Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 03-04MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MARCH 4. 1997 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Robert D. Corrie at 7:30 P.M.: MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Tolsma, Glenn Bentley, Charlie Rountree, Walt Morrow: OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Wayne Crookston, Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Chief Bill Gordon, Jim Johnson, Philip Janquart, Robert Smith, Gary Lee, Nancy Slonaker, Gene Smith, Ramon Yorgason, Scott Cook, James Main, Keith Loveless, Jim Witherell, Ann Witherell, Jim Boyd, Bonnie McKay, Brian McColl: MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 18,1997: Corrie: Any corrections or alterations of those minutes? I will entertain a motion that they be approved. Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that we approve the minutes of the Special meeting held February 18, 1997. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we approve the minutes as written, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 18,1997: Corrie: Are there any corrections on the regular minutes? I will entertain a motion that we accept the minutes as typed. Morrow: So moved Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded we accept the minutes as typed, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: TABLED FEBRUARY 18,1997: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Corrie: Counselor, I believe you, do you have anything to say on this one? Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 2 Crookston: It was my understanding that this matter was going to be sent over again for Ashford Greens because they still had some things to work out. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I did talk briefly with Will I don't know that we got any input from Mr. Turnbull but I feel reasonably safe given where we are at with the irrigation committee work that probably a 30 day table is in order. If that is Mr. Turnbull's desire to be on the agenda for the meeting of the 18th I will contact him and maybe find out and maybe make a correction. Gene you represent David on some issues is the 30 day table in order? (Inaudible) Morrow: That being the case Mr. Mayor I would move that we table until April 1. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that we table item 1 until April 1 meeting, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #2: TABLED FEBRUARY 18, 1997: CC&R'S FOR TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK BY JIM BALLANTYNE: Corrie: Counselor? Crookston: I have reviewed those and I also reviewed the development agreement and I have given my comments to our Planning and Zoning Administrator Shari Stiles and that is the last I have heard of it. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I haven't reviewed that yet. I need to get Mr. Ballantyne in here and go over some of Wayne's comments and maybe Wayne needs to be there as well. That is where we are at. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would like to ask Attorney Crookston what is your general feeling about those two documents? Crookston: They are pretty much in order I believe, I had some comments on them, some changes that I would call minor changes. I don't have them specifically in my mind right now, but I don't think that there is too much that we have to work out. Morrow: Let me ask you the question in this manner then. Are the changes of such manner that you feel that they can be handled at the staff level and the process conclude the agenda tonight and press on? Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 3 Crookston: I believe that it could be. Morrow: Thank you, Mr. Mayor unless there is further discussion by Council I would like to move that we approve the CC&R's and the development agreement for Troutner Business Park by Jim Ballantyne subject to final staff resolution of the outstanding issues with Mike Ballantyne, and that upon that conclusion we authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest those agreements. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow second by Mr. Bentley, any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: TABLED FEBRUARY 18, 1997: TED CUNNINGHAM: REQUEST FOR HOOK UP TO CITY SEWER AT 125 BLUE HERON LANE: Corrie: Council, I believe you have a letter from Mr. Cunningham requesting that this request be withdrawn. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I move that we withdraw as per Ted Cunningham's request for hook up to City sewer. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Tolsma that we withdraw the request by letter from Mr. Cunningham, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST BY BUILDERS MASONRY: Corrie: Did Council all get the copy of Stephanie Churchman's letter along with, she gave us this afternoon? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, if we could I would like to have the City Attorney make a brief comment on the, for the record in terms of conversation that went on between he and Ms. Churchman that brought us to this point. I guess what it is, by withdrawing in my minds means is we no longer have a variance issue to deal with nor in terms of our proposal an agreement that was included within those findings of fact for the development of those services. Can you take it from there please? Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 4 Crookston: Yes I can thank you, the findings of fact and conclusions of law that were prepared for the City Council and the City Council had as of the last meeting in my discussions with John Fitzgerald we both agreed that was something that was better done than granting the variance in any fashion even though you were going to, the proposal was to condition upon them connecting to the sewer but not connect to the water immediately. But when the property to the south or to the east needed the water that then they would have to connect to it so that those properties could have a routing of that water and sewer to their properties. We re-evaluated the findings of fact and felt that it was the same kind of situation, nothing had changed factually. We felt that those were appropriate. We also felt that it would be better rather than have a flat out denial without any kind of agreement with Builders Masonry and it was my interpretation at the last meeting that the City desired them to connect to the sewer but not connect to the water but give. In essence to grant the variance somewhat for not putting it to and through their property. I felt that the better way to do it was to have an agreement with them not to do that for a period of time and not grant the variance but just have an agreement with them that as of a certain date or whenever the City said to do it they would do it. That is the agreement that I prepared or John Fitzgerald prepared it and I faxed the findings of fact and conclusions of law and a copy of the proposed agreement to Stephanie Churchman. I faxed it to her on Friday, I got a call, and I said that I needed to talk to her about them. She did not return my call until today. In her call today, this morning she said that she would call back and tell me what they wanted to do. She called back and I was doing something, I wasn't available when she called at that time. She said that she would call back at 5:00 and she did and she said, she faxed me a copy of what you have. She faxed me a copy of that and I looked at it and I said I needed to ask her what was going on and she called back and said this is what we want to do. We just want to take it out of the hands of the City and withdraw our application for the variance. So she had all of the record that you people have now. Morrow: Question Mr. Mayor, and that means that at the present time they are not going to be hooking up to the sewer until we hear further notice, the entire issue has been withdrawn. Crookston: That is correct, I did not have a discussion with Mrs. Churchman as to whether or not the desire to connect later. They said that they have some other options that they are considering and will be back in touch with the City when they decided what they were going to do. But I believe at this time that the request or the application for the variance is withdrawn on their part. If that is the Council's decision that is the action that you need to take is to accept that withdrawal of the application. Morrow: And they understand that they have to start over (inaudible) if they wish to do. Crookston: We did not talk about that. Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 5 Corrie: Any further discussion? I will entertain a motion which ever way you want to go on this. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we accept the letter of withdrawal from Builders Masonry. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma that we accept the letter of withdrawal on the variance, any further discussion? All those in favor of accepting the letter of withdrawal? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: ORDINANCE #753: LID 97-1: Corrie: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO RE- ADOPTING AND REAFFIRMING FINDINGS FOR THE CREATION OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT CREATING THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 97-1 PROVIDING FOR AND SETTING FORTH THE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE. SETTING FORTH THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. SETTING THAT THE ESTABLISHED TOTAL COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS IS $49,000 OF WHICH AMOUNT IS TO BE FUNDED BY THE ASSESSMENTS ON PROPERTY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. THAT THE $49,000 SHALL BE ASSESSED BY THE FRONT FOOT METHOD AND SHALL BE ASSESSED ON ALL PROPERTIES INCLUDED WITHIN THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT HAVING FRONTAGE ON CHERRY LANE ROAD AUTHORIZE A NEGOTIATION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ENGINEER AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION AND PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS; AUTHORIZING UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS THE ADVERTISEMENT AND NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR BIDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION WORK; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION OF THIS ORDINANCE AND PROVIDING PURSUANT TO 50-1727 IDAHO CODE FOR A PERIOD TO CONTEST THE LEGALITY OF THIS ORDINANCE AND THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE AUTHORITY HELD AND GRANTED UNDER THIS ORDINANCE WHICH PERIOD SHALL EXPIRE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THIS ORDINANCE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the audience who would like to have Ordinance #753 LID 97-1 read in its entirety? Hearing none I will entertain a motion on Ordinance #753. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adopt Ordinance #753 LID 97-1 with suspension of rules. Morrow: Second Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 6 Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Morrow that we approve Ordinance #753 LID 97-1 with suspension of rules, roll call vote. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I have a question. Question for Gary Smith, Gary, did the homeowners association get to you and talk about the specifications for the fence material and is that reflected in this ordinance? Don Howell was mentioning something to that effect last meeting. Smith: Don Howell came and talked to me. Rountree: So what we have is a reflection of what they wanted in terms of material types and specification? Smith: As far as I know yes it is. Morrow: You are referring to the material list on section 4, item A? Rountree: Yes, there was some question previously that the type of fencing was a lesser quality. I don't remember how that specification read. This appears to have taken care of that. Smith: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Rountree, he did state that they wanted that specified as a no hole cedar fence. I don't recall how it is spelled out in the ordinance. Crookston: It is not stated in the ordinance. Smith: As no hole? Crookston: No, it is not stated as to what type it is to be other than wood. Rountree: Number 2 fencing Morrow: It calls number 2, that is a specification of fencing. Smith: But he did specify that the advertisement for the hearing either stated or was to state that it was a no hole number 2. Rountree: I guess my question is then do we modify this (Inaudible) with that specification? Crookston: Mr. Rountree I would have to look at the ordinance again, it has been some time since I prepared it to tell you exactly what it does say about the manner. Rountree: It just specifies in section 4, item A, Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 7 Smith: It specifies dog eared no. 2 cedar and he added no hole no. 2 cedar. I don't know what a no hole is, maybe Councilman Morrow can comment. Crookston: I just have a question that probably can be answered at the same time. Would no hole be included in a statement dog eared cedar no. 2 fencing? Smith: I can't answer that I really don't know. Crookston: I guess my question pertains to, I want some snow tires does that mean get ones with spikes in them or not? I just wondered if that includes it, in the ordinance it says no. 2 dog eared, and I don't know whether that would include no hole or 28 holes per board. Corrie: I also have a comment counselor, what I just read it said $49,000 in the amount of funds assessment in the body of the ordinance it says $48,000. That is an estimate yes but just to clarify. Also is there any factor in this ordinance that gives the City money back from advertising the ordinance. This just states that the project costs are proposed to come from this LID and no cost will be paid to the City of Meridian. Is that a part of that bid? Crookston: I don't believe that it is Mr. Mayor. It certainly may be, that is something will have to look at. Corrie: I guess we better make sure that everything jives and costs are included in this. Smith: Mr. Mayor, maybe Councilman Rountree can answer this question because he is closer to this project. It is my understanding that there is also a need for a license agreement to be written and agreed to between Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and the homeowners because of the location of this fence encroaching into their platted easement. Rountree: It was my understanding that the irrigation district and the homeowners were going to meet on site a week ago I believe and resolve the location of the fence and it was not my understanding that the irrigation district wanted to enter into an easement. Smith: I don't know, when Mr. Howell came in I posed several questions to him and at that point or before he called I wasn't aware that public works department was involved in putting plans and specs together to bid this fence project. So I was a little bit ignorant of what was happening. But, subsequent to his meeting with me I talked to John Anderson and Anderson says that they could locate the fence along the north side of the irrigation boxes out there except for that huge diversion structure. As I drove the length of the project it looked like those boxes have varying positions north and south that is. I am not sure if they are over the same pipe perhaps I was looking at two different, because there are two different pipes there paralleling each other. Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 8 Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have a question of Gary, do they have to deal with both Nampa Meridian and Settlers or is it just within Nampa Meridian's easement that these things go? Smith: They are both there, both ditches are there, one is Settlers and one is Nampa Meridian. On the plat there is only a 40, the only thing that is showing is 40 foot wide irrigation easement from the right of way line for Cherry Lane Road. That was platted at 40 feet from the section line and it is my understanding that Ada County Highway District purchased some land from those property owners when they widened the project. But I don't know how much they bought whether it was 5 feet or what. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, it seems to me like there are enough issues here that are left hanging that my preference would be that those be ironed out prior to us adopting it or voting and adopting this ordinance. That is a point of discussion from my perspective. Bentley: I would agree. Rountree: I have no problem with deferring that and resolving particularly the irrigation issue. Corrie: Hearing none I will entertain a motion to table this ordinance. Bentley: I withdraw the motion. Morrow: I withdraw the second Corrie: Motion withdrawn. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I move we tabled Ordinance #753 LID 97-1 to the 18th, March. Morrow: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Morrow that we table Ordinance #753 LID 97-1 until March 18th, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? ►TAIs] 19Iffl 0KOY1VV121DWWA11\Y.7 ITEM #6: AMENDED RESOLUTION #161 -PARK FEES: Corrie: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN PROVIDING FOR A FEE FOR RESERVATION OF AND USE OF MERIDIAN PARK PUBLIC PICNIC SHELTERS AND SETTING THE HOUR OF OPERATION OF CITY PARKS AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Anyone from the public that would like to have Amended Resolution #161 read in its entirety? Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 9 Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adopt Resolution #161 for the parks fees and authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest. Crookston: I believe that just for the Council's edification, I believe that you should do a roll call vote on this issue and Will has a comment. Berg: Thank you, Dennis Summers and Gary Smith went over this resolution today and Wayne do you have a copy of a couple of corrections. Did you look in your box? Crookston: What is in my box does not have any marks on it at all. Berg: I will pass you my copy then. There are a couple of corrections and it deals with, some if it deals with the procedure of what was written down to it, we kind of actually do. If you look at that real carefully. Crookston: I believe that the resolution should be changes to incorporate these changes. I was not aware of these until right now. I think that they are good changes so I think it would be appropriate to change the resolution and then adopt it at the next meeting. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I withdraw my motion. Berg: Excuse me if I could interject, we are on kind of a time frame that Dennis doesn't take the reservations until the first week of March and this is the first week of March. I don't know Wayne if you could tell them just the insert of the changes of those couple of words if they could adopt it as it is. Crookston: They could do that, I would like to have the Councilman review what the changes are. Berg: Okay, our intent was to get them to you to see if you thought those were okay before we gave them to the Council. That was our intent I am sorry for the delay. Rountree: So what are they? Morrow: I think probably what we could do, by virtue of the minutes is that read the ordinance or at least read the changes in terms of the ordinance and then if the Council agrees to that we could adopt (inaudible) At the bottom of page 1, the very last line it Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 10 says as set forth in paragraph 4 below for the Meridian City Parks are reasonable. There is a question mark there, what is the intent of that highlighting and of the for the Meridian City Parks (inaudible). Smith: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Morrow, Council, when I started reading that paragraph it started out that the following were reasonable and I just didn't understand, it didn't make sense as I got to the end of it. That is the reason that I circled it with a question mark. Morrow: So then the desire would be to strike the for the meridian City parks (inaudible) because it is double. Smith: Yes Crookston: It would be fine to strike what is circled on that document. Morrow: Okay, so then in the first line of page 2, the period would be paragraph four below and then striking for the Meridian City parks are reasonable. Next change is down in paragraph 3,it says that persons, associations, corporations and other entities desiring to use the Meridian Park picnic shelters shall apply at the Parks Superintendent's office for the use of a picnic shelter, reserve a time of use of a picnic shelter. If their requested time is available and shall pay appropriate fees at the City Clerk's office. The City Clerk's office shall keep a record of the scheduled times and fees paid for reservations. Page 3, paragraph 5, after the semi colon it would read if the reservations have been removed from the picnic shelter (Inaudible) maintained by the Parks superintendent and the City Clerk's office shall be controlling. Paragraph six, says the parks of the City of Meridian shall be open and available for use from 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight and all people shall vacate the City park no later than 12:00 midnight. Gary I would ask in the last line of that same paragraph six, it goes on to say that users of the parks which gives picnic users of the parks one hour to clean up and vacate the parks period. Is that what you are after there and striking they are using? The sentence as it is written now says vacates a park they are using, In here there is large period put in after park. Smith: That is not a period I just scratched something out there. I started, so just as it is written is fine. Morrow: Because we have more than one park is the intent there I see. Crookston: Mr. Mayor and Council, I think it would be appropriate to read the entire ordinance at least the specific sections that state what the requirements so that is of record in the Council meeting so that anybody who wants to know can tell that what we have passed is in fact what is eventually what is adopted. Corrie: Counselor, it if meets with the Council's approval I will have you read that. Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 11 Bentley: I have a question with a sentence we were just talking about, the one hour to clean up the park or clean up and vacate the park they are using. I think they are using needs to be struck because to me it leaves the idea that you can clean up the park you are using and go to another one. Corrie: So you are asking Mr. Bentley to strike out the words they are using and put the period after park. Bentley: Right Corrie: Any further changes? Counselor if you will please read the amended resolution #161 with the corrections please? Crookston: I will read the entire ordinance. ATTORNEY CROOKSTON READ ENTIRE AMENDED RESOLUTION #161 WITH CORRECTION (ORIGINAL ON FILE WITH THESE MINUTES) Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that adopt the amended resolution #161 as read into the record authorizing the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley to approve the amended Resolution #161 as read for the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest. Any further discussion? Roll call vote ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Bentley - Yea, Rountree - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #7: FINAL PLAT: CROSSROADS SUBDIVISION NO. 5, 37 LOTS BY CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT: Corrie: Is there a representative of Capital Development here is this evening? Gene Smith: Mr. Mayor if I could make a short presentation. Crossroads No. 5 is the fifth continued development within the Crossroads Development which is located east of Eagle and South of Fairview Avenue. I did receive, we did receive staff's comments dated February 27th to Mayor and Council. I have provided my response to those comments, I had those delivered today to the City Clerk as well as engineering and planning and zoning. I believe you each have a copy of my response. Basically we agree with all of the comments, there are one or two items that I would like to discuss with you for clarification if nothing else. Under site specific comments, item 3, in the Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 12 memo that was addressed to you concerns permanent perimeter fencing is required to be placed along the northerly exterior subdivision boundary prior to obtaining building permits. Temporary fencing shall be installed along the entire westerly boundary to contain construction debris prior to obtaining building permits. The letter of credit, cash or appropriate bonding will be required for this items prior to signature of plat. We have no problem with installing the permanent perimeter fencing along the northerly boundary but we would like to propose a variation and I know that there has been a lot of discussion and a lot of concerns over the temporary fencing for the debris and so forth. I would like to propose a trial if you will something that we are doing in some of the other developments that Mr. Yorgason with Capital Development is doing in some of the other developments around the valley and that is posting notices for the contractors to maintain their job sites to clean up the debris and I have a couple pictures of these notices. These have been very effective they have been working. I don't believe that the temporary snow fencing is doing any better of a job than what these notices are doing. I would like to propose that we be allowed to try this on a trial basis for this phase of the development to see if this is an effective means to control the debris. The second item that I would like to discuss with you briefly would be site specific comment number 5 also located on page 2. This has to do with lots frontage of lots of corner lots and in particular it, I would like to request a waiver for lot 26, block 7. 1 believe you each have a copy of the plat, it is corner lot at Caucus and Florence. It is probably the largest lot within this phase of the development. I would like to request a waiver to allow the house orientation to be either toward Caucus or Florence as the builder may opt. The frontage for this particular development according to the minutes of what was that Shari the Planning and Zoning minutes or the City Council minutes I don't recall. The minutes refer to minimum 70 foot of frontage. My interpretation of the ordinance states that the only thing that is required is a minimum street frontage. It doesn't say a minimum street frontage (End of Tape) short side of the lot that the house would be facing to the center of the return. We are 66 feet on this particular lot we have a total street frontage around the corner of 170 feet. So I am just requesting that we be allowed, that waiver to orient the house either direction on that particular lot. All of the other issues I have addressed and I believe are satisfactory to staff. Corrie: Council questions? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would like to hear the comments from staff concerning those two proposals. Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, I will address the request for the waiver on lot 26 block 7 frontage. Gene is right when he said that is a standard that I have established as I read the ordinance that requires whatever zone we are dealing with a certain street frontage. On corner lots I have simply taken half of the return curve and applied that to side of the lot, to each street frontage of that lot in order to come up with that to meet that minimum frontage. If the configuration of the subdivision is such that It is very difficult to meet that minimum on one side or the other of the lot then I requested that the developer's engineer, land surveyor show by arrow or by some designation on Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 13 the plat which way the house should sit on the lot and that would be the front of the house. That would be designated as the front therefore that would be the frontage of the lot and it would meet the ordinance then whatever the zone designation required. The other side of the lot would not be a front therefore it could be whatever the dimension would be. Morrow: And your thought about this particular proposal given the 66 feet and the 104 feet on the other side. Smith: Well I guess if I am going to have a standard I am going to have a standard. It is either going to be 70 feet or it is going to have to be designated that the front is not 66 foot dimension is the 104 foot dimension. That is just a standard that I set up as far as how I read the ordinance. That is my opinion of how the ordinance is written. Although the ordinance doesn't say that you can't designate on the plat a front of house direction. I have accepted that as an alternative to having both front lot lines meet the required minimum. So that one could be less than what the zoning ordinance requires as long as the front of the house was designated towards the lot lines that did meet the minimum required ordinance dimension. Morrow: Gary, follow up question, in this particular case or in any case with a corner lot then if the face the front of the house is say on the 70 foot side and the side of the house is on the 100 foot side the required set back on the 100 foot side ends up to be the same 20 feet as on the front of the house is that not correct? Smith: That is correct Morrow: And so would not on something like this the possibility of side entry garages or whatever somewhat mitigate the front footage in terms of the 66 feet or 70 feet or whatever? Is there some flexibility within the ordinance for that determination. Smith: Well I guess if you want to put a house pad on the plat and say this is going to be a side entrance house we could do that. Say that the side entrance shall be off of that side street. I think we are getting away from what the plat is really intended to do. Even having arrows on the plat on the lot designating which way the front of the house is going to situate is probably a ways away from what the plat was really intended to do. I understand what you are saying Councilman Morrow and the answer to your question is yes it would be but how do you track this I don't know. I just try to make it as generic as possible so that it is easy to follow for whoever may buy the lot. Morrow: Well I guess from my perspective trying to think this through with this particular lot and this subdivision is that there are several scenarios by which someone might opt to build a house a homeowner or whatever in terms of where it faces and its frontage and whether it is a front entry garage or a side entry or whatever the case may be. I guess the question in my mind is that something that clearly has these kind of footages Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 14 do we necessarily need to designate one side as being the front or the other. Should that be a decision that is left up to the buyer of the lot or the homeowner of the lot. Smith: Well I guess my attitude was that I was interpreting the ordinance that the, and I can't be specific at this point but the ordinance says that the lot shall have a frontage of so many feet, in an R-4 zone I believe it is 70 feet. I don't know how you interpret that for a corner lot because you don't know which way the house is going to face when the plat comes in for final approval. Morrow: Well actually Gary there is another scenario here is the house could be diagonally placed on the corner and so then where is the front. That is not uncommon on a corner lot. House sits back, it is diagonally faced to approach that the front of the house faces or the center of the front of the house faces the center of the curve. So then what becomes the front. Smith: Well I guess maybe you will need to tell me then how wide do you want to make that side lot. Do you want it 40 feet, 30 feet, I don't know. I guess we could get it down as skinny as you want but I can truthfully say up to this point in time for plats this is the first time a developer has not chosen to designate a direction on a lot for a house frontage. I have never realized that it was a problem. Yorgason: Ramon Yorgason with Capital Development, maybe for a little bit of clarification it might help us on this one. Normally we have an R-4 zone this is an industrial mixed used zone and it is a PUD so it really is a different kind of zoning than we normally are working with. So that might give us a little more, we are not governed by the same restrictions that are on a regular R-4 zone. We do have with a PUD a lot of flexibility. Morrow: I guess Shari your part of the question is to address the fencing issue or the fencing proposal as opposed to the signs and then also the PUD issue. Stiles: As far as the fencing is concerned I guess if they want to try this on a trial basis and if it doesn't work the City give them notice and have them go ahead and fence it. There is a lot of debris out there right now and a lot of people dumping their concrete out there and it looks like some of the dead end streets might be good party places right now. That is where the majority of the trash is coming from I think. I have no problem with that. As far as the PUD normally a PUD would come through as a conditional use permit. At the time the PUD is approved it would be, you would know what all of those uses were. In this case 320 acres were approved as a PUD with absolutely 0 plans of what would be within that PUD. Then after the fact the plat comes through, it does appear that they attempted to meet the 10% requirement but other than that I wouldn't say that it went through a conditional use permit process for this process for this particular plat. The representations made by the applicant's representative were that they would be minimum of 70 foot frontage, minimum 8,000 square foot lots. I believe that was at the City Council level. If the City Council feels it appropriate to allow a 66 Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 15 foot frontage on one lot I suppose that would be within your discretion since it is a PUD. But you can either accept it or not. I don't think that we can dictate that the house is going to have the garage on the 100 foot side. It would be nice if it would but Council needs to decide if they want to allow a 66 foot frontage in a development where they said the minimum would be 70 feet. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, if I may respond to that, it seems to me like and I am not in favor of changing the 70 foot frontage issue, I think that is primarily designed for straight on lots. In a corner lot situation I can think of at least 3 or 4 scenarios by which a homeowner would choose to locate his house where the frontage could be spanning the corner. Now we are making a decision here as I understand it that the frontage is based to the center of the arc on or the radius of the lot in the curve. But under certain circumstances and to capitalize on views and those kinds of things a homeowner may want to locate the house so that it essentially faces both streets. You could use a reverse L, you can use side entry garages and so on and so forth. So I am not convinced in my mind that on a corner lot that we ought to be saying that the frontage is 70 feet measured from the center of the curve because there are lots of scenarios that people could have that they wish their home to be. And I guess that is a topic that we as a Council need to address to get some guidance on corner lots as to what frontage does mean. So that is a point of discussion from my perspective. Gary? Smith: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Morrow, one other thing that I would like you to take into consideration on whatever you do tonight on this subject and for future. Is that typically homeowners are fighting a battle of having a big enough backyard on a corner lot to the extent that we get a substantial number of requests for variances to situate fences inside the side yard set back so that they have a big enough back yard. I don't know in this particular case if this is a problem or not but historically corner lots have been problems. Once they situate a house and they whack off a 20 foot setback on two sides of the lot they don't end up with much back yard and the next thing we know is that the property owner is in here requesting a variance to set their fence out in the setback, the side street setback. So I think that is something that I would like you take into consideration. I would be happy to enforce your directive on these corner lots. Rountree: I guess I take the position to hold fast with the 70 foot frontage and I would like to them orient to the long side in this particular instance. I think we are making a major issue out of one that. If they orient to the long street whether they skew it a little bit on that lot or not they are still oriented to the long frontage and hold by that. Either that or we will see every corner lot we will have to make an exception for. I agree with Gary's point as far as the fences go. If you have a long skinny lot and you orient on the skinny side front then you have a very skinny long back yard and people want to put the fence on the street. With the 20 foot setback with the fence they don't have much backyard by ordinance. Morrow: I think with the 20 foot setback either way on a corner lot you have (inaudible). Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 16 Rountree: As far as the sign goes, yes let's give it a try and if it doesn't work condition it in such a way that the fence goes in. Corrie: I can attest to corner lots having problems with 20 foot setbacks, I have one. Council, I guess we have the final plat, how do you want it to be worded. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I had one additional question under general comments under number 5, it says plan for pressurized irrigation has been submitted to Nampa Meridian, the approval will be submitted prior to signature of the final plat. Gene, do you know what the status of that approval is by Nampa Meridian? Gene Smith: (Inaudible) Morrow: And you don't have a time frame as to when that signature might be forthcoming, thank you. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the final plat for Crossroads Subdivision No. 5 by Capital Development with the exception under item 3 site specific comments that we allow the trial of a interior sign as proposed by the applicant and that we not require the temporary fencing between the phases if we have sufficient complaints from the neighboring property owners then the Council would require that the separation temporary fence be put in place while the phase is under construction. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley, to the final plat as stated and the fencing and signage and with no waiver, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: FINAL PLAT: SUMMERFIELD SUBDIVISION NO. 5, 39 LOTS BY GARY VOIGT: Corrie: Is there a representative of Summerfield here this evening. Cook: Scott Cook, Hubble Engineering. We have reviewed the comment letter from staff, we didn't have any objections to it. We did submit a revised plat to staff correcting many of the comments that they had addressed in their letter and we are basically in agreement with those comments. Morrow: Mr. Cook you have changed sides have you not? Cook: Yes I have. Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 17 Corrie: Any further questions or comments from Council or staff? Entertain a motion on the final plat then. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the final plat for Summerfield Subdivision No. 5 by Gary Voigt. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma to approve the final plat of Summerfield Subdivision No. 5, any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR USE OF MODULAR BUILDINGS BY MERIDIAN ASSEMBLY OF GOD: Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the representative from Meridian Assembly of God Church to testify first. James Main, 414 South Sailor, Kuna, was sworn by the City Attorney. Main: The Meridian Assembly is in receipt of the review by the Planning and Zoning Commission with the comments concerning the conditional use permit for the modular buildings at their site. I did provide a packet to the Council on Thursday that I reviewed with Shari Stiles. The Church would like to propose that the Council consider one change to that request for the conditional use permit. I have brought along a larger version of the plan that I included in your packet there. That consideration would be to, this is basically the plan that submitted initially. It showed the modular buildings located behind the existing building to the east off of Linder. The consideration would be to locate those buildings to the south side of the existing structure adjacent to a vacant lot which is owned by an adjoining church. The reason for that consideration is 3 fold which I indicated in the letter. First its the location of site utilities, it makes it considerably easier and less cost involved to the owner to hook up bathrooms in those facilities. Second would be the church right now is suffering some growing pains an they are looking at several options. One would be selling the property and moving to a new location, another would be putting a new building on the site. If in fact they choose to stay on this site they would like the option available to locate a new building behind the existing building. Third, locating those modular units to the south create less of a safety concern as far as people crossing across asphalt parking areas. Now the comments that we receives from Planning and zoning and the Ada County Highway department have been incorporated into these two plans which I submitted in my packet. Again these are temporary modular buildings which would be constructed by Northwest Building Systems and they would be used just on a temporary basis until the church Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 18 either sells their property and relocates or until they provide permanent structures on the site. Corrie: Questions from Council for the applicant? Thank you, is there anyone else from the public that would like to enter testimony at this time on the conditional use permit. Hearing none, Council, questions for staff? Morrow: I have one question Mr. Mayor, Shari, does a change in the location of the two buildings constitute a substantial change in the application in your opinion? Stiles: Councilman Morrow, Mayor and Council, the reason I did have them make sure that they submitted this today was that if you are going to approve this plan that it was before the public and everyone knew. They had initially wanted to move it to the north side of the property but because of the negative testimony we had although it wasn't a lot at Planning and Zoning I felt that would make a significant difference to those people on the north side. So, I suggested they put it on the south side, it is a change but I guess I don't consider it that significant unless you don't like the idea of it being so visible from the street. Morrow: I think my concern was in reading the minutes of the testimony and the findings of fact for P & Z and the letter from Ms. Garrett the concern by the neighbors was somewhat of an issue with respect to the noise and so on and so forth. That maybe moving it to the south then that would further take away some of those concerns from where it was before. So, that is why I am interested in seeing if it constitutes a major change. It seems to me it is a benefit to those who had testified before. Stiles: that is the way I felt too. Morrow: I have no further questions Mr. Mayor. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, question for Shari, what has been our track record with temporary modular housing or facilities in terms of compliance and meeting the terms and conditions of the conditional use permits, length of time allowed? Stiles: I am trying to think of how many we have approved. I know there are a lot out there that have been there for a long time. Rountree: Most of them have a one year conditional use permit? Stiles: Yes, as far as I know. I know that they may be interested in making these permanent at some time but I, if that were ever to be the case they would have to come back before the City Council if they were to want to extend that at all. Morrow: Follow up to that Mr. Mayor, I believe that in most cases they are one year renewable are they not? And that we are seeing the renewable on the temporary Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 19 modular that are used for example as sales offices within developments. As memory services the churches have a pretty decent record of coming forth and doing their renewals. So I think those are two groups that are meeting the intent here. I am struggling to figure out some that may not but I can't think of an example right off the top of my head. Corrie: That is correct they usually are for one year. Rountree: I am just looking at this and it is requesting 3 years and my preference would be a one year renewable to stay with what we have required in the past. Other than that I have no particular issue with it. Morrow: Neither do I, 1 think that is fair. Rountree: I think the adjustment they made does in fact eliminate some of the problems that were identified in the previous hearing. Corrie: Council, you can approve their findings if you want to make any changes in the time element if you don't see any other problems with it. On page 9, you might have to change item C because I don't believe he submitted a new site plan to us other than the one presented tonight. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I believe we can handle that by a motion that says something to the affect that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for us by P & Z as amended to allow the moving of the site of the two modular to the south side of the lot. And to request that the temporary use be done in one year renewable increments and capped a three year total. Bentley: Is that a motion? Corrie: Let me close the public hearing, go ahead. Rountree: Can you repeat that? Morrow: Let me try again here, I want to make a motion with the Council's permission that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions as prepared for us by P & Z, with the change that we allow the moving of the structures to the south side of the lot as presented to us tonight by the Applicant James Main and that we keep with our policy of having one year renewable temporary permits capped at a three year total as per the presentation by P & Z. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley to adopt the findings of fact Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 20 and conclusions of law prepared by Planning and zoning with the corrections that the modular buildings be on the property in accordance on the south side of the lot and that the conditional use permit shall be restricted for a period of one year renewable and capped three years, any further corrections.? Roll call vote ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Bentley - Yea, Rountree - Yea, Tolsma - Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: Motion on the decision and recommendation? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move the City Council of the City of Meridian approve the conditional use permit as amended 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 as amended or similar conditions found justified and appropriate by the City Council and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, fire and life safety codes, uniform fire code, parking, paving, landscaping requirements and all the ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use shall be restricted to a period authorized of three year total subject to annual renewal. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree on the decision and recommendation, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION/ZONING TO I -L BY MICHAEL AND MICHELLE MURASKO: Corrie: I will invite the representative to come forward. Keith Loveless, 3330 Grace Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Loveless: At this time I request that this item be deferred to the next available City Council meeting. My client is out of state and our only conversations are by telephone and we are having a hard time explaining to him the development agreement and all of the conditions and coming to terms. So I need some more time to discuss it with my client. Morrow: Mr. Loveless, would the 18th of March be sufficient or would you prefer the 1 st of April? Loveless: He was willing to get it done within the next week but I have had to push him, so 2 weeks is fine. Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 21 Corrie: Any further questions? Anybody else from the public that would like to issue testimony at this time? We will continue it to the March 18th I am sure. James Morham, 2950 Franklin Road, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Morham: I am the next door neighbor to this property on the east side of, well his property is on the east side of my property. I have no objections that this be rezoned and annexed to the City. I can see that it will not hinder me in any way or my property and will not be a detriment to it. Therefore I would request that the City Council do approve this when the time comes. Corrie: Thank you, any further comment or testimony from the public? Council, I will close the public hearing and Rountree: No leave it open. Corrie: I will leave it open. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we continue the public hearing on this item until our next regularly scheduled meeting March 18tH Morrow: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Morrow that we continue the public hearing request for this annexation, all those in favor? Opposed? f•[0119[ML[N_1VV121OW-111\'[.7 FIVE MINUTE BREAK ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO I -L BY PROPERTIES WEST INC.: Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and ask the representative of Properties West to speak first. Gary Lee, 250 South Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lee: I am the representative for Properties West on this application before you this evening. We also have a second Morrow: I am sorry Mr. Mayor I am in error here, I have done business and purchased lots from Mr. Barnes the last one was probably 3 years ago. I do need to ask the Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 22 Council if there is the perception of a conflict of interest there and if so If I need to stand down during this hearing. Corrie: Mr. Morrow, you are not involved in this particular piece of property are you? Morrow: In no way, shape or form, but I have been involved in prior business (inaudible). Rountree: Did you get a good deal? Morrow: I paid through the nose. Rountree: I don't see a conflict Corrie: Mr. Morrow you can stay. Lee: As I was saying, of course the first hearing tonight is for the annexation and zoning and the second hearing is for the preliminary plat is being submitted. I will probably go through this presentation and speak to both issues and they generally come up during the discussions. I will be glad to go over any points you may have. Again the applicant is Properties West, the project is a 26 acre piece of land situated on Franklin Road west of Locust Grove. We are seeking an annexation and zoning of I -L which is light industrial. The project will consist of 18 business lots, buildable lots along with 5 common lots that will be held in common ownership by the business owners association. The lots size will range from about 41,000 feet to approximately 76,000 feet is the largest lot in that development. It is of course situated in the County right now, it is contiguous with corporate city limits of Meridian. The current zoning is RT or rural transition. Surrounding uses, it is a mixture of City and County zones. There is light industrial to the north, across Franklin Road. There is commercial general of C -G to the southwest. There are some Ada County zones that are RT to the west side of the property south and east. There are a couple of smaller areas zoned R-1 in the county, one at the northwest corner and one at the southeast. There are six single family homes on acreages adjacent to a portion of the easterly boundary. There are two single family homes at the west boundary on the north end. One of those is a rental. Some of the adjacent land uses consist of light industrial, agricultural and residential. The developer intends to prepare and develop an upper end type light industrial use type park with this project. If I may I will put up another exhibit. This particular rendering should set the tone of how we envision this project developing. This is a view from Franklin Road into the entry. We will have some landscape along Franklin Road and also some landscape medians. We will be requiring some heavy landscaping within the development itself. In our application we have identified that the allowed uses within this development will conform to the City's current zoning ordinance for I -L with the exception of 8 uses we have identified in our CC&R's as not being an allowed use. Those are asphalt and concrete, automobile wrecking yard and storage, fuel yards, junk yards, mobile home manufacturing, rail road yard and shops, recycling plants and solid Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 23 waste transfer stations. All of those uses will be excluded from this development. In addition, we have presented this application with support document requesting that the property be annexed and zoned I -L but not be tied to a requirement for conditional use permit on the uses. I will discuss that a little bit later in here. The services available, of course transportation is Franklin Road, a major arterial. Fire protection will be an extension of the existing city system. The water will also be included with that. Wastewater facilities are available for the site. Irrigation on this property on the landscaped areas and each individual lot will be provided through a privately held pressurized irrigation system. This particular rendering that you see there, I don't know if you can see the water amenity on the left hand side or not but our intent is to develop some ponds in the front in that 35 foot landscape strip to store some of our irrigation water. It will probably act as some storm water retention as well. But there will be a water amenity on both sides of the entry as you come in. We will be using that source for providing our irrigation through the system. The roadways of course are all public and we have gone to ACHD through their review process. They have made a few suggestions on right of way widths which we have accommodated in our most recent plat submittals to you. They will all be public collector style streets 41 foot back to back. There will be a landscaped buffer lot along the easterly boundary. Proposed a 20 foot wide landscaped area with a mixture of (inaudible). This will be set up with kind of a staggered tree placement. We propose to use an easily maintainable pasture type grass something that doesn't grow real fast but will stay green and require less mowing during the growing season. Of course it will be irrigated off our same system. There were a couple of neighborhood meetings held with the adjacent neighbors. We sent out notices to everyone within 300 feet of the property and solicited their involvement. We met at one of the neighbors homes, the Preseley's and entertained their questions and concerns. (End of Tape) that is a concrete ditch now but it is cracked in numerous places and it leaks pretty badly. So this development, Properties West will be installing a piping system that will provide them their irrigation water and at the same time eliminate some of those leakage problems. I did make response to the City's staff comment letter which we had received on January 91" just prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission. I believe that is probably in your packet somewhere. I believe we have addressed most of their concerns or will in future design phases. One of the main items of discussion was the conditional use permit requirement and subsequent to that we developed a draft copy of a proposed development agreement and we have also prepared an amended draft for the City's review. We have attempted to address what we felt are the concerns that the City has with these types of projects. We have done it in such a way that we believe we have addressed types of uses, the look of the building. The landscape requirements, (inaudible) within the CC&R's and also as an exhibit in the development agreement and it is criteria for landscaping requirements for all lots. We have required that there be a 20 foot landscape strip along all streets and that there be a 3 inch caliper tree planted at a maximum interval of 20 feet. So as you go through the project there will be a sense of continuity in the way the project appears. There will be controls on the types of buildings that will be allowed within the development. So we have a common look and a common feel of a coordinated neighborhood. I believe that probably concludes what I have to say this evening, if you Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 24 have any questions I would be glad to entertain those or speak to them after to the other testimony. Corrie: Thank you Gary, anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony at this time? Jim Witherell, 215 South Locust Grove Road, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Witherell: My elocution and voice are terrible. At the last Planning and Zoning meeting where this was discussed I had the same flu that Mr. Crookston did, so it sounded even worse. We picked up a copy of the transcript from that meeting and whoever transcribes that managed to get through all of this and missed only two words in my entire testimony and they were Latin. We would like to publicly give some recognition to the transcriptionist for doing an excellent job on this, it is not an easy job. With one exception the new Councilman, you know this property quite well it was previously going to be a trailer park, Aspen Groves. It was going to be a manufactured home, high density park, Preston Aspen Groves. And then it was going to be a mixed light industrial and general commercial. The later two were turned down, the first one was withdrawn. Most of you have walked the property I believe, you know that it is a residential area that keeps being described as industry here and a few homes there. Well yes, there are 6 of there and then across the road there are bunch more and then after that is Springwood Subdivision. The biggest problem we have with any development behind us is this is also right on top of our potable water table and our only source of water. The other problem we have is the corner, because the corner is wetland and we have some very strong issues on that. But in this particular case this application does not include it. We were told by your director of planning while not included in this development, the developer has purchased or has an option to purchase that corner property for conversion of a house to a commercial building or an office building which is going to require C -G so really we have the same plan we have had before. There is nothing new here. As far as our comments are concerned at this hearing, if anybody is looking for fire works I am sorry, we pretty well did that at Planning and Zoning and they are all incorporated into the findings of fact. There are six affected parties on the east , we have, two of those have a financial interest in the development. The four that do not put in a joint letter back in December which was incorporated into the findings of fact and which we also testified on for the most part. We think the findings of fact are very good but they have left out a few things which we have raised which weren't addressed. The first one, well they did address it. They said the findings of fact did find that it was a residential area and they put severe restrictions on this development. For example even though it is industrial cannot produce more light, more sound, more pollution than the current residential use. But there are no measures, if we are going to proceed further with this we would ask that the City of Meridian establish what the measures are that we are generating. Now this can be done simply by having your engineer set up controlled studies about how much dust we generate, how much noise we generate, how much pollution we generate and have the developer pay for the City to do these studies then we will have a measure. Otherwise it is going to be an issue where a Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 25 machine shop is going to go behind me and I am going to say that makes more noise than I do and they are going to say no you don't. And it could end up being a whole series of lawsuits as to who is making the most noise. The second thing again is our water, this is, we have raised this a couple of times but it has never really been addressed. I don't know if the City doesn't consider this its problem or what. But the simple solution, there are three solutions to this. He is proposing to put just gravel parking and of course the truck fleet will sit in this space, and drip oil and so forth. Our water table, we have 95 foot wells but my water is down only 20 feet so we are very close. We can expect some kind of damage it is foreseeable. The first thing is he can either offer us water and sewer , I don't think there is much chance of that. He can drill out our wells deepen them down to the same level as the City of Meridian where it is down below a pollution level or he can simply pave his parking areas. What we are looking for is the water not to seep into the ground. Third is the issue of landscaping, the findings of fact from Planning and zoning just simply say that the landscaping the transition is inadequate. What we asked for in our letter is very simple. We want a 35 foot transition. There are two reasons for that. Thirty five feet is what is being offered to the public with no interest in the property. We live by it, we think we have as much right. More practically these Scotch pines he is talking about will grow to be 15 to 20 feet in diameter. Then the five feet, at that point we want a masonry fence fluted on the inside, that will deaden a lot of the sound. That fence will be 6 feet high on a 2 foot berm that is 8 feet which is what is allowed for light industrial under the plan. Now I know that your ordinance section 11-9-605 G specifies 20 foot minimum and what we are looking for is more than the minimum. This is an industrial park going into an R-1 residential area. Finally, it didn't come up in this meeting but it did come up in Planning and Zoning. There are a set of utility poles that services these existing houses and there is an easement on those. It has been bantered around by the developer or by the (inaudible) well it may be or it may be scriptive or he can't find one. So we went down to Idaho Power and got a copy of it and it is in your packets. Now it is in specific width, Diana Pon is the right of way and the easement specialist for Idaho Power, who simply said that easement was filed in 1965 but not to a specific width. Now at this time, Idaho Power should be contacted and they have not yet been contacted to come out and say okay there is going to be a permanent barrier put here in the way of landscaping. So they can now choose how many feet they want. I suppose that is really it again, the findings of fact as prepared by Planning and Zoning pretty much have covered our issues except these. Any questions? Morrow: Yes, Mr. Witherell, and you can give me a real brief explanation. I am not real clear in my mind in terms of the power pole easement with the service power poles that service apparently south on Locust Grove are at a distance back from Locust Grove and do they access down Franklin Road or come across the back of your property? Witherell: They come across the back of the properties. Morrow: So they would bisect this particular property that we are talking about? Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 26 Witherell: They would be between our properties, my pole, the pole from my house is about 7 feet over into the development, the area to be developed. They are strictly for those houses, there are power lines on Franklin Road. These were put in there when that area was subdivided by, I can't remember the name of the Family, Frost I believe back in the 60's. That is why we checked to see if there was an easement. Morrow: What you are desiring to protect is that easement apparently the easement doesn't spell out a width for the easement for those power poles. Witherell: Right, it is an unspecified width but it is a specific easement, in other words it is a filed legal easement. That means the power company reserves the right now to come out there. We are asking for this landscaping and we want trees that are grow over, you know up to 30 feet. They have to be able to get a truck in there to take those poles out, they are getting old. Perhaps that will be next year or perhaps it will be in 20 years when the tress are good size. So they want the right to come out and say okay we want this 10 feet first before the landscaping starts. That is all that easement really is. Rountree: Have you had an opportunity to review or even see the proposed development agreement? Witherell: No, we have seen the CC&R's, we are flabbergasted by the CC&R's. These CC&R's have a clause in there that they will preserve every mature tree on the property as far as practical. Now there used to be one there but they cut it down before they wrote the CC&R's. So I don't think, as far as they have some legal validity but we would not want the developer to decide without any conditional use or design review what he thinks is appropriate behind us and leave it up to the CC&R's. We asked the City to set the standards we are doing that because the CC&R's have no standards either. They simply said it is prohibited that you annoy the neighbors but what does this mean? Corrie: Any one else have any questions? Thank you Mr. Witherell. Robert R. Smith, 335 South Locust Grove Road, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Smith: Well I would like to clarify one thing, I understood Mr. Lee to say they would like a conditional use on this property and if I understand that properly that we would never have another say so on whatever business comes in on each lot that might affect us. I think we need that to be, in case we would object to what facility is ever put in there we need that for our own use to protect us. Secondly, there is a big issue going on right now in Boise with Home Depot with noise levels because the customer didn't meet the conditions of the agreement there and I can see that this could happen to us very easily if we don't have as Mr. Witherell said either a barrier fence or more than just trees. The trees that they are proposing are going to be about probably 5 to 6 feet in height, they are evergreens, their growth period is going to be 25 to 30 years before we really have Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 27 a barrier between our properties at this time. That isn't going to be a sound barrier in any way, shape or form during construction and during the times that that businesses or whatever happens at that time goes into place. I would just like to voice our concerns and hope you take them into consideration. Thank you. Corrie: Any questions of Mr. Smith? Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony? Ann Witherell, 215 South Locust Grove Road, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Witherell: Mr. Lee mentioned the neighborhood meetings where he believed he had addressed our concerns. He did discuss the landscaping at the second meeting after he discovered that a 6 foot sterilized strip as a transition is not quite good enough. He offered us a 10 foot strip with some pine trees and asked which one of us is going to mow it. We complained about the chain link fence because it is not a barrier for sound or light or dust or noise. He told us it had to be a chain link fence so that when our power poles need to be serviced that our power poles could be serviced through the chain link fence. It is easier to take that down. Completely ignoring the easement. Also, on those Scotch Pines, if you ever have any pine trees in your yard, as they grow one of the first things you do is chop off the lower branches so you can mow under them so it is not such a fire hazard and rake out the needles. That will leave us looking at tree trunks and a chain link fence if it is left as Mr. Barnes proposes. Also, I would like to show you something on the plat that was hastily covered up. On this area map it looks like the nearest housing is here at Locust Grove Heights Subdivision or over here the Greenhill Estates Subdivision. It looks like that is the nearest housing, it is light industrial along here, R-1 housing here down to here, here, almost to the freeway. Also, completely down this side of South Locust Grove Road as well. On the other side it is R-1 all the way to the cemetery, so it is surrounded by R-1 housing. It is not light industrial area, it is a residential area. The Tamura property here that has been recently annexed is buffered on Franklin Road by C -G. It is not all I -L so it is basically a residential neighborhood. I also want to reiterate how important it is to realize that on our water right, we are not sure exactly where the easterly boundaries area, we know it was awarded to us here and the westerly boundary was the cemetery. So all of this water here is used by the people along Franklin Road, Locust Grove Road, possibly beyond as our sole source of potable drinking water. If that gets polluted and with light industry especially with these CC&R's which are developed for an industrial area and not on top of someone's water our properties would be worthless. When we mentioned this to Mr. Barnes at the neighborhood meeting he told us it was not his problem that we should take it up with the City. So that is why we are mentioning it, he wanted nothing to do with it. When we mentioned any other concern other than the landscaping and what we wanted on the irrigation ditch he didn't respond. So the meetings, it is good that we had the meetings so that we could at least get a feel for what he was proposing but we do not feel that he addressed our concerns. Any questions? Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 28 Corrie: Any I have one, we talked quite a few times about properties our there, and I am not being facetious and you know I am not. You talked about the chain link fence and the Scotch pines, do you have anything that you would like to see there since the chain line fence and they cut the trees. What would be apropos if we approve that, what would be your idea? Witherell: If it is going to be light industrial , we need a sound barrier, a light barrier something to keep the dust out. There are two directly affected parties who have chronic asthma. Mr. Lee has, in Planning and Zoning addressed the dust issue by saying that during the construction phase he will have water trucks out. But after construction is, there has to be something long term. So we need a masonry fence. We believe it if was a 2 foot berm with a masonry fence on top it would blend more with our back yards. Our property, my roof line is gosh 12 or 15 feet from the property line. Same thing with some of the others, they are right up there, right there. That is awfully close to have living next to an industrial complex. One more thing, we have contacted a couple of Realtors. Our residences if this is approved will drop in value between 20% and 40% and that is if we are lucky enough to find a buyer who just can't wait to live next to an industrial area. So our property values will go down if this is approved. Corrie: Anyone else from the public that would like to testify? Jim Boyd, 9272 Shalan, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Boyd: The Commission, I would like to address just a few issue and I will let Gary Lee address issues regarding the issues because I think the intent is to be sensitive to the neighbors and the concerns that they are raising. I have been in the industrial real estate business for over 19 years and I have seen a lot of different types of developments throughout my career. I have to say that the development that is being proposed is certainly one of the higher caliber projects in the area. I know, one of the things that work has gone into is the covenants and the restrictions that are going in to do the development. As was stated earlier having a 20 foot landscape buffer behind the sidewalk on the street in the project. Having a requirement that the buildings not exceed 50% of the lot on the build out. Also, the requirement that buildings even though a metal building can be allowed but not be 100% metal buildings so we don't get what we see in some of the industrial developments, just a minimum type development in terms of the building. But that there be mixed exteriors beside the metal. Some of the prohibited uses trying to establish a project that fits well within the community. Our emphasis should be to establish parameters that are reasonable for all of us to live within both on the government and the private enterprise side of things. That would be all that I have to say. Corrie: Are there any questions? Any further testimony from the public at this time? Bonnie McKague, 885 South Locust Grove Road, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 29 McKague: I live right behind the police academy and we have a sound barrier of a chain link fence. If you are sitting in your house and you have about five or six police cars with sirens, lights going round and round for hours there is no protection. We hear it, it scares you half to death when it first starts because you think my god there is a horrible accident. And you get up and look all around and it dawns on you, it is the police academy. So for them to say that a chain link fence and trees are going to stop noise we don't even have the trees we just have the chain link fence, very much mistaken. Thank you. Corrie: Anyone else that would like to issue testimony? Council, questions of Staff? Gary would you like to answer any questions that were brought up tonight? Lee: As we discussed, these things pretty much came up at the P & Z meeting during the public testimony. We are sensitive to their concerns about contamination to their drinking water. This development will proceed under the guidelines of the State and Local regulations for water quality and protection of those items. We did include in our CC&R's and also in our development agreement language concerning lighting, concerning sound and times of operation for the facilities. We are trying to accommodate some of the neighborhood concerns. The dust issue was discussed as well and we talked about after development the gravel parking lots requiring yearly maintenance and a dust abatement programs to maintain that dust level. Of course during construction water trucks are available to take care of roadwork as it commences. What is interesting about the utility poles, the easement didn't show up on the search and on the title report. I guess I would like to see what that easement says, if it is an easement or just a work order. The vicinity map was discussed, I guess I take exception to it being surrounded by R-1 uses. There are only two small R-1 zones on the county map and one of them is at the northwest corner of the development. The other properties are zoned RT and the current use is agricultural and pasture lands. Of course you have all been out there and are probably aware of what is there. We did talk about the irrigation ditch, I guess I didn't understand Mrs. Witherell's comment . We met with Bob Smith and Mr. Pressley on the site and walked that ditch, talked about their concerns. Talked about how the piping system could be used to enhance their water delivery. Of course that is certainly our intent. If you have any other questions about the testimony I would sure address them. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have a couple of questions. The first question is that have you done core drilling to see if there is an impervious layer of soils at some level that would protect the water supply? Lee: We have done some excavation pits there to analyze the soil types. There is a layer of hard pan that is in those excavations. In fact Mr. Smith brought that to our attention at our first meeting that there is a fairly dense hard pan layer fairly close to the surface. That is one of the reasons it has caused them some flooding problems in the past in their basements. The water that has been placed on the pasture land of this Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 30 development migrates to the east because it is downhill, lands on that impervious layer and then moves straight east into their crawl spaces and basements. That is what has been causing that problem. So there is a limiting layer between this surface area and their 95 foot level. Morrow: I guess part of the question is, is it sufficient enough to protect the domestic waters at the 95 foot level? Lee: I don't know that I could answer that without doing some water quality testing to see what the quality of the water is now. Morrow: The next question is that in my packet there was a letter and I believe that Chairman Johnson had an identical letter from the States who apparently live to the western side of this development and it is indicated that Mr. Barnes has agreed to install a 6 foot chain link fence with gray vinyl slating to buffer a home and has agreed to do this for the length of lot 3. This fence buffer with the vinyl slating is satisfactory to us. We understand that Mr. Barnes will provide a 10 foot landscaping strip on the east side of the fence when he develops lot 3. Is that agreement actually in place between Mr. Barnes and the States'? Lee: Yes it is. Morrow: I did not see it alluded to in any place in the findings of fact and conclusions nor the development agreement of the CC&R's. Lee: I don't believe it is in the development agreement, it certainly can be if the City desires. Morrow: Thank you I have no more questions. Bentley: Mr. Lee, you spoke of this hard pan layer, if that is going to be the case throughout your parking area how are you going to contain your run off water? Lee: Well they will have to use some sort of surface wells, maybe some bioswales there are a number of ways they can do that. It will percolate to a point, but there will have to be some special consideration given to that along with sand and grease traps. Rountree: I am going to give you my trick question, define upper end? Lee: Well I guess when John and I first started talking about this project his vision was to build some facilities in there himself, have them be built in such a way that it could be partitioned off and leased to small businesses that require somewhat of a store front maybe some light retail for their business maybe like a plumbing business. And also have room in the building for storage of their wares or maybe a shop, something of that nature. But it was intended to be more geared to a smaller user at least on the ones Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 31 that John is entertaining and that will be the ones along Franklin Road. But the sense is with the restrictions that we are imposing upon ourselves that we would solicit purchasers who are looking for a little more value in what they are buying and hopefully have a higher sense of ownership to get a better quality business in there. That is certainly the intent of the CC&R's and the requirements that we have placed for landscaping and setbacks and types of buildings and that sort of thing. Rountree: There was a comment made about a rumor that was out there with respect to the corner lot on Locust Grove and Franklin that in fact the developer had an option on that property and envisioned some type of commercial activity. Lee: Well as you know Monty McClure owned all of that property and still owns the piece that has his house on it, it stretches over to Locust Grove. I am not entirely certain on what John's option agreements read other than the fact that he has purchased part of it, but not all of it. I do know that he was skeptical about buying that other piece from Monty because of the wetland issues that Jim Witherell had mentioned that ran along Franklin Road. Plus the fact that it lies pretty low and would be a difficult piece to develop. But I certainly don't think at this point he has any desire to buy that ground. You can ask him that I suppose yourself. Rountree: He looks like he might answer. Thank you, there have been several mention the possibility of a berm primarily for sound it appears but it also could provide some visual buffering. What are your thoughts on that? If you visually buffer the development then one would wonder why the extensive landscaping would be required, is that something you have thought about? Lee: Well certainly it has been discussed, we talked about masonry walls and at one time there was mention in one of our neighborhood meetings that they would like to have 50 foot masonry wall with flags on top of it. But I took that in jest. It was talked about it and there were discussions about varying sizes of landscaping and we ended up with the 20 feet and the Scotch pines to meet the City ordinance. A certain amount of berming I suppose could be done but those types of things create cost problems obviously and maintenance problems too. Rountree: I have a copy of that easement for you. I have no more questions. Morrow: I would like to do a follow up question with respect to the landscape areas. Are those common areas and lots that are owned by the proposed owners association and maintained by that association? Lee: They are to the extent of the piece along Franklin road the 35 foot strip and the 20 foot strip along the east boundary. Although along the fronts of the lots where we have required in our CC&R's that they maintain a 20 foot wide landscape strip that will be maintained by the business user. Although, I might point out that we intend to require a Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 32 certain type of planting along there so that the look remains the same, the same type of tree and the same caliper. Morrow: So your proposal has the perimeter landscaping then around this as being owned by the users or the owners association and the individual lots would be landscaped to a spec provided by the CC&R's? Lee: That is correct. Corrie: Any further questions of Mr. Lee or the developer? Lee: I was just looking at this easement, the only comment I have about this is it says E '/2, NE, NE'/4 Section 18 for location. I don't know where that is, it covers a big piece of ground which is typical of Idaho Power back in those days, a lot of them were that way. Just wherever the pole goes is where our easement is. But we will take care of whatever requirements they may have. Corrie: Thank you, I will close the public hearing at this time. Council any questions of staff or comments? Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I would like to ask Shari if she has had time to review the updated draft of the proposed development agreement and what her comments are on that? Stiles: Councilman Bentley, Mayor and Council I did look at it briefly just tonight. didn't want you to think because it said it was updated per our meeting that it indicated I had been through this and reviewed it and that this reflected all of my comments. I believe that it is possible to set up a development agreement that would be restrictive enough to cover all of our concerns. I guess I would prefer that those uses adjacent to the residential use would be restricted to the conditional use. But again this is just a draft of the development agreement. If you will note on exhibit B, page 8 of the development agreement, the second paragraph says that the developer acknowledges and agrees that the lot owner will not be required to submit to the City an application for conditional use permit. That should be stricken in its entirety because there may be some uses that would require a conditional use. Other than that as far as going through this entire agreement, I have not done that. Morrow: Follow up question Mr. Mayor, Shari on page 2 of the proposed development agreement, item 2 B, it says "further for those lots identified as lot 6, 7, 8 and 9 of block 3 the following permitted uses within the I -L shall be allowed only with an approved conditional use permit by the City." Are these the lots that in fact border the residential uses? Stiles: On the east side yes. Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 33 Morrow: And for those two, if I am interpreting this correctly for those two uses, then they are proposing to do conditional uses for those two uses, then the City would set the conditions of approval for whoever might have one of those two uses or a variation of those uses. Is that correct? Stiles: That is what they are proposing. Morrow: Mr. Crookston have you seen these proposed CC&R's and development agreement? Crookston: I have not reviewed them, I believe that I have seen them but I have not reviewed them. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would have one final question. Mr. Crookston is there a substantial difference in terms of testimony and the presentation of the proposed development agreement and CC&R's which would have occurred after the P & Z meeting that would require new findings of fact and conclusions to be written? Crookston: No there are not. Morrow: So P & Z had the opportunity to review this concept of development agreement? Crookston: I don't know about the development agreement, I am just talking about the testimony. Morrow: And CC&R's? Crookston: I don't know that the P & Z reviewed the CC&R's or not, they may have I just don't know. I would also say that it is rare that Planning & Zoning sees the CC&R's they may have seen them. Generally they do not, they may have in this case however. Morrow: The point of my question is that the findings of fact from the P & Z talk about conditional uses for the lots and these have been presented spelling out conditional uses for certain lots. As a means of identifying prohibited uses such that conditional use wouldn't be needed for the remaining lots that seems to me to be substantially different than the P & Z findings that are prepared for us. Crookston: That is true, it is my understanding this property is in a mixed use planned area which does require conditional uses on all proposed uses. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, follow up question for Mr. Crookston, on item 12 on page 20 of the findings of fact and conclusions, it says that it is concluded that the City could annex the property and zone it I -L light industrial. Once the property was zoned I -L light industrial Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 34 the applicant (inaudible) without additional approval from the City. So I am confused, by virtue of that statement does that mean conditional uses wouldn't be required? Crookston: Mr. Morrow, I did not prepare those, John Fitzgerald prepared those. So I can't specifically indicate what his referencing was or the language that he used. What I stated about it being in a mixed planned use area was just my understanding of what it was, where the property was located and what the requirements were in our comprehensive plan and our zoning and development ordinance. Morrow: I have no further questions Mr. Mayor. I guess not having any further questions and no one else (inaudible) Rountree: I had a question, you pointed out the mixed use comprehensive classification of the area and it would require a conditional use for this area. (End of Tape) what bearing does that have on it? Crookston: Councilman Rountree, it is my understanding that the comprehensive plan designates that area as a mixed planned use area. We don't have that designation in our zoning ordinance. But we have followed the guidelines of the comprehensive plan for other developments. We did that with Eagle Partners, we did that with Fred Meyer, not just Fred Meyer but that whole development. And I believe several other areas. Because it is in the comprehensive plan, the comprehensive plan is a guideline. It is not like a zoning ordinance which is a mandatory controlling device. It is up to the Council as to how much they want to follow the comprehensive plan. I would just say that in the past and in the recent past the City has done that. Technically you do not have to do what the comprehensive plan states. Rountree: Thank you, go ahead Mr. Morrow. Morrow: I guess for point of discussion, it seems to me in light of, I would like to have the staff and the City Attorney review both the proposed development agreements and review the CC&R's, have their input back before us. If in fact that is going to be acceptable to the Council it seems to me that it ought to be part of the findings of fact and conclusions and I see if those are incorporated substantial difference between the findings of fact that we have before us and what they ought to be addressing those other issues that P & Z didn't have an opportunity to address. So, I guess from my perspective I would like to see these issues reviewed or proposals reviewed by our staff to see if they are doable. Both within the ordinances and from a legal standpoint. And address the questions of conditional use on the designated lots. I would like some input back from the development team in terms of the soils and the protection of the domestic water. So, I think that from my perspective we need to do a little more work here or our staff does and kind of clean up some of these issues that are hanging out there. Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 35 Rountree: To carry that a little further, I know in previous planning discussions that we have had specific to design review, one of the options that we have considered is development agreement to establish criteria for design review. This is really the first instance where we have seen that proposed. I would like to explore it a little more in the way you suggested Walt. It gives us an opportunity to look at it. Tolsma: I agree with both of them. Corrie: Council, would you like to continue the public hearing under these auspices or do you want to have it still (Inaudible) Morrow: I think that my preference would be to continue the public hearing so that we can have the input back from our staff from the City Attorney, the development team's response and certainly for those within the neighborhood for any issues that they may bring up that would be appropriate to the things that we have talked about and we are laboring with tonight. So my preference would be to continue the public hearing. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I would agree, I think we need to continue on with this so we can get better input from the staff and the legality from the City Attorney. Corrie: Mr. Crookston, do we need to vote on it or do we just continue it? Crookston I think it would be appropriate to have a motion on it and vote on the continuance. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we continue the public hearing on the proposed annexation and zoning to I -L by Properties West Inc. Bentley: Second Rountree: To March 18th Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Bentley to continue the public hearing on the request for annexation and zoning to I -L by Properties West Inc. to March 18th meeting, any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Crookston: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Lee indicated in the first portion of his presentation that he was treating the item 12 as being part of item 11. 1 think that the Council needs to probably open the public hearing and see if that is what is desired to be done and see if there are any comments from the public. And to see if either group wants to incorporate what they stated in the annexation for their testimony in the preliminary plat public hearing. Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 36 ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION BY PROPERTIES WEST, INC.: Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing, Gary. Gary Lee, JUB, 250 S. Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lee: As stated earlier in the annexation public hearing I think we addressed the items with the plat. Talked about the subdivision in quite a lot of detail. I will confirm to the Council that we will make every effort to get some soils information on that limiting layer and also any potential ground water impacts. We did have a soils engineering firm evaluate that soil initially and hopefully with the information they have they can give us a recommendation. So if there are any other questions about the plat I can answer I will be glad to at this point. Crookston: I just have one, do you desire to incorporate your testimony that you gave on the annexation and zoning into this public hearing on the preliminary plat? Lee: Yes I do. I would like to make one other statement before I leave. You discussed the development agreement and how it addresses Conditional use permit. The section that talked about requiring conditional use permit for specific uses are two items in the current zoning ordinance that is an allowed use in I -L zone. So what we have done is included those two that felt were probably more objectionable to be, to require a CUP. But the intent on the rest of the development is to comply with City zoning ordinance, if a conditional use is now required it is still required under the development. And if the draft didn't come across quite that clearly it was certainly the intent. Corrie: This is a public hearing, anybody else like to speak on the request for preliminary plat? Crookston: Just as a question to those that testified on the annexation and zoning is there anyone that does not desire to have their testimony incorporated from the annexation and zoning public hearing into the preliminary plat public hearing. I see no one stating that they do not want that done, is that correct? Thank you. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we continue the public hearing for the request for preliminary plat for Medimont Subdivision by Properties West Inc. to 3-18- 97. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree to continue the public hearing on the preliminary plat until March 18th meeting, any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Opposed? Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 37 MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #13: MARTY GOLDSMITH: DISCUSSION OF SALMON RAPIDS SUBDIVISION: Corrie: Mr. Attorney? McColl: Mr. Mayor and Council and for the record and for any members of the press who happen to be here, my name is Brian McColl. I believe we have now reached a resolution of the issue that is one the issue that is on the agenda for discussion purposes. Just briefly when we last addressed the issue of the plat for Salmon Rapids No. 3 we were seeking some direction from the City Council before submitting a revised final plat as to how to deal with the lots in the southwest section of this plat. At the last meeting we had a sense that the Council was not in favor of installing a lift station in that southwest corner. But rather would prefer that the final plat be in accordance with the preliminary plat to wit that several or that section of the plat be left for development until the Ten Mile trunk was extended on. And the question that was before us was how many lots would have to be left out of the final plat. We had a meeting, the engineers and the developer met with the City Engineer. We had originally on the preliminary plat that perhaps as many as 37 lots would not sewer in the Ten Mile. Our engineers having done the mathematics on it came to the determination that all but 16 lots could sewer into the Nine Mile. The City Engineer has come to the conclusion that it would be better to leave out as many as 23 lots. Accordingly, although we don't need the City Council to take any action on it, it is our proposal that we will now submit an amended final plat, platting of the total original 75 lots only 52 of the lots. Leaving unplatted at this time 23 of the lots in the southwest corner. The other issue that I think that was raised, should we proceed in this fashion until the Ten Mile trunk is extended making the southwest corner developable what really would happen to that property. That property of course has been annexed, it is subject to a preliminary plat that calls out for its development when and if the Ten Mile Trunk get pushed down there. So when we submit the final plat we will submit a proposal that land of course be continued although not platted continued to be owned by the developer. The developer would be there for responsible for the maintenance of it. We would propose that the property undeveloped property be imposed with the restriction that the maintenance be such that the property be seeded, such that the property would be irrigated and such that the property would be covered by the perimeter fence of the platted area. In other words the perimeter fence would go around both sections of the property. To the extent the subdivision in all of its phases wanted to have some sort of temporary use of that property it would be made available but it would be clearly spelled out that it would be on a temporary basis. If anybody has any questions I would be happy to answer them. Rountree: I have none, I think that answers the questions I had in terms of lots and the City Engineer's concerns. Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 38 Morrow: Mr. Mayor, my only question is for Gary Smith, you are okay by this proposal? Smith: Councilman Morrow and Mayor and Council, I think based on what we have done north of this piece which is referred to as Salmon Rapids No. 3 that we are probably consistent even though we spilled over into the other drainage area. I think that you can tell from the contour lines that where I have drawn the yellow highlighted line approximates a bit of a ridge there where it drops off pretty fast to the southwest. I guess there is still a bit of a question on capacity and the Nine Mile trunk, but it is really hard to put any kind of a technical number against that what might happen scenario. I think the thing that we need to continue to keep in mind is that we protect the specified drainage areas. That we don't take land out of these areas and allow them to drain into adjacent drainage. Because of capacity in the pipes and because of future extensions of the interceptors. When you take that land out basically you have just subtracted that much possible commitment to extend the interceptors into that drainage area. But I think with the 23 lots down there it is a sizable piece of property that the developer would still have interest you might say in seeing that the Ten Mile trunk is extended. We do get away from the lift station situation as Mr. McColl commented on. Corrie: Thank you very much, we appreciate it. ITEM #14: WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES: Corrie: Delinquency for turn off schedule 3-4-97. This is to inform you in writing if you choose to you have the right to a pre -determination hearing at 7:30 P.M. Tuesday, March 4, 1997 before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person and be judged on the facts and defend the claim made by this City that your sewer, water and trash bill are delinquent. You may retain counsel, this service will be discontinued on March 12, 1997 unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present that wishes to contest their water, sewer and trash delinquency. Seeing none you are hereby informed that you may appeal to have the decision of the City reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant to the Idaho Code. Even though they appeal their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn off list is $34,112.56. Council, I will entertain a motion for the delinquency list. Tolsma: So moved Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Tolsma, second by Mr. Rountree for the delinquency list turn off schedule to be approved, is there any discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #15: APPROVE BILLS: Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 39 Morrow: I would move that we approve the bills. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley that we approve the bills, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #16: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: Corrie: Gary? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council, do you have, I hope you have copies of the bid document or bid results for our clarifier project at the Waste Water plant. Morrow: We do. Smith: We had an excellent bid response, nine bidders. The bids were opened at 3:00 P.M. on the 27th of February. The bid ranged from a low of $606,000 to a high of $797,660. The low bidder is Turnkey Inc. from Ontario, Oregon and the low bid is $606,000. As a matter of interest or an item of interest Turnkey also was a contractor for us to construct the pump and pump house at well No. 16. They did a very good job on that project. Tolsma: All of the bid numbers are correct (inaudible) $190,000 difference between the top and bottom. Smith: Yes sir they are. The only phone call I fielded was from Richard Jordan who wanted to know if our recommendation was going to be to you to award the bid to Turnkey. I told Mr. Jordan that is what our recommendation would be. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, in terms of an Ontario, Oregon contractor, is there a differential involved there? Smith: I don't know if there was one or not. Morrow: Is one required because it is an out of state bidder? Crookston: It sticks in my mind that the statute states that they have to be as low as they would be in their own state or it makes no difference. With regard to these bids I don't believe that there is a problem at all because they are so much lower. Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 40 Smith: Is that a percentage difference that they have to be at least so much a percentage lower than an in state contractor in order to be the low bid, is that what you are saying? Crookston: It is something like that Gary, I can't recall it specifically. There is a deal, what it amounts to is if they would be treated as a low bidder in their own state and they are still low bidder they can have the job. If the way (inaudible) if the bids are computed differently in their state and they would not be low then they can't have the contract. will have to call and get it out for you to take a look at it. But there is a vast difference between the low bid and the next bidder is there not? Smith: $32,800 which would be a little more than 5%. Morrow: I think we need to check that because for some reason in the back of my mind it sticks that there is a 5% differential cap that goes on out of state bidders. The question in my mind is if Ontario is determined to be out of state for purposes of Idaho bidding. Crookston: What would be the point there is where Turnkey Corporation is incorporated, not necessarily where they have their office, do you know where they are incorporated by chance Gary? Smith: I don't know right of hand not. Originally when they bid the Well No. 16 project they were in I want to say Emmett and they were in the process of moving to Ontario at that time. So I really don't know where they are incorporated. Crookston: Gary, the name Turnkey Construction I believe was a Boise corporation. Smith: Years ago it was, but this is a different fellow. This fellow is from Trammels in fact he is a Trammel employee from several years ago. Corrie: Well it looks like we had better make sure. Morrow: I think I want to make another comment here is that Ron talked about the spread from low to high as being $190,000 and that is true. But I think the thing that is a testimony to a job well done by the City staff in terms of writing their specs is that essentially the first 5 bids, really the first 6 bids are incredibly close and within the normal 10 deviation guidelines when you have that many bids on that amount of dollars and that narrow deviation it tells you that the contractors all saw the project pretty much the same way. It means your architects and engineers and staff did a hell of a job of putting it all together so that it came out that way. So I think that I would like to give that group of folk that are our employees kudos for doing a nice job there. The second thing is that with respect to the differential I want to make sure that we have that issue ironed out before we award the bid. If the counselor was still here I would ask him if we could award the bid subject to resolution of that differential question. Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 41 Rountree: So let's defer this and move on to something else. Morrow: I think that is a good idea, let's press onto something else. Smith: Just one other item, I put together some information and rules for picnic shelter use in the park. I meant to get this to you before the resolution was adopted. This is something that we want to include as part of the reservation form for associations, individuals and groups when they reserve this shelter. I would like to pass a copy of this out to each one of you and have you look at it and make you comments if you have any and send them back to me and we can regenerate this thing and kind of finalize it. Rountree: What is an astro jump? Bentley: (Inaudible) Smith: It is a little enclosure that has an air compressor that pumps air into the floor and it is a bouncy thing for the kids. I will go over to my office and grab a copy of the bid documents and see if there was anything specific in there. Bentley: I have a question, it says use of alcohol is permitted by permit. Corrie: They can get a permit by the City. Smith: You have to get a permit. Crookston: Mr. Mayor, I believe that I have the statute that references the out of state bidders right here. I can make sure that it hasn't been changed in the supplement, which it has not. What the statute states is to the extent permitted by Federal laws and regulations whenever the State of Idaho or any department, division, bureau or agency there of or any City, County, School District, Irrigation District, Drainage District, Sewer District, Highway District, (inaudible) road District, Fire District, (inaudible) district or other public body shall let or bid any contract to a contractor for any public works the contractor domiciled outside the boundaries of Idaho shall be required in order to be successful to submit a bid, the same percent less than the lowest bid submitted by a responsible contractor domiciled in Idaho as would be required for such an Idaho domiciled contractor to succeed over the bidding contractor domiciled outside of Idaho on a like contract being let in his domicillary state. I thought it was a little bit confusing. Rountree: It is a penalty if you are from out of state and your state has a penalty for us then. Crookston: Let's say a bidder from Washington can be bidding against an Idaho contractor can out bid him by 4% then when the Washington Contractor bids in Idaho he has to be 4% lower. Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 42 Morrow: (Inaudible) Smith: And at this point if Oregon has such a restriction. Crookston: Right now I do not know. Morrow: I don't know either Gary. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Crookston can we approve the bid authorizing the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest pending verification that it is in fact a bid that meets the statute? Crookston: Yes you can, but you need to state what happens if it is not a good bid. Morrow: If it is not a good bid then I think the provision of the statute is that it goes to the next low bid. Rountree: Is that a motion? Morrow: I will make it one if you wish. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we award the bid for the primary clarifier addition to Turnkey Construction Inc. in the amount of $606,000 pending verification by the City Engineer that the bid does in fact meet the Idaho State Statute for out of state bids and should this bid fail to meet that statute then the award would be next to the next low responsive bid, and authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest upon the execution of either one of those two conditions. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree, any further discussion of the motion as given? Hearing none, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council. Rountree: Gary, on this list I would add the hour at which the restrooms would be closed and we talked about that, that they would be closed probably 11:00. So I think that would be a good note on the information sheet. That is the only thing I can think of. Morrow: I guess my response is I agree with Charlie, everything else is fine so we can get this in that packet that Will and Bob are putting together for that stuff. So that you guys can press ahead. Rountree: So with that response Mr. Berg can we expect likewise? Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 43 Berg: (Inaudible) Corrie: Ms. Stiles Stiles: Real quick items, the Jim Carrie property, you remember they applied for a variance for the planting strip setback on the property just east of the Texaco on Fairview at Fairview and Barbara Drive. The variance was denied, I have had some discussions with the owner and apparently Walt has had some discussions with the architect, he feels that he has been blind sided and I would like to know if there is any direction at all that I can give them. The findings indicated that you felt the five foot was too much of a variance but could you give me any ideas of what you might consider or do you strictly want to stick with the 20 feet. It is a very restrictive piece of property to develop, Walt and I went out and measured the site. I think as far as some of their parking off Fairview we felt that was probably not a doable deal so they probably would have to reduce their building size. But I was wondering if there was anything at all that I could tell them as far as what you want to see there. Corrie: Council pleasure? Mr. Morrow? Morrow: Well, Shari and I took the plans, we went out and laid out the building as proposed and then looked at the project. I have to tell you that from my standpoint as a contractor the proposal would be really difficult technically to build. Not only it is close to existing homes but there is a substantial elevation differential along the site with those homes. So there is case (inaudible) but setting that aside from the technical aspects is that really they were asking for variances from about three things, the front setback, the rear setback, side setback and landscaping requirements within those setbacks. When you look at the property the property is definitely one of those properties that is a bastard piece of property and if we are going to see something develop there we are going to have to give some breaks on what it is going to take to get something there other than semi -trucks parking on it each night. But I am not prepared to support the project as was put forward in terms of their deal. It just doesn't work. Having said and Shari and I discussed if it was our project and our property what would we do. I don't have any good answers for it, I don't know. I don't know how to get from point A to point B. Tolsma: I went down there and walked around it and kind of paced it off. I don't know if there is any configuration that he had there that is viable. Even if you took all the landscaping out of there and granted all the setbacks there is nothing that is going to work on that piece of property. As a matter of fact I went down after the hearing and looked at it again because I thought I missed something. But it is the same piece of property. So I don't know what the answer is either. Bentley: I have been out there too, I went out one time by myself and one time with Walt and there is a huge elevation difference between them and the trailer park back there and they have only got a chain link fence. I don't know what they are going to do Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 44 with that, what they are going to be able to do with that piece. If the canal wasn't there you would be in business. It is definitely too big to try and throw a pipe in. I don't know what the answer is, but nothing I see is going to work there right now. Rountree: I guess my question not being in the building trade but is it prohibitive to look at some kind of concept that would elevate the building proper and provide some parking underneath it and utilize more of the lot by having the canal underneath? Morrow: I think that is viable, the problem is the parcel of property is pretty small and the configuration is odd, if you had a rectangle or square you could do something with it. I really think that the salvation of the property probably is that some point the concession by Nampa Meridian to cover the ditch as the highway is covering it which is big enough for a person to walk through certainly easy enough to service in that manner and in other locations of the City of Boise at least. I am thinking right off the top of my head of the Franklin Shopping Center and Meadow Gold Dairy those institutions are built totally on top of canal systems. Glenn is right the mall has a portion where there is a water way that goes underneath that. I am somewhat curious about Nampa Meridian's reluctance to let that happen. Now having said that if you cover it does that make it economically unfeasible to do a project there? Parking under drive through, parking under typically means that you have a 2 or 3 story building to make it work. You have got to have some useful (inaudible). It is certainly a concept that can be looked at. At the current time it is a real tough piece to do something with. If somebody came along with a suggestion that Shari thought might have some merit to it and if there were some concessions we could make to get the thing developed and get it out its current state I would be all for that. Rountree: I think as it sits now it is an eye sore. Stiles: I will give Mr. Carrie a call and see where we go. Next item, I just wanted to let you know that I will be meeting with Marty Goldsmith and Jim Carberry over at the School District on Thursday discussing the Los Alamitos school/park site. If you remember that was the roughly 2.2 acres that the school district has an option for a certain number of years. I will let you know what happens after that. The third item I just wanted to report my conversation with Eric Mondel at Idaho Department of Health and Welfare regarding these intermediate care facilities that Mr. Hailey was concerned about. He indicated that there is no nationwide recruiting to get them to come to Idaho. That they are primarily Idaho residents. That he indicated the same thing that Walt had said is that the attraction is the cost of the ground, the cost to build the facilities over here. Also indicated that they will act on any complaint that they receive. He said that they immediately investigate any of those complaints. The maximum is a total of eight residents and that also the school district receives Federal funds for the education of those children. I don't know if there is such a disparity between what they get and what it actually costs them. I just wanted to clarify that a little bit for you. That is it. Rountree: Do we know where all 13 of those are in the community? Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 45 Stiles: I have asked for a list they are available from the Health and Welfare Department. Rountree: So we can at least keep them at the required level. Stiles: Yes, thank you. Gordon: (Inaudible) Crookston: Chief of Police Bill Gordon and I had a discussion today that involves a difference between what he desires and what the City Attorney's office is doing and it revolves around a personnel matter somewhat and I would like to have the Council go into Executive Session. Morrow: So moved Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded to go into Executive Session, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea EXECUTIVE SESSION Corrie: We are returning from the Executive Session it is not 11:30 in the evening. Mr. Crookston? Crookston: Did you want to take any action on the Executive Session. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to research the City's procedures with respect to the handling of infractions and citations that may be issued by our police department. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Crookston: The last thing that I have is I have been asked by Jim Jones who is the attorney for Voigt, I can't remember Mr. Voigt's first name, Gary. Voigt. He has asked that the City sign a form which indicates that Mr. Voigt and Mr. Wolf I think, excuse me Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 46 Mr. Groves that they donated some land to the City. They have the form here and we are not stating on the form that it was of a certain value, we are just signing to state that they did donate the land to the City and I am requesting that the Mayor and the Clerk sign this. It is an IRS form, form 8283 for a non-cash charitable contribution. I will present this to the clerk because he is the keeper of the record and ask him to present it to the major for proper execution. Morrow: And the question is you need a motion for the Council to authorize. Crookston: I believe that we do. Morrow: All right, I will make the motion that the Council authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest the document for the donation by Gary Voigt and Craig Groves in terms of lands to the City of Meridian. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea (End of Tape) Corrie: Mr. Morrow? Morrow: The only thing that I have is on the rough draft, I would like to add in terms of departments assessor space, recorder space. I do think that the fiscal space ought to be for the next 10 years. (Inaudible) I don't know that I, on the rough draft for requested proposal for space (inaudible). The time line seems fine with me, it is probably a bit aggressive but we can try and beat that. The next issue that I have, have we ever received a letter of resignation from Becky Peterson with respect to the Air Quality deal, we got that letter of resignation. (Inaudible) from her to resign from the Air Quality Board. Corrie: I was thinking there was another you mentioned. Morrow: She is on the transportation task force. Corrie: Did she resign from that? Morrow: Well if she is outside the City and outside the impact area she would be required to resign from that also. And in the follow up to that is we have that letter of resignation then it is appropriate to present her with a plaque thanking her for the service at the next City Council meeting and have something engraved and make that Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 47 presentation thanking her for her service. The response, your response to Bob McQuade concerning his letter, we briefly have discussed that and the response is great. The next issue is that have we got the information back yet from Jo Bolen concerning my desire to see $25 or $30 to the employees from the insurance savings and the handling of that? Berg: Yes I did talk to Jo briefly about that before she went onto another audit. She said whatever you give to the employees, taxes all taxes would have to be taken out of it. So this whatever amount you thought you would give would be reduced. She made some other suggestions, she would like to talk to us when she is here for our audit and maybe give you some of those suggestions of what other places do. But she says that other entities usually don't give that because you have to take the taxes out so the gift isn't as rich as it is meant to be. Morrow: But anyway we have an avenue now that we can discuss that and follow up and make a decision as to what it is we want to do and when will she be here for the audit, it is the end of March is it not? Berg: Yes, the 24th of March. Morrow: The next question is did you talk with Jo Bolen about the meeting that we need to have between you, I, Jo and Wayne in terms of (inaudible) Berg: Yes I did and the only closest or the soonest dates would be the 17th or 18th Morrow: So let's pick one of those based on her convenience and then we can do that meeting. That meeting Bob to refresh your memory is working with her on the proposed ordinance to create the building and planning and zoning department basically as an enterprise fund issue. While we are discussing that just for your information by virtue of the Building department report that we received in our boxes today we are running 29% below a year ago today in terms of building permits. That is going to have some financial impacts for you and your departments if there has been funds used from that revenue source, you need to start making preparations or be aware that those funds may in fact not be there. So start watching very closely, we are now five months into the building year and we are 29% below where we were last year at this same point in time. So that is kind of a word of caution and it behooves us to start paying attention to that number because it will be a substantial revenue drop if that number holds out. That is it. Corrie: Mr. Bentley? Bentley: I have a long list but I forgot to bring it. So I have nothing. Rountree: I will follow suit. Corrie: Ron? Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 48 Tolsma: (Inaudible) I was wondering about this letter we got from Hawley Troxel about the traffic signal (inaudible) St. Luke's (inaudible) or Jackson's Texaco. Morrow: I think Ron I can answer part of your question is that based on the proposals that we have had from ACHD trying to force the frontage road across (inaudible) that existing traffic signal and the (inaudible) in terms of putting the frontage road on those people's back doors that it is probably in our best interest to encourage the moving of the traffic signal to that location so that those lots don't get double fronted by anybody's proposal or what ACHD's desire is Tolsma: (Inaudible) Morrow: St. Luke's bought off on this (inaudible) no objection to it as long as they don't have to pay (inaudible) because they paid for the first one. (Inaudible) Morrow: And that may very well be the case and we may have to make that. Corrie: Two things, one thank Charlie that maybe you didn't realize this yet but a deal was just made tonight that Councilman Morrow will act as the contractor overseeing the Generations plaza free of charge. He gave that to us and that was very nice of him. The position of Planning and Zoning Commissioner, I have talked with Mr. Ron C. Manning about the position. You all have the application that I gave in your box. I talked to him also Mr. Jim Johnson has talked to him and said that he would approve of his application. He was also recommended very highly by our Gary Smith, Gary gave me a letter and I don't know whether I gave that you or not. Ron is a single gentleman, he is 61 years old, he is retired, well I don't need to go over that, you see that. I would like to get this thing moving here and he is an active citizen in the community. So I would like to recommend Ron C. Manning as a Commissioner for the Planning and Zoning. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, do we know the seat number that is filled. We were going to number the seats so that we could kept track of them and so that if somebody opts to retire earlier than we appoint the remainder of the term to the seat. Do we have a seat number so that in my motion to approve (inaudible) Berg: We do not because I have researched the old minutes and it is so should I say, I can follow bread crumbs better than I can that. I have not (Inaudible) Morrow: What I would like to do is we just appointed one here not too long ago that could be seat one and its rotation started then and this could be seat 2 and its rotation Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 49 starts now and then the next ones that expire could be 3 and 4 and then 5 and you have your two year rotation going on (inaudible) 6 year terms. Corrie: So Seat one would be Keith Borup he was the last one. Morrow: That would be correct. Rountree: You can go back as far as Greg, you have a record on that one. Berg: My only concern was that Jim Johnson's expired this year too along with Jim Shearer's and I do not know why we have two people expiring during the same year when you have a 6 year term and you have 5 Commissioners. That is what I was trying to research also with how we got the same year. Morrow: The issue is how we correct that then is we have one for last year, we have one for this year and then the next one that comes up for expiration or to be filled we get back on the scenario so that you are having, you shorten one or you do something to have one expire each year so that your rotation works. Then no matter what body fills it the seat still continues on a six year cycle once you get it straightened. Mr. Mayor would move that we approve the appointment of Ron Manning for Seat #2 to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley that we approve Ronald C. Manning for Seat #2 to the Planning and Zoning Commission, any further discussion? Hearing none all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: I have nothing else, do you have anything? Berg: The meeting for ACHD joint commissioners, you got the memo. We need to get agenda items or topics to them right away. So if by tomorrow if you have those to Gary or myself. Morrow: Let me ask you this, are you buying the bicycle built for two so the oldest guys of us can get there on our bicycles or what is the deal. Berg: The meeting is here. Morrow: It doesn't matter. (Inaudible) Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 50 Corrie: (Inaudible) don't want to have bicycle lanes (inaudible) I will entertain the famous motion. Morrow: So moved Tolsma Second Corrie: All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ►�iI��V[e1_1�11I�1�1:7►1��I:��ifK�C�a►�� (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK