Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 09-01MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:35 p.m. on September 1, 1998 by Mayor Robert D. Corrie. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Anderson, Keith Bird, Glenn Bentley, Charlie Rountree. OTHERS PRESENT: Bob Corrie, Will Berg, Bill Gigray, Bill Gordon, Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Brad Watson, Keith Borup. Corrie: Council, you have the consent agenda A -H. Is there any items that you would like to pull off and discuss later? Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we pull off item D, E, F and G. Corrie: Okay, do I have a second on that? Rountree: I'll second that. Corrie: Motion made and second that we pull off item D, E, F and G for later discussion. All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: We have therefore items A, B, C, and H on the consent agenda. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the remaining items on the consent agenda, items A, B, C and H. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made and second that we approve the consent agenda less D, E, F and G. Any further discussions? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: I'd like to welcome everyone here this evening. Also you notice that we have also a new attorney representing the city. It's Bill Gigray. His firm there's nine of them in the Meridian area here and they will be with us for the city council meetings and also the Planning and Zoning as well. Gigray: Thank you. Corrie: Council with your approval I would like to ask that we move item 14 to item 1 as we do have a gentleman that needs to be at another meeting I think so with your approval I would like to have that one put as number one. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 2 Rountree: Mr. Mayor after some two years with this item it's my pleasure to make a motion to bring item 14 to number one on our agenda this evening. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made and second we bring item 14 to item number one. Is there any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 14: DISCUSSION WITH WALT MORROW REGARDING BSU CONTRACT WITH CITY AT WATER DEPARTMENT BUILDING. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I'll take a few minutes and roughly brief the council. Councilman Rountree is correct. It's been over two years that this project has been in the works. It started underneath former Mayor Kingsford's administration, been continued by your administration, past and present councils. As a point of review the city needed a place for it's water department to be. Boise State's programs at what had been our old sewer plant had kind of fallen on hard times. We had a provision in the contract that allowed for us to have the building back. Rather than pursue an adversial relationship, the city of Meridian joined with Boise State and Dennis Griffin to bring forward a proposal whereby the water department would move to the administration building at the end of 8th Street, and at the same time what we would do is that we would allow the power line man school to stay functioning. Should at such time there became a water program or water certification program we would lend our facility to that program. The same thing was true with the sewer plant. Idaho is the only state in the 50 states that does not require certification as sewer operators. We believe that will change in the not too distant future. We built as you remember Mr. Mayor the administration at the sewer plant building to encompass classroom space so that we could joint venture with Boise State University, a facility whereby we could offer that type of training here in our community, have a joint partnership between us and Boise State that was beneficial to us as a city and to Boise State as a university. We have accomplished all those things finally in terms of the physical plans. We now present to you the contract for that. Dennis will be making a short presentation about the west campus of Boise State University. Mayor Corrie and myself represent you and the citizens of Meridian on that committee that is guiding the future of that facility. So it takes me great pleasure to present to you Dr. Dennis Griffin, the head of the west Boise State University campus. Griffin: Thanks Walt. Mr. Mayor and members of the Meridian City Council, it is a pleasure to be here. I'll keep my remarks brief. I want to thank you for the chance to further our great relationship with the City of Meridian. Boise State University has had three different operations running right here in the city over a number of years. We've Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 3 had the professional truck driving program down on Broadway. We had the waste water program out on 8t" the sewer plant we're talking about. We've had an electrical line worker program offering at the same location. So there's been many years of joint cooperative arrangement and we've always enjoyed that very much. The relationship by the way between the Meridian area and Boise State University is on going as was just mentioned by Walt. We have formed a 40 member advisory group. Folks from Meridian through Caldwell to help us plan this new branch campus. Boise State west or whatever we're going to call it. I'm not sure what we're going to call it just yet. Several members of this city are on that committee. The Mayor is as was mentioned, so is Walt, so is Dave Bivens, Ron Van Auker, Larry Chetwood and there's a number of folks who represent this area. We wanted pretty much to involve the City of Meridian in that planning, because we see that as a very important part of what's going on. It will be a campus to help the people on this end of the valley. In terms of new campus, I might just give you a little run down so you reference of the future. This new campus will be community driven. This 40 member advisory group will help us decide what will be offered at the campus. It's going to be a full service branch. Upper division courses, graduate level course, but the focus will be a community college kind of thing. If you've been to Oregon, Washington or California you know the thing that sort of drives the economy of most of those cities is it's strong community college. That's what this will be all within the perimeters of Boise State. To give you some sample of what that means a community college has four basic components. It has an academic component, which focuses on the first two years primarily of academics. It has a vocational technical component. It has an outreach component which means we offer lots of short term job related non credit type classes, and a strong adult basic ed. Program. So those are the four legged stool so to speak of a community college. We have that running right now. We're going to expand that dramatically in the new campus. Progress to date, we've purchased 150 acres. It lies just exactly five miles from this building that direction, so the availability for the folks in this area for schooling is going to be really great. No parking problems, we'll have plenty of parking. So this whole thing of going downtown to Boise State from now on for folks in this end of the valley won't have to happen. It doesn't have to happen now because even where we're at now in the center with the new campus it would really be enhanced considerably. We have a master plan approved for the campus, been approved by the state board. We have received $2 million this last session to do infrastructure and planning for the new campus and so the plans we have now are to have a building or two up and going by 2002. So that's where we're going with this thing. We just see again that it's so important that members of Meridian, Nampa, Caldwell and the smaller communities in this whole area understand that this will be a community college serving the entire valley so that's what we're gearing toward and we've enjoyed the relationship with Meridian very much and we look forward to that in the future. I'd like to present to you a contract. You may have already received this, but here's the original basically and the first $20 for the first which Walt and I are going to share. You'll notice on there it's a dollar year proposed for use of a Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 4 piece of your water — our old waste water plant, your water plant down here for the first year. So we certainly appreciate your consideration. Thank you very much. Corrie: Any questions of Dennis? Bird: I have none. Bentley: None. Rountree: None. Mr. Mayor I'd just like to take a moment to thank ex -councilman Morrow and Dennis both for working this out and the Mayor as well to get this finally done. Morrow: Well thank you. It was a great task and we'll have some great results I think. Corrie: Council would you like to have this contract reviewed by our counsel and then brought on the 15th since our counsel hasn't seen this yet. Rountree: That would be correct. Mr. Mayor I move that we submit this proposed agreement with Boise State University to our counsel for review and recommendation for consideration by council on our next regularly scheduled meeting September 15th Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made and second that we bring this back on September 15th meeting. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 1: ORDINANCE # - ORDINANCE CHANGES WITH CROSS CONNECTION AND BACKFLOW DEVICES. Corrie: Council we've been requested by the city engineer that they would like to have a little more study on this since there's a lot of complications in this matter. They would like to if we would just table it to an unspecific date and bring it back off the table whenever we're ready for that. So council your pleasure on that? Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that we table item number one until such time as the city water department is ready to present the proposed ordinance to us. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 5 Corrie: Motion made and second that we table the item number one until council brings it back off the table. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 2: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 4.13 ACRES BY EAGLE PARTNERS — NORTHWEST CORNER OF EAGLE ROAD AND MAGIC VIEW: Corrie: This was also — Counselor, do you want to explain this? Gigray: Certainly. Mr. Mayor and members of the council, we have made a request that this matter be continued and set for time certain on September 15th. We're in the process of drafting as was requested by city council action on the 18th of August the proposed Findings and Conclusions of Law and order and decision. As you well know this involves a record that is extensive. It involves numerous issues. It's a matter which we want to carefully draft these Findings in light of the record produced for your consideration. As you well know, there have been some changes in the city attorney's office. In the interim I am assuming the full responsibility for preparing these for your consideration and request to have until the 15th. I would advise that the applicant has been advised that this request would be made and is fully informed of the situation, and I fully anticipate that we should have no problem presenting these for your consideration on the 15tH Rountree: That would be for the Findings and the Development Agreement and the ordinance? Gigray: We've been in ongoing discussions and I assume and it's my understanding that our charge is to present to you all of that information so that you can make the determination that you wish to make regarding that whole matter. Bentley: Mr. Mayor I move we table the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Eagle Partners until September 15th Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley second by Mr. Bird that we table the request number 2 until September 15th, 1998. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 3: ORDINANCE #800 — CITY OF MERIDIAN / IDAHO POWER FRANCHISE. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 6 Corrie: This is the second reading on this and I'll read it by title only as the second reading. MAYOR CORRIE READ ORDINANCE #800 TITLE. That will be the second reading of Ordinance #800. Bentley: Mr. Mayor I have a question for counsel. We have your memo stating of the thirty day issue. We had the first reading on the 18th. Today is the second reading. The third reading will be the 15th. So we cannot act on this until after the 18th . Gigray: The pass is the ordinance has to be more than 30 days from the date of it's introduction. And then of course we'll want to make sure and we should have proof before the council that it was in fact published at some point in time prior to final passage. So you may want to have that on another day for that third reading. Bird: Does it have to be at a regular council meeting? Gigray: You could have a special meeting or you could have a third reading on that and still delay passage until the following meeting in order to meet the statute. However you want to do it. Bird: So if we read it Counselor the 15th, then didn't pass it until the 6th of October we would be all right. Gigray: Sure. The only question there is when it becomes operative and whether or not that posing any problems in terms of what you anticipate it might generate. But you can certainly do that. I just want to make sure because this is a franchise ordinance that you are aware of that procedure so that we follow it. Bentley: Right. I appreciate that, but we could also have a special meeting at the beginning of our workshop instead of setting up another meeting. Corrie: It would be thirty days, yes. We can do that. Bentley: It would the 22nd or the 29th whatever you choose. It couldn't be any sooner than the 18th Rountree: It could be either the 22nd or the 29th Bentley: Okay, thank you. ITEM NO. 4: ORDINANCE #801 — THOUSAND SPRINGS / FARWEST ANNEXATION AND ZONING. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 7 Corrie: Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have Ordinance #801 read in its entirety? Hearing none, council how do you wish to handle Ordinance #801? Rountree: Mr. Mayor, questions of staff. Have they reviewed and in concurrence with the terms in this ordinance? Stiles: Councilman Rountree, Mayor and Council I was just wondering if there were — there needed to be mentioned in here, I haven't read the Ordinance, but I see a mention of the requirement for a Development Agreement as part of the annexation. Does that need to be included? Rountree: I don't see it in here. Gary do you have any comments? Smith: No, I don't. Rountree: I have a question for Ms. Bowcutt. Was it your understand that a Development Agreement would be part of this annexation? Bowcutt: (inaudible) Corrie: Counsel is it required to have the Development Agreement in the ordinance as such? Gigray: Mr. Mayor let me first comment, I think Mr. Prior drafted this ordinance. We've worked with him on the form on annexation ordinances which is used here and as far as the form is concerned in the process that has to be followed in annexation. I think it follows that appropriately. I feel at a loss to comment on a specific Development Agreement in this instance because I haven't been involved in that and I don't know what the terms and conditions are associated with this annexation. I feel that I mean sometimes as I understand it you require them to enter into a Development Agreement, which would be then recorded prior to annexation so that that agreement is in placed and already signed and then you can do the annexation and I don't think the annexation ordinance should refer to the development agreement because it's going to refer to itself and it's already going to be signed and recorded. Now whether that's happened in this instance or not, I don't know. And if it has not you may to defer action on the annexation to ensure that that has taken place prior to annexation or we would have to redraft the ordinance to provide an additional section in it. The problem that I see with Development Agreements being referenced in annexation ordinances, you don't want to have a condition in an ordinance that might make it inoperative. In other words it's either ready to annexed or it's not, and I just can't comment on whether that development agreement has signed and recorded, and the problem you get when you pass these is that you have to publish them within the specified time and of course the city engineer and the city clerk have to start filing those documents within the ten day Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 8 period or you don't affect an annexation. So that all gets on auto pilot at that point and if you have a problem because of the development agreement has not been signed and I would recommend to the council you reserve action on it until that's completed. Rountree: Could our action condition the annexation upon approval and recording of the development agreement. Gigray: The problem with the law when you pass an annexation ordinance, that ordinance has to be published within a certain period of time and then the city engineer and the city clerk have to file within a ten day period certified copies of these with the various as you see in this ordinance. And so that just says by statutes says that duties imposed so you can't have contingencies in these things and that's why I think the best practice would be if there is a development agreement that has to be entered into, that ought to be signed and seal and recorded and then you just go ahead and do this. Rountree: So the real question is the development agreement appropriate? Gigray: It depends on the history of this particular case and unfortunately I don't have the history to answer you question. It sound as if this individual's representing the applicant that it is. Rountree: Mr. Mayor question again for staff. Would it be staff's recommendation either Brad or Gary or Shari that we have a development agreement for this particular subdivision? Stiles: Councilman Rountree, Mayor and Council, this is kind of a new development that has taken place that wanting to have the developments prior to the annexation. I haven't worked with the applicant's representative to develop one of those yet, and believe legal counsel is currently working on our existing format to change that, and I would like to be able to talk to Mr. Gigray and come up with some master document that we can use before we have the development agreement. I guess if it's not referenced in the annexation ordinance, I would prefer to have that development agreement done. If it's not going to be included in the ordinance. Gigray: Mr. Mayor if I could provide assistance to the mayor and council, I think if there is to be a development agreement I think it should be entered into before annexation because as you'll note these annexation ordinances also provide zoning designation at the time of annexation as the statute requires you should do. And of course a condition of a development agreement is that there are certain agreements on the part of the applicant that they will do certain things as a consideration for being annexed and being zoned in the zone and then if they don't do the development that they are required within the specified period of time then it's subject to de -annexation. And if that agreement is not entered into before the annexation and the zoning designation then Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 9 the consideration for entering into it really is out the door. Like the horse out of the barn, but we certainly would be more than happy to work with the Planning and Zoning Administrator and try to get this put together so that that is in hand. I just don't have the history to provide you on this particular case any more than what I've said. Rountree: Well my concern is that the applicant's been here at least three times at this point for these actions to move forward and now we throw yet another wrinkle into this process and it is a bit different than what we've done in the past. Maybe we've been in error. And I don't know if there is a solution to take action on the three items we have on the agenda that relate to this particular project. But it seems to me without the annexation the variance and the preliminary plat are actions that we could not take either until such time as the annexation were approved. Gigray: It's clear and we have recent case authority in the Idaho Supreme Court that as far as plat approval is concerned that you can take action on plat approval all the way up to the final action without it being annexed into the city because you have the approval authority anyway even if it's in the county so long as the final action of the city on plat approval does not occur before annexation. And the final action according to the Supreme Court is the approval by the city engineer of the final plat which occurs even after council action has been taken on approving a final plat. So you can take all that action regarding the platting process before annexation and still not be violative of Idaho law. Rountree: How about a variance to city ordinance? We're going to test you tonight Bill. Gigray: And I think that's a more difficult question. I have a case where I was representing some property owners in the City of Caldwell where we challenged the special use permit that was issued before an annexation occurred and the court agreed with my assessment that he couldn't grant a special use permit until the annexation and zoning designation occurred. So I would say final action on a variance, unless it's a variance in relationship to plat. And as I remember is this one a variance in the platting process and I think as long as it's a variance in relationship to the platting process you're fine. We're not talking about a variance on — somebody's trying to build a building and we got a site distance problem or a setback or something like that, so I think you are fine there too. Rountree: Thanks for the lesson. Corrie: We'll get this straight one of these days. Rountree: Well given that input Mr. Mayor I move that we table action on Ordinance #801 Thousand Springs / Farwest Annexation until such time as the development agreement is developed and recorded. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 10 Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Anderson that we table item number 4 Ordinance #801 until the development agreement is presented to the council. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 5: AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM BLOCK LENGTH AND THE PIPING OF THE RIDENBAUGH CANAL BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS — NORTH OF VICTORY AND WEST OF EAGLE. Rountree: Mr. Mayor I have a question for the applicant. Have you had a chance to read these Findings? Bowcutt: The revised Findings including the Ridenbaugh? No, I have not. Rountree: It does include the Ridenbaugh this time. Bowcutt: I think that was the only thing that was lacking. I did read the previous version. Rountree: Okay, thank you. Corrie: Any further questions? Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that the City Council hereby adopts and approves the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Bentley: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Bentley to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. ROLL CALL VOTE: Bird, yea. Anderson, yea. Rountree, yea. Bentley, yea. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that it is decided that the variance for the block length and the piping of the Ridenbaugh Canal is hereby granted. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 11 Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made and second the decision that the variance of the block length and piping the Ridenbaugh Canal is hereby granted. All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 6: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR PROPOSED THOUSAND SPRINGS SUBDIVISION BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS AND MARTY GOLDSMITH — NORTH OF VICTORY AND WEST OF EAGLE. Corrie: Council there was a request made to the developer to include lot number 58 in block 4 part of the school park site. I guess Becky would you like to address that and tell us what the developer has approved? Bowcutt: Mayor Corrie contacted me and asked me to go back to the developer and see if he would consider the elimination of this lot 58 located right here along the future elementary site. I did meet with the developer, discussed it with him, urged him to go ahead and eliminate that lot because it would improve the access to the school lot which from what I'm hearing the feedback from the school district, that's what's going to happen with that parcel. He has agreed to eliminate lot 58 as a residential lot and merge that lot into the school site which would increase that acreage. I believe it's lot 58, block 4 so we'd like to include that in the record. The other issue I discussed with Mayor Corrie after Council adopted the Findings, two weeks ago the Hanson's meet with me outside and were questioning the lot numbers that were entered into part of the record as part of the Findings. I believe it said lot 21 through lot 14, block 14. Their question to me was is there any way to change that. They would like to see lots 22 through 16 and their reasoning there was their home sits back further on their parcel. And they though the affect of lot 22 was far greater than the affects of the lots further to the south and they said would you please talk to the developer and we'd be willing to forego lot 13 and — I think it 13 and 14. Corrie: 14, 15. Bowcutt: 14 and 15, excuse me. Forego lot 14 and 15 if you would take it clear up to lot 22,which is the last lot that backs up to them. Their home sits right in this vicinity here and their concern is (Inaudible) 14 and 15 are of no consequence but lot 22 we feel is problematic. As you turn the bend then these lots (inaudible) backing up and facing the northern direction. Mayor Corrie said he did receive a letter from them. They reference some different lots. I think they went to 24, but I believe they were going off the old plan, which we renumbered when we made the staff's changes. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 12 Rountree: So those numbers again are 16-22. Bowcutt: 16-22, which the difference would be seven lots versus eight. That was their request. We'd be willing to just accept seven because those are the lots that most adversely affect us with a two story and our privacy. Rountree: And that will be a note on the plat? Bowcutt: Yes. The previous plat that we agreed to one stories, we put on each lot. Because we felt if it was placed in the notes, the builder may not recognize that but if it's in bold letters on each lots, it's easily recognizable by your building department. Anderson: Becky I have a question. Is there a home on that little piece of ground down there too? Bowcutt: No. (Inaudible). The next home over is west. Anderson: And could I get you to mark the right numbers on this map for me so I know which ones you are talking about, because those are kind of hard to read. Bowcutt: (Inaudible). Anderson: Okay, thank you. Corrie: Becky I have a question on the lot 58 that we talked about is that going to be deeded to the City of Meridian and then if the school doesn't use it then we do it as a park site; is that correct? Bowcutt: I believe the city preference is that we deed it to the city and then if the school district needs it, then they get it. Corrie: If they don't want it then it goes as a park. Bowcutt: Correct. Then the city will retain ownership. The other issue that I wasn't clear on is the 50 foot right-of-ways with the 5 foot offset sidewalks. We discussed that in length. When I came away from the meeting, my understanding was that I was to get with staff and come up with some solution that would work so we didn't end up with our pins under the sidewalk. I did submit information to Gary. An example of one plat where it did work well. Gary and Shari looked at it and their comment was what if we just go with a 20 foot setback from the back of the sidewalk and simplify it which therefore would mean a 22 foot front yard setback and we agreed to that and our pins will all be offset outside of the concrete so I believe that is resolved. But I'd like that to be in the council's motion because when we bring the plans in say 60 days from now Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 13 people forget what was said and even though it's in the public record, if it's not in the motion then Gary's staff says, no you've got to go with standard right-of-ways or 57 foot right-of-ways, so we'd like to be in the motion. In closing I'd just like to remention I met with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District board today on the pedestrian bridge issues. They are granting us a license agreement for our vehicular bridge. The bridge for our sewer water crossings. They indicated to me that they will not agree to the pedestrian bridges until such time as the City of Meridian sits down with them and discusses the issue of liability. And they said that it's been discussed in previous meetings. They thought that you guys had come to some type of agreement with them, but they have not seen anything in writing and they will not give us a license agreement for the pedestrian crossings until the city agrees to some provisions that they've set forth. I guess what we'll end up doing is trust funding with Ada County Highway District if that cant' be accomplished and the monies will be there for those bridges until such time as you guys can come to an agreement. I just wanted to pass that on since I had the opportunity. Corrie: Other questions from the Council? Rountree: Question to Gary, as it relates to the 22 foot setback that does resolve your issue with the pin placement. Smith: Mayor and Council, Councilman Rountree, yeah I think it would. I just wanted to be sure that we didn't have a problem with vehicles parking in the driveway and extending out into the sidewalk area, and as Becky has indicated to me they've been doing this in our city to the east of us and they haven't had a problem with the utility trench situation in that front yard easement and that was another concern that I had. So it's apparently working elsewhere. Thank you. Anderson: Is that block 4 where those lots are? •_Mi[! Rountree: Lot 58. Bowcutt: (Inaudible) Corrie: Any further discussion? Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that we approve the preliminary plat for Thousand Springs Subdivision conditioned on staff comments that the plat indicate a 22 foot setback as described by the applicant. That the plat indicate that lots 16-22 of block 14 be identified as single level building lots and that the plat indicate that lot 58, block 4 will now be part of the potential or future school or parks area. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 14 Bentley: Second. Corrie: Do you want to discuss that deed it to the city, Charlie? However you want to work it. I'll take your motion as stated. Rountree: Did it get second? Bentley: I'll withdraw my second. Rountree: I'll just make a motion to amend my motion. Bentley: Second. Corrie: We have a motion made by Mr. Rountree and second by Mr. Bentley the motion as stated and also as amended. Any further discussion? Anderson: I have one more question. This bridge that goes across for the vehicle traffic if an agreement doesn't get reached between us and Nampa Meridian, is there enough room for school kids to get by on that without going out into the traffic to make it to this school property? Bowcutt: Yes, they have sidewalks on both sides. Anderson: Okay. Bowcutt: Standard ACHD. Anderson: All right, thank you. Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: I want to thank Becky and the developer for graciously giving that block 4 number 58. Thank you Becky. ITEM NO. 7: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD BY DONOVAN HANSON — LOT 2, BLOCK 1 OF PLAYGROUND SUBDIVISION. Corrie: Mr. Hanson is it? Okay. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 15 Gigray: Mr. Mayor, I apologize for the interruption. Is the purpose of this gentleman I just noticed in the materials that were provided to me for this particular line item that he was going to be asked some questions and if this is part of the public hearing where you are getting information in a public hearing I would suggest that he be sworn so that it is clear as part of the record. If it's only informational and has nothing to do with your decision making, then I would say just address the council. I just need to clarify if it's part of the record or not. Corrie: Council would you like to have this on record? We haven't noticed it as a public hearing, but we can get his name and address. Rountree: It is my understanding the intent to having the applicant here was to get some information and to get a general understanding from him that he had read and understood the terms and conditions of the conditional use since it appeared that he had taken action prior to receiving the conditional use permit. Gigray: I just wasn't sure when I saw that and I'm sorry for — it's your choice. Corrie: We good that you did that. I guess Council has some questions in relevance to this. Rountree: Mr. Mayor my question for Mr. Hanson was had he an opportunity to read and understand the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as it related to the conditional use permit? Hanson: No. I have not received those that I'm aware of. Rountree: And my other question is that it appears that you are already operating this yard and you are operating the yard prior to the conditional use permit being recommended by Planning and Zoning. It has not been acted on by City Council at this point. (End of Tape) Rountree: Is that correct? Hanson: Yes. Rountree: My final question is if there are terms and conditions in that conditional use permit that are counter to your current activities, are you ready to stop those activities and abide by the terms and conditions of the Findings and Facts? Hanson: Okay, clarify activities. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 16 Rountree: Your activities on this particular parcel as it relates to your storage, and I'm not sure that what you are doing is in compliance with the conditional use permit that being proposed. Maybe staff can assist me in that endeavor. Shari you had comments previously that this activity was taking place without a conditional use permit. Stiles: Yes, and the applicant was informed that that was not permitted. Rountree: And are those activities now covered under the terms of the conditional use permit that's being proposed and for our consideration? Is he compliant with the conditional use permit will his activities be in compliance? Stiles: No. Rountree: Okay, that's what I thought. Corrie: I have a question Mr. Hanson, you said you hadn't had a chance to see these Findings of Facts. Is there any particular reason that you haven't or you just didn't get them? Or what? Hanson: It depends on what they are. I've got lots of paper here with lots of stuff. Corrie: Actually what we're saying here is that in order to have the contractor's yard, you need a conditional use permit. Okay, and you don't have it. Hanson: I don't have that. Corrie: But you have a yard there anyway. Hanson: Yeah, I guess I do. Corrie: Okay that's what we're getting at is you're there illegally. Hanson: It sounds that way. Corrie: And there are certain specifications that you have to have to have that contractor's yard. It's in this Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. One is landscaping and you have to have a berm. You don't have that now. Hanson: No. Corrie: I guess what they are asking for is would you abide and get all this done that's required and when? Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 17 Hanson: And when. I'll start on it right away. I can't guarantee a date. Corrie: I guess one of the things we're concerned here is that you've done it and if we pass this conditional use permit and let you have it, you've got to do all things that's in here and showing that you are doing that, and that's what we're confused here. Hanson: Okay. I was looking for a place to park machinery to provide a service. I approached the owner of this property and he said it's zoned commercial, come on. (inaudible) next door to me. You sure can park there. So, we take our little trucks and go over there and park and I considered well maybe I'd like to buy this. And somebody says you better check a little closer to see if you are legal. So we proceed to check to see if we're legal and we find out we aren't. So I though okay if I want to buy this, then better get approval. I'll either go trucking down the road and find another spot or we'll do what we need to do. Rountree: Mr. Mayor my concern for Mr. Hanson is to make sure that you have an opportunity to read those Findings and Facts and know what the conditions are that are being set forth for your activity on that piece of property and have an opportunity for you to come back and discuss those with the Council before we take action on those. There maybe something in there that you either don't want to comply with or can't comply with and we need to give you that opportunity to see that, read the conditions and then get back to us before we take an action. That's why we tabled it previously. Hanson: Okay. Rountree: And since you haven't had a opportunity to review the Findings and Facts, my suggestion is that we defer action on it yet again until you have an opportunity to look at it and then get back to us at our next meeting. Hanson: Do we have Findings and Facts prepared? Anderson: It sounds like you have part of them because you talked about the berm and that is that you just didn't know what they were? Hanson: Is that this? Rountree: That's just the city letter. Anderson: So Shari was he given a copy of those or Will? Berg: Councilman Anderson, Mayor and Council, I'm not for sure if he received a copy. It was made available. We called each applicant prior to the meeting and say you're packet is ready to pick up. Do you want it faxed to you or do you want it picked up? Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 18 There isn't sufficient time to mail the packets out prior to the meeting for them to receive it. I can't tell you positively if he received a packet. It's made available. Anderson: Well then can you make sure he get a packet tonight before he leave here. Corrie: You can have that one. That's got everything in it that you are going to need, and I would suggest that you do that and come back after you've read that so that you know really what you need to do before we act on the conditional use permit. Bird: If we do this Council has just said that we will probably have to have is he's going to act or disagree with some of them, we're going to have to have a public hearing on this. And in the meantime if we're going to my view is if he don't have a conditional use permit, why is he using the lot now? That's got to cease until he gets the conditional use permit. Corrie: Yeah, I think Council would have to go back to public hearing to get testimony from him; is that correct? Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the council, if as you're doing tonight you're just asking him if he has received them, has he read it, does he understand it and then you want to an action. No, I don't think you need a hearing, but if you are going to have this gentleman comment about whether he can comply or not comply with the conditions of this proposed special use permit and we get into an issue about whether those conditions should be changed, and why they should be changed, I think that neighboring property owners are entitled to notice and they are entitled to an opportunity to be present and also present testimony that would be relevant to the issues of what should be in a special use condition and yes you should have a public hearing if that's what you intend to do. Rountree: Mr. Mayor my intent is not for a public hearing. My intent is so the applicant has an opportunity to review and understand the Findings of Facts so when we act on them it doesn't catch him by surprise. If he can get through that this evening, we can continue this or table it until we get through the rest of our agenda and have him have an opportunity to sit out there and go through the Findings of Fact tonight, have him come back and have you read them, do you understand them? Then take action on the Findings of Fact. That's all I intend to do. Corrie: We could do that. There would be no comments from him though. Rountree: Other than he's had an opportunity to read and understand them. Corrie: Do you want to read them and come back later this evening. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 19 Hanson: Okay. Corrie: All right then we'll just continue item 7 then until the last part of the evening you have a chance to read that and then we'll ask you again if you understand it and agree to all those. Okay? Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we table this conditional use permit for Donovan Hanson until after item number 15. Rountree: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bird and second by Mr. Rountree to table this item number 7 until item number 15. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 8: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR OFF -PREMISE SIGN AT S. PROGRESS AVENUE / 1-84 BY R.T. NAHAS COMPANY. Corrie: Council you have the variance Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the request. Any questions? Bentley: I have none. Bird: I have none. Anderson: None. Corrie: I'll entertain a motion on the Findings of Facts. Anderson: Mr. Mayor I make a motion we approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the variance for off -premise sign for R.T. Nahas and Company. Bentley: Second. Corrie: Motion made and second that we approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. ROLL CALL VOTE: Bird, yea. Anderson, yea. Rountree, yea. Bentley, yea. Corrie: Motion for the decision. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 20 Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we accept the decision that is for the variance for the off -premise sign be hereby granted. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made and second the decision of the motion of the variance for the off - premise sign is hereby granted. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 9: FINAL PLAT FOR HAVEN COVE NO. 8 BY MERIDIAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. — SOUTH OF W. CHERRY LANE AND EAST TEN MILE RD. Corrie: Council do you have any questions of staff? Bentley: I have a question for staff. Gary, Shari is all the particulars been responded to and everything in order? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, Councilman Bentley I have not received a response from the applicant on our comments unless city clerk has recently received it. So without that response I can only assume that they are in agreement with our requests for your approval. Rountree: Mr. Mayor I believe there some individuals in the audience (inaudible) that particular question. Jacobs: We have read the comments by staff and do agree with the comments and we can comply with them. Bentley: That's all I have. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the final plat for Haven Cove No. 8 subject to conditions of staff. Bentley: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree and second by Mr. Bentley that we approve the final plat of Haven No.8 with approval of the staff. Any further comments? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 21 ITEM NO. 10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MAWS NO. 3 BY TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING — NORTH OF EAST PINE AND WEST OF NORTH LOCUST GROVE. Corrie: At this time I'll open the public hearing and invite the representative from Maws Subdivision No. 3 to testify. RICHARD PAVELEK 915 W. JEFFERSON WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Pavelek: The owner of this property has had this land for approximately six years. It was originally developed in two phases, Maws 1 and 2 and there was an annexation order and I believe it's ordinance 580 that brought the land in, and under that it was zoned R-8 zoning category. Also specific in that ordinance was a number of lots that would be considered. It was 45 lots in phases one and two of Maws there have been 36 lots with homes constructed on that property. It wasn't developed at that time because of a development that was proposed down the adjacent street and so it sat there undeveloped for a number of years and we basically are in need of starting off with a development plan for this as a separate. It will not have any direct access to the adjacent or prior phases. We submitted a number — two applications. One was for a conditional use. The other was for a preliminary plat. And I believe that you have copies in your file that show the proposed layout. In prior action by the Planning and Zoning Commission they were some items that were discussed and have since been clarified. I think the first one which was of great concern to the Planning and Zoning Commission was the issue related to irrigation rights, and there was in staff report an item that inferred that the owner had not proceeded according to the ordinance with the irrigation rights for phases one and two. We have since gone through the city archives at the city treasurer's office and we provided you in your packet copies of the receipts for payment of items associated with the development of those phases and specifically the well development fee, which was the mechanism for exclusive this project out, so the irrigation issue was taken care of at that time and should not have been brought up at the time of the commission. Basically follow the ordinance at the time in terms of asking for an exclusion, it was granted, and paid for at that time. So that item should not have been part of the previous record. In terms of the density both by a calculation of this specific development as well the overall original anticipated density, we're well within the allowed density of the R-8 zone as well as the overall density for this property. One of the things that has changed in the time that this property was originally subdivided and now where we are looking at the final remnant parcel is that there is a desire among the public to have basically low maintenance yards, and have a townhouse type of unit which is self -owned. Each side would be self owned. And that's specifically what the applicant is proposing. These basically are tend to be a loose category of buyer, but generally it's people without children that would like to cut down on the maintenance and would prefer to spend their time other places rather than their Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 22 back yard. By the standard of the townhouse, these are large lots nevertheless. They do have in the side yards on each open side of the property a 15 foot setback from the side property lines. So there's 30 feet between the units. In terms of the size of the units if we would have proposed basically a duplex unit for these properties the house size is sufficient to meet the ordinance standard for a duplex. As far as a single family unit, no, they do not make the 1300 square foot minimum for single family, but that is not the type of housing we hope to build here. These are large — the interior space is three bedroom unit is large for a unit of this type. There are two elements that we think need to be addressed in the proposal that we have made. First one is basically the street frontage. Street frontage being proposed is 45 feet per lot. The second item that we would request the council consider is modifying the original annexation order of single family being determined by only detached units. The ordinance, I guess it was a surprise when I went back to it and finally gained a copy and read through it, there was an exclusion of detached units, and it may have made some sense at that time but we would propose that at this point the townhouses that are proposed as attached units be the appropriate form of development on this parcel and that you consider the modification to that annexation order to allow for the attached units. I think that those are the predominant factors. I think we've tried to address all of the issues, the servicing in previous correspondence. As far as we can determine we have suitable street access. We have all the utilities. We've accommodated the underground line that currently is there. That line dates back to a farm field and I guess no one at the time of development of the first two phases were in fact aware of it, but we have accommodated that, and we would meet all other requirements of the Meridian ordinances if we could deal with those two items. Currently the preliminary plat has been tabled pending the outcome of the conditional use hearing so that's what we're here to discuss and I'd be pleased to answer any questions. Mr. Gregory the owner of the property is here. I guess he has looked from his perspective he has looked at adjacent properties or properties within a mile of this. It seemed to him to be a similar type of project. He has seen townhouse units that are down to about 800 square feet in size and his perception is that those would be self owned and would be a smaller standard of street frontage. We don't know that for a fact ,but we know that the product is there, and I'm sure that beyond ours there are going to be other proposal for units of this type. So we could answer any of your questions and be pleased to do so. Corrie: Council, any questions? Bentley: I have none. Bird: I have none. Rountree: I have a question for staff. The conditional use process is why? Because the change and desire to use or to move away from the annexation ordinance or is this a PUD? I mean conditional use is not a normal process for a subdivision. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 23 Stiles: Councilman Rountree, Mayor and Council, this was initially proposed with a preliminary plat and a conditional use permit. The conditional use permit was required as a planned development because they did not meet the ordinance requirements. The preliminary plat was not tabled. It was denied by Planning and Zoning Commission. However the conditional use permit had to go forward because of the way the ordinance reads. Pavelek: Mayor and Council if I could the reason why we basically asked for a conditional use was simply to deal with the street frontage were deficient in fact in that aspect and there is no determination in the Meridian ordinance but as far as what classifies a zero lot line unit. It's a single family but its standards are not spelled out so what we wanted to do is to try and find a way of bringing an acceptable project to council that could be approved in the CU process seemed to be the viable way of doing so. Corrie: Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Is there anybody else from the public who would like to issue testimony on this item? Okay. Hearing none, I will close the public hearing and now for discussion from the council. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, reviewing the documents and the plan for this project, I'm inclined to agree with the P & Z in denying this conditional use permit. I'm prepared to make a motion if there's no more discussion. Corrie: Any further discussion? Bird: I have none. Corrie: I'll entertain a motion. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as presented by the P & Z and denying the conditional use permit for Maws Subdivision No. 3. Rountree: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley second by Mr. Rountree to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny the applicant conditional use permit. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 24 ITEM NO. 11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR TRANSFER OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BRIGHT BEGINNINGS LEARNING CENTER TO LAURIE M. ROY BY LAURIE M. ROY — 510 E. WATER TOWER LANE. Corrie: I will open the public hearing and invite the representative from Bright Beginnings Learning Center to come forward. LAURIE ROY 1866 E. SUMMERIDGE DRIVE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Corrie: And you are wanting to transfer the conditional use permit that's there now to you, right? Roy: Yes. Corrie: Did I see you on television? Roy: Yes. Corrie: I had to bring it up, didn't I? I didn't mean to embarrass you at all. Roy: It's okay. I've been in the public eye a lot this week. Corrie: Council, questions? Rountree: I have none from Ms. Roy, but I would have a question for Shari. Do you have any issues or concerns with this transfer? Stiles: No, I don't. Rountree: Thank you. I have nothing else. Corrie: Even prettier in public. Rountree: Now Mayor. Corrie: (Inaudible). Rountree: You have to have a talk with Jerry. Okay, if there's anybody else from the public who would like to issue testimony in this issue. I almost forgot what I was doing. Okay. I'll close the public hearing. Council, what's your pleasure? Rountree: Mr. Mayor, question, does this require Findings or just a — Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 25 Corrie: This is a conditional use permit. Bill would this require Findings? Gigray: I think on transfer I think what you do is you just have a hearing and assure that the transfer is being made and is authorized and since it doesn't change any of the terms and conditions of the conditional use permit I don't see that it's necessary. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve the request for transfer of conditional use permit for Bright Beginnings Learning Center to Laurie Roy. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Bird to transfer the conditional use permit for Bright Beginnings Learning Center to Laurie M. Roy. Any further discussion? Hearing none, I shall take a vote. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR APPROVED SIGN ADVERTISING BUSINESS ON PART OF LOT 3 BY AV II LLC — 1650 E. FAIRVIEW AVENUE. Corrie: I will open the public hearing and invite and Mr. Ford. HAROLD FORD WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Corrie: Do you have anything you want to tell the council or do you just want to answer questions or what? H. Ford: Well pretty much our reason for asking for the variance is stated in the application and standards for variances. Our business is set back about five hundred feet from Fairview and the traffic on Fairview is increasing approximately about 25,000 cars per week day. And we believe that the people in the vehicles have difficulty seeing business back because of the landscaping, the cars, the additional cars that are parked in the parking lot to visit Fred Meyer. That an approved sign on that landscape berm parallel to Fairview Avenue would enhance our business. What we propose is consistent with what has already been approved. We think that it will improve our business which of course is the reason for being business so we're asking for approval of the variance so that we can get the sign erected. Corrie: Okay. Council questions? Bentley: Yes, Mr. Ford are these are the businesses that are back there? Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 26 Bentley: So we're not going to see another request for another sign to be put out there. H. Ford: No. Bentley: We have everybody listed on there. 0 070win Bentley: Thank you. H. Ford: It's five businesses on lot 2. Corrie: Any questions? Rountree: Question for Shari. Any comments? Stiles: Councilman Rountree, Mayor and Council, I did receive a phone call today from someone that works for Avest. I don't know if they've talked to Mr. Ford about it. They seemed to having some problem with Fred Meyer as to approving this sign location and the sign itself. They have some kind of approval process. Fred Meyer even though they don't own the property is able to have some control over what happens out on Fairview. And what this Avest representative told me that they wouldn't agree to this sign unless they could also get another monument sign approved on Fairview as well. They want to put all the tenants, the Starbucks, whatever else is in that development on another monument sign. They were proposing this sign as approximately 160 square feet. And I don't know if that would include Mr. Ford's business or not, but maybe he hasn't been notified of that since I just got that call today, maybe they haven't contacted him, but I would hate to have him get approved and then find that he has to be in a different location on Fairview or I'm not really aware of where that is right now. H. Ford: Well we're aware that Fred Meyer has some approval over signage on the site. And I'm not absolutely positive where that stands. But we felt that if we could get approval for this sign, we would negotiate — we would be able to negotiate with Fred Meyer, because there are some other options for signage which could include Fred Meyer tenants that maybe Fred Meyer hasn't had a discussion with Avest. It possibly wouldn't require any more signage than what we're requesting so that's our idea here. Corrie: Shari, did Fred Meyer have anything to do with those other monument signs up there? Did they have to give their approval at the same time like the McDonald's and the Bagels and what have you? Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 27 Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, that's a private agreement I guess as part of their lease. I was just made aware of that today. I wasn't aware of their approval process for any of those signs. Corrie: Was it the Starbucks that is the one that they are having a question on or is it all those stores in the Fred Meyer area in their store area? Ice cream, there's TCBY and — well (Inaudible) Stiles: Fred Meyer is interested in a sign that would include, I don't that it's all the tenants in the building where the Ford's are plus the Fred Meyer building or just their tenants. I haven't seen any proposed signage just that they had indicated that they wanted 160 square foot monument sign that would include the tenants within the Fred Meyer building. Anderson: How many monument signs do we have out there on that parcel right now? I mean are we going to just keep getting more and more requests from every business that goes in there to keep adding monument signs? I guess I get concerned to the point where pretty soon traffic can't see to even get out on Fairview because there are so many monument signs blocking their vision. Stiles: Scott Weber with Avest also called me today and he's also interested in getting a variance for another off premise sign on Locust Grove for another lot they have left to develop in there and they also want pole signs for the Stor-It rental on Locust Grove. I don't know if they want anything else on Fairview, but there is quite a proliferation of monument signs out there. Anderson: And again I think this gets back to it's that problem. Our sign ordinance I don't think it really took into consideration when it written these type of developments and all the spin off signs that may be requested there so we don't really have a good handle on how to deal with these at this point. Stiles: Right. Gigray: Mr. Mayor, if I might for the Mayor and Council and also for those testifying in this matter and just to reacquaint the central issue which needs to be dealt with because this I understand is an application which is under 11-2419 is to authorize variances from the terms of the ordinance you have to find that it will not contrary to the public interest and then there have to be special conditions for literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. And so those are critical issue of fact. Of course anyone speaking on this matter needs to deal with and then you have to Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 28 find if you are going to grant a variance that are such special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that strict application of the provisions of the ordinance would clearly be impractical or unreasonable so that's one burden of proof that has to be established here to grant a variance and secondly that a strict compliance with the requirements of the ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the owner and the nature and condition or adjacent development or other physical conditions or other conditions that make strict compliance with this ordinance unreasonable under the circumstances or that the conditions or requirements of the ordinance will result in inhibiting achievements of the objectives of the ordinance, so those are the kinds of facts and questions you are probably going to want to ask this applicant and anybody else is what are the existing circumstances there that make this an undue hardship to them? What circumstances exist on neighboring properties that make this an absolute necessity and why would a literal interpretation of the ordinance make this necessary. Corrie: Do you want to take a stab at it Harold? H. Ford: Which part of the question? Which ones? Corrie: Let's try the hardship one. I guess that would be one of the questions. Correct? Gigray: Certainly. H. Ford: Well we've been in our business now for more than two years, and I can't give you any precise date about the number of people who come into our store, and say I just found you, how long have you been here? We had trouble finding you. We persevered through the shopping center because we just knew that there had to be a store like yours in here. Other store owners talk about the same thing and we have reason to believe that the traffic on Fairview Avenue which is one reason for being in the shopping center anyway. No one would put a shopping center like that out in Star somewhere. There's 25,000 cars per week day and the businessmen hope to take advantage of that traffic. And we're the only business in the shopping center that isn't advertised on Fairview. All of the others are and I don't know how long the frontage is on the shopping center. That's one measurement I didn't get, but when you drive along there, I think a reasonable person would say that the signs are attractive and there isn't a clutter of signs there, and our sign meets the sign that we have proposed meets the requirements of the Planning and Zoning Commission for area and for style and so we think it would attractive and there's room there. It doesn't any vision triangle. Our properties are certainly taxed on the value of the commerce that can be derived and we believe that the signage will enhance our commerce and so that's the whole reason for this. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 29 Gigray: Mr. Mayor with your permission you might inquire from this particular applicant as to what particular circumstances exist this piece of property that don't similarly exist in other pieces of property in terms of why this variance is necessary and he might specifically state under the ordinance where his sign would have to be placed and under this proposal where it would be placed and why it makes a difference. H. Ford: Our property that is set back to the rear of the shopping center. All the other properties are at the front of the shopping center, and of course Fred Meyer is big enough building so that nobody can miss that. That's the reason. What was the other part Mr. Counsel? Gigray: Just the difference if you comply with the ordinance where your sign would be placed and given the variance that you request where it would be placed and why that makes a difference. H. Ford: Yeah, in part of our application attached a drawing as completely as I could where the approximate location of our sign and it's behind a 20 by 20 vision triangle which I think is more than adequate for the driveway. Gigray: Mr. Mayor with your permission would this be offered as an exhibit at this hearing? Corrie: We have a copy. Gigray: Well we should identify it as part of the record if that's what he wishes to do. Corrie: Okay. Shari do you have a copy of this one? We have it too. Anderson: On ours it's so small you can't see where the sign is. Corrie: It would be right here. (End of Tape) Rountree- ...relates to being in compliance with the ordinance. You're asking for a variance from the ordinance from the sign ordinance. You can have the sign. Why do you need the variance? H. Ford: Because that part of the shopping center is off premise. It's off premise for our businesses. Corrie: Any other questions that we need for facts? Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 30 Gigray: No, I just thought that the record needed to be a little bit clearer about what was being asked here and what particular circumstances existed in this application so that you can consider those facts and then anybody else could come in on it as well before you make your decision. H. Ford: Well the particular circumstance is that we are asking permission to erect a sign on a part of the shopping center which is considered to be off premise and so we're asking for a variance to that part of the original permit. Gigray: Mr. Mayor for purposes of the record you might ask him if he's talking about off premises, he's talking about his premise. In other words they are proposed sign will be on somebody else's premises. H. Ford: Essentially yes, it's my understanding that this sign will be erected on a part of the common berm area of that berm. Corrie: And your business is back so for the public record it's back in the back off from the berm back behind the Fred Meyer to the west, right? H. Ford: Yes, it's back approximately 500 feet. Corrie: Okay, any further questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to issue testimony at the public hearing on item 12? ROB HAGGETT WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Haggett: I did speak with Shari this morning concerning the Fred Meyer question in signage. At this point we assume that Fred Meyer will be accepting the location of the sign on the property. The property in question is owned by AV II LLC. At this point we feel a sign is very necessary for these tenants. The back northwest corner of the property and as Mr. Ford mentioned their location is such that with growth of landscaping and cars and traffic in the shopping center their location is unduly missed by many of the people traveling through the shopping center. I think the issue of whether or not Fred Meyer will be requesting sign approval on Fairview Avenue is a moot point. That's something that they may never do. I don't believe they have put in any type of request for permit to build a sign, a monument sign type for their smaller tenants and that's all I have. Corrie: Any questions? Bentley: Thank you. I don't feel that they're possibly going forth is a moot issue because Councilman Anderson said that pretty soon we'll have a whole row of them out there and I'd like to see them all combined on one. I understand their predicament back Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 31 there as far as being off premise and hard to spot and I'm in agreement that they probably should have a sign up front but I'd like to see them coordinated together if that's going to be what's to be. Haggett: Yeah, I think unfortunately in dealing with Fred Meyer and this is rumor that's heard from their leasing that and typically in most of their shopping centers they do not provide for signage for their smaller tenants. In this case if they decided at a future date to provide for signage it could drag this out to a point years down the road with trying to get things accomplished through a corporation like Fred Meyer takes years and years to get it through the upper level and the lower level and finally get a stamp and signature. We're at a point now that we're ready to construct the sign. We'd like to start taking advantage of the increased traffic on Fairview as soon as possible for our tenants back there. I also feel that the amount of signs that are on Fairview Avenue right now fit within the vision triangles which have been designated by the City of Meridian. The signage ordinance not being so specific as to say we only allow so many monument signs on a certain linear length of road, I think if those were more specific then we may be able to say well we've got enough signs. But at this point, there's nothing that I know of that specifies how many monument signs are allowed to be located on a certain stretch of road. Bentley: Thank you. That's all I had. Rountree: I have a question. You indicate that the folks wishing this sign are tenants. Haggett: Yes, sir. Rountree: And who is the landlord? Haggett: AV II LLC is the landlord. Rountree: And they own the berm? Haggett: They own the portion of the berm on the Key Bank parcel which would be placing the sign on. It's actually within the shopping center confines. It's considered a common area, which is a commonly maintained by every tenant in the shopping center. Corrie: Anyone else who wish to issue testimony. JANET FORD WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. J. Ford: My name is Janet Ford 992 E. Kingsford Drive, Meridian. I just want to say that as of this date, we have applied for a variance for a sign. Fred Meyer has made no Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 32 attempt at applying for a sign. I don't think your decision about our sign should hinge on something that Fred Meyer may or may do in the future. That's all I have to say. Corrie: Is there additional testimony? Okay, hearing none, I shall close the public hearing. Council further discussion? Rountree: I have a question for Shari. Go ahead and define it for me. What is off premise mean? Stiles: It's a sign that's located on a lot — the sign has to be located on the lot where the activity or service is offered. This is not — they are not proposing it on a common area. It is a separate platted lot. Whether they consider it common area for the purposes of their lease agreements is immaterial as far as whether it's an off premise sign. Rountree: All under the same ownership. Stiles: But it is a separate lot. Rountree: Okay. Corrie: Other comments? I think we need a motion for the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the variance; is that correct? Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I move that we instruct the city attorney to provide to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the variance for approved advertising sign. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley and second by Mr. Bird to have the attorney draw up the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the variance for approved sign. Any further discussion? Hearing none all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Gigray: Mr. Mayor can I seek clarification of the motion as I assume you wish those to the next council meeting on the 15? Corrie: Yes. Gigray: Thank you. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 33 ITEM NO. 13: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR TILING OF IRRIGATION DITCHES CROSSING THE SITE BY R.C. WILLEY HOME FURNISHINGS — NE CORNER OF EAGLE AND FRANKLIN ROADS. Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the applicant or their representative to come forward for any questions and presentation. JERRY LOWE WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Lowe: Assisting R.C. Willey in the development of the project site. If I can explain the site, the property is located on the northeast corner of Franklin and Eagle Roads. On the north border of the property there's an existing drainage channel termed the Evans Drain. We're requesting a variance from the ordinance requiring tiling of ditches within the city and I would like you to consider two factors. First being that in discussion with staff we understand that pipes larger than 48 inches in diameter have been granted a variance from this tiling ordinance. The Nampa Meridian Irrigation District is requiring if we do tile it, it would be the same diameter as the pipe that crosses Eagle Road which is a 60 inch diameter. The second factor I would like you to consider is that the development has occurred along the Seven Drain to the west for as far as we're able to tell no piping has been required or put in place on those developments. I'm not sure of the timing of those developments but some recently appear from Meridian Academy as one example and the Meridian School District Transportation facility to the west which back up to this same drainage and there is no tiling bin done in those locations. So from a consideration of equity and consistency I would like you to consider that. I have no further comments, and I will take questions. Corrie: Questions of Council? Rountree: Do you have any plans to clean up or modify the ditch bank at all or the drain way in terms of coordinating at all with your landscape development the property? Lowe: At this point our request is to request the variance from tiling. If you would like to suggest some other alternatives, we'd be happy to do that, but I would like to note that any efforts that we make within an open ditch need to meet the requirements of Nampa Meridian Irrigation District. In my past experience with those they've been reluctant to — reluctant is probably an understatement, have not allowed extensive landscaping in those areas as far as any growth of shrubs and trees. Rountree: Thank you. Gigray: Mr. Mayor I would suggest to the Council or to the Mayor that you might inquire particularly of the applicant here as to what circumstances or conditions that would exist where strict application of the provision of tiling would make it impractical or Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 34 unreasonable for the developer to comply. That would be the first suggestion. The second suggestion that I would have because of matters of public concern and interest are involved that the applicant might address a question with regards to the proposed use of the property, the existence of this as an open ditch as to potential safety issues involved with persons using the area might help provide information to the council in terms of considering this application. Rountree: Mr. Mayor before we delve into those questions it's my understanding that our ordinance allows us to waive the tiling requirement. Either variance or waiver in this case would be consistent with actions taken in the past on any tiling that's over 48 inches. Just to point that out to Counsel if that's something that we would want to consider at this point in terms of just waiving this and not proceeding on with the variance. Gigray: If you have an ordinance provision that provides for that, it will make it a lot simpler. I haven't seen that. I don't know where it's — Rountree: Is that correct, Shari? Stiles: Yes, Councilman Rountree, Mayor and Council, at the last meeting we had John Prior brought up the fact that it said the Council may waive that requirement. Our history has been every ditch that's not going to be tiled has had to go through this variance process. If it can be waived, that's wonderful. Gigray: Does the ordinance say that? Stiles: That it may waive this requirement. Rountree: I guess I have a question when you are through with your testimony. Lowe: I'm through. Rountree: I'm not going to ask those questions that Bill proposed. Do you have a letter from Nampa Meridian indicating the pipe sizing? The documents — Lowe: We do not have a letter, but we've been in discussion with them for the requirements for irrigation throughout and that has been (inaudible), but I don't have a written, but would be glad to furnish that. Corrie: Any other questions? Thank you, sir. Anyone else from the public who would like to issue testimony on item number 13? Okay, I'll close the public hearing. Council guess you've got some options here. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 35 Rountree: Mr. Mayor I have a question for Gary. Could you verify the scale of that pipe through Eagle Road? Is 16 inches consistent with what your observations have been? Smith: I don't have any first hand knowledge on that Councilman Rountree on the diameter of that pipe or the that crosses used to be Locust Grove and now called Nola. I'm sorry. I just don't have that information. Mr. Mayor, I wonder has the applicant had any conversation with Nampa Meridian concerning the piping of this ditch? Rountree: Yes, they indicated that they talked to them and that Nampa Meridian wants it the same size as the pipe that's going under Eagle Road which is 16 inch. Smith: Nampa Meridian did not respond to City of Meridian in any written format? Rountree: Not in written format. Gigray: Mr. Mayor for consideration by the Council if there is a provision in the ordinance that allows for a waiver you if it meets certain criteria in diameter and whatever you could conditionally grant a waiver subject to their submitting proof to staff that it meets the waiver provision if you choose to go that way. Bentley: Mr. Mayor I would make a motion that we would waive the requirements for tiling the ditches with the comment that we have proof in writing from Nampa Meridian that that ditch does indeed require something in excess of 48 inches. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley second by Mr. Bird to waive the tiling on the condition that the ditch people give them the condition that it would take more than a 48 inch pipe to tile it. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 7: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTOR'S YARD BY DONOVAN HANSON — LOT 2, BLOCK 1 OF PLAYGROUND SUBDIVISION. Corrie: Back to you. Hanson: I have read the Facts and Findings. I come up against item H and J. It talks about gravel driveways, paved parking. We already have paved entrance. We have paved parking. Do we want more paving? This is kind of a gray area for me. And j talking about parking lot lighting for the (inaudible) and lighting plans for the Chevron Station. We don't have Chevron out there. We could import one. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 36 Rountree: It's there to test how well you read the Findings. Hanson: I see. I'm doing good. I'm doing quite well. We get back to the paving. What's code or expectation for that? This will play a big part in what we do. Rountree: Other than those points of clarification everything else is consistent. Hanson: Everything else is fine. We've been over that with Planning and Zoning. Rountree: Okay. Corrie: I'm sorry to have that — your reading is very good. I see it there they've taken it from some place else and put it in that one. That wouldn't be part of their — Rountree: Shari can you offer some clarification on the paving and lighting? And you don't have to apologize for the Chevron reference. Stiles: Councilman Rountree, Mayor and Council the parking asphalt parking lot that's there I don't know that it would cover all of the off street parking and driveway areas for the site. The lighting was a comment by Bruce Freckleton just for security lighting and if there were some lighting plans to be reviewed to make sure that they cause the glare problems that we've had in the past. Anything else? Rountree: Are those responses understandable to you? Hanson: Yeah, I don't think we'll be having any lighting. It creates opportunity for vandalism. It's suppose to prevent it. Rountree: Okay, thanks. Hanson: Anything else? Corrie: Any other questions? I might suggest to the council that you make a date certain that this requirements of the conditional use permit are met. Just from my standpoint I think you need to have a time limit. Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that Meridian City Council adopts and approves the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as prepared by Planning and Zoning Commission. Bird: Second. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 37 Corrie: Motion made and second that we approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as set forth by the Planning and Zoning Commission. ROLL CALL VOTE: Anderson, yea. Rountree, yea. Bentley, yea. Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: I'll entertain a motion for decision. Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that the Meridian City Council approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with the amendment that the applicant will be in compliance with the conditional use permit by September 30, 1998. And that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, the fire and life safety code, uniform fire code, parking requirements and paving and landscaping requirements and all ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use should be subject to review upon notice to the applicant by the city. Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion is made and second of the decision that was read. Is there any discussion? All those in favor of the motion as stated? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 15: DISCUSSION WITH WALT MORROW REGARDING GENERATIONS PLAZA BID REPORT. Corrie: Mr. Morrow. Morrow: Mr. Mayor and Council this is a brief committee report with respect to our Generations Plaza project which we've been struggling with as you know for some time. Starting last November we had a public meeting between the Parks and Recreation Commission, the P & Z, the City Council, interested members of the public. The decision was made by the City Council to go with the original design. We had some in house committee estimates that indicated that probably the structural concrete and that type of stuff would be in the 85-$90,000 range. The City Council then approved a loan of $100,000 to this project to be off set with or repaid by virtue of donations. In the ensuing months from January through this last Thursday, we have struggled with several designs getting design criteria and getting it in biddable format. Debating some other issues that came along, the end result is that on Thursday of last week we had our bid opening. The bid opening had essentially one bid that was a qualified bidder. There was a second bid that due to some confusion was late in submittal and was declared to Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 38 be non responsive. The one bid that was valid was in the amount of $185.300. Clearly about a $100,000 over what we had anticipated the cost of the structural improvements to be. At our committee meeting on Friday at noon to review essentially and in my follow up conversations with committee members that were not at that meeting. The committee is looking for your guidance as to which direction to go. The result of taking the $185,300 we had further confirmation by virtue of a phone conversation with the folk at Elsworth Kincade who didn't have their bid on time, they have since sent us documentation of what their bid was. It was $179,161 and indicates that generally probably the project is that price range, because you have two that are within $6,000 of each other on almost $200,000. That clearly represents about a 3% deviation which is well within the form of the 10%. By taking the $185,300 and adding to it the cost of monies that have already been spent, the cost of things that need to be done to and including the trees and the metal lettering for the beams, the plaques for the pavers, all those types of things. It looks like that this cost would be somewhere in the neighborhood of $238,090 at this juncture. Clearly from the committee's standpoint we don't have a sense of direction that we can advise you as to what ought to be done. This is tremendously over budget in comparison to what we as Mayor Corrie and former Council had thought that we were going to spend and that we voted to approve. No one on the committee had a sense of direction of which way they wanted to go. The feeling was that that was a tremendous amount of tax payer money to put for a 60 by 60 project. The feeling was also that this is one of those decisions that no matter what you decide you're going to have a difficult time supporting your decision. Kind of a darned if you do, darned if you don't situation. So what I'm here for tonight is some guidance from you to give to the committee as to what your wishes for us might be. Clearly it appears to me that from a practical sense that maybe the most prudent course of action is to reject the bid, go back to the drawing board, spend some time thinking it through and then come to a direction that you want us to proceed. Or your other choice may very well be that we disband the committee, look at doing something different, give them our thanks and press on from there. So having made this presentation, Gary will do a submittal here in terms of the formal bid process and what your desires are. We'll await your instructions as to how you wish us to proceed. Are there any questions that I can answer for you? Rountree: Walt I guess in fairness to some of the members that were at the meeting I attended and I am a member of that committee as well. There was a degree of I guess embarrassment, but they felt strongly that if this project could advance, we need to advance it. But they had strong feelings that they weren't clear that this may be the best expenditure of the money. Particularly if we feel it is inflated in terms of construction costs. So I think that Walt's portrayal of the session that I was in is correct and there isn't any clear direction from the committee. There's mixed feelings, and I certainly have mixed feelings about it for what you said, is this the best expenditure of public funds. However weighing that against the commitment the city has made the fund raising efforts that have gone forward if in fact we choose not to advance the Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 39 project, we have that to deal with and we have to put together some kind of strategy either to move it forward or how to figure how to get back to the folks that have been waiting for this thing for over two years. Morrow: I think I can help you also Charlie in terms of probably the person that's been the most involved in this project from its very beginning clear back into I believe he said the early 90's was Terry Smith and Terry Smith was really torn. I think kind of paraphrasing here, but his reply was as a supporter of this project from the very beginning and a labor of love that he wanted to see it go forward. But as a tax payer he had reservations about the commitment of that type of tax payer funds. That shows you the dilemma. Most members of the committee that were present felt and I polled the other members by virtue of phone conversations and they had roughly the same feelings. So, this is something that we need your guidance on as to it is to do and think that I also indicated in the meeting that from my position if I was a sitting city councilmen at that point in time, I don't know what my answer would have been. I don't know today what it would be. Any other questions or comments? Corrie: Walt, I don't have a question. I have a comment that I do want to thank you for your work and the committee's work on this. I kind of feel like you do that we probably should interject a bit as being very difficult to handle. I think that we need to pursue something here for the city. I think that maybe we can redesign, not have columns, the beams. Those are pretty spendy things. And perhaps look at something different that we can do at that corner and at least do something that the people would approve of but not near as expensive. So that's where I'm coming from. I think the city should have something down there rather than a parking lot for across the street. So that's where I'm coming from. I really do feel that the people of Meridian want to see something down there. I think it doesn't have to be as grandeur as we had originally planned. We realize now that it's too grander. It's nice, it was a good thought. Morrow: I guess if I have a lean against it there is some common ground here. I think that clearly as a former council and the current council we have a commitment to do something with that corner. I think that Charlie made the point very well in Friday's meeting that it's very difficult to budget $200 and some thousand for a project like this when we have — we've just recently lost soccer fields at St. Luke's. It's tough to justify no baseball fields. $200,000 buys a lot of that in a sports park at the corner of Meridian and Ustick. On the other hand we have a commitment to go forward with something down here. So maybe there's some middle ground that you refer to Mayor that the project can be redesigned so that it is still attractive and still serves the function that we had intended, but also allows us to build it for a reasonable amount of money and then press on meeting the other needs of the community in parks and recreation area. Bentley: Yeah, I would agree. I'm in favor of rejecting the bids and having the council get with the architect and do a little redesign and move on from there. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 40 Bird: I agree with the people. We're going to have to scale it back. I think we definitely need some at that corner. I would like to see if we can keep this committee in tact if they would like to stay serving, let them go ahead with the redesign and see what they can come up with. I would like to know why we only had one possibly two bids. I think know why being in the construction business. I think it's the wrong time. I think everybody was pretty busy. If it had been bid out this spring, I think we would have had more bidders. Morrow: I think part of the answer to that question is yes, we've had a really unusual year with respect to weather, and in our field as you well are aware of everything is out of sequence right now. It won't be corrected until the first snows come and we get back on the normal work sequence. I think however the other part of that is that clearly as our discussions were last November. That this is a structural concrete truly commercial type of project. It is very complex. It does not lend itself to the volunteerism of the original scope and concept of what we went to work under. Having said all that it is also small enough that the companies that are most qualified to do this type of work aren't going to bid the project because for example they're in involved in 8 and 9 story buildings in downtown Boise and several other major kinds of projects and it just doesn't fit in their scope of work. So to some degree we're in no man's land with the design with respect to finding qualified contractors. Now these two may be qualified. I'm not personally familiar with either contractor, so I can't tell you what their work history is, project size and so on and so forth. Corrie: Any further discussion? Morrow: We'll await your instructions then. Corrie: Thank you Walt. ITEM NO. 16: WATER / SEWER / TRASH DELINQUENCIES: Anderson: I make a motion we accept the delinquencies and turn off schedule for 9/16/98. Rountree: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Anderson and second by Mr. Rountree to approve the water, sewer and trash delinquency turn off list. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 41 Corrie: Mr. Sale, you're sitting out there waiting patiently. Yes, sir. Sale: (Inaudible) I came over tonight to make an introduction to the Council. I want to introduce Mr. Steve (Inaudible) with the District. Steve is going to be your liaison to the District in the future. He'll try to attend as many of your meetings in the Planning and Zoning Commission as he can. While he's been with the District about a little over nine years, he won't know the answers to all your questions, but he'll find out the answers to those questions so you'll see him in your meeting room from time to time and feel free to call him. Corrie: Steve, how do you spell your last name? Sneed: S -n -e -e -d. Corrie: Just like Sam Sneed, huh? Sneed: Second cousin. Corrie: And you're a tennis player too? I'm a sports fan from way back as you can tell. Welcome Steve. We're looking forward to working with you. Rountree: So Steve's our go to guy when we have questions for ACHD and he'll connect us. (Inaudible) Rountree: And he's in your shop? Sale: Yes, Steve has been with me for about three years. (Inaudible). ITEM NO. 17: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: GARY SMITH: GENERATIONS PLAZA BID RESULTS. Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, I've got a copy of the bid schedule that was submitted for the Generations Plaza and I'll pass that out to you. That's a breakdown of the work items that were bid by the contractor that submitted the bid. Assistant City Engineer, Brad Watson, is here this evening and Brad is infinitely familiar with the project and can answer any question that you might have, so I'll turn the floor over to Brad. If you have any questions, he'll be happy to field them for you. Corrie: You didn't win the lottery did you? Watson: No. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 42 Bentley: I don't think he would spend it on this. Watson: I wasn't going to say that. I guess if there's any questions. Bentley: Mr. Mayor I don't have any questions. Corrie: I think I would say to Brad that you've done an excellent job here and providing us with the specs and everything else. I want to personally thank you and Gary and your department for doing this. I had Walt. I thanked him before, but you guys did a loi of work here on this and I'm really sorry that the price is so high, but I think personally I'd like to see you go back and I think Mr. Bird said it quite well that he would like to see something else done and maybe not such a grandeur here. With that I'll open it up for the Council. Bentley: Well Mr. Mayor I don't think we need to discuss it much farther than we have. With reluctance, I'm going to make a motion that we reject the bid and return this back to the committee. If they remain in force and see if we can't do a scale down version of this and come up with something. Bird: I'll second that. Corrie: Motion made and second that as stated. Discussion? Rountree: Mr. Mayor the only certain thing that I am about this project is rejecting the bids. I'm still not convinced that a scale down approach is the way to go even though that is an option to us and I don't object to that option but I believe that if we can keep the committee active. I know some members on that committee were adamantly opposed to going back to the public and explaining what's going on. I still feel that if we do scale back we need to go back to the public because we sold this grandiose model to the public to the people who donated, to the people who bought bricks. If that is ultimately the option we select we need to factor that into the direction we go. I'm still struggling with the expense of this small public space. I'm not sure that the scale back version is going to provide that anchor point that the people have been involved in this for years are expecting for downtown Meridian. I guess for that reason I guess at this point I would not be able to cast a favorable vote to the motion, not that I disagree with the rejection of the bid, but more that I'm uncertain at this point about my own feelings of how we need to proceed. I would like a little more time to think about the scaling down proposition. The possibility of moving forth with the way it is (End of Tape) Rountree: ... a second bid possibly at some later date. Maybe this winter when it might be more favorable. Anyway those are my comments at this point. I'm still not prepared to make a decision on this other than to reject the bid. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 43 Bentley: If the Council would feel more comfortable I'll change the motion and give us some time and maybe review this over in a work session or specific meeting to address this if that would make them feel more comfortable. Rountree: That gives me a warm feeling, but I don't know about the rest of you guys. Bentley: I'd like to know what Ron's thoughts are. Anderson: I guess I'm not opposed to just making the motion to reject the bid, but I've done construction enough to know that even bidding this later in the year is not going to cut the bid in half. We may knock a little bit off of it, but I think there has been a commitment made to do something with that piece of land. I think it should become obvious to everybody at this point that the plan that we had was too expensive and I think we have budgeted money to do this. I think a lot of Charlie's concerns would probably be eased if we got a new set of plans that people can look at, because once they see those new sets of drawings then they've got something concrete that they can envision. Bentley: Don't mention concrete. Anderson: Something solid that they could actually pin their eyes on and look here, so at this point I could go either way on this, but I wouldn't oppose if you wanted to delay it and think about it a little bit, but I think we need to do something and I think it should be obvious that we need to scale back and put together a new design and say this is what we've got to work with money wise, and fit it into this project. Otherwise we can be sitting here a year or two years from now debating the exact same issue with nothing over there but weeds. Bird: Like we've already done for two years. I have no problem with just rejecting the bid, but I've got a problem with putting in much more money over there than what we have. I liked the idea and I was in with Bob and Glenn when we told the architect to go forth. I'm not dreaming this to be this. Of course I also though we'd get more money raised. I think you take out money out of one organization that's in there. We haven't got very much money in raising our papers and stuff. I think that if I was to put out $238,000 which it's already cost, that would put us in a four plex softball field almost out there at that deal. I think we've got to — I have no problem looking back and scaling down. I'm like Ron. I think you can bid it two weeks from now and if anything Tulley Park proved to us you come back a month later and it goes up $35,000. It's not going to come down. Bentley: You withdraw you second? Bird: I withdraw my second. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 44 Bentley: Mr. Mayor I'll amend my motion that we reject the bid for Generations Plaza and give Council some time to do some reviewing on this. Corrie: Do you want to still hold the committee together? Bentley: I'd like to hold the committee together, yes. Rountree: I'll second that. Corrie: Motion made and second. Brad we've got the motion here now. Do you have some things in mind that you could share with us in this study that we're going to be doing some scaling that we can do? You've been with this project pretty long and maybe you had some ideas that could help us. Watson: Well looking through some of these bid items, the more expensive ones are ones that are have to do with the fountain and the fountain installation at the back. As you recall, we've already paid and have the fountain equipment, so scaling that back will either cost a lot still or we've wasted some money on some fountain equipment. The columns the structural work out front looking at the cost of those broken out it amounts to maybe $50,000. So even then you're looking at $130,000 still. There would have to be significant changes. Corrie: Thank you. Any further discussion? Bentley: Well the elimination of the columns in bringing the price down $130,000 1 think is a lot more palpable than $185,000. And there maybe something else we look at doing with it too. The fountain is bought so the fountain should go in. Watson: That $135,000 doesn't include the other $40,000 in extras that aren't included in the actual construction contract so you would still be looking at $175-$180,000. Bentley: Okay. Corrie: Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: Thank you very much. Okay, let's go back to the consent agenda item number D, Land Lease Agreement with L.J. Ranches. Council I think there's a resolution that we need to do on this one. Is that correct Bill? Gigray: That's correct, Mr. Mayor. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 45 Corrie: You have in your packet resolution. This is in reference to land that's needed by the waste water treatment plat that we had previously. I think it was Frank Johnson's property. Now we have got the lease (Inaudible) for $21,000. Is there any questions in reference to this resolution that you would like to have discussed? Bentley: I would just ask the counselor if he's reviewed it and everything seems to be in order. Gigray: Mr. Mayor if I might respond to Councilman Bentley. Yes, I have and it is my understanding that this is a historic relationship and is necessary for the operation of the waste treatment plant so that that can continue to dispose of waste on this property and that it is necessary to continue. We've just prepared a resolution so that the clerk could certify the resolution and provide it to the other party on your authorization of entering into the lease agreement. Bentley: Thank you. Rountree: Just a point of clarification for me. How do we go about identifying these sites and working the agreements? Do we do it by bid or are the number of folks that want this material pretty limited? As Bill just indicated it's a historic relationship that we continue. Just a little history. Smith: In the not too distant past we had been applying the bio solids to number of acreages within I think we limited it to a five mile radius from the waste water treatment plant, and I don't recall how many different parcels we had. But it began as ground developed and our development, residential development moved farther out, it became closer to the parcels that we were able to deposit the bio solids on and problems ensued because of odors, and so a decision was made to try and get a piece of property or several larger pieces of property to deposit or apply the bio solids to and eliminate the search for the smaller pieces. The problems with the odors with the neighbors and the fact that we have to monitor the soils for the different characteristics of the bio solids in compliance with the 503 rigs through the Federal government. So several years ago John made an agreement with I believe it was with the James family to apply bio solids to a piece of their property in lieu of the number of smaller acreages that we were applying to and then they followed through last year with Frank Johnson and this year together to gain more property because of the amount of bio solids that we're having to apply they went back and talked to the James family again. That's a little bit of the history as to how we got from where we were to present day requirements, the thought process for getting a large parcel of ground where we know we're going all the time. But it was not a bid process. Previously the people that we deposited or applied bio solids to wanted that material for the growing of their specific Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 46 crops. And there are some restrictions as to what kind of properties that bio solid can be applied to. Anderson: My question is how do we determine fee then? Do they submit a fee to us or is there a formula that we use to figure out how much we pay them then? Smith: I can't answer that question, Councilman, I don't know. I'm not sure how that number was arrived, how they arrived at that number. But it was approved as and I think that the waster water superintendent presented it the last time. I just don't remember the details as to how that was determined, but based on what was approved previously this proposal is in proportional relationship to what was approved last year. Anderson: Thank you. Rountree: I have no questions. Corrie: We'll need a number. We don't have a number right at this time. (Inaudible) Bird: I make a motion that we pass the resolution the City Council of the City of Meridian authorizing the Mayor to enter into on behalf of the said municipality and agreement entitled Land Lease Agreement between the city of Meridian, Lessee and Larry D. James, d/b/a L.J. Ranches, Lessor. Rountree: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bird and second by Mr. Rountree to the resolution for the city council City of Meridian to authorize the Mayor to enter an agreement (inaudible) and agreement (inaudible) between the City of Meridian Lessee and Larry D. James, d/b/a L.J. Ranches, Lessor. Any further discussions? All those in favor of the motion say aye? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Smith: Mr. Mayor, I will get some information for you Councilman Anderson and the rest of Council as to how these numbers were determined and I will have that just quick as I can get it into your boxes for you. Anderson: Thanks. That would make me feel better. Corrie: The next one is coming off the consent agenda is item E and item F is a memo regarding compensatory time and regarding administrative time. There's been a Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 47 request that we postpone the resolution of these two until the 15th of September in order to discuss them with some of the department heads. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I move that we table the compensatory time and the administrative time consent agenda items E and F until September 15tH Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made and second that we move to table the items E and F until September the 15th meeting. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: Item G is hookup to city water by Wheel City, Inc., and Bill I believe you have the paperwork on that one. I don't have one. I've got the paperwork, but I think it needs a resolution; is that correct? Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, I have the packet that you have which is the recommendation with regards and request to hook up to city water service. I certainly think the city has authority statutorily to do this. I think that in this particular circumstance, the one thing you always concerned about when you were supplying water outside of the boundaries of the city limits, you realize that your water system or any portion thereof is not subject to the ordinance protections that you have in your ordinances because it's beyond the city boundaries, and you want to be in a position so you can sever connections and service in the event that conditions are not met by the owner receiving the service and I have had experience in the past in other cities regarding even conditions of doing this that the parcel is receiving the water service would agree in writing to be annexed to the city at such point in time as the city shows or felt that it was proper to do an annexation, and I don't know what the practice in the city of Meridian has been. I apologize and I would note that I haven't had an opportunity to discuss this matter in any detail with Gary. I certainly it's his department I'm sure that's affected by this, but I those are the issues that should be addressed in these matters where we would provide service outside of the city limits. It's my understanding that the fee charged is sort of a double fee for this type of service and my proposal would be that we craft some kind of agreement that would be entered into by parties receiving such service outside of the city limit to try to protect as much as we can our own system and to ensure that if we need to sever that service we can and I don't — this is hitting Gary broad side here and I apologize for that, and I certainly would encourage you to question him about whether or not this is something that ought to just be done, but those are my thoughts. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 48 Smith: Mr. Mayor, Council members, Mr. Gigray, my associate over there in public works, Bruce Freckleton, put together a memo that I think you have copies of, or a copy of, that discusses this matter. In the past my department hasn't really seen a problem with connecting a parcel of property that's adjacent to an existing city utility even utilizing the double assessment fee as required by the ordinance. I think here there are several issues that need to be considered. One that it is contiguous to the existing city limit boundary on two sides. The city water line that's installed in the road fronting this property was recently constructed by Ron Van Auker. There is also a proposal for sanitary sewer to extend up this section of road that that project has been designed for sometime and are currently in the process of getting easements finalized so that that can be — so that construction can come to fruition so additionally this property at this time would be on septic tank for sewage disposal. Another point that it would under the county rules and regulations as far as building, construction is concerned. Building permitting is concerned as well as development of the property itself, the site development. It's just our feeling that it would be very appropriate to require the annexation of the property if the agreement is approved for connection to the city water line. Bentley: Mr. Mayor in reading Bruce Freckleton's comments, I totally agree with what he's saying and what Gary is saying. We've got a property that is contiguous with the city limits. The sewer line and stuff is hopefully getting ready to get off the ground over there. So I'd be in favor of telling Wheel City that they can have the water, but they are going to have to be annexed. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I guess just a point of clarification. I think our policy in the past has been on these hook ups is generally an emergency situation where we have an existing facility or residence where their well has gone dry or they can no longer get water or they lose their Central District Health certification in some way or another. We've been very generous in providing them the hook ups for both sewer and water in some cases without annexation. My sense on this is it's a new facility. I don't know of a case where we've granted city services to a new facility because of proximity to the city limits. We've granted use of United Water to facilities that we can't service that are in our impact area. But there may be a remote case out there, but I guess I say that in support of what Glenn just said is that in my opinion by the time we condition this or work out a development agreement or some kind of agreement for this hook up we've in effect annexed the property into the city by virtue of making them comply with everything we want them to comply with. I'm inclined to want to encourage them to start the annexation procedure so we can not only hook them up to city services, but continue on our sewer system and have them fall within our ordinances for having to pay for pay latecomer fees and those kinds of things for those facilities that are out there. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 49 Smith: And Mr. Mayor and Council members, the other aspect of that and Councilman Rountree you brought that up is that when the sewer system is extend in Lanark Street as part of this Eagle Road Franklin Road sewer project, if the property is within the city limits, then they are required to connect. If they are not in the city limits, there isn't way we can get them to connect. Rountree: Other than the help from Central District. Smith: Correct. So I think that would be one more point in favor of requiring the annexation. Corrie: Any other questions, comments? Rountree: Mr. Mayor I will move that we deny the request for hook up to city water by the new warehouse office facility for Wheel City, Inc. 3083 Lanark. Corrie: Okay do I hear a second? Bentley: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree and second by Mr. Bentley to deny the Wheel City, Inc. request for hook up to city water by Wheel City. Further discussion? All in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: Gentlemen I would like if you would have a very brief Executive Session here and then we'll be finished. Would you like to do that? Bentley: Mr. Mayor, can I do one other thing beforehand? Corrie: What is it? Bentley: Discussion on the franchise fee. Are we going to — we should have a resolution drafted. Do we need to do that at the next meeting to request to draft it up? Corrie: We can go ahead and request that without a discussion. Bentley: Request it now? Corrie: Pardon? Bentley: Now or at the next meeting? Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 50 Corrie: Yeah, I can just tell the city attorney to draw up the resolution. That would be the will of the Council. Rountree: I guess my question is what's the resolution for? Bentley: The resolution — Rountree: We would be passing the ordinance. Corrie: Yeah, that's what I was wondering. I was going to ask you — Bentley: Okay well my question would be it was mentioned I think you mentioned it on the dedication of the funds. Corrie: Dedication of the funds. I see, okay. Bentley: My preference would those funds be dedicated to public safety, fire, and police. Corrie: Okay, we can — Rountree: I guess Mr. Mayor from my point of view, that is a discussion the Council needs to have. I don't know that maybe a resolution might be premature, but it would facilitate the discussion. Maybe that's something we want to have on our next planning meeting to discuss. A draft resolution at least some draft concepts about that. Bentley: I just want to get it on the board so we keep going with it. Corrie: Yeah, I think we can do it Charlie. (Inaudible) Bentley: That's all. Gigray: Mr. Mayor if you are going to go into Executive Session my advice under the open meeting act is that you designate the reason why you are going into Executive Session. Corrie: Do you have that number handy what the — Gigray: I didn't realize we were doing this. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 51 Corrie: I didn't either until I got to thinking. Gigray: I think it's 6723 something. I know that much. Bird: Yeah, it's close enough. Gigray: I think if you state on the record the general purpose of it, the statute will identify itself. Bentley: Mr. Mayor I move under state statutes that we go into Executive Session for personnel matters. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made and second we go into Executive Session for personnel matters according to state code. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. EXECUTIVE SESSION Corrie: Okay, we're out of the Executive Session at 11:15. Do I hear a motion to come out of the session. Bird: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we come out of the Executive Session. Rountree: Second. Corrie: Motion made and second to come out of the Executive Session. All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: I'll entertain a motion to retire for the evening. Bird: So moved. Rountree: Second. Corrie: Motion made and second that we retire at 11:20. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Meridian City Council September 1, 1998 Page 52 MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:20 P.M. (TAPE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS ON FILE) APPROVED: ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK