that license agreement. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded, you heard the motion, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: I guess, the executive session, what I called for, Gary and I don't have enough information yet to do that but I guess Mr. Morrow had one and he wanted to discuss a personnel problem? Morrow: That is correct. Corrie: If you want to go into Executive Session we can. Rountree: Let's get the rest of the staff under departments reports. Corrie: Okay we can do that, Shari? Stiles: I have nothing. Corrie: Chief? Gordon: Just a quickie, I got a call today from Mr. Lovan out at the golf course and they are having problems with the geese. He wants to, he got a hold of fish and game and they have provided him with what they refer to as cracker shells which are fired out of a 12 gauge shot gun and explode in the air to scare the geese off. He didn't want to do without checking with me. Well it is against the law to fire a gun within the City limits, the explosives are against the law in the City limits and I just wonder what the people that live out there, he assured me he would only shoot them during the day time. Rountree: If he gets to do that I get to set up a (inaudible) in my back yard. Gordon: Somebody said goose season is open. We would take care, there would be no second booms. Morrow: (Inaudible) Gordon: I think that is what they are doing, the size has just about tripled of that flock that is in there now. There are three major groups, they fly over my house every evening and there is a posse of geese. (Inaudible) but they are doing damage. He did go on to mention that there are a lot of homeowners out there that like the geese. So it could cause some problems there. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Gordon: Basically these are expensive bottle rockets. (Inaudible) Morrow: So what do we do here. Are you asking for our permission to go ahead and use them and see what happens? Gordon: I guess I am just laying it on you guys. We have a City Ordinance against firing guns in the City limits, it is City property. Tolsma: I was just down at Sacramento this week and down at the fairgrounds there (inaudible) they had a big lake out in the center where the geese and ducks were on it. It was just the start of the major race of the evening they set off a (inaudible) just as they got the green flag. They turned 32 race cars loose at 100 miles an hour during the straight aways and everything else and those geese and ducks lifted off the pond and flew around a couple times and got in the pond again. So it didn't seem to make any difference to them out there that they had these 5 inch artillery shells (inaudible) Gordon: This wouldn't be a one time thing, this would have to be done continuously. Tolsma: That is why I don't think those little artillery shells that he has out there are going to do any good. Rountree: Do you know if they can drain that pond on a temporary basis? Morrow: The pond drains down in the winter time because it is filled with irrigation water (inaudible) Rountree: Can they pump it dry or do they need to water for (inaudible) Morrow: (Inaudible) seed continues to water (Inaudible) if it was a normal year we would probably water out of that pond what another week or ten days until the 20th of October and then the pond goes dry or drains down. That is the way (inaudible) Gordon: It doesn't go dry, it is year round. Morrow: It drains down but it is run off water it is not supplied water from the well system or the irrigation system. Corrie: Can we get some relief from the game and fish to come out and get some of those guys? Gordon: No, they said they would furnish him the cracker shells. Corrie: Personally I think you are wasting your time and causing a lot of irritation to the neighbors. I know there are some neighbors out there that don't like them either but (inaudible). It gets pretty smelly out there with all of those geese. Tolsma: They used to have those (inaudible) Bentley: I could take my Lab out there. Gordon: I think some of the neighbors do that now. The Fish and Game also have what is called a gas cannon which ignites off of a spark on a timer and it is a pretty loud boom. But we are back to we are in a residential area with a high population. Morrow: I guess the question is (inaudible) year round so you are going to have to do some kind of birth control process is what it amounts to and I don't know how you talk geese into that. Rountree: Really the only way you can is you physically have to take the flock out either catch them or shoot them. They fly between that pond, the pond at Fuller Park, and some place over there in Charlie's farm, I think they fly into the fields and graze over there. Everyday it is just, you are right it has grown from 4 or 5 to 30 to 50. Morrow: The deal is how far away do you have to transplant them before they fly back. Rountree: You are not going to transplant them. Physically have to take the size of the flock down to 5 or 10 birds. You couldn't do it in the City, you would have to do it where they go (inaudible) Morrow: Do they ever leave the City in the circle that they run? Rountree: They are out there (inaudible) Charlie Stevens flock (inaudible) Corrie: I am reluctant to shoot in the City (inaudible) Gordon: That is what I am afraid of, I think all of you will start getting numerous calls. But there has got to be a way and I will get a hold of Wally tomorrow and we will explore some other alternatives. Morrow: (Inaudible) not only for the golf course but for the folk that live around there. It is only going to get worse. Rountree: I would consult with maybe not Fish and Game but somebody in the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Use a migratory bird specialist and see if they have somebody that can help out there. Fish and Game is going to be more inclined to do it within whatever is quick and easy and Fish and Wildlife Service may have somebody, they are the ones that take care of coyote populations and those kinds of things. Gordon: The shooting two weeks ago, it is all wrapped up with the exception of the courts. Solid confessions, all the evidence is locked up and the case is just waiting to go to trial. I will give you an example of what that cost us was $2300 just in overtime on the weekend. And that doesn't include court evidence or anything else. That was strictly overtime for the shooting. The other one is the dog, we do have the dog on board and she is doing really good in training. (Inaudible) name the dog contest with the elementary schools, take the dog around and let her fetch some sticks and play with the kids and each class put in a name and we will draw after we look at the names we will draw the dogs name. We thought about having a big deal and a public drawing but we thought we should look at this first. But the winning class we thought we would have a party for them of some kind. We have already contacted the principals and they are all for it. That is all I have. Corrie: Counselor? Crookston: I just had a request, I came down on Friday and I came down today to talk you Mayor and I also need to have an Executive Session tonight if possible. Corrie: Okay, we will add you to the list. Anything else? C • • RrOT11i051 Corrie: Mr. Morrow? Morrow: A couple of items, I know that the Chief has hired his folk for the year, am anxious to see, well only half you got started in the process. I am anxious to see how the rest of our people are doing in terms of their hires for their departments. Shari you got a couple coming where are you with those? Stiles: I haven't advertised for the Planning Assistant yet but I did get about 20 applications for the secretary maybe 5 of those it would appear would accept what we are offering. And they are currently working at Taco Time. We got some good responses. Morrow: Where are you at Gary with yours? Smith: I haven't progressed, I have to decide what kind of person I need to hire and also need a spot to put them, I don't have a spot to put them. Morrow: Which is up to you and I we have to look at the BCDC center and make that determination so we will do that next week. Wayne? Crookston: I have already submitted the advertisement. The advertisement has run, I requested that the applicant's for the attorney and the secretary submit their applications by last Friday the 11 th. I have those, I am having my secretary call and set up appointments for meeting and interview. Morrow: Will? Well everybody else is working on theirs where is yours? Berg: I haven't started. Morrow: You haven't started? Berg: No but I guess I will do so immediately. (inaudible) for the person that is going to help Anna with filing and transcriptions, I will get that right on the ball. Morrow: Do we have anybody else in the administrative that we were looking for besides that? Berg: No, we were just having one person in our department and then Janice was going to hire one full time person. A part time gal, Heidi, just had a baby so she will be looking for another part time gal I am sure. Morrow: Is Heidi coming back to work or is she (inaudible) Berg: That is an iffy thing right now. Corrie: There is a possibility we will hire one more and we are working around with the other two. So there will be two out of her office that we will hire. If Heidi doesn't come back, the other one isn't coming back, we have another (inaudible) hire one more full time. Morrow: And Janice's person that we are looking at was a heavy hitter person in terms of accounting background. Corrie: I think she is looking at a couple of things either having Karen do with her and 95% of that business of hiring another one will be qualified to come in and do Karen's work too. Trying to decide which way she wants to go with that to make sure she has that CPA type ability for figures. Morrow: Next issue is the strategic planning meeting is a week from today. Corrie: The 29th Morrow: The fourth Tuesday. Corrie: I know but we changed it to the 29th, remember we talked about it at the last meeting. Morrow: We didn't change it. Corrie: Yes we did because I am not going to be here and somebody else isn't and Richard Hahn won't be here until the 29th. Morrow: We had a discussion about it but I don't recall that we changed it. Ron's conservation was that he may be out of town that, the week of the 29th. Tolsma: No the week of the 29th I will be here, I leave the 30th. Morrow: Will is out of town that week. Corrie: Will is hunting Morrow: So we are going the 29th instead of the 22nd, well I know we talked about it but I didn't know that we came to a resolution. Okay well the issues that we will be discussing there besides the one that we already have on board is clean up on the ordinance that we adopted, apparently we are having some problems we will talk about those with respect to on the licensing ordinance with some of the testing and those kinds of things that we need to discuss. We need to talk about the lawyers proposal for what it is we want to do for traffic issues (inaudible) The lawyer proposal for the traffic issues, prosecutions, Rountree: Foley and Freeman's proposal or something like that. Morrow: We need to discuss that because what we had discussed was (inaudible) Corrie: With Foley and Freeman I told them no. Morrow: We need to talk about if we are going to hire in house or if we are going to go to bid with somebody with solicit outside stuff. Corrie: You can do that but I already told the City Attorney to tell Bill Schwartz to come in on the $53,000 and two weeks vacation and is that what you want to discuss tonight? Morrow: No not tonight, the last time we talked about that issue the Foley and Freeman issue was on the table there had been no discussion by the Council as to what it was we were going to do. We did not discuss whether initially, we had talked about offering the position through Wayne to Bill Schwartz and then the proposal from Foley and Freeman was brought to the table so we had some preliminary discussions concerning that, but didn't have a resolution of what it was that we wanted to do there. So that was an item that (inaudible) at the strategic planning meeting. Because if we were going to solicit outside proposals then we needed to put it in an RFP format and solicit bids and go on from there. Corrie: I guess before we go too far on that one did you talk to Bill Schwartz? Crookston: I talked to him at your request and to see if he would accept the $53,000. Corrie: And he said yes? C • • TireMOAM, f%I�TOTTOU151 Corrie: I was under the impression then if the Council said to hire him and offer him $53,000 and two weeks vacation and I told the City Attorney to do that and if he accepted we would hire him. Crookston: I have not submitted that to him, it is one of the items that I want to discuss tonight in the executive session. Morrow: The reason that I brought it up Bob is because that is what we did, that was the proposal and then the Foley Freeman proposal came up on the table and there was, we reviewed it and looked at it but never had a discussion as to which direction is what we were going to go after that proposal was on the table. Corrie: Fine, I am just telling you what I told the City Attorney to do. What is the third one? Morrow: I talked about cleaning up the ordinance for the licenses and itinerant merchants and so on and so forth, we are having some problems with some of the stuff that is in there. Then we will continue our work, Bob Hailey will make his monthly presentation, we need to advise him of the change in the time of meeting if that has not been done already. Then continue our work on the late comers structure, boards, commissions and the Council president issue. Continue talking about the capital improvements plan and those types of things. Corrie: Also we will have Richard Hahn here. Morrow: We will have the man from Idaho Power here that will be also correct. Corrie: Anything else? Morrow: No that would be it. Corrie: Mr. Bentley? Bentley: Two things, one the computer issue is going forward, there was a questionnaire sent by (inaudible) to the chief and we had first talked about having us all sign off on it but the questions were pretty centered that the police chief had to answer. So he has answered it and sent it back in. From what I understand everything is a go so far, so we will be waiting on that. The second issue, the citizens advisory committee on parks and recreation, we discussed the feasibility of sending out an inquiry of the use of the water bills that go out. We would like to have a flyer printed with a questionnaire on getting people's input on a recreational center. I would like to get permission to that mailing. I talked to the girls in there and we can get people down to help stuff so it doesn't cost staff time. They are getting ready to do the mailing at the end of the month and then there they are going to have the water rate changes and just guessing at what their flyer cost it would be about $135. So I imagine we are going to need approval to do that to spend that money. Rountree: I think that is a reasonable approach to assess the community's desires for that kind of an activity. Probably cheaper than an individual mailing if we can (inaudible)L. Bentley: (Inaudible) we can come down and give them a hand when they do the stuffing and the people would just return it with their payment and I told the girls just pick it open and throw it in a box and we will take care of it from there. Morrow: (Inaudible) timing is a little premature with respect to how that works with the parks and recreation commission that we are just now getting off the ground. So it seems to me that it would make some sense to I guess in the immediate mailings is to have the notification of rate change so there is no some confusions (inaudible) deal with that issue as to how it fits into the (inaudible) Bentley: I disagree, I don't think there is any harm in letting these people do some leg work form them. We plan and coordinate everything through Charlie and through the committee and we got the people now ready to lend a hand and I don't see any reason why we should wait. It is not something I say we start building next month but I think it is a good time to send it out to get the input back from the public. Rountree: It doesn't give me any aggravation. I think if your committee is storming and forming and wanting to do something that is always something they can show they did. I guess if there is a hesitation is it would kind of be nice to see what happens with the election and the 1 % initiative. But other than that, we will deal with that if it comes to pass. Morrow: I think the other thing that makes a certain amount of sense is that we need to see the format of the questionnaire before it goes out. As a Council we want to make sure we have everything covered there that we want to cover or it is covered in the right format and so on and so forth. Corrie: I think that is true, I would suggest that we do it after this mailing with the (inaudible) Bentley: That was another question that I had whether it be less confusing if we maybe went with the November mailing. Morrow: (Inaudible) sewer and water increases be in there (inaudible) Rountree: Is the November date a good date for your committee? Bentley: We can get them assembled, because I told the gals here you just let us know when you are ready to stuff and we will bring some people in. We were going to formulate some questions and brain storm some questions and maybe make print it up on a computer and then everybody take a look at it. Morrow: The other thing that is positive about that is then that puts the 1 % issue to rest because by the time it goes out i the November mailing we will either have a yea or nay on the 1 %. Bentley: Okay Corrie: Do you want to make a motion for that Mr. Bentley? Morrow: Do we need to make a motion at this juncture because what we are trying to do is we are trying to get a sample of questions and have the Council look at that at their next Council meeting. Corrie: All I am doing, if the Council approves it they approve it and we go on with it and not have to mess with it again. Bentley: What I think I will do is I will make the motion then that we allocate the funds that we do the mailing possibly in November but that is on the Council approval of the questionnaire. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: Charlie? Rountree: Just one thing, the first meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission will be here at 7:00 on Halloween Night, that was the only night we could get in the whole month of October. We got everybody together on Halloween Night, it is a good reason not to be home. Probably just a little social gathering to get those people that don't know one another together. Get them some information on the ordinance, get them thinking about the kinds of things we want to accomplish and try to establish a date and time for future meetings so we can get on track there. That is all I have. Tolsma: I think I have a question for Gary, I have got two subdivisions out there that have pressurized irrigation that is not Nampa Meridian Irrigation District's and they are wanting to know, the people that live in this subdivision are wanting to know who inspects those things before they are accepted because the City requires the developers to put this stuff in but they want to know who accepts these things after the developer puts them in to make sure they work. The one that Floyd Madsen put in is a Rube Goldberg could have designed something better. It has a non -priming pump, no foot valve, you have to prime the pump to get the sprinkler system to work and it runs off irrigation water in the ditch of what there is no schedule and nobody knows how to get the irrigation water to the pump except they go over there and look every once in awhile and there is water in there so the they turn the pump on or they prime the pump and it pumps the water out and it is gone and they don't know how to get the water in there again. They want to know who approves these types of things if the City requests this be done to irrigate the frontages and median strips and stuff like this, who inspects these things to make sure they are going to work. Because the developer now is gone to Weiser and the other one is right next to it and the other estate, they build the shallow well of which the sand falls into the well and burns the pump up and then there is no pressurized irrigation. Smith: What was the other one? Tolsma: The Peterson, Smith: Clarinda? Tolsma: Yes, anyway that just brought up to me and I said well I didn't know. Smith: We try to inspect the ones that are not being inspected by Nampa Meridian. The one that Madson did, is a Rube Goldberg. The one that Clarinda Fair did that was, it almost seems like it was done before we had the requirement for pressurized irrigation. Tolsma: They drilled a shallow well over there. Smith: I understood that they redrilled it, but (inaudible) spent some money on it and redrilled it and took it down Tolsma: The homeowners redrilled it. Smith: Right the homeowners did. Tolsma: One of them was over there the other night when we were looking at Floyd Madson's and he said that looks like a City project. (Inaudible) who inspects these things or how are they proving that they have to work. If they are done in the winter time then there is no water irrigation water to run off of how do they know they actually work. The City accepts them and signs off and there is no guarantee they are ever gong to procedure anything. So I just thought we might want to look at that a little farther on these pressurized irrigation strips for our (inaudible) medians, just like this development tonight they are going to put a pressurized irrigation system in but they said they were going to put it in with Nampa Meridian irrigation taking over the responsibility of it. But these little projects that are around some of these neighborhoods there is no way the darn things are going to work over just the initial start up and then they are going and there is nothing left to do anything. Nobody knows how they are piped or plumbed, how the water gets to them. I am just wondering if that has to be a requirement of the developer when they put the stuff in, there is going to have to some method of proving that it is going to work over more than 30 days or until he moves out of there. Or if there are some specifications that have to be like self priming pump. Smith: All of, I guess you call it AM, after Madson, all of the systems are now required to constructed in accordance with Nampa Meridian standards. Whether they are Nampa Meridian systems or not. That is a requirement that we have had. Tolsma: Well maybe I can go back and tell them that. They have a nice fence around it and a nice control panel and everything but there is no way to tell how the water gets there. He has never told anybody how the irrigation water gets to that pump. Sometimes there is water in it and sometimes there isn't but the don't understand how the water gets there. They went over and looked in the hole and if there is water in there they turn the pump on. Smith: It is just kind of magic. Tolsma: Well they get it running and pretty soon everything quits and they go down there and they burnt one pump up in it so far because the water was gone but they don't know how it shuts off. There is water running down the ditch in front and everything but all of the sudden (inaudible). That is all I had. Corrie: November the 8th, possible meeting with ACHD and City Council at noon on a Friday at the ACHD building, mark your calendars. If you can make it (inaudible) Rountree: So we may be meeting some new commissioners, at least one. Corrie: Could be, definitely one could be two. St. Luke's and PAL, I need to talk to you Charlie. Hawley, Troxel (inaudible) they should know by next week about the lawsuit and that sounded good, the supervisor of the Salt Lake City had his boss down and his boss was more inclined to go with Bob our attorney then he was with his supervisor. So he thinks it looks pretty good. We have got a little over a $16,000 dollar bill right now on that. He said everything looks good except for the attorney. He said that doesn't look to hot for us but we might be able to (inaudible). He understood what the deal was there and (inaudible). This Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and City Council meeting, have you got anything else on that, this Ashford Greens is coming up. Crookston: Just the most recent letter from Nampa Meridian saying that they would be happy to meet. Corrie: So we need to set a time up and get that on board. That is all I have got. I have got the (inaudible) Berg: Did you all get a letter from Bill Cox, I hope that you can think about some ideas or talk about it at the planning session. I guess that is it. Corrie: Okay, I will entertain a motion to go into Executive Session. Bentley: So moved Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea EXECUTIVE SESSION Corrie: Okay, we are back from Executive Session, we discussed personnel matters and that is that. No decisions were made. Morrow: I move to adjourn. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded we adjourn, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 1:20 A.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK