Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 03-03MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MARCH 3. 1998 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Robert D. Corrie at 7:33 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Anderson, Charlie Rountree, Glenn Bentley, Keith Bird, Bob Corrie. OTHERS PRESENT: Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Bill Gordon, Will Berg, Katrina Pomerleau, Kasha Lawrence, Wendell Lawrence, John Alverson, Bryan Oakes, Sue Peckham, Dean Fife, Jennifer Bell, Jodi Fife, Donna Kreizenbeck, Joe Stafford, Gordon Margulieux. MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 17,1998: Corrie: Council members, you have the minutes of the last meeting, February the 17tH are there any corrections or alterations on the minutes? All right I will entertain a motion that they be accepted. Bird: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we accept the minutes of February 17th meeting. Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion by Mr. Bird, second by Mr. Anderson that we accept the minutes of February the 17th. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING WITH MERIDIAN FIRE COMMISSIONERS HELD FEBRUARY 14, 1998 and FEBRUARY 21, 1998: Corrie: You the minutes of the special joint meeting of Meridian Fire Commissioners held February the 14th, 1998, and the minutes of the special joint meeting of the Meridian Fire Commissioners held February the 21St, 1998. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I move we approve the minutes from both those meetings as a consent agenda. Rountree: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree that we accept the minutes. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 2 Corrie: At this time, I would like to welcome Scout Troop #166 and #174 here tonight, and have you see how the city government works and we do well for you tonight. ITEM NO. 1: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Corrie: Council, is there anything on that one that you have? Mr. Crookston? Crookston: I have not changed the Findings of Facts for probably two years, and we're just waiting on how we want to do things, and things like that. So I have recommendation. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I think there is a couple of things that apply here. One is the length of time that we've had those findings. Two is that some of this land has changed hands. Now, I think with Steiner Corporation, and three, I think there's some issues with the golf course that need to be resolved with respect to some of these culverts or not culverts. I would suggest that we take this item off our agenda, get Brighton, Steiner, the city and the golf course together, see where it is they want to go as of this date and press on. There may not even be a variance request at this point in time. I would make that a motion. Bentley: Second. Corrie: Okay, motion made by Mr. Rountree and second by Mr. Bentley to take item number one of the Brighton Corporation off the agenda. Any further discussion? Hearing none, I will take the vote. All in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 2: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PRESTIGE CARE: Corrie: Shari, comments. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, Mike Valentine did a very thorough job going through the findings of fact on this and incorporating those as Exhibit "B". I'm not sure if Wayne has had an opportunity to totally review that. Crookston: I have not. Stiles: There are some issues not only on this, but on the items number six, and seven. On number six, Turnberry has requested some changes that I have not seen yet, and the Econo Lube, I have not revised that yet to include — to remove the Tucknesses and put Econo Lube Subdivision or the owners of Econo Lube as the owner. I would like to ask if the Council would entertain the thought of getting the latest copies of these by this Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 3 Friday and being able to review those at a special meeting prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting on Tuesday. If that's at all possible. Rountree: Just a question. You are talking about item two and item seven on the agenda this evening? Stiles: Item two, six and seven. Rountree: Will all your comments and issues be resolved between you and Wayne and the applicant? Stiles: If Wayne and I can meet tomorrow or Thursday, we could have those to you by noon on Friday, and if we need to meet with Mike Valentine. Turnberry, I'm not sure if that's going to be resolved by that time, but the Econo Lube and Prestige Care issues should be resolved by then. Corrie: It would be the 17th of March when it would be brought up. Bird: No, she wants to do it the 10th instead. Corrie: Theirs is next Tuesday, the 10th Bentley: She wants to do it before that meeting. Corrie: We don't have much say about that one. That's a Planning and Zoning decision. I suppose they could — have you talked to the Planning and Zoning? Stiles: What I'm asking is if you would consider a special meeting of the Council prior to that meeting. Corrie: Oh, I'm sorry. Bird: When Shari? Stiles: Either six o'clock on the 10th Bentley: I can't make six. Stiles: 6:30? Bentley: 6:30. Rountree: That's fine with me, but you are committed. Stiles: Yes or I'll be committed. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 4 Bird: Everything will be ready? Stiles: Yes. Bentley: Or we will commit you. Corrie: There's something the 10th that — no, that's been cancelled. That's was over at Kuna, so I'll be here. So if you would like to do that, that would be fine. Bentley: If that's the case, everybody is agreement. I'll make a motion that item number two, number six, and number seven will be tabled until the special meeting on the 10th of March. Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Anderson that we table items two, six, and seven to a special meeting March the 10th at 6:30 P.M. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. II121AIZI*]ama1►1_10»_IIA012 UT I101WW-012&111*91M RI1010UYAPANTAIZ[01 Corrie: Is the representative from Devlin Place here this evening? Gary. Lee: My name is Gary Lee with JUB Engineers in Boise representing Dan Wood at D.W. Inc. As most of you know, this particular project has been approved from the preliminary plat basis, and has been scheduled for final plat for the last four or five, maybe six months. And it's tied directly to item two on your agenda this evening. That's the development agreement with Prestige. This particular piece of property is a portion of the overall project encompassed in Prestige properties. Basically Dan is here tonight hoping to acquire final plat approval, and even it's contingent upon that development agreement being acceptable to the City, and the owners of Prestige properties, so he can proceed with at least some irrigation tiling that he needs to get done prior to live water coming into the ditch. So I'll just briefly go through a short presentation. I know it's been a while since Council has seen this preliminary stage. There are thirty nine single family lots on this development of about 12 acres. Three common lots. It's in an R-4 zone. All the lots will be 8,000 square foot minimum. Some will be a little larger than that up to about 10,000 feet in the cul-de-sac areas. The density there is about 3.2 per acre over all on the parcel. It's surrounding on the northeast and west by R-4 zoning so it fits in that general use in that area. There's one piece of R -T or county zoning right up in the northwest corner of the property. And it's currently being used as farm ground. Part of the Prestige development will include a future park site north of Chateau Drive which is basically the north boundary of Devlin Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 5 Place Subdivision. There will be a couple of lots within this development that will be multi purpose lots for storing water drainage retention and they will be landscaped for an open space. There will also be a long slender common lot along the west boundary to include pathway for pedestrian traffic and for access by Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. That's basically the scope of the project. I know you've got the maps before you and some of the comments. We've received the City Engineer's comments on the final plat and reviewed those, and there are really no concerns that we have. We'll resolve all those issues with the City's Engineering staff. If you have any questions, I'd be glad to address those this evening. Corrie: Thank you. Council, any questions? Thank you Gary. Council? Bentley: I have a question for Gary and Shari. I know you spoke before on this, but is everything been answered and taken care of to your satisfactions on this? Stiles: Councilman Bentley, Mayor and Council, all of my concerns have been met on this project. Smith: Councilman Bentley, Mayor and Council, I haven't received a written response to the comments, but the applicant's engineer just stated that he didn't have a problem with our comments. So I wouldn't expect that we will have any problems at all. Bentley: Okay, thank you. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the final plat for Devlin Place Subdivision subject to all staff and agency comments and the completion of the development agreements. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree and second by Mr. Bird on the motion. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 4: FISCAL POLICY ORDINANCE: Corrie: Council, you have that ordinance in front of you with the new additions and printing. Any questions for the attorney, staff on that ordinance. Bentley: My question is concerning the amount of time from when we close the books and give them to the auditor, is that going to be sufficient amount of time of thirty days? Crookston: That I can't really advise on because I don't have anything to do with the budgeting — budget process. I don't know if that's sufficient amount of time or not. I Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 6 think that that needs to be discussed. It seems to me personally myself to be rather quickly, but that's totally up to the Council. Corrie: Would you like to see it changed to sixty days or ninety days? Bentley: Well, personally, I'd like to see it done in thirty, but I don't know if it's obtainable. Bird: I think it can be done if you are doing business. If we want to we can bring it back the other way, get it out — get it to them before the first of December. Give them November 15th cut off for them to get it to them. Pretty soon, we'll be down to six months after the fiscal year looking for an audit. Bentley: I mean, I am comfortable with it, but it's just — Rountree: I think it's a good goal. Bird: Mr. Mayor, I had another question. On the October 20th, that wasn't a cut off date as I understood it. That's the final day we pay the bills for that fiscal year. Actually September 30th of every year is our cut off date. — of actual making bills. We've got until the 20th to plan. That was the intent I had on that. Corrie: That's on page four. Bird: Page four, second paragraph. Corrie: It says October 20th shall be the cut off date for bills that will be paid by the City. You thought it should be the 30t"? Bird: Well, the 30th is the actual cut off date. The 20th of October is when we will pay the last bills. So some department don't get in a bill that ordered and received before October 1 st and don't get the bill in to the treasurer by the 20th and then that bill is going in this year's budget. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, Keith, would it be appropriate to state it October 20th shall be the cut off date for late bills? Bird: I have no problem with the Glen, but I think the state statutes says that the cut off date for bills is September 30th Bentley: Well, what I was referring to is late submittals. Bird: Yeah, that's what I had planned here. That's what I thought the 20th was Glen. If they don't get -- you know, if a bill don't get to them until the 10th of October, even Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 7 thought they've had it before the first of October, then that's — you give them until the 20th to get in here and pay it. Bentley: Well, would it be appropriate then to state October 20th shall be the cut off date for late submittal of bills that will be paid by the City in the current fiscal year? Bird: I'd buy that. Rountree: I would like to make a comment on that sentence. It actually should be the previous fiscal year, not the current fiscal year. Corrie: Counsel, would that suffice on that ordinance to cover the state code too? Crookston: I believe it would, yes. I mean pretty much we are doing some things in this ordinance that are not specifically stated in the Idaho State Code, but they pretty much well founded in the state code. These are things that are pretty much at the Council's desire. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, page two, fourth line. The City Treasure, I wish we had one, should be the City Treasurer. And the next word should be shall. Crookston: Where's that? Rountree: Fourth line, page two. Page three, the fourth line talks about monthly budget statements shall be submitted to the City Council prior to their first monthly meeting. Probably to get a current monthly status it would be better if we had that on that on the monthly meetings since P.O.'s and what not are signed the first week of the month. We'd be closed out for that month, the second meeting. So I would suggest that there first monthly be their second monthly meeting or no later than ten and insert working days. On page three, section 16-103, the second line suggested wording would that that the City Treasurer/City Clerk shall submit a tentative budget to assist the City Council in budget preparation. Add "assist" and "in budget preparation." That way it doesn't appear that we are opting out of our duties, but getting some assistance. Corrie: So it should be Treasurer/City Clerk shall submit a tentative annual budget to assist the City Council. Rountree: --In budget preparation. The last item on that page, item three, depreciation costs, I would suggest that we strike the language after that and insert, "depreciation cost for enterprise assets." Since those are the only assets that we depreciate at this point in time. I have a couple more. Bear with me. I want to get this done tonight. Page four, we got the one sentence about the cut off squared away. The sentence before the indented paragraph, "balances that are carried over shall go into" strike general fund and insert appropriate fund. Enterprise monies cannot go into the general fund so it will have to be identified. And on the last page, page five, a suggested Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 8 change in the wording on performance audit. The first sentence I suggest would read, "As the City Council deems necessary, the City Council shall appoint a certified CPA firm or consulting firm to conduct a performance audit for all specified departments. The reason I suggest that change is the way it's written now, it leaves it pretty tight that we would have to do a performance audit every two years on all departments. An expense that we may not need to incur if we see things are working just fine. So I think that gives us the discretion to choose when we need to do a performance audit as opposed to having us have to do one. That's all I've got. Corrie: Any other corrections? Mr. Bentley. Bentley: On page three, with Councilman Rountree's correction to the second monthly meeting for no later than ten days from the end of the month. There isn't ten days from the end of February. Rountree: You are right. We'll have to add a day. Bentley: Well, we can do that next year. Rountree: That could be changed prior to the end of the month. (inaudible) Rountree: That still wouldn't fit. Bentley: February is a short month. Anderson: What's wrong with prior to the second monthly meeting, leave out the — Rountree: Just strike that whole reference. It gives them another two weeks to get it done so there's no out there. Corrie: So you are striking out — no later than ten working days from the end of the month. Rountree: Correct. Corrie: Any other corrections? Berg: I just want to ask the reference to a budget statement, you are referring to the expenditure report and the revenue report. I mean that's a specific ones we are looking, and that's what is hard to get a current statement in that short of time, but that's the reports we are concentrating on. Rountree: Right. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 9 Berg: Okay, thank you. Corrie: Okay, are you ready for me to read the ordinance part of it? Rountree: Please. Corrie: What's the ordinance number? 788. Okay. I believe you are correct. That's the old one I have here. All right. Ordinance No. 788 is an ordinance of the City of Meridian adopting a new chapter in title one of the revised and compiled ordinances of the City of Meridian to be known as, "Fiscal Policy" to set forth and establish for the City Council, City Commissioners, Appointees, Employees, and other people associated with the City of Meridian the following: Budget policy, fiscal year, monthly budget, annual budget, audits, and performance audit; and providing for an effective date." Now, is there anyone in the audience that would like to have the Ordinance No. 788 read in its entirety. Okay. Council? Bentley: I move that the City of Meridian adopt the amended ordinance no. 788 with the suspension of rules. Bird: I'll second that. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley second by Mr. Bird that we adopt ordinance no. 788 with suspension of rules. ROLL CALL VOTE: Anderson, yea. Rountree, yea. Bentley, yea. Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: All yea. Corrie: Ladies and gentlemen, we have got that under our belt there just about. ITEM NO. 5: REQUEST FOR INSTALLATION OF SEPTIC SYSTEM FOR A WAREHOUSE BUILDING BY: MCCALL PROPERTIES: Corrie: Is a representative from McCall Industries here tonight? Council, we are just about to get a handle on this one. Mr. Van Auker is send Mr. Sahm a representative in about another week will be here and meet with me, and we are going to see if we can't get that 600 feet of property taken care of. If we can't we may have to go another route. I think from all of the implications that they gave me at that meeting that they would probably have that taken of b� two weeks. So I would ask the Council to give us another two weeks --- the 17t of March and we should have that all finished. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, do you have a date certain on that meeting? Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 10 Corrie: I don't, no. Mr. Sahm's representative had some surgery done in California. He said it would be two weeks. It's been about two weeks now. So I would assume it would probably be next week. That's the best I can do. I don't know how the surgery came out or what he had. He's eighty two years old. I didn't ask him what he was having. But he's suppose to get back and Mr. Van Auker is getting all the figures ready for him by next week. Bird: Is that property — isn't that on the west end, that six hundred feet. It don't come down the road at all. It goes over to the — Corrie: Yes. It just goes right to that property and they have an easement that can go down the road if they wish. Bird: I'll make a motion that we table this until March 17th meeting. Bentley: Second. Corrie: Okay, Mr. Bird motioned that we table this one until March 17th and second by Mr. Bentley. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 6 AND ITEM NO. 7: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS FOR TURNBERRY AND ECONO LUBE: Corrie: Okay, number six and number seven has been tabled previously. ITEM NO. 8: FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED IN RAMA SUBDIVISION BY B-11- Corrie- Council, you have those findings of facts in front of you. Questions? Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay, then I will entertain a motion on these findings of facts and conclusions of law. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that City Council hereby approves and adopts the findings of facts and conclusions. Bird: I'll second it. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 11 Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree and second by Mr. Bird that we accept the findings of facts and conclusions of law as printed. ROLL CALL VOTE: Bird, yea. Bentley, nay. Rountree, yea. Anderson, yea. MOTION CARRIED: Three yea, one nay. Corrie: I will entertain a motion on the conclusion. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, based on the findings of facts and conclusions of law, it's decided that the application for the from 11-2-4014 off street parking is approved, but there shall be no trailers, tractors, or commercial industrial vehicles parked on the City Streets. Bird: Second it. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Bird with the conclusions read. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. MOTION CARRIED: Three ayes, and one nay. ITEM NO. 9: DISCUSSION OF STUB STREET NEED IN CROSSROAD NO. 6 SUBDIVISION BY: LARRY SALE — ACHD: Corrie: I don't see Mr. Sale here. Is there a representative from ACHD here? Council, is there anybody that knows — Mr. Rountree? Rountree: I don't know what there status is, but how about the developer or the owner of the subdivision? Is there a representative here? Corrie: It was a discussion that was requested by Larry Sale, I presume. Was it not? Rountree: He indicates in his letter that they are in agreement with this request, but I'd certainly like to have one or the other before us before we took action on it. Corrie: Is there anyone here from Crossroads Subdivision No. 6? Mr. Rountree, what is your pleasure there? Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we table this request until our next regularly scheduled meeting, March 17th Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Bird that we table item number nine until March 17th. Any further discussion? Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 12 Rountree: Just one point. Have Shari or Gary let Larry know that we would like to hear from somebody. Corrie: Further discussion. Hearing none, all those in favor, say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Berg: Councilman Rountree, I will make sure that I try to get a hold of the developer or representative to be here also, and so he would have at least some input. Rountree: I'd like to hear from both of them. ITEM NO. 10: DISCUSSION OF NORTHEAST CORNER OF EAGLE & USTICK BY: BECKY BOWCUTT: Corrie: Becky. Bowcutt: Thank you members of the Council for giving me the opportunity to come before you this evening and discuss this issue. Just to kind of explain a little bit of history for us, especially for the new council members that possibly weren't involved in what transpired, and I believe 1993, '94. When the City of Meridian revised their impact boundary, this particular area here that you see cross halves with this 33 in it. This would be Eagle Road. This cross street here is Ustick. This is north. This particular area was designated to come out of the City of Meridian, and go into the Boise Area of Impact. The reason being is the fact that the City could not physically sewer that area. At that particular time, I was working for the property owner when all this middle parcel here — we spent I believe about a year getting the City Council to consent to removal of that property from their impact area. And then getting the City of Boise to consent to take it into theirs and then getting Ada County to consent to that change. During that time, we went through a lengthy process. There was a lot of animosity problems associated with the lack of willingness to sit down to a round table discussion and discuss the differences. I know there's been some bumpy roads since that time. And the reason I'm here this evening is to discuss this parcel right here. It consists of 40 acres. It's owned by Mr. Caven. They also own the adjoining 80 acres that runs this north south direction here which is within the Boise area of impact. So technically they have 120 total acres, but yet split by the impact boundary. We are basically here to try to open up some dialog, possibly to get some guidance from the City Council on what their feelings are towards this particular parcel, and this controversial issue. We spent a substantial amount of time and money to evaluate the sewer and water situation in this area. What has prompted our evaluation is the Eagle Road rebuild. We went out to the Caven property. This was the 40. Here's the adjoining 80. This is a Boise City limits right here. And this is an existing subdivision that I did call Cameron Place. We did a topographic survey of the entire 120 acres. Boise City sewer was extended here a 15 inch. Then with the Eagle Road Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 13 rebuild, Boise City extended that an 8 inch sewer line to this point right here. It's within 50 feet of Mr. Caven's northern boundary. This is an 8 inch line. The distance in which this line can serve is basically to this point here. It cannot extend any further. By the time we get to this point here, we've got, I believe, a little over three foot of cover. There's a 15 inch sewer trunk line in this stub street here, and an 8 inch here. This 15 inch on their facilities plan for the City of Boise is targeted to be extended through this parcel like this down here to Ustick Road. But what we wanted to confirm was the possibility of sewering this parcel. This 15 inch. We'll sewer this, also this 8 inch. United Water services this area and United Water is in Eagle Road. So we went and looked at the City's facility plan. There's the 40. Here's the 80 acres. The 40 as you can see in orange. This is the Boise City Area of Impact. Mr. Caven's 40 is the only parcel north of Ustick and East of Eagle Road. It's basically isolated right here at this intersection with the Boise Area of Impact wrapping around it like that. As we go south, this is Meridian's Area of Impact. And over this direction here. The closest facilities — this is Summerfield Subdivision here at Locust Grove and Ustick. There's a line here. What I was told from the public works department, is that line does not have the depth nor the capacity to be extended to service Mr. Caven's property. What I've been told in the past, I believe that line was extended here because it can serve as part of the Davis property which is a large parcel here, but there's a breaking line here on how much it can service. So I believe that was the intent of taking that line to that point. Mr. Caven would have to come down and this is the south slew sewer trunk. This is Chamberlain Estates here on the east side of Locust Grove. The sub -line which I think it's an eighteen inch and it's approximately eighteen feet deep here would have to be extended along the slew as you see here in brown and extended to Eagle Road and then extended up to the Caven property. To my knowledge, no easements are in place for this trunk line at this time. We calculated that particular distance, and it's approximately 6,000 linear feet of 18 inch line to take it up to this particular point here. If one were to come here and say well we'll take it up this right angle and go that direction, you only save just a few hundred linear feet. The costs for extension of that line and then we have to take water 3500 feet to this parcel here, would be approximately $400,000 based on our estimates. Just to service this 40 acre parcel. There will two bores required in Eagle Road. One of the questions that I wanted to ask if the City has provided any sleeves or crossings across the Eagle Road because we will not be allowed to cut that. That can only be bored. And I know it's going to be a seventy foot section. I think there's 120 feet of right-of-way. Those particular bores we estimate the cost to bore that Eagle Road will be $40,000 to $50,0000. The other issue that we looked at was the fact that Mr. Caven even said well, we believe it is fiscally possible to extend that sewer even if he extended it, he's not contiguous to the City limits of Meridian. So therefore, obviously as you well we could not get sewer or water service without annexation. We counted the number of parcels we'd have to go through to take the sewer out there. Depending on who would cooperate and who would not, there would be between nine and fifteen property owners. One would have to deal with. These are approximately acre lots. If we had to get easements from all of these people, the count would be about 15 parcels. If we could get this parcel here to grant us an easement for this stretch, then you'd have about nine different easements. My past Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 14 experience with acquiring the easements for the trunk line to take across Interstate 84 over by Eagle Road and Overland we had to deal I believe there were three property owners. It took us months and a considerable amount of expense on my time and then the developer ended up having to financially compensate some of those property owners in order to acquire the easements. The City's policy in the past has always been if you want the sewer, then it is your responsibility to go and acquire the easements. If it costs you money that is not reimbursable in your late comer agreements. Some of the other cities those costs are reimbursable in your late comer agreements, but not with the City of Meridian. So technically, Mr. Caven has some individuals with that many property owners that we are asking for considerable amount of money it could cost him a half a million dollars to get to that point, which just isn't cost effective to serve 40 acres. If he had a large parcel that was solely in the City of Meridian's impact boundary such as the entire 120, then that makes more sense. One of the other things that we looked at was where the growth has been over the past few years. So if one were to kind of sit and wait it out, to see if possibly other property owners would come on line and extend that sewer. This was done in 1993. As you can see, Summerfield did not exist and there are no subdivisions here. There are subdivisions in this particular area. This current assessors map that we obtained shows — says December of 1993 which is just a little shy of five years. The only eastward development has been this here and the Summerfield. So one of the things that is of most concern to Mr. Caven is what type of reasonable time would he have to wait in order to obtain city services. If they've only gone just basically this quarter mile, it could take in excess of ten years, possibly fifteen years for that sewer to get over to that area. So we are asking for the City to kind of give us a little bit of guidance on how they would feel about this issue. If they would be willing to possibly sit down to a round table discussion to consider possibly allowing this parcel to go out of the area of impact. I know one of the concerns is well, if we let this one, then who will be next? Is everybody going to run to whomever has the closest sewer. Well, the sewer facilities that we are utilizing can't go beyond Mr. Caven's property. We've proven that. The Meridian sewer based on our calculation could service this property, but we are only estimating because I don't have a topographic survey through all of these parcels. If we are going off of this invert here, and then obviously the elevation at his most northern boundary. On your existing facilities map that we received from the public works department, there is a diagonal line drawn through this parcel as you can see right here. This diagonal line through there. My questioning of the public work staff, they said well, we believe that that's because there is kind of a drain that runs in a east west direction and we can't serve north of that area based on the original JUB preliminary sewer study, so I have some concerns and some questions whether the feasibility even if the sewer were brought there, would work. Our estimates is we believe so. The City's preliminary estimates is no they don't think it would service probably the top northern one third. Corrie: Okay, council? Rountree: I welcome an opportunity to sit down and talk about it, but I'm not particularly open to just arbitrarily saying I'll allow it to go to another impact area. Particularly after Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 15 the difficulty we had in getting those lines drawn, but yeah, I don't have any problem with sitting down with our staff. I don't know about the rest of the councilmen, but I think that's something that we should do. Bird: I have no problem with it. I think it would be very good. Anderson: I'd like to sit down. Bentley: I would not be (End of Tape) - - against talking about it. I like Charlie was in on all the discussions on getting the area of impact changed, and I would right now be opposed to letting any more land go. The fact that Boise only has an eight inch sewer there, doesn't bother me in the least because I know the southwest, they need a four foot sewer and they only sent a two foot out. So we know what the plans is going to be for the southwest. They are going to run another two foot line out there. So just because they stopped at an eight inch line, doesn't' mean anything to me. Bowcutt: I understand. Could we possibly make some arrangements to how the City of Boise come and sit down on these discussions? We have discussed this with them. They are obviously sensitive to the past problems and they said we would not even consider such a change obviously without the consent of the City of Meridian. We've also explored some other ideas. If the City is extremely opposed to release of this area from the impact boundary, that would be an agreement for temporary service. I've been involved in multiple projects where Garden City limits, yet we use Boise City sewer. There is an extraordinary assessment fee charged to the property owner of the developer to utilize obviously the treatment plant outside his impact boundary or city limits. There's an agreement signed by both city entities. They share in the hookup fees. It's a pretty lengthy document. I've drafted, I think, two of them total. We've had I believe about three projects where that situation did occur. Something like that may be more palatable. It's a temporary situation. And then until such time as the sewer is extended out in the area, then they would change service to the City of Meridian, or they could stay on Boise long term. The property obviously would have to be developed under Ada County since they do have primary jurisdiction, but the plat would come before the city as secondary jurisdiction require the city's approval. It's complicated, but it has been done. Corrie: It sounds like the Council wants to — willing to sit down and discuss it with you. Do you want us to set a time tonight or later — Rountree: I guess my preference would be to have Becky go ahead and do the leg work and try — there's a lot of players — pick a couple of dates later on this month or next month, early next month where you can get sounds like four, five, six entities together. Bowcutt: Okay. I appreciate this. Thank you. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 16 ITEM NO. 11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST OF A REZONE OF .36 ACRES FROM R- 4 TO L -O BY KEITH AND CATHY THURGOOD: Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the representative of the request to come forward. 1:1���:r�Cl�1:ZeZ�Z�]�3��c�:��J��la�:l.,'��_1>•I�►�%[•Y•y►��1�7:�►�y'��1��'L:��r�7:�►1�'� Thurgood: Any questions to me first off? Rountree: I just ask Mr. Thurgood if he has read and comprehended all the terms and conditions of the findings of facts that we have from planning and zoning and if you are in general agreement with those? Thurgood: Yes, we have. Rountree: I have nothing else. Corrie: Any other council have any questions? Bird: None. Corrie: Do you wish to say any more? Thurgood: Not necessarily unless there's any questions that I need to address. Rountree: Plans still the same? Thurgood: Yeah. I guess I do have one question that I wasn't real clear on. Is there still another hearing that we attend for findings of facts after this meeting or is this the last? Corrie: Probably not if they accept the facts and (inaudible). There's no more testimony against it or anything else or cause to send it back for re-evaluation, we can work off these. Thurgood: Okay, thank you. Corrie: Is there anyone else from the public that would like enter testimony on this request? Council, questions? Staff, questions or problems with this? Mr. Bentley, do you have something to say? Bentley: Are we done? Corrie: Okay. At this point, I will close the public hearing. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 17 Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I move that the City Council City of Meridian hereby adopts and approves the findings of facts and conclusions of law as presented by Planning and Zoning. Bird: I'll second it. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley second by Mr. Bird to accept the findings of facts as approved by the Planning and Zoning. ROLL CALL VOTE: Bird, yea. Bentley, yea. Rountree, yea. Anderson, yea. MOTION CARRIED: All yea. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, the City of Meridian hereby approves the rezone of the request by the applicant for the described property in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of facts and conclusions of law, that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety codes, the uniform building code, and other ordinances of the City of Meridian, that all parking areas shall be paved. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Bird on the decision as read. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion to instruct the city attorney to prepare an annexation ordinance. Crookston: Let's do a re -zone instead of annexation. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley for ordinance of re -zone, second by Mr. Bird. The politically correct. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All aye. ITEM NO. 12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAY CARE CENTER BY JODI FIFE: Corrie: I'll open the public hearing and ask you to come forward to give us your request for a conditional use permit. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 18 JODI FIFE 324 W. STATE STREET, EAGLE, IDAHO WAS SWORN BY CITY ATTORNEY. J. Fife: Okay, I've sent Mr. Berg a letter on February 17th amending our first application for a day care center of 13 or more children, and we've changed this to a conditional use permit for a group day care for six to twelve children which is more in line with what seems to be what the neighbors would be comfortable with, and what we think would be more acceptable for the subdivision. Since the last hearing, I've had several people contact me that showed an interest in this day care, and are in favor of having a day care in Bedford Place, and I have their names here. Also another person who came earlier tonight, but he had to leave, he signed a statement saying that he is in favor of day care opening and that he wants to bring his children in. And this was submitted at the very first, these are signatures of neighbors that live in our subdivision that signed this paper saying that they were in favor. Are there any questions? Rountree: Mrs. Fife, you indicated that you reside in Eagle. Do you propose to reside at this residence? J. Fife: This is going to be our new home. Uh-huh. Rountree: Your new home, okay. Corrie: Any questions from Council? Bird: I have none. Corrie: All right, thank you. Anybody else from the public that would like to issue testimony in this case. KATRINA POMERLEAU 488 E. HAWK WAS SWORN BY CITY ATTORNEY. Pomerleau: Council members, neighbors and I have discussed this particular day care center and have understood that she has reapplied for a conditional use permit for six to twelve and we request that she reapply instead of amend that conditional use permit just as to make all parties involved happy and make sure there is nothing lost in the long run down the road. Nothing mistaken. Rountree: Is that your testimony? Pomerleau: Yes. Corrie: Is there anyone else that would like to give testimony on this request? JOHN ALVERSON 520 E. HAWK WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 19 Alverson: I'm the neighbor that lives right behind where they are building this house, and my wife and mine's biggest concern is the amount of kids that are going to be there. She works Micron — at Micron during the evening. So she tries to get her sleep during the day. With that many kids around, yelling and stuff and having a good time, I'm not against a day care. I think we need it, but the amount of kids really bothers me that she will not get the rest that she needs to go to work and stuff. Another issue we have is where the house is sitting on the lot, from my back property to the back of their house has got to be somewhere around fifteen feet. And I just don't feel there is enough safe room for those kids to be playing out there. I do have two dogs that are out there in the corner back there and the kids go out there and play. The dogs are always going to be barking, and the other neighbors are going to be upset at me because of the dogs. We are in favor of five kids or less in the thing, you know, to help us. We have talked to some of the other neighbors and they are in the same compliance as what we would like to have. She had stated that she had come around and talked to the neighbors about the deal. We were never — she never came around and talked to us before we went before planning and zoning. The permit was turned down through planning and zoning, and then we get a phone call wanting to work together on the deal. She never came to us right up front and stated what her plans were or nothing on the deal. Corrie: Any questions from the Council? Thank you very much. Anyone else would like to testify in this request? Bell: I was made aware of the day care by a posted sign on the property that was posted after the public hearing was first in January 13t". I didn't see it until after that. never did — I live less than three hundred feet from the property. I was never given any certified letters. I had to seek for all this information knowing that the day care was going in. We have three children that walk to their school buses, and my concern is the traffic that is going to be going up and down the street, and the kids, -- the employees if she is going to be having any employees, the constant cars there. And I never heard from her. I've never been asked my opinion on this by her. I understand that planning and zoning has recommended a denial. And I am not opposed to six kids or less, but over twelve, over thirteen, I do not want. Corrie: Okay. Any other question? Okay, Heather thank you very much. Anyone else from the public would like to issue testimony? KASHA LAWRENCE 889 N. FILLMORE WAY WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Lawrence: My husband and I have a day care for twelve children out of our home in Crossroads Subdivision. And we received a conditional use permit two years ago. We do have twelve children, ten of which reside in our subdivision. A lot of the children are siblings so you do not have twelve cars if you are licensed for twelve children. We have Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 20 probably about three households that have two siblings each. That will cut down on the traffic. We haven't had a problem. We have a bus stop out in front of our house. We have one down to the left and down to the right. Because we are in a year round and a traditional school. There hasn't been any problems as far as traffic, and the children walking to the bus. Children normally catch the bus between 7:00 and 8:00. Most parents don't bring their children to day care until around 8:30. As far as the gentleman that lives in back her, if your wife can sleep through five children, she'll be able to sleep through twelve, because five children will make just as much noise as twelve. I believe that Jodi had six parents call her from her subdivision requesting day care. Many of our parents that have been bringing their children to our day care from our subdivision, they walk their children to day care, so you will cut down on the traffic right there. The children are normally outside in the morning for about — we have pre-school in the morning and then they are outside after snack from about 10:30 until 11:30 when they come inside for lunch, and then after lunch they take a nap and they are outside from after nap ends at 3:30. We get all socks and shoes and coats on. Then they are outside from about 3:30 until 5:30 when the parents come, and your schedule is pretty close to mine. Jodi's been out to my day care a number of times when we were at capacity. The children are very well in control. They are very well monitored. We have a gentleman that works at Micron that lives right beside us. The children's playground backs up right to his fence. He has never had a problem getting his rest. The advantage to having a day care in your subdivision brings to the children in your subdivision far outweighs the detriments that it may cause. We are currently in a subdivision that has four other day care in our subdivision that I know about. And I found out that those day cares were there, not from seeing traffic, not from seeing children, but from hearing about them through other people. I would have never known that there were other day cares in our subdivision. Thank you. Corrie: Anyone else from the public that would like to enter testimony? LAURA COX 2811 N. ANTSTON WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Cox: I am one of the parents that called, well actually my husband did call Jodi about the day care. Right now I take my son whose seven months old to a day care in southeast Boise just because I like him close to work. It's been very inconvenient for the fact that I work sometimes later in the evening, and my husband works construction, and he's constantly out of the city limits of Boise, usually Nampa, Caldwell, and it's very difficult to go clear across Boise to pick up my son. With having him close to home, it would be a lot easier for him to pick up and share in the responsibility in taking care of our son. And also he is out of town a lot, and I depend on my aunt that also lives in Meridian to pick him up, and it is also a lot for her to go across town to pick him up. And I live on Wakely turns into North Anston and the discussion on the traffic, I drive down Wakely every day to go to work. It wouldn't be any different dropping him off at Jodi's house than it would for me to go to work. I don't understand where the concern about traffic is, because I drive through that every day at 7:15 in the morning. That's it. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 21 Corrie: Thank you, Mrs. Cox. DEAN L. FIFE 324 W. STATE, EAGLE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. D. Fife: Addressing a couple of issues that were brought up on the area for play. I think I submitted a plot map showing the play area on the day care. The house was moved to one side, and there is 2500 square feet of play area on that lot for those children to play, and it's off to the side of the house, so there is plenty of area there. The issue of sleeping is no more important to anybody else than me, because I also have a job starting at Micron here in about ten days, so I know what that's like. But really don't feel that the noise from the day care is going to be a problem. I was at the lot the other day and there were six, seven teenagers riding their bicycles along the vacant lot along Mr. Alverson's property on the dirt that was pile on the lot next to ours where we are building, and these young gentlemen were riding their bicycles and having a good time up and down those hills, and I really believe that the day care that we will have, most children will be under six years of age. That's the age that Jodi and Jennifer Bell will be watching, and I don't believe that most of you that raise children, that age child makes more noise than teenagers on bicycles, so I think if anything the noise may actually drop down. And also in the subdivision the young lady that testified that has a day care of twelve, she's been contacted by people who are looking to buy property in that subdivision so that they can have their children in the day care. So some people who have brought up in past testimony that it decreases property value, well I don't believe that that's true. I don't believe that our house there decreases the property value of the subdivision. That has been brought up. It's a 2500 square home, plus a 900 square foot garage. The day care has 915 square feet dedicated to day care. That's twice the square footage per child that the state requires, so we are meeting all kinds of requirements there. The house has been extremely well insulated. Every wall in the house has been insulated to help keep noise at a minimum. My wife is an ex -Idaho school teacher, and very well at handling children and controlling them and keeping the noise level down, and she is aware of the fact that outside is important that they be controlled and be trained properly. She's excellent at that as my five children and my five grandchildren attest to. I think that's all that I wanted to bring up. Is there any questions that I can answer by the Council? Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else to testify from the public? I was going to give you a last crack at anything that you wanted to say and you've taken it already so that's fine. J. Fife: The child care connections I contacted here to see what kind of a — you know, if there was a need in the Meridian area for day care facility, and she sent a letter out. I don't know if all of you were able to see this or not, but she said — I'll just read this one paragraph, it will be easier. "Jodi Fife recently called for information regarding the number of parents needing child care in the City of Meridian who have contacted our agency for referrals in the past several months. According to our records, 58 Meridian area residents have called our agencies for referrals since October of 1997. Of those 48 families were needing child care near their homes, and 16 were willing to look for Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 22 care near their homes or near a Meridian school, and 55 are looking for a home based child care programs." Out of the 58, 55 were requesting more of an in-home rather than a institutional type. And I'll let you see that. Corrie: We have it. J. Fife: I think there is a need for this service, and Mr. Alverson's statement at the first hearing said, "I don't' have a problem with a day care, only the amount of children. The size of the day care is what really has us bothered." I don't know what the benefit would be of resubmitting because we've met all the criteria to this point, and so I don't see a benefit in doing that. Even though we were declined by the planning and zoning commission, they did so I felt kind of reluctantly. Mr. Nelson said, "It's my personal preference to recommend day cares in neighborhoods. And it looks like the day care in question has a good schedule." And why this was a denial, he thinks maybe it was denied just out of the total number of children that we're going to have there. Is that the main problem? And Mr. Borup said, "For me it is." So seems to be just the size that we first asked for. Mr. Nelson says that because that's only real issue I saw, I wouldn't mind at all having a day care next to my home. And Mr. Borup said, "My initial inclination was to approve it. I think that's something necessary in a residential neighborhood, but I think the concern with most of those who testified was number of children, and my inclination still could probably be towards approval." So they wanted to approve it that night, but then they asked do we have that option of approving it with a maximum of twelve and then the attorney said no, we can't do that because it would be overriding what she had submitted for, and then he told me that I should make a letter of amendment, that it had to be me that amended that. So, I feel that they would have approved it that night had we asked for a smaller number of children, and I really see no benefit in resubmitting all of the same paperwork over again, and taking up the council's time with that. I did contact Mr. Alverson, actually I spoke with his wife, apologized to her for not contacting her earlier which I had apologized before. That was an oversight on my part. Being new at this I didn't realize I went within three hundred feet in my subdivision, but I didn't think about the subdivision behind me. It seems idiotic. I don't' know. I'm used to working with little children. Da da goo goo, you know. So I did call his wife, and we are very sorry how close came to their fence line is the size of the lot and the way it is situated and couldn't be helped. But we did move our home to one side leaving room at the side for the yard rather than at the back. Their concern is the back. I did some calling and researching around with local nurseries, asking them what they thought that we could do to make some kind of barrier between us, because it does kind of interfere with the privacy. And the best information I got was that we should plant — I'm looking for the word — ardivita trees. And this has been successfully done in a couple of day cares in Boise. These trees, they grow to about 15 or 20 feet in height, and they say approximately three or four feet in diameter. They can be planted to within one foot of the fence, and they don't overgrow into the fence, but they do fill in, and it would make a total barrier there which would help with the sound, and it would make a nice visual barrier too so they wouldn't be looking into our yard all the time. They would just see the trees, and I think that would help, and we are perfectly willing to do that at Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 23 our expense. I also told her my schedule which I've made up was just tentative. I am willing to work with her on that. If she has certain hours that she sleeps until this time, I'm happy to have the children until after she's had her rest. I'll sit down with her and work out this schedule, and also we have rules. There is no yelling and screaming in the playground. If they make that kind of noise, they have to go inside. They can just play reasonably but no loud. And the oldest children that we want to have in our pre- school is four. When they reach the age of five, then we no longer will be taking them. Just because our personal preference is the younger children, and we are planning to do a pre-school as well as a day care, so a lot of their time will be devoted to learning activities and I turned in a schedule. Did you see my schedule? Do you all have it? Would you like me to just pass that down? So it does show that we have our time of well mapped out and scheduled and the children are not just free to run in and out , in and out and do whatever they wish. It's more of a school situation. So — and I am happy to work with my neighbors and I told her on the phone that I really don't want anyone to be unhappy with me. We want to be good neighbors. We want them to enjoy living in their home as well. We realize they have dogs, and she also needs to realize that I have grandchildren. I have five grandchildren. Even if I don't do a day care, it will seem like I am because they come over all the time, and that's one reason why we built such a big house, because our family has had a baby boom lately, and I want to be able to have them over all the time. And so that's kind of people we are. We just love children, and we want to have them around. I'm sorry if that inconveniences them, but we are willing to work with them in any way that we can. Are there any other questions? Bentley: So you are willing to cut it back to how many children now? J. Fife: Our new submittal was up to twelve. That's the — that's called the in-home group day care. Bentley: Also, you heard Mr. Alverson talk about his two dogs, and the fact that they probably would be barking. What's your response going to be if his barking dogs wakes up your sleeping kids? J. Fife: Mr. Alverson is going to find out that I am really an easy person to live with. don't like anybody to be unhappy with me, and I don't get unhappy with other people. That's just the kind of person I am. So he's not going to find me over there yelling at him about his dogs. I have a little dog too that will probably yap. I mean that's part of community life, and I think if Mr. Alverson really wanted a place, she mentioned to me when they bought their home, that whole subdivision was vacant, and that their house was the last one on the road. But they didn't have foresight enough to see that that was going to be filled up with houses. It's a subdivision, you know. And if they wanted total privacy, they should have bought a piece that was more out in the country. A bigger piece, or maybe a piece that's more in with retired people, or something — but he's not going to hear from me about his dogs. I like dogs. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 24 Bentley: Has everybody in the surrounding areas, have they seen your work schedule, the schedule you just passed out to us? J. Fife: No, I haven't given it to the parents you mean. Bentley: No, to the people within three hundred feet. Did you submit this as part of your testimony at P & Z? J. Fife: It was turned in, yeah. They have access to everything I've turned in. Yeah, Mrs. Alverson said that she had seen that, so she did get that. Bentley: Okay, thank you. Corrie: Counselor, on this request that — second request — can we do it this way or is it going to require to go back to planning and zoning or can we do what we want? Crookston: That's totally up to the council, but we have previously allowed applicants for day cares for other uses to change their application so long as it is a lesser use than they applied for. So it's totally up to the council. Corrie: And my next question about the testimony (inaudible) Crookston: I was not at the initial planning and zoning hearing so I can't tell about that. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I have a question for counsel. We had someone speak tonight that they are within the three hundred radius but were never notified, and the applicant stated that she didn't realize it was three hundred feet outside of that. Isn't that a legality issue that's got to be addressed? Crookston: It certainly is because then the people within three hundred feet of the proposed use may not have been notified so that is definitely a real legal problem, because not all the appropriate people were notified of the application then. Bentley: So what would be the proper remedy for that? To reapply? Crookston: Well, that would be appropriate because the people that should have been notified did not have an opportunity to attend the planning and zoning meeting or this one so that would be very appropriate. Corrie: I have a question, was you the one that made that statement? What is your address? Bell: 433 E. Wakely. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, just a point of clarification. Is the hearing still open? Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 25 Corrie: Yes, it is. We are checking to see on the list here who — Berg: What I'm looking at here is the list of where we sent the certified mailings. The little discrepancy is other people can own the property, and we send it to their mailing address, not necessarily to the property itself. So I don't have her or her address listed, but that didn't mean that — Bell: I am the property owner. (Inaudible) Berg: Okay, that might be another thing — Shari do you know how fast those things are updated? Corrie: Shari, are you going to be very much longer? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I'm not sure if the list was provided by the city or by the applicant. The City's just started providing those lists in the last few months. I don't see the actual list in this application. This is Fife. (Inaudible) Stiles: The list appears to have been provided by the City. This is taken directly from the Ada County Records that we get in our — from our GIS system. They are usually about a month behind when we get the information, but this is the same information that anyone would get if they went down to the county so that is the information that we have to rely on when we send out these notices. Corrie: Is that address within the three hundred foot limit? Stiles: Oh, I'm sure it would be, yes. Corrie: It looks like it was within the limits, but it wasn't notified. So — Mr. Bentley? Bentley: Are you going to close the public hearing? Corrie: I will if you are ready to — okay, at this point, I'll close the public hearing. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, since there has been some substantial changes in the current findings of facts and in the reduction in the amount of children, and the legal issue on whether everybody was properly notified, I am going to make a motion that we remand this back to P & Z to give the applicant the proper time to make sure that everyone is properly notified within the three hundred feet, and then they can address the new changes. Bird: I'll second that. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 26 Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley and second by Mr. Bird to remand the hearing back to the Planning and Zoning for hearing. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All aye. Corrie: It goes back to Planning and Zoning with the request for the less and make sure we got everybody within that three hundred foot. We made sure that the City gets the right people this time. (Inaudible — off the microphone) Corrie: It still has to be presented to them by mail. It's a state law. It's not our makings. (Inaudible — off the microphone) Corrie: They are still entitled to the three hundred feet. Whoever owns that property. (Inaudible — off the microphone) Corrie: Charlie, you know more about the Planning and Zoning, what they do than was never on the Planning and Zoning. How does that work? Rountree: Well, the notifications have to be resubmitted. I don't know in terms of bearing the cost, if that's the applicant or the city does it the second time. Shari ought to be able to answer that, but I can't — Corrie: Shari, do you know who bears the cost in the second go around. Stiles: Well, I guess it depends on whether it's notice or whether it's a significant changes that are why you are sending it back to P & Z. If it's the significant change that you are remanding back to P & Z. Corrie: No, we are going back to P & Z because not everybody in the three hundred area did not get the letter. Stiles: Well, I don't believe that was the motion that was made by Glenn. Corrie: It was the motion made by him. Stiles: Was it because you also said significant changes in the application? Bentley: The changes and the legal issue. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 27 Rountree: I guess I'd say this, if it's an error on our part, we'll bear the expense. If it's not, then — if sufficient information was provided to the city for the mailings, then the applicant would be the — Corrie: Yeah, but we didn't give you the right area I would assume it's our responsibility. Shari, you better check it to make sure that we didn't give them the whole picture that we needed to check it out. Stiles: I would like to know who the previous owner of the property was. Bell: Scott Reece. Stiles: Scott — how do you spell that? (Inaudible — off the microphone) Rountree: I guess in the interim one aspect of day care is that if you wanted to start with five or less, there is no permit required. I assume you are aware of that. Crookston: There is a permit required. It's just an accessory use. Rountree: You don't go through the hearing process. It's an accessory use. Stiles: I guess I would need to verify from Ada County when this record was posted. Scott Reece does appear as being notified on the list. Corrie: Okay, in the meantime would you check on that and get with these folks and make sure we got that squared off before they go. (Inaudible — off the microphone) Corrie: If who was notified? J. Fife: The owner of the property at that time. Doesn't that cover the — Corrie: Who was the owner of the property at that time? J. Fife: Mr. Reece, and he was notified. It's not really our fault the property sold in the meantime, you see. It shows he was notified. Corrie: Was Mr. Reece, the owner of the property notified? He was notified. (Inaudible) The owner of the property at the time of the application was — Stiles: I would need to verify when Ada County posted that warranty deed. It could very well be that it wasn't posted yet as particularly at year end, we would have had the new Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 28 information. I believe the Fifes submitted the application in December, and it probably would not have been posted by Ada County at that time. If it just occurred in November. (End of Tape) Crookston: -- I believe that it would, yes. And when they purchased it, the previous owner should have notified whoever bought their property. Because all we can be bound by is the owner of record at the time that we gave them the notice. Corrie: So does the council wish to keep the motion active or do you want to — Bird: We can enact upon it tonight then? We haven't done — it's nothing — everything is clean? Corrie: If everything is clean, you can act upon it tonight if you want. We have to have another motion to bring it back to the floor. Bird: Do we have to withdraw the other one, Mayor. Corrie: You would yes. I would — it would depend upon the two people that made the motion and second. Bird: I withdraw my second. Bentley: I withdraw the motion. Corrie: Okay, the motion's been withdrawn. Discussion? Rountree: The findings of facts we have before us are for the original application. The original application was for up to 24 children. The recommendation to the City Council by Planning and Zoning after the hearing was to deny this request. That's what we have officially before us. We have a letter of amendment from the applicant, indicating that they would like to amend it to handle a permit for group day care for six to twelve children. There was an issue of notification. In the past that's been a pretty significant issue. We have remanded things back to hearing because of that issue. Apparently it's not an issue here according to the Council. If we have an address on record of the official property owner at the time, at least by county records, that address was notified, then that's not an issue. Crookston: That would be correct. Rountree: The other issue is the findings that we have for the conditional use are very specific to the testimony that was given, very specific to the number in the application, and I don't think that it would be readily amended this evening. At a minimum if we took action on this to approve it, the findings of facts would have to be amended and then consideration for approval. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 29 Crookston: You have two options. You can have new findings drawn or you could approve the findings that were proposed. It's not up to me to decide which way you go. But those are the two options that you do have. Rountree: The findings as proposed is a denial, and my inclination would be to go forth with the recommendation of Planning and Zoning on that. I don't have major difficulties with the group day care in this instance, but I don't see that the findings address that. At a minimum we would have to have new findings. Corrie: Any further discussion? Rountree: I guess my question again would be for counsel that we have had the precedence of accepting amendments to these and other conditional uses when the actual request is less than what was originally proposed. Crookston: That's correct. Rountree: Knowing that I would make a motion that we have new Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law prepared based upon the testimony received this evening. Bentley: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree and second by Mr. Bentley that new Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law of the public hearing be addressed. Any further discussion? Not being address, but drawn up. Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All aye. Corrie: The new Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law will be brought up March 17th Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I move we take a five minute break. Bird: Second. Crookston: Mr. Mayor, before we adjourn, I have to step down on this next thing, because I am a property owner within 300 feet of this development so I would like to step down. And I'd like to have John Prior step in. I got the letter. (FIVE MINUTES RECESS) Corrie: I'll reconvene the council from the their break. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 30 ITEM NO. 13: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT — NW CHERRY LANCE VILLAGE NO. 1 BY: STEINER DEVELOPMENT: Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite Mr. Bradbury. STEVE BRADBURY 877 MAIN STREET, BOISE WAS SWORN BY CITY ATTORNEY. Bradbury: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, my name is Steve Bradbury. I've been asked to present the application on behalf of Steiner Development. What you have before you is an application for planned unit development and preliminary plat , you should all have a book that looks like this. And what I'll do in my presentation is kind of leaf through it and tell you what's back there and then we'll get an opportunity to talk about each of the difference parts of the book. The site is an eight and a half acre parcel of property that's east of Black Cat Road between Ustick and Cherry Lane, and if you want to get a feel for the location, if you look behind tab four, three, four pages in you'll find a location map here. Like that. And the piece we are talking about is this irregular shaped piece which is on the southerly end of that map. Maybe I can show you a bigger board that will help as well. We got the Lake at Cherry Lane 5, 6 & 7 over here. Ashford Greens, and then we've got Golf View over here, and the piece we are talking about is right here. As a matter of fact, it's the piece where the golf course club house is. The current one. This piece of property was originally brought to the Council by the developer of the Ashford Greens Subdivision, Brighton Corporation and was part of the previously approved Ashford Greens planned unit development. The Brighton Corporation however failed to exercise their option on this particular piece of property, and my client, Steiner Development, picked it up. In the book, in case you are interested, behind tab five is a copy of the findings of facts and conclusions of law that were adopted by the Council back in September 1994 that dealt with the overall concept approval for the Ashford Greens Subdivision, and what they did or what the members of the Council at that time did, was with respect to this piece of property, gave it concept approval for what was described as medium density development, and that was further described as being for up to eight units per acre. Steiner Development having acquired the property is submitting this application for that purpose in order to — let me back up. The Council required that a more particular site plan be submitted for approval by the City, and this application is that more particular site plan. Back to the book for a second. Behind tab one, you will find a summary letter of the application. So if you hadn't had an opportunity to read that, you can read through that at your leisure. Behind tab two, you will find some general project information, just sort of outlines in summary form what the project is all about, and I will go through that a little bit. I already told you that it's on eight and a half acres. The property is presently zoned R-4, but the application seeks approval for 46 total single family units. Now 37 of them would be single detached. Three of them would be two unit attached structures, so there's three two units or you might call them two unit townhouses. They are described as duplexes but that's not really true because these will on separate ownerships and each of the unit will be on separate lots. And then there's one three unit townhouse Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 31 proposed for a total of 46 dwelling units. Now that comes up to a overall density of about 5.6 units per acre which is substantially less than the eight units per acre which was conceptually approved back in 1994. The lot sizes, now you need take your pencil or pen out and fix an error because it's not right, and I will tell you how that happened. The lot sizes range from 3909 square feet up to 8413 square feet. And the reason for that change and one of the reason is that some adjustments were made down in this part of the plat. This is where the temporary sewer easement exists here. It's a twenty foot wide sewer easement, and when the application was originally submitted, the lot calculations included the land within the sewer easement area. The proposal now is to take that out of these lots and make it a separate common lot which would be owned and maintained by the homeowners association to be formed. The other thing that happened is this street here got moved up a little bit. We've kind of rearranged this area in here so that we could make this — take this twenty feet out of those lots and still have reasonable size lots. So those numbers that are shown there are not right. The ones I've given you are what the engineer calculated earlier this week. The size of the homes are a minimum of 1304 square feet up to 1785 square feet and actually behind tab eight, is a list of the numbers of units for each of those sizes. In other words a size distribution list. And what you will see is that more than half of the units proposed would be in the 1700 or above range, actually it's 1699 square feet. We probably should find another foot so we can call it 1700, but 1699 and 1785, there'd be 25 of those, so something more than half. And the remainder of them as you see are pretty equally distributed between the other sizes. The roadway system in the project is proposed as a private road which would be gated at the entry. It would be on 42 feet of right-of-way. 37 feet of that would be improved. It would include a five foot wide sidewalk on one side, which is similar to what was approved in Lake at Cherry Lane No. 6. Back to the homes, be 7 different plans made available in there, and some of those would have two elevation choices and if you are interested in looking at the plans and the elevations, you can find those behind tab six. They are all single story. They are all two car garage. They each have either two or three bedrooms and two baths. Each space would be provided by, of course, a private driveway. The driveway would have space for a least two cars, so each unit would have a total parking availability of four cars. There are four color choices being offered in either stucco or a siding, and there's a brick accent on some of the units. If you are interested in looking at those, you can find the materials and color charts behind tab eight as well. Some of the amenities of the project you can find a list on the second page behind tab two. This is what my physics instructor used to call a spaz test to find out whether or not you can follow all the tabs and you are not a spaz, I guess. That was back in high school, and I've always remembered that for some reason. I don't why, maybe it was because I was a spaz. Maybe I still am, I don't know. Well now that Councilman Morrow isn't here, he doesn't beat up on me over my college allegiance. At least I have a — Bentley: Another Idaho joke. Bradbury: That's right. We got somebody's who is going to pick up the baton here. Anyway, behind tab two I talked about the gated security entrance, and you can find a Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 32 detail of that behind tab four. Third page in, behind tab 4, and it looks similar to this drawing here. The proposal here is to provide a gated security entrance in front of the subdivision and so the — in order to keep the traffic circulation down to a minimum. The other nice feature about this is the concept is to provide a pedestrian and cart path in through the subdivision over the top of the sewer easement and out on to the canal right of way and up all the way along the perimeter of the subdivision and then it would come back out up at the golf course. And that would give the people who want to walk to the golf course who live in the neighborhood or even theoretically those people who own golf carts and wanted to drive their golf carts up the golf course, would have a route to get up there. And as you can see, you can see the detail of how all that works there. This by the way as I said, this sewer easement would be a common area lot as would the lot where the golf cart path would go. All to be owned and maintained by the homeowners association to be formed. Behind tab three are application materials if you are interested in those. Behind tab four is a copy of the layout of the subdivision. You've probably got a blue line there in front of you so it will be a little bit easier to read than that one. It gives you an eight and a half by eleven of it. And then the details for the cart path and the details for the gated area, and then the location map. Also behind tab five behind the green sheet is a copy of the findings of facts and conclusions of law which the planning and zoning commission adopted when they looked at this project about a month ago. And I assume you know, but in case you don't, the planning and zoning commission recommended approval of the project as presented. Now because this is a planned unit development, the developer is asking for certain exceptions under the provisions of the planned unit development portion of your zoning ordinance, and I'll go through each one of those exceptions so that we can talk about them. One of the exceptions is to have the setbacks reduced. Or some of the setbacks reduced. The typical front yard setback in a residential subdivision would be twenty feet. They are asking for reduction of the setback to fifteen feet. Similarly the street side yard setbacks, that would be on the corner lots like here. That's typically a twenty foot setback required, and again the developer is asking for a reduction to fifteen feet. And that's just exactly like what the Council approved in the Lake at Cherry Lane No. 6. Now there's also a reduction being requested for these lots, lots one through four for a ten foot rear yard setback as opposed to the required fifteen I believe it is. And what you need to understand however even though there will only be ten of lot, there will actually be thirty five feet of separation from the lots, which are to the south because you will have the ten foot of setback in the lot and you will have twenty feet of that sewer easement area which would be a common lot and have that path on it. In addition the lots sizes are the typical R-4 lot sizes, 8,000 square feet, and they are asking for an exception down to the lot sizes that are shown on the plat. As I said the minimum size about 3900 square feet. The largest is over 8,000 square feet, but it comes out to an average of somewhere around 5700 square feet, and I don't have the exact number for the average, but it is in that 5700 square foot range. Also the typical frontage requirement on an R-4 lot is 80 feet. That is frontage on the street. 80 feet. In this particular application the request is that number be reduced down to fifty feet because these are essentially fifty foot lots. I say that and then I'm going to say yeah, but there's also some of the flag lots and the corner lots which are something less than that. So Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 33 probably the simplest way unless you want me to read a list all the frontages is to simply say a request to reduce the frontages are shown on the plat. I guess I talked about the private street, but technically that would also be a requested exception from the typical ordinance requirements. This one as I said 42 foot of right-of-way with a five foot sidewalk on one side. The house sizes in here, I told you about the range from 1300 up to over 1700 square feet. The typical R-4 requirement is 1400 square, so for those ten or twelve that would be less than that number would need exceptions for that. I think that's all the exceptions that we are asking for under the planned unit development provisions. Now as an off set to that, I guess, if you want to look at it that way is that the developer owns about a third of an acre which is on the opposite side of the eight mile lateral from this subdivision which is over on the golf course side. And the developer is offering to donate that third of an acre to the city. In other words, convey it free of charge and the deed would be conveyed to the city at the time that the final pat is recorded. And that would be used, of course, for the city's golf course property. I can show you where that piece is. It's right here. There's a piece that's — well, it's relatively triangular in shape right here and so a lot would be — a separate lot would be created on the — let's get my bearings here — on the east side of the canal. And that would be conveyed to the city. This piece. The intent of the project, of course, is to continue to try to provide a variety of housing types and housing choices in the vicinity. Like what Steiner Development has started to do up at the Lake at Cherry Lane. As you probably recall up there, there are a number of different sizes of lots, and sizes of homes and types of housing arrangements. There's the typical 8000 square foot R-4 lots. There's some 6500 square foot R-8 lots. There's some — I can't remember the lot sizes, but other lot sizes that are in number six which — and there's a mix of houses in there, but that's a seniors living area, and then in number seven, are a series of townhouse developments duplex type — I say duplex and that is really not right because they are all separate lots with separate ownerships, but townhouse type developments on smaller lots there as well. Our feeling is that this type of project is not only in line with what the City Council conceptually approved back in 1994 for Ashford Greens, but it's also compatible with the overall scheme for this mile section, and we tried to put together a view and unfortunately we don't have those on there, but I give you an idea of the different sizes and different types of lots and housing that is provided in the area. You've got, like I said, this is the Lake at Cherry Lane area up here, and then you got the Cherry Lane Village area down in here, the Golf View and Ashford Greens, and as you can see, we have marked and some of these reds are areas where there are existing townhouse and duplex type living. That would also be true in this location here. And you don't have it yet, but an application is just about to be filed for the piece of property up here, the Wilkens' property, and the same basic kind of concept will be pursued for this property as was pursued for the Lake at Cherry Lane, and that is having a variety of housing types and a variety of lot sizes. The whole mile section is I think conceptualized as being a place where there can be a variety of sizes and different housing opportunities, and we think it's consistent with what's been proven in the past, and consistent with what is likely to be submitted to you folks in the not too distance Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 34 future. That's all of the prepared presentation that I have, and I'd be pleased to respond to any questions that you might have. Corrie: Council, questions? Anderson: On the security gate, would that be something, how would the emergency get through that security gate, is it keyed, is it activated by siren? Bradbury: I don't know the detail on that. I know that the security gate systems that have been used around the valley have had — there's been a system for emergency access. I don't know. Do you know how that works? Is it strobe he says. Doug Campbell representative of Steiner Development says that he envisions it being activated by a strobe. Unfortunately I'm just lawyer. I don't know the technicalities of those things. Anderson: That would be something that would probably need to be coordinated with the police and fire, not all those vehicles are equipped with strobes. And it would be up to them to figure which system would work best. Bradbury: Sure, we are more than willing to work with the fire department. I've had really good success with those folks in the past and making sure that they are comfortable with what's been approved or have been applied for. If you wanted to make it a conditional of approval, that certainly wouldn't be a problem for us. Anderson: And then the road, is it Interlachen that goes through there? Bradbury: I call it Interlachen. Anderson: Is there a reason why that doesn't go on through and tie into the other street? Bradbury: Well, yeah, as a matter of fact there is. I brought with me a traffic impact report that I will pass out to you if you'd like. The Ada County Highway District, when they looked at this thing, they thought that the road ought to go through as well, and the reason that we're not showing it that way is we are concerned that it's going to create too much cut through traffic. I mean there is going to be traffic trying to access to the golf course, back and forth, and there would be traffic coming from the Ashford Greens Subdivision. They'd be heading down through this — down this street in order to get to the Albertsons down there on the corner. And so — like I said, the Highway District originally thought that it ought to go through as well, and I think that you may even have a transmittal from them saying that that's what they'd to see. We submitted a request for the Highway District Commission to take another look at this thing and go before them next week, and part of what was submitted to them was a traffic impact study and report that was done by Phil and Gary Funkhauser from Earth Tech. — and let me pass out copies of that. And we can go through the report and talk about how he got there. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 35 But what I'd suggest you just do is go to the last page, and there is a chart. And it shows what the existing traffic is, and what the projected traffic would be both with and without the connection. And what you have is on Interlachen, and you can pick any one. Let's just go to the bottom line because that's the one where the most traffic is. North of Cherry on Interlachen the existing traffic that was counted by Earth Tech. Is 771 vehicles per day, and the traffic which would be produced by this site at that location is 285 trips per day. Now that gets you up to — well, we are over a thousand vehicles right about there. If you added, if you connected the street through, what you do is you add about 300 trips per day for the golf course according to the experts and you add about 400 trips per day for Ashford Greens. Both of these would be cutting through and then about 30 trips per day from Cherry Lane Village. So what you end up with is you end up with over 700 additional trips per day with the connection that you wouldn't have without it. Now our feeling is that not only would the residents in this proposed subdivision be unhappy with those 700 additional trips per day, but we also felt like the people that live on Interlachen now would likely be unhappy with having those 700 additional trips per day. So the proposal that we've made is not to put it through in order to keep that cut through traffic from taking that route. According to the preliminary contact we've had with the Highway District staff, they tend to agree. That goes to the commission as I said next week, but staff indicated to Mr. Funkhauser earlier today who passed it on to me that they tend to agree. They are not sure they want to have that connected there after all because of the increased amount of traffic. Anderson: And they would already have the 297 trips now that people are going to the club house now, so those people are already experiencing part of that, and they are going to get relief when the club house is moved to the new location. Bradbury: Yeah, I guess that would be true. That's correct. I guess that's how people get there today. You are going to find out that I don't golf. Inaudible Bradbury: I'm sorry? (Inaudible) That's right. Now one of the things that Mr. Funkhauser pointed out is that by connecting it through, what you end up with is what the traffic people call a continuous collector. There would a continuous collector from Black Cat down to Cherry Lane, and that's something that the Highway District typically tries to avoid. Because of the fact that it then becomes a route for people to use to cut through in order to avoid intersections and having to go around and so the — apparently the present day thinking is to have collector streets that go into the mile section but don't connect directly on to other collector street going on through and they want to have these discontinuous collectors. Mr. Funkhauser says that if you were to connect it in, it would function as a continuous collector, but it isn't designed to actually properly act as such. You know if you are asking for a prediction, I think the Highway District is going to agree that it shouldn't be connected. Anderson: Is it a 47 foot wide road? Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 36 Bradbury: It's a 42 foot wide right-of-way with 37 feet improved. Anderson: What's your turning radius in that cul-de-sac down there at the end of Interlachen then? Bradbury: I don't know, but Mr. Campbell says that he thinks it's 80 feet. Yeah, I wonder if it doesn't show that on the blue line. I don't have that. Inaudible Anderson: Is that back at the sidewalk or the curb? Bradbury: Let's see. I think that's going to be the right-of-way all the way back, so that's going to be back to the back of sidewalk. That actually, yeah, it's going to take it right to the property line. Corrie: Anybody else have comments? I have three. Did you say the frontage on the lots were fifty feet? Bradbury: Fifty, right. Corrie: Fifty feet by what? Bradbury: Well, there's a whole bunch of numbers, and that's kind of the problem. Each one of these lots is a little bit different size. For example, if you looked at lot — let's just take the string 7,8,9 and 10. Because they are square and they are easy to work with. Lot 7 is 59 foot of frontage. Lot 8 is 57. Lot 9 is 55. Lot 10 is 51. And you go over to — if you want to get into these numbers over here, you've got on 42 through 45, they range from 60 feet, 65 feet, 65 feet and another 60. There's a whole bunch of different numbers and different sizes. Now there are also smaller ones. For example, let's look at this triplex, I say triplex, I'm using the wrong terminology too. This three unit — the three unit townhouse development there, those are all smaller lots, but it's going to be one building, and they are all going to take access off that same spot. If you added up the numbers on the frontage for — if you took each one of those frontages separately, they are small, but add them up together and you are going to end up somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 or 35 feet of frontage on that one. So it makes it really hard for me to say that we are asking for a fifty foot frontage. I guess on average that's about what we are ending up with. But each one of the lots is going to have a slightly different amount of frontage. And that's why when I talk about asking for the exception, I'm talking about the exception to allow frontages essentially as shown on the plat, and of course as you go from preliminary to final, you find that there is little adjustments here and there, but essentially that's what we are talking about. Anderson: Does the parking still work out two cars on these smaller lots? Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 37 Bradbury: Yeah, each one of them would have a minimum of 18 feet between the garage and the lot line. So that you would be able to get a car up two cars side by side up on to the driveway. Corrie: The other one is who is James G. Marshall? I got a letter to the Meridian City Manager. Dear James G. Marshall. Bradbury: Beats me. Did I write that letter? Corrie: No, it was from Louis Steiner, but I was just curious if we've gone to the city manager form of government and Mr. Marshall is here. I didn't Bradbury: I don't know. I don't remember having seen the letter. Who wrote that? Corrie: Mr. Louis Steiner. Bradbury: We will be sure to give him a call. Corrie: I think he was talking about Boise, but they don't have a city manager either. Bradbury: They don't have a city manager either. Corrie: My other question is has Steiner ever since Interlachen is the only way in to that, have they thought about the entrance of Interlachen to do anything in the entrance at all? Bradbury: Down at Cherry Lane? The topic of conversation hasn't come up in front of me, but I'd be more than happy to raise it with them. Corrie: That's all that I have at this time. Bird: I have one. What the difference between a triplex and townhouses? Bradbury: Well, the difference is — my definition. Bird: I have a definition too, that's why I want you to — Bradbury: Yeah, because I'm the one who's been yammering about it. My definition is the difference between a townhouse and a triplex is who owns it. A triplex or a duplex, it's on one lot. One building on one lot. Two units owned by the same person, and generally you live in one and rent one out. In a townhouse, on the other hand, it's really like a zero lot line with a common wall. It's one building with three separately owned units with common walls on three separately owned lots. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 38 Bird: That's what I'm saying and in your five, six and seven the three people that own it are nice, if they are not, you have a fight. There is no way you are going to get a car in any one of those. Bradbury: Yeah, I understand the problem. Let me show you something that maybe will help you. Bird: Then your lot sizes are going way down too on that. Bradbury: We brought — in case this issue came up, let me pass this out. What's coming down towards you there is a kind of a concept drawing of how access on to that particular lot you are talking about might be handled. And what we would do is we would create a common driveway at the entrance at the frontage of those lots, and the way we'd handle that is we would include in the restrictive convenants and in the deeds that would be supplied to these people a provision for a cross access so that it would be — each owner would have a legal right the entirety of the common driveway as it enters those three lots. And we've done a number of times, and have had reasonably good success with it. Bird: In putting those three parking spaces that we got back here, right? Bradbury: Right. That's right. Bird: (Inaudible) Bradbury: Did I have the same definition as you? Bird: Yes. Bradbury: That worked out then. Corrie: Any more questions? Mr. Rountree? Rountree: List of amenities, you don't list the potential disamenities that might be associated with this. You talk about pedestrian ways to the club house, but I see no provisions for vehicular bridge across the lateral or drain so that's really not an amenity. You don't discuss the potential options for golf course out buildings that might be built in conjunction with the club house that might border these lots. That's not an amenity. In your list of exceptions, you don't talk about tiling ditches, variances would be in order. You don't talk about the potential buffering of adjacent subdivisions, ei. Probably Golf View and to a lesser degree and probably not at all Cherry Lane Sub. 2. You block out pedestrian access to the golf course from that part of the city. You have a pedestrian gate on the pedestrian way, so folks that now access the golf course that live in the front of that subdivision would have to go through the subdivision almost to your Lakes Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 39 Subdivision that's being developed now back across to the golf course or out to Black Cat and around. I don't see any provisions for those folks. Campbell: Are you talking about driving or are you talking about walking? Rountree: You can't even walk according to your plan. You have a pedestrian gate. Prior: If he's going to testify, he is going to have to be sworn in. Campbell: What gate are you looking at? Rountree: I have the page 3 after tab 4, the one you referred to as the gate that shows a five foot pedestrian gate on the five foot sidewalk. I guess that's just one side where you are going to drop the sidewalk. The cart path it does show, but it's — I don't know what you are going to do. Are you going to gate that like the other side? Bradbury: No, I mean the intention is to provide an access — if there's a problem with the detail, maybe I'm not reading it right, but the way I understand it is this is the path that takes you up to the golf course. Rountree: Well, you actually show a gate on the other side. Bradbury: A gate over here. Rountree: My question is why a gate there and not on the other side when we see this in final form, you are going to say well we want to gate the entire community and we are going to gate people out on the cart path and pedestrian way. Bradbury: No, the intention — and if the drawings are creating a problem, then we will fix those. The intention is to provide a route through — along the subdivision so that people who live in the area can access the golf course. And if the gating scheme concerns you, let us know. Rountree: It has to be accessible to the rest of the community. Bradbury: Sure. We don't have a problem. The theory here is not cut it off. The theory here is to provide it. And if the — like I say, if the drawings are a problem or if there is a — if you've got a gating scheme that you like better than this one, by all means just say so. Rountree: My last question or comment is that one of the requirements of approval of the PUD is that they have an open space requirement and I don't see any open space other than space that's going to be there by way of an easement that exists anyway. You're asking the city to make exceptions for lot setbacks to accommodate an Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 40 easement that's already there so you can build a house on, but I don't see anything in the subdivision that reflects that need for open space. Bradbury: Actually the engineer calculated, and maybe if I'm — the area that would be included as open and common area is the area that this pedestrian pathway is included: and that's calculated out to be just over 8/10 of an acre. In addition, and the reason I told you about the provision of the third of an acre that would be donated to the city, I mean that includes another 15000 square feet or there about. If you take into account all of that space, it far exceeds the ten percent requirement in the ordinance. Now, in addition to that, when the Ashford Greens concept plan was approved, the city acquired a fair amount of land from the owner of the property. I guess it was the Fullers. Is that right? Fullers for the golf course, and at that time, I believe that the city had included in the generalized open space requirement the land that was provided to the city for purposes of expansion of the golf course. Now, this piece of property is now owned by somebody different. But when originally approved and when the city accepted the property and as set forth in the findings that were made back in 1994, that donated land was intended to and does in fact serve as the city's requirement for open space as part of the trade off. The trade off is — you can provide theoretically I suppose you could provide the ten percent open space in a privately owned property which would be owned and maintained and used by the residents of the subdivision or you make it public property, and in this case, public property was provided the city, and it's now public property and being used as such. It seems to me that if the council at this point in time is going to disregard what was previously required and previously provided, I think that the city would be in essence reneging on an agreement already made. Rountree: I don't believe there was an agreement made with this particular developer, but that's okay. My last question, is this particular development as I believe the original development, and maybe Gary you can correct me if I'm wrong, but were these lot numbers calculated in the lots that would be assessed a fee towards the pay off of the golf course improvement and maybe you can't, Steve, answer that, but Gary might be able to. Bradbury: I don't know that answer to that one. DOUG CAMPBELL 2638 N. TURNBERRY WAY WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Campbell: This particular project will be included in the $640 fee that's currently being charged on every lot out in that general area. (End of Tape) Corrie: Any further questions of Mr. Bradbury? Rountree: Not at this time. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 41 Bradbury: Thank you very much. Corrie: Someone else from the public would like to enter testimony in this request? LARRY ASTLEY 2129 TURNBERRY CIRCLE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Astley: I live in Cherry Lane Golf Course. I live adjacent the number one hole, fairway. My concerns in this matter are basically two fold. Looking at the proposed development in my opinion affects what I feel is — or in my opinion, the density and the layout of this development affects in my opinion the aesthetic value of the golf course. And also you know in some ways could affect property values. I guess that's all I have to say. Corrie: Okay, thank you. Anyone else from the public would like to testify. JOE STAFFORD 4192 W. PLUMROSE STREET WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Joe Stafford: I'm here tonight to talk about some of the problems that I see with the project. I've kind of listened to what the developer's requesting and the variances that he is requesting including the density issue through the PUD. Presently I'm understand the property is zoned R-4. Where I live is in Golf View Subdivision directly south of this project. Our property is 18,000 square feet is our lot, and it is contiguous and touches this property to the north. Some of the concerns I have in just listening and you know talking about the ten foot back yard to the houses and to the property to the south, but it's really not a ten foot back yard because there's an easement there. A ditch which presently is there. That ditch belongs — the property on that ditch belongs to us. We pay taxes on it. It's assessed in our lot. It was purchased with our lot. There is a ditch easement there — they have a right to use that, but that is our property. Our property we touch that and so effectively we're getting a ten foot away from our property line. A ten foot back yard for someone to use. The other concern I have is in this area part of the statements were made that this is conducive to the area, that it fits the area. And in nowhere in this immediate area of Golf View, Cherry Lane right next to this area are there the small lots. There are duplex lots directly to the east of this property. I've been over there, know people there. They have much more than a ten foot back yard. They have much more setback than is required by this, so I have some concerns with that. The other thing, the neighborhood is pretty conducive to families, the golf course, using the golf course, and that type of area. He brings out that there's a 3909 square foot lot. If you take a 1304 square foot home, and add a 400 square foot garage, you are at 1700 square foot on 3900 square foot lot. That's a 44% use not counting any side yard, sidewalk, driveway. Not counting any of those things. 44% land use on that. That is not conducive to that area, absolutely not. And one reason I think he applied under a PUD which is common to get a higher density in an area zoned for less density. And so I'm kind of objecting to that. The 5.6 units per acre is not common in that area. Our Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 42 house is about 2700 square feet. The neighbors is 3300 square feet. Our land use is 20% of our property. Our home is about 20% of our property. That includes the garages. I think the neighbors is maybe 22%. That's kind of what's common in that area. The other thing I wanted to bring out if they are doing — if this is so conducive and this is a family area, the golf course where all our kids play golf and that what not. I mean we have a trampoline in the back yard. We have six bicycles. We have all these things that we use as a family. On lots that are taking 44% land use or building use, I'm objecting to that saying they don't have room to use any of that area. I think the other thing I want to bring out real quick and I know my time's limited is the lot width. All the lot widths are very small. It's not conducive to good community flow. They are closing off the area, that's presently an open area. They are asking for private streets. All the subdivisions that border this property all have two sidewalks, curbing gutter. They are asking for one side. We all have 20 foot setbacks on the front. They are asking for 15. And we all have to go by the city requirements for our setbacks on the side yards. So I think that is all I have. Is there any questions? Corrie: Thank you very much. Anyone else wish to testify? JACKIE STAFFORD 4192 W. PLUMROSE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY Jackie Stafford: I'm pretty much — my husband just talked just a second ago. My biggest concern is the density of what they are going to be putting over there. We have four children, and trying to keep four children in a big huge yard is hard enough. I mean we even have the commonary where the kids go play, bike, you know down on the path and stuff. My concern with cutting down, chipping away their yards the way they want to, where are the kids going to be. Usually when you have apartments or anything like that a lot of times they will have tennis courts or basketball courts or something for them to go and just kind of release some of their energy. The other concern that I have is the traffic flow on Interlachen. Not only does Cherry Lane use that Interlachen, but Golf View does too. A lot of our neighbors — we come up from the side, and go out Cherry Lane instead of going Summer Tree where we are probably suppose to. But it's a short cut. So I think they are disregarding that traffic flow besides the one that's in Cherry Lane. So that's pretty much it. Corrie: Okay, thank you. Any questions? Anyone else would like to testify? Prior: I've been advised not to swear this particular person in. WAYNE CROOKSTON 2125 TURNBERRY WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Crookston: I might. As many of you know I live on the golf course. I live right off of number one fairway, what is now the number one. I don't know how they are designating it now. Eventually it will be the number eighteen fairway. And I live within 300 feet of this proposal. I did not get notice when this was initially done by Brighton Corporation, so I can't say that I did actually know about it. I can't actually say that I did Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 43 not know about it, because I was presiding as the City Attorney when that was presented. However, at that time, this area of the property was not being presented to be developed at the time. It was part of what they called the medium density portion of the property. The City Council at the time did allow the single family dwelling units that Council presented some things that had to go about that. I would refer to as far as my concern, I would refer to the Comprehensive Plan that says that these lots are suppose to be compatible in section 1.13U of the housing section of the Comprehensive Plan it says infilling of random vacant lots in substantially developed single family areas should be considered at densities similar to surrounding development. Well, surrounding development is where I live, where Mr. Astley lives, and the people that live over in Golf View. Those are not on average 50 X 85 square foot lots. I have approximately at least a quarter to a third of an acre. Mr. Astley has a larger lot than I have. Mr. Stafford, he testified that he has approximately I think he said 16000 square feet. So the lots around this are substantially larger than they are proposing. The concern that I have is that on that size of lot, you cannot build a house that is of the same property value as the ones that I'm referencing. The City Council at the time did consider the medium density parcels of ground, but they did state that Mr. Wardle presented Brighton's application at the time in the findings of facts it says Mr. Wardle further stated that they were aware that the PDR approval for the medium density parcels must be conditioned on a future submittal of specific design plans which would address access roadways, parking, open space, landscaping, and other matters. In September 13, 1994 public hearing Mr. Wardle stated that the Planning and Zoning Commission can require the medium density to come back before it. I think that when you present the medium density and the planned unit development type idea, you have to consider also what the comprehensive plan says. You are suppose to have compatible surroundings to what is there, and what is compatible to me is not a 85 x 50 foot lot. The other thing that I have is that there is the concept about Interlachen connecting to Dawson. And I well understand the reason why people may not want that to be connected. People that live along Interlachen may not want that. That, however, is something that the previous City Council said had to be done. I have no objection to Interlachen not being connected to Dawson, but what was done previously the City Council wanted it connected. So that's something that you have to consider. As I said in my mind, the lots are too small. They are not R-4 lots. They are not even close to R-4 lots, and they are not close to the size of lot that I have or Mr. Astley has, and the people in Golf View have. Some of the things that were addressed by the City Council at the time this was being developed by Brighton Corporation, there was a statement that said, "Prior to any development of the medium density parcels, the developer shall submit a detailed application and site plan for review and approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council." Certainly this is a proposal that does that. But this is the first time that I've ever seen this application for the development of that property. Then the City Council also said, "The City reserves the right to place appropriate conditions on the medium density areas in accordance with ordinance requirements, including but not limited to streets, pedestrian walkways, planning and reserve strips, public sites and open spaces, lineal open space corridors, pedestrian and bike paths." It mentions piping of ditches, pressurized irrigation. It says access parking, landscaping and screening. I don't see Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 44 that that's been addressed in this application, so I have a problem with that also. So that's basically my position is that I don't think that these lots are compatible to the surrounding area, and I don't think that this proposal should be approved. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Corrie: Question Council? Crookston: Beg your pardon? I guess I can talk to you later about that. I can tell you the story about my hand. But — Corrie: We're not interested in that. Crookston: It probably should be stated that this is a public hearing. Thank you. Corrie: Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony in this request? GORDON MARGULIEUX 2420 INTERLACHEN WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Margulieux: I need to congratulate or thank the developer because he's very open. I testified at the Planning and Zoning Commission. Some of the things I had mentioned, they actually had addressed. Particularly the sewer easement area behind the first through fourth lot, because at that time, it was still on those lots, and they have addressed that. I appreciate that. I am still concerned about the size of the lots. My lot, which I'm in Cherry Lane Village 1, Lot 3 which is twenty eight feet from where this proposed path is, and my lot which is an irregular is actually 13000 square feet, but the adjoining lots around there are roughly running about 8000 square feet. So this is smaller, and I am not saying that their aiming at different people, different — in a gated area and what they are proposing, and it looks really good considering that it will be developed sooner or later. This doesn't look too terribly bad. I do like the fact that it is closed, and as Steve pointed out, I do live on Interlachen, and I would not be happy to have a through street with more traffic over there. I've sort of like their concept to that extent. Other concerns I have is this easement that goes through that's going to be a pathway. I'm not sure how to address it because it's a private section. It's would be taken care of by the homeowners association, which hasn't been defined yet, but it will be. But it's wider than this room. And there is no parks very close. And there is going to be a nice smooth pathway through there where kids on skateboards are going to be skateboarding, and things are going to be going on over there, and it's not lit. There's a street light down at the — if I can borrow this — there will be a street light right here which will light some of this path, but nothing down here. We have some problems with kids in our neighborhood that like to drink and smoke, and they like dark areas to do it in. And there was some question as to whether or not because at the time when I mentioned it, they said well maybe this will be gated. But timed so that at night it would close and people couldn't get in. But this wouldn't be gated on the other side. One of the families that we constantly see smoking and drinking are right on this corner this house, and Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 45 they have a two and a half foot fence. Very easy to hop over and just sit there. If possible some of the things that could be done, is maybe put a street light somewhere at the end of that. Right now they don't go back there because Wally has a big post with a big light on it, and the police patrol that, and I'm not sure how they are going to patrol it if they can't turn around. There is going to be a path down there. I'm not sure how they are going to turn around. So they might not patrol it. So my concern is that we go going to have a park back there that you are going to see a lot more activity because there is no open area for kids to play over there. Medium size density it was mentioned. Again, a lot is important. When they talked about medium size density and they talked about eight houses per acre with Ashford Greens, they were talking about multi family dwellings. And these are single family dwellings. So we are not talking about the same thing even though we've cut it back to 5'/2 houses per acre, it's not quite the same thing. The other one is — well I guess that's about it. I went through them real fast. Any questions? Thank you. Corrie: Anyone else from the public would like to speak? Okay. Steve do you want to answer any questions that have come up? Bradbury: I was asking the gentleman who testified and I'm sorry, I missed his name, Stafford, and I was asking him which lot he was living in. He pointed to this lot right here. Just so there's no confusion, the lots that would be immediately adjacent to his lot and the others in Golf View would have the standard R-15 rear yard, excuse me standard R-4 rear yard setback. The reduction that we are asking for in the rear yard setbacks are the ones over here next to this gentleman's lot, which has also then has the twenty foot sewer easement next to it, so they actually have that separation, so we are not talking about a reduced setback next these folks, and of course those folks in Golf View are separated from this project by the canal, which according to the map, and I am going to assume it's correct, is shown on there property, and so there is a fairly good sized separation, and a matter of fact you call it I guess maybe a manmade feature, but there is a geographical feature that separates these two parcels of property in addition to the distance. So I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't any confusion about that, because we are not asking for a reduction in the setback in that location. I guess maybe the thing that I wanted to address primarily was this concept of compatibility and how it is that smaller lots are incompatible with larger lots, and maybe I just don't understand it, so that I can't express it particularly well. But I don't understand it. Because it seems to me that when you are talking about compatibility, you know land use in the land use context, you are talking about compatibility of uses. That is the reason we have zoning is to keep industrial uses, you know where they are going to be banging out car parts separate from residential uses, as opposed to residential uses separate from residential uses. So in terms of the use compatibility we are talking residential in a residential. Now when you talk about the lots, what you are really talking about is how much space somebody is going to have between them and somebody else, bottom line I guess just how much dirt is out there. The reality is and think you all know this, not everybody wants a third of an acre, or a quarter of an acre, or even 8000 square feet. Some people don't want to have all that ground to take care Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 46 of. And they'd like to have something a little bit less. And so what Mr. Steiner is attempting to do is he is attempting to provide that opportunity and that variety in this vicinity as is being provided in other areas in well, heck right here. Right down the street where there are smaller lots. Right immediately adjacent to the same piece of property. I you take the logic that Mr. Crookston wants you to follow, if you start out with one 8000 square foot lot in a mile section, you have and in order to be compatible according to Mr. Crookston, everything that touches that 8000 square foot lot has to be 8000 square feet. And so you go the first lot and everything around that has to be 8000 square feet, let's assume it's square so now you've got five, all 8000 square feet. And everything that touches those five has to be 8000 square feet. Pretty soon, all you have got is a mile of 8000 square foot lots. And I don't think that's what the City envisions. I don't think that's what the City wants, and I don't think you should want it. I think what you should want to do is you should want to provide for a variety of uses, the variety of sizes, something that presents a little bit of interest in the community. Something that presents a little bit different living arrangement and lifestyle so you don't have this sea of 8000 square foot cookie cutter lots. I don't think — I have been coming out here for five or six years, talking to you folks about subdivision developments, and I've heard you talk about at one time or another about not having every subdivision look like every other subdivision. And it seems to me that you shouldn't expect every piece of property to be made up of 8000 square foot lots or larger. I think you need to provide different types of opportunities for people who have different types of lifestyles and like to — some who like to mow lawns and some who don't. And of course Mr. Crookston and first gentleman who testified they are a little more remote from this. I just I kind imagine it is going to effect how they live, and their lifestyle or their property values. I think the suggestion is nothing but a suggestion, and I don't think you have been given any real evidence to support that proposition. What else did I miss that you folks would be interested in hearing about? Corrie: If you should get the approval, where is the present club house going to go? Bradbury: It's my understanding that you've got a site selected. Corrie: What if he doesn't put it up yet? Bradbury: Well— Corrie: I know it's a one ended — I probably shouldn't ask you that — Bradbury: I have had the idea that you folks have — have those plans made, and if that's not the case, then if we need to make some arrangements and work something out, I think we ought to sit down and do it. Because I know, I've worked with Mr. Steiner long enough, I know he's not interested in making things any harder than they need to be. And I know that he is going to want to work with you folks to see to it that things work to the best to everyone's best interests. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 47 Corrie: The reason I made the statement is I suggest you bring the chairs. Bradbury: Okay, how many do you want? Corrie: Probably a lot of them. Any questions? Bradbury: Thank you very much. Corrie: Council, any further discussion. Rountree: I guess my point on the application and what I see and the issue of compatibility if that's the appropriate word, is that it seems like there wasn't a whole lot of consideration to either the type of home or the design of the homes that are adjacent to this and I'll cite a specific example where we have had this happen in the past and what the remedy was. It's something very similar to this happen in Meridian Greens. Only it was an R-4 against an R-4. We had a subdivision with large lots, specific architectural types, specific kinds of roofs. The people in that subdivision objected to a R-4 subdivision adjacent to them that had a lesser standard, smaller lots, asphalt singled roofs, those kinds of things. The remedy is the remedy that we have in our some of our ordinance language and our comp. Plan as a buffer. There was a portion of that subdivision that had to have cedar shake shingles. They had to meet a certain size lot, and they had to meet a certain square footage. The rest of the subdivision as it progressed out, became what the developers originally proposed. I would like to see some consideration given to that concept in this development. I'm not opposed to the medium density. I was on Planning and Zoning when it came through Planning and Zoning. But we did want specifics and we did want to make sure that the neighborhood considerations and the existing features out there were considered. That's why we wanted specific plans brought for consideration of medium density. I guess that is the point I would make in discussion. Anybody else can talk about that or you can close the hearing and we can go forth. Corrie: Anybody else want to call anybody? At this time I will close the public hearing, and ask any further discussion. Bentley: I agree with Charlie. That was one of my concerns when I viewed this project, and I agree with Mr. Bradbury on the fact, and we do not want all subdivisions to mirror each other and look the same, but the same token, we've got open ground butting up to these people's property, and I think we need to have some transition housing that are similar in statute and size to what is there, and then as the project proceeds, you can go in with the smaller homes, because there is people that don't want a lot of yard. They want the ability to just run around with a mower and go play golf. And some day I'll probably be right there with them. I don't know how good the golf will be, and that is the basic problem I have too. I think we got to give some consideration to the surrounding area. Thank you. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 48 Corrie: Further discussion? Comments? I guess Mr. Attorney is there sufficient evidence and testimony to change the complexion of the Planning and Zoning's findings of facts? Prior: Well, Mr. Mayor, as previously — as before with regards to the day care center, there are two avenues that you can take. You can vote on the present findings of facts and conclusions or you can the Assistant City Attorney to prepare new findings of facts and conclusions of law. That's entirely up to the City Council to decide. Corrie: Council, pleasure? Rountree: Well, I personally would like to see new findings. We do have new information from ACHD, and apparently they are still in a position where they haven't decided what it is that they want for the road. Though I agree with Mr. Bradbury they probably will come back and say we don't want to dig it through. I feel we need that. That needs to be factored in. There's some other information I think heard tonight that wasn't (inaudible). Corrie: Do I hear a motion one way or the other? Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I would move we instruct the City Attorney to prepare new findings. Rountree: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley to have the Assistant City Attorney to prepare new Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, second by Mr. Rountree. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 14: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT, 48 LOTS FOR THE VILLAS AT THE LAKES SUBDIVISION BY STEINER DEVELOPMENT: Corrie: At this time, I will open the public hearing and have the representative from Steiner Development, Steve. Bradbury: Thank you. Steve Bradbury 877 Main Street, Boise. 10"19:0Iay TTAINX91CrATi%VS13TAL91:1010-' 9awe] IW/_I ato] :101W, if Bradbury: Thank you. Mayor and members of the Council, I don't have anything in addition to add, with respect to the preliminary plat. All the information that I share with you with respect to the conditional use permit is equally applicable to the plat, and I'd simply ask that my testimony be incorporated into the record for this hearing, unless there are any other questions or separate issues. Thank you. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 49 Corrie: Anyone else would like to issue testimony on this request for preliminary plat at this time? Hearing none, I'll ask the Council do you have any questions of the — you didn't so I'll close the public hearing. Council? Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I would make a motion that we table item fourteen, request for preliminary plat for 48 lots for Villas at the Lakes Subdivision until we get resolved the conditional use application. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion stated by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Bird to this until the resolution is taken care of. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 15: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF MERIDIAN TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE COMMITTEE MINUTES HELD JANUARY 7,1998: Corrie: Council you have those minutes in front of you. I don't know how we can approve those minutes, we weren't there. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, questions for Gary. Anything additional on these that we need to know about, Gary? Smith: No, sir. Corrie: Back to my original question. How can we approve the minutes if we weren't there. Was anybody here, there? Bentley: No. Rountree: Gary was. Corrie: Gary Smith do you find these minutes to be correct? Smith: I certainly hope so sir. I wrote them. Corrie: I was hoping you would say that. Smith: I submitted these after I wrote them from my notes. I submitted them to the chairman, Walt Morrow, and he reviewed them and sent back comments saying that everything was fine as presented to him. Corrie: All right. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 50 Rountree: I guess my question is, why are we approving minutes? Why don't we just accept them? Smith: We just have to have a final approved, Council approval of the actions of the committee to send to APA so that they can include our recommendations in their TIP. Corrie: Okay. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the final draft of the minutes from the Meridian Transportation Task Force Committee. Rountree: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree to accept the City of Meridian Transportation Task Force Committee report. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All Ayes. ITEM NO. 16: RESOLUTION #161 — FEES FOR RESERVATION OF AND USE OF MERIDIAN PARK FACILITIES: Corrie: Tom Kuntz. Kuntz: What I'm requesting is to amend Resolution #161 that originally addressed fees for park shelter reservations to accommodate park facilities reservations, and as a sub heading of that resolution would include park shelters, and the addition of — potential addition of softball field reservations with a fee attached to that. Bentley: Tom, we are not changing any of the above past fees? The previous, you know, $25 $40 and $75, everything else is staying current? Kuntz: Well, there is one change in that. The fees for park shelters will stand up to a four hour period of time and anything over four hours will pro -rated at $10.00 per hour with no maximum as on the prior resolution. Bentley: Okay, my question would be do we have anybody that's already reserved under the previous ordinance that would be effected by this change? What I'm say is we don't go back and tell them well, we changed our mind, now you owe us more. Kuntz: We would not do that at this point. We would honor the amount that they reserved it at this point. Bentley: Thank you. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 51 Rountree: Tom, when you investigated the fees for the softball, that's consistent with our neighbors to the east and west. Kuntz: Boise is fifty cents less. And Nampa does not have a set fee. They include that into their softball team fees, and they don't have a fee for the normal public to — they don't have a way for them to reserve them or charge. Rountree: And this fee is to be used to maintain the fields for reasonably safe play? Kuntz: It serves two purposes. One is we will maintain the fields when we know they are reserved so that they are in a safe — they are safe. Two, is it give the group exclusive rights to those fields for that period of time when they reserve it. Corrie: Tom, is there a softball field reservation fee now? Kuntz: No, sir. Rountree: I guess up until this point, Mr. Mayor, we really didn't have much of a facility to rent and we should have, but we do have one now that's a pretty nice field, and we will have two more first part of next year, so I guess I would recommend that we seriously consider this amendment to the resolution. So we can maintain the facilities we have in a safe manner and as Mr. Kuntz points out, we can assure use to those people who do want to use the facilities. Corrie: Just to be on the — Counselor, we don't need a public hearing? Rountree: Yeah, we would. Prior: We do. Rountree: This would be subject to a public hearing. Corrie: Because there is a seven dollar fee involved here. Rountree: This is discussion of whether we want to press with the hearing, and I would move that we add this to our next agenda, and have a hearing on the resolution 161 with the proposed minutes. Bentley: Second. Crookston: We will not be able to do it at the next meeting, because we need fifteen days notice. Rountree: Well, then it would be the — Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 52 Berg: I will set it as soon as we can set it if that's your desire. Rountree: April 7th Bird: April 7th, Charlie. Berg: Making sure that we would have the proper notice and the proper days. Rountree: So noted in my motion. Bird: I'll second it. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree and second by Mr. Bird to April the 7th to put it on the agenda for voting of Resolution No. 161. Bentley: My question is are we going to have a facility or is what the feasibility of a bunch of people get together and decide they want to go play some softball? Kuntz: As long as the facility is not being used, they are welcome to use it. Rountree: If it's reserved, it will posted just like the shelters are posted. So those folks who have paid the fee will be assured. Kuntz: What the reservation does is it makes it convenient for citizens who want to reserve the shelter. It makes it convenient that they know that they are going to have a place to play softball where in the past, it has been first come first serve type of thing. Bentley: And I agree with that. My only concern is all the tax payers need to be able to have the ability to play some where, and you know, that was my concern. Corrie: Any further discussion? Anderson: How would somebody know then, will that be posted down there that they have to go down and reserve the baseball diamond. I mean if they just showed up and started playing, how would they know if they want to guarantee it. Kuntz: Yes, it will be posted that field use by reservation. We will post something to that effect. Anderson: Okay. Corrie: Anyone else? Question? All those in favor of the motion, say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 53 ITEM NO. 17: WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES: Corrie: Is there anyone here present that wishes to contest their water, sewer, trash delinquency? You are hereby informed that you may appeal to have the decision of the city viewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant to Code of Idaho. Even though they appeal, their water will be shut off in the amount of the sum of the turn off list is $29,896.20. Council, I will entertain a motion to accept the water/sewer/trash delinquencies turn off list. Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we accept the water and sewer turn off list. Bird: Second it. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Anderson and second by Mr. Bird that we accept the water, sewer, trash delinquencies turn off list. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 18: APPROVE BILLS: Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I move we approve the bills. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Bird that we approve the bills. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 18: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: (End of Tape) Smith: ... City Clerk Berg talked to Mary Cahoon today, and I talked to her also. She lives at 1875 N. Locust Grove Road. I think you have a copy of her letter that she faxed to Will. She has a domestic well out there, and she's got pump problems, and wants to consider hooking her home to city water. She is not in the city limits, and so she's been informed and the reason for this letter is to request city council approval for that connection. She understands that she needs to pay a double connection fee as required by ordinance. And she's also going to have to provide a service line connection to our water main in Locust Grove Road. I told her today that she probably could be looking at a cost of somewhere around $2800 to $3,000 to make that connection. So she is going to have to weigh that cost versus repairing her pump and Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 54 her well, but she did want to approach the Council with the request for this approval to connect, if they decide this is the route they want to go rather than try and replace the pump, and I guess they have kind of a mish mash of plumbing that might be difficult to deal with along with the replacement of the pump. I am not real familiar with her situation, but she did seem to be very interested in connecting, and so that's the reason for her request, and as she explains in the letter, it is an emergency. Their pump is down for the count. Corrie: We have a sewer line out to her house? Smith: Water. We have a water line in Locust Grove Road. Yes, she would have to connect to that cross Locust Grove and connect to the water line. Corrie: Questions Council? Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the request for connection to the city water by Mrs. Cahoon with the understanding that they pay connection fee. Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Anderson that we allow the emergency connection to the city water with the double fees in connection. Any further discussion? Bentley: Should we contain in that motion that she can get half of it refunded upon annexation. Isn't that what we have done in the past on that? Rountree: I don't see that happening real soon. That whole subdivision is (inaudible). Bentley: Okay. Rountree: Unless somebody buys them out, I don't see that happening. Corrie: Anything further? All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: Gary if you will take care of that. Smith: Thank you. That's all I have. One other thing, Mr. Mayor. This has been kind of an off month for us in the building department since it's February. We had ninety two building permits this month, single family. Corrie: Short month. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 55 Smith: Yes, sir, short month also. Corrie: Shari, I don't want to miss you. Did I ask you if you had anything yet? Stiles: I guess I'll just update you on where I am on trying to hire someone. I've talked to four people so far. I've got appointments for three more this week. I'm having a little bit of a problem with the planners. There's a short supply around this area now. Probably 75% of the people that have applied are people in some kind of a graduate school, or just getting their masters and are not going to be available until May or June. Also some of the local people that have applied are not satisfied with the benefits as far as the time off in particular. That's their biggest problem, and the lack of any overtime compensation. Two of the appointments that I have later this week are for code enforcement. And I know I need to get somebody on board on that as soon as possible. I'm getting lots of complaints. And with irrigation season not far away, it's really going to hit hard. As far as our space, we are still not approved for occupancy. We've still got wires hanging out of the outlets. I was told that would be done today, but the gentleman working on it spent a half hour on it and the rest of the day gone. Also got a sink that's been installed in there, and it's just got a trickle of water coming out of it, so there's basically no where to get even a drink of water in the building, unless you go into the bathroom and no one wants to use that because the plumbing is what was existing when the building was built. Tonight when I tried to leave, I couldn't get the door locked. I finally had to go back inside the building to lock it. I did finally get it locked, but it wasn't locked but it wasn't locked how it should have been. It was — somebody could just pull on the doors and open it. And the side door was completely open. There was some stranger in there when I left the building that I'm a little worried about the security over there. Just wanted to update you on what's going on and Gary is scheduled to be in the 15th? 13th. And the way they are moving, it doesn't look like that's going to happen either. But we are trying to do our best, but just be aware you are probably going to get phone calls complaining how we are not returning calls. The first day that I didn't have a phone, and I wasn't in here, I got thirty six phone calls. I went home and spent three and half hours returning eight phone calls. So it's — I'm getting deeper and deeper, and nobody wants somebody in there more than I do. But if you've got any leads on somebody that's got the experience, I would be happy to talk to anybody at this point. Bird: Shari, Gary what kind of lease we got down there with those guys? This is crap. Bob, who do you deal with? Corrie: Supposedly the Coldwell Banker has got it — Bird: You need to go down and shake his — Corrie: Yeah, I'm going to see tomorrow about this construction and bathroom and water and phone, electric lines. I would be in favor, if they don't want to do what they are suppose to do in posthaste, get out of it. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 56 Bird: I'm with you 100% because there's other people around here that's got buildings that's close enough that will put it up. I think the City's bent over backwards for the whole thing, Mayor. I think it's time we took a stand and say boys, either get it done, or we are gone. Bye. Rountree: Is DMV having the same problems? Motor vehicles having similar problems trying to get up and running? Stiles: I don't know. I mean they had little problems at first some of the janitorial work bathrooms weren't kept clean. They thought there was problem with the water, but believe it's been tested since then, and there doesn't appear to be a problem. The telephone situation was not their fault. I was suppose to have phones today, and the telephone exchange — the work order they gave to U.S. West still had 217 East Pine which is the old Beauty School, so I got a call on my cell phone at about 10:30 today it said all my lines were now installed at 217 East Pine, but I said I didn't need them down at the Beauty School. I needed them where I was at. Bird: And this has been going on a long time, Shari. We've had plenty of time. The man in charge — Coldwell Banker, the muscle man or whoever it was, had all this thing all on line for you guys. I mean it isn't as if we walked in last month, and asked them to get us a facility ready. I mean how long have you been planning on moving down there? Four months? Since the start of the fiscal year? (inaudible) Bird: Yeah, November. And you know, you don't have your telephone people lined up, your electricians lined up. I mean, come on, that's poor. Stiles: Well, the electrician is actually one of the owners. Bird: Well, that's — like I say, Mr. Mayor is going to have to wring some necks. Corrie: I intend to tomorrow as soon as I get through with the Chief and the Fire Chief meeting. Stiles: Are you going to wring their neck? Corrie: I didn't mean wring their neck. I am sorry I didn't speak that quite right. After I get through with the meeting with them, it should be about 9:30, 1 will be over there. Stiles: It's been kind of nice not having the phones, but the safety issue with the wires hanging out, even though they are not active, I promised the Fire Marshall that I wasn't going to be one of the people that occupied before they got their occupancy certificate, Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 57 and so until the electrician and the plumbing and the mechanical is all signed off, we will not be having people come inside for business. Corrie: When I get through, we will do one of two things. Give us our money back and we'll go somewhere else or them get it done. Anything else Shari? Tom? Kuntz: I don't have a name tag here. Bird: You don't deserve one. Rountree: You are not a public official so you don't deserve one. Bird: You got to put in your time, Tom. You come in here and want to jump right in. You got to mop the floors a little bit more. Crookston: I have nothing. Bird: I just got a couple of things here. We had a couple of our employees from the water department get their Idaho Water Distribution System Operator Class II and Class I. Zack Davis got class I. And Tom Johnson got class 11. Very good. I'm glad to see our employees do like this. Corrie: Congratulations. Give me the names and we will send them — Bird: You bet. I'm going to give you this. They have been compensated for it with their raise. Corrie: I am going to send them a letter. Would they like these back? Bird: No. That's — you can keep them. Corrie: All right, I will take care of it. Bentley: How much time we got? Bird: And you are not singing. Bentley: Well, that's when we end. A couple of things, back to the issue on the cop grant. We found out that if we don't activate this thing before October, we will lose it for the next three years. And in lieu of the fire situation and the upcoming budget year, this maybe a way to get us over the hump by activating and keeping this grant alive for the next three years. So keep that — Rountree: That's by October. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 58 Bentley: Yes. Keep in mind too, that every month we don't go, their grant runs January to January. So every month we don't get it, that's that much we lose off the first year of reimbursement. Rountree: We don't pay anyways. Bentley: Now, they are paying now. We got that part worked out. Secondly the sign meeting I had with the downtown business association was quite interesting. They explained out quite a few of the problems they had. I explained out our problems. What we were working on. What Shari and I have been working on. What the Council has been looking towards. As far as signage goes, they gave me a list of about half a dozen questions that all reflected on what ordinance covers this sign. What ordinance covers that sign, and I read to them verbatim what the short ordinance says. But also stated to them that we have the right under annexation and conditional use permits to set requirements, and that's what we were doing until the ordinance was completed. I showed them a copy of the Damdle Ordinance and showed them how thick it was, and they said, Oh my gosh. I says yeah, but when you understand what's in here, you will see what the problem, and a prime example was one of the gals asked me, how about a reader board? You know, what do we discuss for the reader board. I says, well we don't allow reader boards any more for the simple reason of the problem we had with the Texaco and the bright lights, and she looked at me at she says, well, that's not a reader board in my definition. I'm talking the ones that you can change the letters on. Like they take the big poles and pop the letters up there with the suction cup, and I said that's part of the reason for restructuring this ordinance, and just like the Damdal Ordinance has, it's got page after page of definitions so that everybody is on the same page. They also brought up the issue of the sign committee that's in town, and I says, there is no Meridian Sign Committee. I says there is no committee in town unless they have been appointed by the Mayor and approved by the Council, by city ordinance, they are not a committee that can go around using the City of Meridian. I says if that is what you are doing, I said please stop. I said if you want to go out and get some suggestions as a group and bring them for us to look at and incorporate into an ordinance, that's fine. I said but do not refer yourselves as the sign ordinance group from the City of Meridian. So they were all pretty understanding and their mouths sort of fell open, and Gwen Alger asked well, how come I am getting all these phone calls if we are not the committee? I said I couldn't tell you. I said you would have to ask who is calling you, where they are getting the names from, because I don't think anybody down at city hall is telling them. So anyway, I explained to them what the procedure was going to be. We are going to put together a rough ordinance and then ask for public input on it, and then doctor it from there, and massage it around to fit our needs. One question that was put before me and I didn't have an answer, and I said I would ask. There is an existing sign in front of a business, but they want to add to the bottom of it, stating a little more detail of what they do like we carry knick knacks and this and that and the other. What is the procedure for changing, making a change on a sign like that? Any changes has to go through permit? Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 59 Stiles: First of all, is it a legal sign? Bentley: I'm assuming. I didn't ask that question. Stiles: You need to determine if it's a legal sign to begin with. The temporary signs are not now and never have been permitted. And they just run it through and if it doesn't appear to be a big deal, we give them the permit. Bentley: And I also — one of the other questions they asked was if they wanted to change a sign. I said if you go for the change of the sign, I said you are going to have to fall under the new ordinance which is the same principle if you went and did some update work on your building that you'd have to turn around and bring it up to code. So and basically that's where we left. I told them we'd be in touch when we start to put things together and get their ideas gathered up, but I told them we are looking at monument signs very heavily. I said there may be some exceptions along the freeway corridor where we allow taller sign. I says but that's going to be decided by the Council, and the building department. That's all I got. Rountree: John was jumping for joy down. I think he had something he wanted tell us. Prior: I'm going to try to be as brief as possible, and I know this is unusual, but Wayne gave me permission to say a few things. One, the Cherry Lane LID, I've been working on that project for a little while, and those folks seem to have things settled. They are going to accept Nampa Meridian Irrigation's proposal. But where to put the fence. The only concern is how does the City Council plan on paying for that fence. We got $48,000 for the LID. Excuse me, $49,000 for the LID. It's been approved, the ordinance has been passed. Do we pay it in cash? Do we take out a loan? I need to — the folks over there came up to me and said, well, when can we get the fence built? We'd like to have this done within ninety days. I didn't have answer for them because it's you folks who decide how we plan on paying for that $49,000 fence that runs along that — Rountree: Well, that's one of those budget things that I think fell through the cracks. It's in the budget to pay out, but there's a long term pay back. So there's no revenue on the other side. So we have to deal with an out go of $49,000, and then is it three years or five years, five year revenue pay back. So that money has got to come out of general fund — Prior: And I didn't mean to drag this in, just — my purpose was food for thought. I would just like you folks if you would please consider how you want to do that so I can get back to them. The sooner you get back to me, the quicker into an encroachment with Nampa Meridian Irrigation and get an answer for these folks, and work on getting this project done. I don't think it's wise for me to proceed until you tell me how you plan on paying for it. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 60 Bentley: Well, since legal is working on it. Corrie: Can't we just bill them, their portion of it? Prior: Bill who? Corrie: The people. Prior: It's an LID, Mayor. There's twenty homeowners along there, and they are not going to be able to come up with $48,000. Bird: We budgeted it for general fund, and then it's a pay back in five years on the LID. Rountree: So the money is there. We just didn't show any revenue. Bird: We won't have any revenue. Rountree: No, you won't, and it's budgeted in your budget, Gary? Is that public works? Prior: No, I think it's general fund. It's budgeted as a revenue and it's also put in as an expenditure. Just so that you reflected the fact that the LID was formed. There is no money in the budget for this thing right now. I'm just saying that there's $49,000 out there that these people want to be able to spend on a fence, and we don't have the $49,000 at this time. I didn't have — we don't Mayor. The $49,000 is not there. It's put in as revenue and it was taken out as an expenditure because it's there — it's only reflected to show that the LID was formed, and that was the sole purpose of that. Bird: It does come out of the general funding though? It don't come out of building? Enterprise or something? Smith: General fund. That's the way it's shown on the budget. Bird: Yeah, but is that the way LID's are normally done, and that's what I'm asking? Smith: Yes. Bird: They all come out of the general fund, anything that's like that. A pay back or something like that. Prior: They did approach me, and the folks along Cherry Lane said if this thing can't be resolved within ninety days, they would like to assume withdraw the LID all together, and they are on their own. That's also a possibility if you want an out, they are willing to do that as well. Because they are pretty frustrated that this thing has dragged on for a considerable amount of time, so if you — Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 61 Rountree: They are not the only ones. Bird: I don't blame them. Rountree: I don't know what our revenue situation is. I never seem to get a good pulse on that. But — seems to me that we committed to those people that if they were willing to vote themselves an LID, we would contract this project, we certainly did error in the budget side of not showing that revenue coming in over a period of five years, but I would say if we can we need to advance this thing to contract and see if we can even get a reasonable bid. If we can't get a reasonable bid, then they are on their own anyway. Smith: The plans and specifications are ready to go with the fence set where Nampa Meridian originally dictated that the fence was to be set, and as soon as an encroachment agreement is received, then we can put the thing out for bid, and see what we do get. Prior: But we still have to be able to pay for, and no one's going to do the work unless we can pay for it. Bird: But if it goes out for bid, you are not going — you probably won't get it completed in one month anyway. You won't have to pay for it all in one month. But you ought to have the money there back it. Prior: It just might be wise for future thought that before you consider approving LID's, you may want to think real clearly because you are going to be held responsible for funding those particular things if you approve them, so any LID's in the future may want to be carefully scrutinized. That maybe a policy we want to consider. Rountree: I would suggest that we have — take a look at the general fund account. If there's sufficient funds to cover this, if extra is the right word, and I know it's not, but if there's some unspent monies that could go towards this, the sooner we get on top this the better. I know the Mayor's heard about it for years. I get phone calls on and on a frequent basis, so I would ask Will to get with Janice and see what our financial situation is, get back to us and maybe Tuesday night we can deal with this with our special meeting for Planning and Zoning. Inaudible Rountree: The one we are having before Planning and Zoning because I would very much like to get you going on the encroachment permit and agreement and get Gary to get that thing out so maybe we can do that next week. Prior: And I have one other very brief thing. And that's in regards, I'll try to be brief. Shari has told me there are a number of people out there who are violating not only our Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 62 sign ordinance, but a couple of other — there are all sorts of violations going on out there. I had a meeting today with an attorney from a church that has a half a dozen to a dozen different violations under our municipal code. Gary also pointed out he has some 25 or 30 temporary occupancy violations, is that right? A little more than that possibly? Smith: About a page and a half. Prior: A page and a half of temporary occupancy violations. There are a number of people out there that are disregarding the building and zoning regulations in this city. And you can just go out the front door and walk down the street a block, and I can show you half a dozen of them out there. Apparently the policy in the past has been that you are not going to institute any criminal proceedings against these folks. What I propose you folks do is — if you are going to hire a code enforcement officer, why don't you give him something to do. Because if you are hire a code enforcement officer and excuse my brashness, but the only way I know, if I come across as being a little brash, I apologize. But the fact is if you are going to spend $20,000 to hire a code enforcement officer, you might as well give him something to do. That mean they give him the ability to write citations to people telling them and warning them that they are in violation of the municipal code. If you want to do this purely civilly, it's going to cost the city a lot money for me to civil lawsuits against every person violating our municipal code, and it's going to be — it's going to take a long time. Indications of that are the lawsuits that we are involved now that are taking a long time. Specifically the parks and recreation. It's going to go on for another month. Multiply that times 80, and that's how many how civil suits I'll have instituting against 80 to 100 people violating our municipal code in this city at this time. What I propose is you allow me to institute criminal proceedings against these folks. And I've had an opportunity to talk with the city of Caldwell and Canyon County and how they do it, and typically when you gives somebody a warning and city them with a warning and then institute criminal proceedings against them, typically 80 to 90% of these so called problems go away. Nobody wants a misdemeanor on their record for violating a sign ordinance or violating any other building or zoning code violation, and they can easily be dismissed. The ones that don't go away can be handled in a criminal proceeding relatively quickly within thirty days as opposed to sixty, ninety, 120, 180 days for a civil matter at the best. But it whether the city wants to proceed with it. I'm just telling you if you don't proceed and allow someone to do anything in this manner, you can just assume that people are going to disregard your zoning and building and regulations. It's just not going to happen. You are just — Corrie: I understand that you want the code enforcement officer be able to write the tickets. Prior: Yeah, I mean, -- Corrie: not just warnings. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 63 Prior: No, just go out and write, issue a citation to someone and say, and Shari and I have had a long talk about this. Just go out and issue a citation. You are in violation of our sign ordinance. Then he goes back in a few days, three or four days, or a week, and if it hasn't been resolved, then we file a complaint, and we start proceedings against him. We have a policy where I'll send some letters out beforehand and let them know. Hey, this has been passed on to the City Attorney's office. We are serious about this and you are going to comply, and if you don't comply, we are going to file criminal charges. And usually, like I said, just sending that letter is going to clear 80 90 percent of the problems right off the bat. Those 10% that linger after I get them in court and stand them up in front of the judge and say this is the way it's going to be, it's amazing how many of those will clear up as well. And the few that are left out there well, they are just going to have to learn the hard way, but you need to set up a policy that — you know, right across from the city attorney's office there's guy that has three signs out on the street, and he's violating the sign ordinance, and he's doing blatantly in front of the city attorney's office. I go by it every day. And it's absolutely outrageous that this guy is blocking the sidewalk with three or four signs and the fact is — and vacuums and appliances and everything else. And our city does not — Rountree: Do you need one? Prior: What's that? I don't mean to drag this on, but our city doesn't do anything about it. And the fact is he knows it. And he knows that we are not going to do anything about. Bentley: Are you sure you are not from Idaho? Rountree: Solution is drafting an ordinance, amending an existing ordinance? Prior: No, no. We don't even need an ordinance. All we want you to do is say yes, go ahead John give it a shot, and give Shari the opportunity to hire a code enforcement officer to issue citations and let me proceed, and if you let me proceed, then we will clear a lot of these up relatively quickly. If you don't then we are just going to live with the fact that your friends with the sign ordinance and everybody else are going to do whatever they want anyway. Corrie: There's some way to make it a policy. Rountree: I would like to see a policy before we give you the reigns on this deal. Prior: You are not giving me any reigns. You are giving Shari Stiles the reign. Rountree: Then that would be my preference. Something that establishes where we are coming from. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 64 Stiles: There are so many violations in the City, and it gets worse and worse. Since Dean is gone, I mean he would try to be the nice guy, and try to work it out with them. He would spend hours and hours on a single item. Prior: I just spend two hours with an attorney with Shari this afternoon about a church that probably has a dozen violations, and we finally got what we wanted, but it took two hours of me telling the attorney we will sue you, and I will shut your church down if I have to. But basically it came around, but that was a civil suit that would have to be instituted, and he was told. Now, that's expensive. It's a lot easier to say it's a $300 fine, and six months in jail if you don't do it. Now no judge in this county is going to give somebody jail time for putting up an illegal sign, but they sure as heck are going to give them a two or three hundred dollar fine and make them pay the court costs. And they are going to think twice about next time putting a sign up. It will never get that far with most of these people. You just mention to the people that this is a criminal action that we are considering, and they are going to back down. And I didn't mean to talk on. Maybe that's my nature. Bird: What kind of violations, Gary, are you referring to that's got a page and a half? Smith: They are temporary occupancy permits that were issued through the building department for commercial projects, and the temporaries were issued in order to allow the party to occupy the premises and there were certain things that needed to be completed by the occupant or by the building owner prior to the final certificate of occupancy being issued. A lot of those items have not been completed. There are some of them that are under bond that landscaping for example that couldn't be competed because of the weather. Paving that couldn't be completed because of the weather, so those extenuating circumstances, and in most cases those are covered with some type of surety to guarantee that they will be done, but there are some old ones, mean really old ones that are several years old. Bird: How come our inspectors or something aren't pulling the permits? Do we have to do it here? Smith: Well, once we let them in as a temporary occupancy, I don't know that there's a real good way to say I'm sorry folks, you are going to have to leave. Bird: Go out and cut the power. I+yii1[ii�[� •[7iY�1.Tt.T�� Bird: We got to have something. Smith: Our building inspector and I — Bird: On temporary permits, aren't they only, they are only for so long, aren't they? Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 65 Smith: Well, they are suppose to be, yes. Bird: Okay, and then our code people, our inspector should be back out there. I mean it's just like our — just like we don't ever inspect our buildings within the city for fire safety. I mean go in and check buildings. Mine out there on old Five Mile, we get checked every year by our fire district. And I bet you there's buildings here in Meridian that has never seen the inside of a fireman to check if they got fire extinguishers. Smith: It's very possible. Bird: And this is something that — on those temporary permits, they got so long don't they Gary? Smith: Yes. Bird: And then we can — you can yank it, and then they are illegal to be occupying the building. Isn't that right? Chief can over and lock them out, can't he? Smith: I don't know what the legal ramifications are. Bird: I think you can and I think do that once or twice I realize this happens. We don't enforce a lot of things. I know a subdivision out there that went ten years before they ever got their irrigation system in, and they've been promised to have it in the first year. The developer had. Prior: What it comes down to is that you have some teeth and you got to be able to go after some of these people and say this is what — Bird: Well, I think on those temporary occupancies, you've already got teeth. I think it's just a matter of our inspectors going out and getting it out. I think you can legally after a certain period of time, I think you can legally lock them out of the building. Corrie: Well, I think the legal department better check it out. Prior: I think you are talking about violating tenancy laws, and the problem is that you have to give them a certain amount of notice, and you have to give them notice to quit on all of those things and you are talking about violating — Bird: The temporary permit has already given notice, John. Crookston: You have to give them notice. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 66 Prior: You still have to give them a notice to quit on a temporary. You can't just evict somebody and kick them out and lock the door. You do that and you are going to be keeping me real busy. Bird: The Chief shows out there some morning. Prior: You are going to keep me very busy, you start doing that kind of stuff. Bird: Gary, isn't there something in the -- I mean on the temporaries, don't they have a certain period of time? And then it's up to us to go after that certain time to see that it's full time. Corrie: Why don't you set us up a policy some type of code enforcement thing. I want it myself. We've got to it. I would like the Council to see a policy, and then let them vote on it. I don't want to make policy, I'm not suppose to. So I think that they should, but I would like to see a code enforcement officer — Prior: So just give me a feel, are you comfortable with going with criminal sanctions against these people, or is that something I'm wasting my breath to spend the time to do something like this? Bird: I'm like Charlie. I'd like to see a policy, but I'd also like to find out the legalities of these temporary permits that we got hanging out here. This is ridiculous. Rountree: There's a lot of unknowns, but I would be interested in enforcing power ordinances, whether it's civil or criminal what ever most expeditious to the city, and what's most cost effective, and probably what's more fair to the customer out there. Prior: I just got tired of Shari Stiles bothering me every day about this, that's all. I'm fed up. Corrie: There's a code enforcement officer, and I'm suppose to see what the Council says to do, it's done. And I would like the Council to back me up when something like this — Prior: But our code enforcement officer doesn't even have a citation book. What is he doing out there? I mean what was — Corrie: It doesn't matter what he's doing or did, we don't have one now, brings us a — Rountree: Establish some procedure and policy. Prior: That's all I've got. Rountree: Thanks a whole bunch. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 67 Rountree: Did we ever get a motion or get action going on appraisal? Bird: Yes, we did. Bentley: Wayne was going to get the appraisal taken care of. Rountree: But we didn't have an official action because we couldn't when we talked about it. I would move that City Council instruct the City Attorney to initiate appraisal for the land and or structures of the jointly owned property between the city of Meridian and the Meridian Rural Fire District. Bird: Second that. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree and second by Mr. Bird as stated. Any further discussion on the motion? Anderson: I think we need to amend the motion to clarify that it's just the properties over here, not the ones out on Ten Mile. Crookston: It's just the ones that are joint ownership, correct? Corrie: The one on Ten Mile is owned by the City. Bird: Ten Mile isn't joint. Crookston: The property that we just got from Mr. Teeter is not joint, and the property that's out by the sewer plant is not joint, so everything else is joint. Corrie: Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Rountree: I'd also move that we instruct the City Clerk to work with the Public Works Director to issue a request for proposal to develop a concept for a future city hall complex. Bird: Second that. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Bird for the Director of Public Works and the City Clerk to work together on the concept for a new city hall. As the motion states. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 68 Rountree: The last thing that I have is that we have a meeting the 5th, this coming Thursday with ACHD and ITD at ACHD at 7:00 to discuss whatever they want to talk, but signals on Eagle Road. Yeah, we got the special notice. It is at ACHD. 7:00, and the last thing is my batteries are dead. Anderson: Just one thing that we have not been contacted by the Fire Fighters Local, yet so nothing new on that front. Corrie: There was a letter sent out on all the new people on the board of equalization or whatever, your union negotiation team sent by registered letter. I've got two things. One is I have a meeting tomorrow with the senior citizens. They are running about $15,000 in the hole a year. They are going to probably want to talk to the Council about see what the Council might want to do and help them. So just to keep your heads up on that one. I put in your boxes Ada Planning Association Memorandum of Agreement on the Treasure Valley Government Agencies for application for transportation system. Have you all had a chance to see that memorandum? Do you have any questions? If you would — we either have a resolution on that, I'll have a resolution, -- they got a plan here. A model of a resolution. If you would like to have it put up for the City, and we'll have it at the next meeting. Rountree: So moved. yR•"it• - . • •.1 Corrie: Motion's made and second that we have the resolution printed up and ready for the Council on the 17th of March. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: I'll have that for them and then we will have the signing. It would be the signing of the regular thing will be at a later date, but we have that done. Mr. Berg, do you have anything. Okay, I'll entertain a motion for adjournment then. Bird: I make a motion we adjourn. Rountree: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bird and second by Mr. Rountree we adjourn at 11:40 P.M. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All aye. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:40 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS Meridian City Council March 3, 1998 Page 69 APPROVED: ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK