HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000 09-05 PreMeridian City Pre-Council Meeting September 5, 2000
The special Pre-Council meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Robert D. Corrie at 7:05 p.m. on Tuesday, September 5,2000.
Members present: Robert Corrie Ron Anderson, Tammy deWeerd, Keith Bird
Members absent: Cherie McCandless.
Others present: Bill Nichols, Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Ken Bowers, Tom Kuntz, Bill Gordon, Dave Bowman, Will Berg
Corrie: its 7:05 p.m. open the Pre -Council meeting. Any questions the Council has or a Consent Agenda or any other things that they need to talk about, Staff advice.
Item D. Tabled July 5, 2000: Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: CUP 99-039 Request for Conditional Use Permit for planned unit development including continuing care retirement
community, single- and multi-family residential and office and retail use by Touchmark Living Centers – Joseph A. Billig – east of St. Luke's between Franklin Road and Interstate 84
deWeerd: Item D, there is a notation that there has not been a development agreement signed on that yet.
Corrie: They want to post pone it until the 19th they may not even buy it.
Nichols: Members of the council if I can I’ve had some contact from the attorney for Touchmark and he sent me a letter with regards to some things in the proposed development agreement.
I've got to go over that and get back to him. There is also an issue with regard to E. on that particular item and then also on F and G I received some stuff back from the applicant
and would like to request that F and G be moved to the 19th and the applicant is okay with that.
Bird: What about E?
Nichols: I don't have a problem moving it to the 19th if that's what the applicant wants to do on that one.
deWeerd: Mr. Nichols any idea on the development Agreement?
Nichols: Councilwoman deWeerd Mayor, members of the Council seems to me that there were some minor items and I can't remember what the major one was. But I did get a letter from Steve
Bradbury, their attorney and I just have not had a chance to get to it yet.
deWeerd: When should we continue that to?
Nichols: As far as I am concerned you continue it to the 19th if you wished.
Item H. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: VAC 00-005 Request for vacation of the alley intersecting East 1st between Pine Avenue and Idaho Streets on the east side
currently in an OT zone by Gary Benoit – East 1st and East Pine Avenue:
deWeerd: Item H, the applicant has asked for that to be delayed does Tom have any information on that?
Kuntz: I just had a brief conversation with Gary Benoit today. He called to let me know he just found out that he was on the council agenda for tonight and had not seen the findings
of facts of law. Will's office sent him a copy and there are some items I think he wants to discuss with us. Probably the biggest one is in relationship to Page 5 of 8, 0.5 developer
shall pay ACHD $10,400 the value of the alley since the developer is using the city's half of the sidewalk. What we're in the process of doing is exchanging the value of that alley for
a permanent easement through our existing parking lot. If that goes through then Garys company would owe the city half of that $10,400.
deWeerd: And which way is that going then?
Kuntz: ACHD has told me that they don’t see a problem with exchanging the alley for our easements for our parking lot and the values are about the same. But until I get a final back
from them – I don’t know.
deWeerd: Have the issues about the property lines been resolved?
Kuntz: No we have a meeting tomorrow at two o’clock with Shari Stiles and the Mayor and myself with Gary Benoit tomorrow to try and resolve some of these issues.
Bird: Pull that one too then.
deWeerd: I have nothing further on the consent agenda.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Item I. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: AZ 00-014 Request for annexation and zoning of 2.297 acres from R1 to R-4 for Randy Ware – Franklin and Linder:
Anderson: On the next one on Item I on the Findings of Facts and Conclusion Mr. Nichols has put a comment in there about Ordinance should not be passed until the Findings and Facts Conclusion
of Law granting the application and zoning. Is that just standard language or is there something you want to wait on?
Nichols: Councilman Anderson, Mayor, and members of the Council we want the findings adopted before an Ordinance comes before you for reading because that’s what binds the property with
regard to the conditions. This particular case the development agreement wasn’t required because of the size of the parcel, I believe that’s why one wasn’t required. I talked to the
applicant and he wants to go forward. That’s the next step we do this first and then we do the Ordinance.
Anderson: What was your question, you we’re asking about Autumn Faire?
Stiles: I had a couple of items if you’re done, whenever you’re ready.
Corrie: Okay go ahead.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council on Item J we just needed a clarification on what improvements were going to be required before tiling of that ditch took place. It reads on page five the
first paragraph it says the tiling shall be allowed to be delayed until further improvements are made to the property. And I didn’t know if that was if they did ball fields back there
or is that going to be – is a building permit going to trigger that? I’m not clear what the motion was when that was done last time.
Item J. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: AZ 00-015 Request for annexation and zoning of approximately 7 acres for proposed LDS Church by Quadrant Consulting, Inc. – south
of Overland Road, east of Locust Grove Road on Charolais Drive: Approve
Corrie: You are looking at J?
Bird: Yes that was the church Mayor.
Anderson: What page, what item number Shari?
Stiles: It was page five on Item J.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd.
deWeerd: Shari I think that the church’s representative had mentioned that he was comfortable with any improvements on that back piece. Whether it’s a ballpark or a building.
Stiles: We just wanted to be clear so we can watch that.
Bird: That’s the way I understood it.
Corrie: Technically anything on it.
Stiles: On Item K just for clarification, on page five it probably doesn’t matter the numbers don’t appear to add up with the square-footage of the irrigation and sewer easements. I
guess that’s not really relevant because it came directly out of their application. On page nine under the decision in order just to clarify we would like paragraph one line three to
show they shall be required to plant a total of 10 trees on the site with a comma and shrubbery along the southern boundary border. Even though we know what it means it’s a – it appeared
by the way it was worded that they’re required to plant 10 trees and shrubbery along the southern boundary. On L I received another version or I don’t know if it’s a new version or not
of – Ada County Highway District comments on Arby’s at this point we’ll just make sure that they sign off before they get any – issue any building permits on that. We had some requests
for continuations; did you already cover that Mayor? Item 10 of the regular agenda.
Corrie: No.
Anderson: Do we want to continue?
Corrie: Did a letter come in or something?
Stiles: Tony Hickey told me that he would be submitting a request for deferral of that. Due to the fact that Ada County Highway District is still working out some issues on the bridge
and other requirements of having to do with Ten Mile Creek and their landscaping. They were concerned that if we acted on it tonight and put any requirements about bridges or anything
else that Ada County Highway District would feel they weren’t responsible for any of the improvements. They would like to work that out before they come back to the Council.
Bird: What do we do with that Mayor?
Corrie: I don’t know, do you have the request?
Bird: Is it written?
Stiles: I just had a verbal request, you haven’t received anything?
Corrie: We haven’t received anything.
Stiles: I don’t see John Goade or Tony Hickey here but that still has not been worked out. And we have not received any additional information.
Smith: Mayor and Council on No. 11 the information that I received that had been generated from one of my staff members on the building in the Flood Plain with that finished floor elevation
lower than the Flood Plain elevation. It doesn’t sound like it’s a reasonable solution to the problem. The information that staff member received from IDWR Water Resources indicates
that’s opening need to be constructed in the building walls in order to allow the flood to pass through. It doesn’t sound to me as though that’s a reasonable solution to the issue. I
talked to a hydrologist about five o’clock today that’s done a lot of work for FEMA and others, he indicated that there is some way to flood proof a building a commercial building if
its going to be finished floor level below the base flood elevation. I don’t have any details on that yet; I wasn’t able to get any details on it.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Smith: I think the information that has been presented to you although it is information that was relayed to us by the local representative for FEMA it doesn’t appear to me that is the
answer to the problem. That they can’t elevate the finish floor of this building one-foot above the base flood elevation just because it would put it about I think about 2.75 feet of
fill above the existing ground out there. And that’s not a reasonable solution to it either because then you can’t build a parking lot that will retain drainage on site its so much higher
than everything else. So I talked to our building official tonight at around five o’clock and I asked him if he thought the applicant would have a problem with another delay. He said
well in light of what the situation is it would probably be better to postpone it to the next meeting in order to get this finally resolved. I don’t think we have an answer for him right
now.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I guess it was just point of order I felt the information Gary was giving us was good but it wasn’t appropriate here that that is information that may influence our decision
and should be given in public hearing and not in this meeting.
Corrie: Well get it again. Thank you.
Smith: Thank you.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor with regard to Item 10 and the issue about continuance one of your options is to wait until you get to that item and if the applicant is here you can ask him. If he’s
not here you can continue it if you choose.
Corrie: Anything else from Council?
Bird: I have nothing.
Item No. 35 Amendment of one Condition of Approval for Bear Creek Subdivision – Drainage in the Park: Approve Amendment
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council Tom has information on Item 35 that if you would like to hear what he has to say about it now. One of the conditions of the approval for Bear Creek Subdivision
is that no drainage be allowed in the park. He believes he has reached an agreement with them were by it would be acceptable for the drainage to be in the park and we can either wait
until 35 or cover it if you want to now.
Corrie: It’s not a public hearing or anything Council do you want to hear that? How long is that going to take Tom?
Kuntz: Five minutes.
Bird: I don’t care.
Corrie: Okay Tom.
Stiles: Also Mr. Mayor and Council I know it seems unlikely that we’ll get through all these public hearings tonight. I would like to request your consideration of continuing the public
hearing for the Landscape Ordinance to a date certain prior to the 19th as its probably going to take a couple of hours to get through the testimony and the presentation. And it probably
should have a meeting all its own we would like to have that if possible prior to the City Council meeting of the 19th if you can have quorum for a special meeting that maybe start at
six or six-thirty and take a couple of hours.
deWeerd: I have no problem with that.
Corrie: Tom why don’t you go ahead.
Kuntz: Just to get you acclimated real quickly Star Road runs north where my hand is to south and Bear Creek Subdivision. In the purple will be a pathway that will be slightly elevated
in the interior of the park that runs around the perimeter of the park. What we’ve come up with is a workable solution to their problem and yet it does not impede any kind of activities
or maintenance in the park. All the seepage beds will located either under parking lots there is one located under this parking lot (inaudible) were responsible to construct. There is
one underneath this parking lot, which they are constructing at their cost. There is one under this pathway and there is one under this pathway here. So the seepage beds none of them
will actually be in any of the grass area one will be contained in the parking lot in the south corner of the park. Once those seepage
beds fill up there will be a pipe, which I have drawn in red, which will be at the top of the seepage beds, which will be piped in a 12-inch pipe over to the Harden Drain which is going
to be tiled. In blue you have what would be the overflow areas and they are contained again between that pathway highlighted purple and the back of the property lines which are slightly
elevated. The total depth of those drainage ponds will be six inches. If you are looking at a cross-section of what the actual overflow will work is if this square is the seepage bed
and its filled of course with pipes and drainage rock. At the top of that will be a 12-inch pipe that will go directly to the Harden Drain. Then there will a little catch basin here
that overflows into these little six-inch ponds. Those ponds highlighted in blue will only retain the water for a 100-year flood. So the chances of us having any standing water in there
within the park perimeters is very, very slim. I have had couple of impartial engineers look this over, I’ve discussed it with Gary Smith and I think they are all in agreement that his
plan will work out fine as far as not having any kind of standing water in any of the areas of the park.
Unidentified: Tom did you say that one was in the parking lot that we’re putting in?
Kuntz: This one here?
Unidentified: Yes.
Kuntz: There is a seepage bed underneath here and then the overflow is here and actually what I have asked them to do is to expand this overflow area so it takes in this whole square.
Then we’re going to put a basketball round in the middle here. Again this is just the 100-year flood everything will drain after the seepage beds fill up everything will drain into the
Harden Drain. This one is connected by red you can see to the tile drain. I think we have come up with a plan that is a win-win situation and will kind of set the tone for future park
developments within subdivisions.
Unidentified: Does that cost us more to put that parking lot asphalt that kind of stuff with that seepage with the bed underneath it?
Kuntz: No in fact were working with the developer to see what his cost would be to put those parking lots in as well as all the other amenities we’ve talked about so we can try and do
it within what we have budgeted this year.
deWeerd: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mrs. deWeerd.
deWeerd: Tom you said it’s a win-win situation, what does the city gain from that, buy allowing that drainage?
Kuntz: One thing that we gain is cooperation of the developer in helping us to get the park developed above and beyond what that have already committed to, which is the irrigation system
and the grass. They’re now talking about doing the rough grading at their cost, doing the parking lots at their cost. So I see the win-win situation is that they are going to continue
to work with us to get the park in place above and beyond what they committed to initially. The other situation and the other key player in this whole thing is Ada County Highway District
and the next step if the Council gives the green light on this tonight is to meet with them. Because they’re going to be responsible for the heavy maintenance if those seepage beds are
to fail and we want to make sure they’ll agree to put them back the way they found them. I know that Ada County Highway District also has an interest in discussing drainage solutions
in future projects when we may participate in those kind of projects also. I don’t know if that answers your question. There is a cost savings to them to allow this plan to work verses
them having to set aside additional common lots. By them not having to set aside additional common lots there is a cost savings which we’re hoping to reach some kind of a compromise
on added development in the park for exchange for them not having to do those common lots.
deWeerd: And you feel comfortable with it?
Kuntz: I am very comfortable with this. I feel like – I’ve talked personally with three engineers. This concept of the drainage bed with the drain with the drain pipe over the top prior
to the water going into the retention ponds is in place in a couple of areas. One of them in a Kuna that one of the engineers is familiar with. They had no standing water in that area
at all. I am very aware of retention bed and retention pond problems in Meridian. I have gone around with Shari and looked at some of them that have turned into wetlands and I want to
make sure that doesn’t happen in this situation.
Anderson: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Anderson.
Anderson: I just like to comment I think that’s a good approach. I’ve often thought about all these open areas that the developers leave us in these subdivisions and how they end up
being a low area where the water pools and become a mosquito heaven and what can we do with that. this looks like a good alternative instead of our park retaining all that surface water
from run-off we can actually get that back through the ground and get run into a drain ditch and let it percolate out. I think that’s a good idea, good concept and I applaud you for
looking into the different options on that.
Nichols: Mr. Mayor.
Corrie: Mr. Nichols.
Nichols: Just so the Council is aware when we get to that item on the agenda the requested revision to the finding is simply to add the sentence, which would be the drainage within the
park would allow upon approval of the parks director. But my recommendation to the developer was don’t come in and ask for that without being able to show the Council exactly what it
is that’s going to be done.
Corrie: Okay with that I’ll make a motion to close the Pre-Council hearing.
Anderson: So moved.
Bird: Second.
Corrie: Motion made and second to close the Pre-Council. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSENT
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:30 P.M.
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS)
APPROVED:
ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK