Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999 01-05MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 5. 1999 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:30 p.m. on January 5, 1999 by Mayor Corrie. MEMBERS PRESENT: Ron Anderson, Keith Bird, Glenn Bentley, Charlie Rountree. OTHERS PRESENT: Will Berg, Bill Gigray, Bill Gordon, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Kenny Bowers, John Shawcroft, Mayor Bob Corrie. Corrie: Council you have the consent agenda in front of you. Are there any verifications on the consent agenda? Bentley: Mr. Mayor I would move we pull item B and hold it for discussion after item number one on the regular agenda. Rountree: I'll second. Corrie: Motion is made and second that we pull Ordinance No. 808 and put it as item number two. All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: I'll entertain a motion for consent agenda with Ordinance 808 removed. Anderson: Mr. Mayor I make a motion we approve the consent agenda items. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Anderson second by Mr. Bird that we approve the consent agenda items without Ordinance 808. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. 1. RECOGNITION OF RETIRING VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS: Bowers: Mayor and City Council we have retired some of our firefighters. They have moved out of the district or have other projects going and have not been able to make our Tuesday night meetings, so we have come up with a different kind of a program now for certain years. Certain years we give plaques, certain years we give lanterns, other years we give axes, so this year is the first we're going to do this and we would like for you guys to help us out on this. Would Bob Corrie come forward here. Would Dave Atkinson come forward please. Three years of service. Brian Delange, he's not here. He's got three years of service. Kevin Newberry, would you come forward. Kevin has four years of service. Tony Ewing. Tony has four years of service. Tommy Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 2 Tebolt five years of service and Tom Vincent come forward please. We hope Tom has got a big wall to put this on. Twenty years of service plus for Tom Vincent. This kind of got started this year with Rod Shaul coming and wanting to do a little different for the retired people. Johnny Geisler got together and got the awards in and they didn't make it for our Christmas party so that's why we would like them to come tonight and present to them in front of the Council and the people. As you know every Tuesday night from 7:00 until 10:00 they're over there putting in a lot of hours, and I know a plaque isn't a lot of stuff but it is a little appreciation for us. Thank you guys for them come in tonight. Come: Thank you Kenny. I just want to say congratulations to the people that got their awards and also the other firemen here tonight. We really appreciate what you're doing and thank you very, very much. Anyone else from the Council would like to - Anderson: Mr. Mayor I would just like to echo some of those sentiments. As you were reading off the years of service, I was totally some of that up and I come up with just 39 or 40 years worth of service to the community here. I know a lot of these fellows. I've worked closely with them and I know the dedication it takes to do this for that many years and the amount of time and on behalf of myself and the rest of the Council I'd say we deeply appreciate you guys and wish you good luck in whatever it is that you're going to pursue now, and thank you for your time and efforts. Corrie: Okay the Ordinance #808 the private security services from the consent agenda has been pulled and will be open at this time. Council comments, questions? Bentley: Mr. Mayor I had not seen or heard of this ordinance and speaking with the Chief he had not seen it either before today and I'd just like to know how it came about and who was the author of it and get some background on it. Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, this particular ordinance exists in your books today. It's not a new ordinance. This is an amendment of the existing section of the municipal code of the city. The purpose of the proposed ordinance is to bring the amount of liability insurance coverage which is required in conformance with state law as it exists in terms of city's liability and this issue came about by reason of the fact that there were some applications made to the clerk's office for these types of security service license applications and they didn't have a form to process the applications but we had a city ordinance that governed it and I believe you have attached to your packet here a copy of the proposed application form to be used. That's not part of the ordinance. I just noticed that the existing ordinance was the old 300,000 provision that was the old tort claim liability which has been changed to single limit 500,000, so I thought we should bring it current. So you are just to help familiarize you, when you see an ordinance that's proposing an amendment to existing code you will see at the heading that's it's an amendment of the existing chapter. You will also see the strike throughs and additions so those items which are stricken through means that that Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 3 portion of the ordinance would be deleted by this amendment and those items which are underlined will be that portion that will be placed in its stead. Corrie: Any other questions of Council? Bentley: Mr. Mayor I just have a question for the Chief. On the application form that's been attached I trust this was drafter by you Mr. Gigray? Gigray: Yeah, in working with the Clerk's office. Bentley: Is everything on there that you feel needs to be on there? Gordon: I've got enough information there to do a background investigation Councilman. Bentley: Thank you. I have nothing further Gigray: I would just further add with your permission Mr. Mayor that we tried to make the application follow the existing ordinance. We didn't really try to change the rest of the ordinance and certainly would accept any comment the police department or anyone else might have to revise this whole section. We're not attempting to do that. We're just trying to bring that insurance coverage current. Corrie: Will, what's the ordinance number would this be? 808, any further discussion? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay hearing none I will entertain a motion for approval of Ordinance 808 Private Security Services. Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that we approve the amendment to Ordinance 808 section 8-2208(b) of the Private Security Services Ordinance. Bird: Do you waive the three public readings? Rountree: Don't need it on a - Bird: It's an ordinance. Rountree: With suspension of rules. Bird: I'll second that. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 4 Corrie: Motion been made to accept Ordinance #808 item number b with suspension of rules. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of - ROLL CALL VOTE: Anderson, yea. Bentley, yea. Rountree, yea. Bird, yea. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Bird: Mr. Mayor, Counsel says we have to vote on the ordinance now that we have amended it. Gigray: Now that you've just waived the reading. Bird: Now we have to vote on it. We have waived the three readings of it. Now we have to vote on the Ordinance 808. Rountree: Motion was to approve the amendment with suspension of rules. Gigray: Okay just so the record reflects, you've taken both those actions. Corrie: Yeah, both actions under one vote. 2. TABLED DECEMBER 15, 1998: BID RESULTS FOR GOVERNMENT UTILITIES BILLINGS SYSTEM: Corrie: I believe this is your John. John if you would like to give us some information on this. Shawcroft: I think there were some questions you gentlemen had last time that we're going to try and answer for you. I apologize that I wasn't here to do that for you. Gary Smith tried to answer to questions, but he was not involved actively with this particular bid. Basically the bids came in from Cassell Springbrook and Census. They are a window based billing system. There was some concerns that we had with making sure that we compared the products on an even basis. So what we did is actually make sure that all the training was included that all the data conversion was there so that we give you gentlemen something that you could confidently vote on. Corrie: John, I had a question and I think Council did too. One is on this training of eight people. There was training fees and then travel, lodging and meals and transportation. How many days of training is that? Shawcroft: That's five days. Basically Springbrook and Cassell did not include the training in their bid. Census did because it was on-site. Springbrook and Cassell will Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 5 tell you that that bid of $7,000 and $10,000 respectively is at their site and they did not include any travel for our people to go down and do that. Cowie: Now if they came out here for five days, they charged $5,000; is that correct? Shawcroft: That's correct, sir. Corrie: Plus the travel. How many people does that include? Shawcroft: For the trainer, that's one if he comes on site. Cowie: So we figure that it's $5,000 and then his travel to and from. Shawcroft: Correct. Whereas if we send them off site, we're probably three to five people sharing motel rooms and it comes out fairly close. Cowie: Council any further questions? Anderson: Our question last time John was is there a possibility that we could bring their trainers out here and find a computer lab or something and rent it here and how would it affect our operation if we send all eight people at one time to go take this training. Is that feasible or is it going to be broke up over a couple of different time periods and is it going to affect our day to day operation of the billing department? Shawcroft: They will if we want them to both Springbrook and Cassell will come on site and do the training here if we so desire. From what we saw with the accounting system when it came on line, there was a great deal of trouble with that training with interruptions. Those people have important jobs, and it just seemed to be that they were interrupted a lot. If we sent people down we did consider sending people after a billing cycle so that we can send maybe five people, leave a skeleton crew and just get by until they got back. Anderson: So we could send them like in two different groups too maybe to get - we want to train 8 eight people; is that right? Shawcroft: I think that's the number that we were using, but I think not necessarily so. Anderson: We have less than that? Shawcroft: Yeah, we could actually get by with less because some of the people that go down there are supervisors and they can come back and train the people who work for them. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 6 Anderson: So we could send them all in one group and not interrupt our service? Shawcroft: Right. We were just using 8 because that's what Census used was 8 people for training you know training 8 people and so we wanted to make sure that dollar figure actually represented what we're getting, so that we weren't favoring one vendor over another. Anderson: So the money that's in their bid for travel, lodging, meals, transportation, that's for their people. Shawcroft: If it is for Census, it's for their people. And I think it depends on how you look at it. If we send our people remotely to the remote location, then the city will pay that out of pocket and the vendor won't receive anything. But if they come on site, then they will have their fee plus their travel expenses. Corrie: In my mind if we send out our people, we've got a $13,000 bill to send our people roughly. I mean it doesn't come out that high, but - Shawcroft: No. I think you know you actually can put two people in a motel room. Meals are not that expensive and flights from here to Salt Lake aren't that bad, so I think it would be considerably less. Corrie: Any other questions on the item number two? Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none. Corrie: Entertain a motion on the results of the government utilities billing system. Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that we approve the bid for the government utilities billing system in the amount of $43,100 with Cassell, Inc. Bentley: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Bentley to accept the price of $43,100 of Cassell, Inc. for the training. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. 3. TABLED DECEMBER 15, 1998: FINAL PLAT FOR THE LANDING NO. 11 BY MALLARD LANDING LLC - SW'/< SECTION 13 T. 3N., R. 1 W: Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 7 Corrie: Staff comments first. Shari? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council we received the revised plat you just had placed before you tonight. I have had discussion with the developer and we worked out some of the issues. On the revised plat there is still a discrepancy in the ordinance it needs to be changed. It's minor and I think it can be completed. I would like on the record there to be some additional conditions on this plat that some of the issues may have to be worked out during the development plan review process as far as the landscape setback. Review that application I would want - I do want it on record that I am requesting and recommending that the 25 foot landscape setback beyond the right-of- way of the totally landscaped setback and that the fence be beyond that and that that is subject to design review approval by the Planning and Zoning Department. I would also like a note put on the plat that the homeowners association is responsible for maintenance of this landscape easement and that no fencing is to encroach the easement and that before recording of the final plat -before signature on the final plat that we review the recorded license agreement with Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and make sure appropriate notes are put on the plat about encroachment of that easement of fencing or any other structures. What you don't have in your packets is an additional page from the developer that has changed some of the square footages on Landing No. 10, which has already been approved. However we did not get the square footages of the housing resolved upon approval of that. It hasn't been signed yet. So they have submitted revised minimum square footages of the housing for Landing No. 10 and Landing No. 11 with this submittal that we are requesting to meet the ordinance requirements from 1991. Corrie: Any further comments from staff? Rountree: Are you going to repeat your statement or do you want me to read it again? Bentley: Shari, on this plat map we have here, I have a question on it. The title on it is Landing No. 11and down in the bottom of it, it shows Landing No. 10, Landing No. 9. Where is Landing No. 11? Stiles: The lots that are shown are Landing No. 11. That is what the plat is of. A requirement of state code is that they list the adjacent whether it's platted or unplatted or what those subdivision names are. Bentley: Okay that clarifies that and then a follow up at my request the previous meeting they were suppose to get with you and get all the problems straightened out. You're saying that hasn't been done? +,. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 8 Stiles: We haven't had a meeting in person. We discussed over the phone and discussed a lot of these issues. One of my - do you have my list of comments? Just to clarify where the questions were on the comments, on site specific number two, we had requested a six foot high permanent perimeter fence be required. And they have asked that phases ten and eleven be combined if they are going to develop those at the same time. Staff has no problem with them constructing the perimeter fence around the entire without requiring the temporary fencing. Number three, we had asked that the buffer area be platted as a common lot, however they would be below the minimum required square footages for the lots so we didn't request that, but we do request that the 25 foot landscape berm be provided and the fence be at that landscape setback. Site specific comment number four was in reference to the Idaho Transportation Department and what they had quoted about another project. We had not had a response from them on this project, but seeing as the approval was so long ago, I don't know how we could impose that requirement. I am very concerned about the buffering for this project. Everyone knows there is going to be another lane constructed westbound to Nampa, and I just don't want to see tax dollars spent on an 8 foot high concrete wall at that time when everyone knew full well when the development went in that that would be a requirement and that that would happen and that it would impact this development and that is why I'm so concerned about the buffer. The documentation, they have revised their house sizes as I said for Landing No. 10 and Landing No. 11 to meet the ordinance of 1991. It appears that all of the lots sizes now meet the minimum requirement. And I ask that all other comments stated here tonight and in our written comments would be incorporated into the approval. Rountree: Shari you had some comments previously and I'm not sure if it was on this one or one of the adjoining ones about the number of lots and sizes of houses on the particular lots as indicated on this plat. They have the house size shown, but minimum house size that would be shown allowed on the lots. You obviously haven't had this long enough to compute if that is consistent with our ordinance. Stiles: Councilman Rountree, Mayor and Council, I did receive a revised square footages for Landing No. 10 that I did not have in your packets and they have - I have computed the percentages and they do meet the requirements of the 1991 ordinance. Rountree: Okay. Cowie: Any other comments from Council? Questions? Bird: I have none. Rountree: I would have a question of the developer or his engineer. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 9 B. Blazer: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, Bruce Blazer represent Mallard Landing LLC. Rountree: My question centers around the specifics of the barrier on the southern side of the proposed subdivision adjacent to I-84 and there's been some confusion about what's going to be there and what it is we want and I know you had some comments at the last meeting that we had only wanted a certain height barrier and you were proposing something more significant than that, and I would just like to know specifically what is being proposed there in terms of height of berm, fencing, and landscaping. B. Blazer: Well the plat requirement shows a 4 foot berm and 25 foot easement and in the letter that I gave you last time I indicated that we would like a much higher berm than that. I think currently we have a berm that's between six and eight feet tall. We have additional dirt that we were going to take out of the roads of phase 11 and place on that berm. To make it even taller, because we recognize that we need a barrier there to help take the noise away from the houses. The problem arises I think between our concept and staff in that staff wants us to place the fence on the 25 foot line and landscape the full 25 feet to the southern boundary to the property. We are proposing putting the fence on top of the berm and landscaping from the fence to the southern edge of the property. In discussing this with staff, we came to the conclusions we could move the berm to the north. It would encroach into the backyards of the homes that are there. To do that we wouldn't place as high a berm as we would if we could use the full 25 foot easement for the berm so there's sort of a trade off there. I think in design we're open to just about anything. We have to protect a little bit the backyards of the homes that will be built there, so we aren't in opposition to any advice that the Council wants to give to us and any direction that you want to place on us. Rountree: I personally would like to see that berm as high as you can get it and if you place the fence on top of the berm and landscape from the fence to the roadway right- of-way, that's consistent with some of the treatments that are further east along the interstate. My concern with that would be how would the homeowners or the homeowners association maintain that area. B. Blazer: The area within the 25 foot easement would be maintained by the homeowners association. Shari wants it placed on the face of the plat. We're also putting it in the covenants of the plat. So it would be maintained by the homeowners association. Rountree: And you indicated that the berm height at this point is approximating eight feet and going to be higher depending on how much more material you have to waste. B. Blazer: That's what we were planning on doing, yeah. l' Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 10 Rountree: Approximate ten feet? B. Blazer: Very easily could. If we take the slopes one to one, we could get a ten foot berm there. Rountree: That's a pretty steep slope to try to maintain something on. B. Blazer: It is on the freeway side you could landscape it to where your upkeep would be minimal. On the homeowners' side yes it would create a greater burden on the homeowners. Rountree: Thank you. Corrie: Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Bentley: None. Come: Thank you Mr. Blazer. Shari do you have any further comments in this from what you've heard? Stiles: I would just like to reiterate I would like the fence at the 25 foot line at the apex of whatever berm is provided and that it not be a one to one slope which would be pretty much impossible to maintain. Come: Any other questions Council? Rountree: I have none. Bentley: I have none. Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay, I'll entertain a motion on the item number three, final plat for the Landing No. 11. Either approve the motion, deny the motion, amend the motion and have the attorney prepare the proper order on it. Bentley: Mr. Mayor I move we approve the final plat for the Landing No. 11 by Mallard Landing LLC with the conditions stated forth in the previous letter from Shari Stiles, P & Z Administrator and incorporate the conditions referred to tonight and order the attorney to prepare proper order. i Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 11 Bird: Second. Cowie: Motion is made by Mr. Bentley second by Mr. Bird to approve the Landing LLC with the amendments asked for condition of staff and that the attorney ordered to prepare the proper order. Any further discussion? Rountree: Mr. Mayor just a point of clarification the specifics as far as the conditions go. We talked about some modifications and different kinds of conditions particularly as it related to the berm and slopes probably for the applicant as well and staff and Mr. Gigray. Tell them what you meant Glenn. Bentley: With regards to the berm as suggested by Shari and Councilman Rountree to have the berm raised to height to what they were discussing and have the fence on the berm and at the apex of the berm and at the 25 foot property line without the one to one slope. Rountree: Thanks. Cowie: Any further discussion? All those in favor as outlined by Mr. Bentley's motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR VARIANCE FOR OLIASON PARK SUBDIVISION BY TONY HICKEY -EAST OF 603 PINE: Cowie: Direct staff to the notice that we got from Mr. Gigray, City Attorney, that states that you could take up item 4 and 5, then item six of the Council should receive the same approval and approve the draft form and then request the development agreement be submitted to the applicant for approval and further action of the City Council in this matter, and then item seven (Inaudible). Staff comments first. Shari? Stiles: I'm sorry Mr. Mayor and Council, I have not reviewed the Findings the variance however they were regarding the frontage on the lots. These lots are very deep and they've asked for a variance on the frontage for that reason. They do meet the minimum lot size easily for the zone they have requested which is R-8. It's a fairly straight forward project I believe. I have not looked at the development agreement either. I don't know if I have that in my packet. Items 4, 5, and 6 and 7 I have no particular problems with. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 12 Come: Council you have the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on item 4 in front of you along with the comments of the City Attorney. Anyone need any clarifications of the City Attorney's comments? Mr. Gigray would you please help us on this? Gigray: Item number 4 is simply before you for consideration because this way the action you took at the last meeting and I was just directed to do Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in conformance with your decision to grant the variance so what we do here in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as you can see is go through the basic requirements of your ordinance of the specific facts as it relates to this particular applicant who that is where the location of the property is, where it located and then some of the specifics about the request. The existing special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that would be in finding number 12 which is a condition precedent to granting the variance as I believe the evidence presented to you before was the fact that this was an infill project and due to its size and the street frontage availability there were economic circumstances on this parcel that would if this variance would weren't granted would leave a 2.5 acre parcel not developed or annexed and that strict compliance with the ordinance would result in inhibiting the achievements and objectives of your zoning ordinance and it wouldn't be detrimental finding 14 to public welfare or injurious to other property. There wasn't any testimony or any evidence to that effect and those findings just basically are there to ensure that evidence is presented that sets a basis for granting a variance. Conclusions of law are simply recitations of the appropriate city ordinance that govern this particular variance request and the decision or order is granting to the applicant and Virginia Jenson Family Trust is the owner here. Tony Hickey is an authorized agent for that Trust granting the platting variance and because the minimum street frontage and the particular lots I proposed in this decision and order to make reference to their specific drawing because it is that drawing that was the basis of this application rather than to set specific footages to lots that are not yet part of a final plat, and so that's why you see that order drafted that way. Bird: Thank you. Corrie: Any further discussion on Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law? Rountree: I have none. Mr. Mayor I move that City Council approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order of Decision granting the variance for the Oliason Park Subdivision. Anderson: Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Anderson to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order of Decision granting the variance. ROLL CALL VOTE: Bird, yea. Anderson, yea. Rountree, yea. Bentley, yea. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 13 MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. 5. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 2.84 ACRES FOR PROPOSED OLIASON PARK SUBDIVISION BY TONY HICKEY -EAST OF 603 PINE: Cowie: Staff do you have any comments on this one? Gigray: Do you wish me to report on this since I drafted it Mr. Mayor? Cowie: Shari you don't have anything other than what you say? Hearing none, Mr. Gigray? Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, based on the action taken by the City Council at your meeting on the 15t" of December, I have prepared the proposed Findings. Because this particular matter had Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law from Planning and Zoning Commission, you will see that your adoption of those Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and the specific numbers read in relation thereto are identified in Finding of Fact three and four. The first portion the first two findings have to do with the fact that notice has been done in accordance with the law for your own public hearing, and then in conclusions of law this proposes as you took action that night to adopt the Planning and Zoning Commission's conclusion of law. I've moved six to a fact because I think it's more a fact than a conclusion of law. But in any event it is the same as it was presented to you and then I have added in conclusions of law two through four. Those specific statutory provisions that relate to the City Council's authority in this matter. And then in the decision and order granting annexation and zoning application, I have set forth specific conditions therein based on the record that I understood was made on the 15t" and that was that the applicant would need to prepare the legal description. We would prepare the appropriate ordinance of annexation and then that the developer enter into a development agreement that provided for specific conditions and then you will see part three thereof the litany and list of all of the conditions that would become part of the development agreement which we have drafted for your consideration which is the next item. Cowie: Further discussion? Then I will entertain a motion of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law request for annexation and zoning. Rountree: Mr. Mayor that the City Council approve Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order granting annexation and zoning application subject to the conditions as stated. Anderson: Second. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 14 Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Anderson (End of Tape) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - OLIASON PARK SUBDIVISION: Corrie: Mr. Gigray. Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, pursuant to the action that you just took, we have prepared a proposed drafter for development agreement which you have before you. This is a standard format form which I hope will become more familiar to you that we were using on these. Based on the action that the City Council took, we have not included and eliminated the lien language that was in some of the earlier forms. That is not part of this. This particular draft provides in section 4 the particular requirements of the development agreement which are specified in your order of decision. What we would request your consideration would be the approval of this form and then your direction that it be submitted to the developer for their review and signature and sent back pending your taking action on the annexation. Because the condition of the annexation and zoning is that they enter into the development agreement. Corrie: Questions Council? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion. Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that we accept the development agreement for the Oliason Park Subdivision as to form and request that the draft be submitted to the applicant for signature. Bentley: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Bentley on the development agreement. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. 7. ORDINANCE #809 -ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF OLIASON PARK SUBDIVISION: Gigray: Mr. Mayor if you wish a little information this item. Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, because of the record of this matter and as part of your action approving the annexation and zoning and as I saw the record there is a requirement the applicant prepare the legal description for the annexation. To ensure that we have a legal description that will meet the requirements of the code and I recommend that we have those approved by our own Public Works Director, Gary Smith, to ensure that we don't get them kicked back from the State Tax Commission and that they are accurate. In Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 15 addition prior to passing this ordinance I recommend the development agreement be signed by the applicant and then back to this Council so that part is done prior to annexation, but I do believe that having the draft is important because you could sponsor this ordinance. Someone could get it on the table, do the first reading and then just put it on the table for continuance until the next meeting. The procedure I think should be followed if the development agreement isn't signed prior to the next Council meeting, then you could direct the clerk to just continue it on until that happens or you can proceed with the second reading because you could tier this out and still do it in stages, but you get it on the agenda, it stays there and it doesn't fall off. Rountree: Mr. Mayor I have a question for Mr. Gigray. This particular type of ordinance only needs two readings not three? Gigray: No, all ordinances need three. I'm just saying at some particular stage of the proceedings you may determine you want to waive the remainder of the rule and proceed to passing it. Corrie: Mr. Gigray on the reading the ordinance, is it two times you read the first part and one reading is the entire ordinance or how is that done? Gigray: Usually my experience has been they just read the title that that suffices for reading the ordinance because the title of the -state statute prescribes and you'll see our titles tend to be a little bit long, but it says it should have all the essential points of the ordinance. If you have readings, you need to do that. At some point when you can waive the readings, you can just do that. Now you could elect in the future to place this on -well no, never mind, I'm thinking of something else. Bird: Mr. Mayor I have a question to ask. This ordinance is upon the developer agreeing to sign our development right? If he don't agree with that development agreement and stuff then this ordinance is null and void right? Gigray: No, what you've done is you've ordered the approval of the annexation and zoning, but the actual ordinance itself is the one that will annex the property. What you don't want to do is create an ambiguity by annexing the property and then have a developer decide they're not going to sign a development agreement and then you may be put in a position of having to go through a deannexation procedure which would be - Ijust don't think there's any reason why the city would want to put itself in that position. Bird: Why would we want to pass the ordinance without him signing the development agreement? Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 16 Gigray: Well I would recommend that you not do that, but what you'll do by sponsoring it is you just get it on the agenda. for consideration because until you waive the rule and have the third reading, it's just on the agenda for further consideration. Bird: Can tonight be considered the first reading? Gigray: If you choose to do so or you may say I'm not ready to sponsor the ordinance yet. And you move on to the next agenda item, but I was thinking this would be a way. We've already prepared this. It gets it on the agenda and then the clerk will bring it back to you at the next Council meeting. Rountree: Could we not continue action on this particular ordinance until our next regularly scheduled meeting? Gigray: You certainly could. I just think it probably ought to have some sponsor in order to get it on the agenda, or I guess you could receive it from me and then you just put it on the -just table any further action at that point. You know it's a piece of legislation that should have a sponsor to have a place on the agenda. Rountree: I move that we continue action on Ordinance #809 until our next regularly scheduled meeting January 19~h, 1999. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion is made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Bird to continue the Ordinance #809 and I assume tonight the first reading on that one. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: Mr. Clerk would you like to read the title to Ordinance #809? Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor. (ORDINANCE #809 WAS READ) 8. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 5.4 ACRES FOR PROPOSED MIDVALLEY BUSINESS PARK SUBDIVISION BY RUBBLE ENGINEERING - NW OF EAGLE ROAD / I-84 INTERCHANGE AND WEST OF EXISTING TEXACO: Corrie: Shari, staff report and recommendations. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council you have received a letter from the applicant's representative regarding the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. The condition Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 17 does still remain in the Findings that the conditional use permit will be required for each lot on the subdivision. The applicant's representative and I have not had time to sit down together and discuss the development agreement and we are also waiting from the applicant some covenants that can some of the conditions could be incorporated in the development agreement so I would request that you table items 8, 9 and 10 to your meeting of January 19, 1999. Bentley: Mr. Mayor I would move that we table items 8,9, and 10 concerning the Midvalley Business Park until January 19t", 1999. Bird: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley second by Mr. Bird to table items 8, 9, and 10 recommendation of staff until 1/19/99. Any further discussion? Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council point of procedure. Given the comments received here it may be in the best interest of all to have the Council reopen the public hearing on this matter to receive the additional information. So that you have a record before you of that additional information so that you can make a final decision on this matter, and I believe the effected property owners would be entitled to notice of that because you cannot open a record back up once you've closed it unless you reopen it, but if you direct the City Clerk to reopen this or that you direct that this be reopened and that the Clerk give notice of continued public hearing and serve affected property owners, I believe we'd be in compliance with state law and our city ordinances to receive additional information. It's not a problem with the development agreement. It's not a problem with the preliminary plat. The issue has to do with the zoning designation and that's where we have the public hearing that first item for your consideration for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order of Decision in relation to zoning. Corrie: So we just need a public hearing on item 8 then? Gigray: Right I mean you just reopen the public hearing. You had one before and then you'll have to give the 15 day notice, which means you'll probably have to move this into February. Corrie: Do we need any motion to -well we better start all over again. Have Mr. Bentley remove his motion from the floor and then we get the second to - Bird: I remove my second. Bentley: Mr. Mayor I would move that for item number 8, Midvalley Business Park Subdivision that we instruct the Clerk to reopen and post the public hearing for the Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 18 Findings of Facts on the annexation and zonin~q, the 5.4 acres and schedule that for the first meeting in February, which is February 2" . Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley second by Mr. Bird to have item number 8 be reopened at the public hearing for the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law to be given. The meeting would be February the 2"d, 1999. Any further discussion? Gigray: Just a point of information Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. I think all the clerk would need to do is just send notice of continued public hearing with the same notice he provided before. In other words, the application is the same. Nothing has changed there. There's no material change, but that notice will show that you will be receiving additional testimony at that point in time. Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. 9. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -MIDVALLEY BUSINESS PARK SUBDIVISION: 10. ORDINANCE #810 -ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF MIDVALLEY BUSINESS PARK SUBDIVISION: Corrie: I'll entertain a motion for items 9 and 10. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I move that we table items 9 and 10 concerning Midvalley Business Park development agreement and ordinance #810 until 2/2/99. Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley second by Mr. Anderson -point of order Mr. Attorney, can we go ahead and do that by putting new Findings and Facts out before we do that? Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council I think it's a good idea to table it to a date certain. Whether or not we will be in a position to finalize all of those things at that point in time I don't know, but you can always table it back one more meeting and this kind of keeps it in attention, and I think it's probably a good motion. Corrie: Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 19 11. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 1.2 ACRES BY ROBERT F. BEEDE - 800 W. OVERLAND ROAD: Corrie: Comments°from staff? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I don't see Mr. Beede here. I don't know if he has had an opportunity to look at the development agreement. I did not specifically request a development agreement. However, the Council can require that as a condition of the annexation. The reason I wasn't so concerned about a development agreement is that it's already existing. They are proposing some additions. Mr. Beede has been very cooperative in trying to meet whatever the city's needs are. If you remember the reason he's requesting annexation is because although he exists as a commercial business at this time he is not zoned to allow an expansion without either an additional conditional use permit or rezoning in the county and so he elected to hook up to city water service and become part of the city. Mr. Gigray may have additional information on the development agreement. Corrie: Any other staff report? Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, as I understood the action taken by the Council at the last meeting, I believe you wrestled with the idea of whether you needed a development agreement or not and as I understood the action was not to do so. So what you have before you are Findings which go through the same litany in terms of Findings of Fact with regards to your authority and the public hearing and notice and so on. You'll see in Finding number three, proposed Findings, you will incorporate the Findings and Conclusions of Law and the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission except you are amending and accepting finding number 19.2 and I'm referring to their findings to -it's just that detailed site plans are to be prepared by the applicant for improvement upon the subject property. This provides that they would be reviewed and approved by Planning and Zoning Commission and that all city ordinances be complied with and then under conclusions of law we're making the same findings there in that proposal. Then under the decision and order, you'll see in part three there that a detailed site plans are to be prepared and then this specifies the conditions of those detailed site plans, which starts with 3.1 through 3.11 which were what I found in the record were conditions that would have been considered for a development agreement. Corrie: So we can approve the final action on that and eliminate item 12; is that correct? Bird: Item 12 wouldn't need to be on the agenda would it Mayor? Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 20 Corrie: No, we can just take it off. Gigray: And I can understand why those would be on there because those recommendations have come out of Planning and Zoning giving you the option either to go to detailed site plan route or through a development agreement and this was just one you took specific action on as I read the record. Corrie: So item number 11 we can use the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision Order granting -any further discussion? I'll entertain a motion on item number 11. Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that we approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order granting annexation and zoning application subject to the conditions stated for the property at 800 W. Overland Road. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Bird to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order granting annexation and zoning application subject to conditions stated in the motion. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: BIRD, YEA. ANDERSON, YEA. ROUNTREE, YEA. BENTLEY, YEA. MOTION CARRIED: All yeas. Corrie: With that being the case we can eliminate item number 12 on the agenda. 12. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - 800 W. OVERLAND ROAD: Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that item number 12 on our agenda be deleted. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Bird to delete item number 12 the development agreement 800 W. Overland Road. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 21 13. ORDINANCE #811 -ANNEXATION AND ZONING 800 W. OVERLAND ROAD: Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, again this is an ordinance that's been prepared for annexation and zoning designation of light industrial for this particular application. My cautionary on this one is that I'd want to make sure that the Public Works Director is satisfied that the legal description is appropriate. I don't know that he's had an opportunity to review that. Whether he affirms that it is, again, if that's the case, you could simply follow the procedure you did on the first one and sponsor it, read it, put it on the agenda for passage at the next meeting pending its approval of the legal description. Corrie: Gary, comment. Smith: I have not reviewed the legal description, Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Council can - Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that we continue action on item 13 Ordinance #811 until our next regularly scheduled meeting January 19~", 1999 and have first reading of the ordinance this evening. Bentley: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Bentley to have Ordinance #811 read by title and receive as the first reading sponsored by Mr. Rountree. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Berg: (ORDINANCE #811 WAS READ.) 14. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 7.30 ACRES BY QUEENLAND ACRES, INC. - Y4 MILE WEST OF OVERLAND FROM MERIDIAN-KUNA ROAD SOUTH SIDE BORDERING WEST SIDE OF RO-HO ENT.: Corrie: Staff report. Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, as you directed by reason of your action at the last Council meeting which effected a denial of the request for annexation and zoning in light of that directive have prepared for your consideration these Findings Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 22 of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order of denial. As you will see by going through this the Finding which is the most relevant with regards to your action has to do with the finding regarding the compatibility of this particular zone request as being inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan of the city and that is contained in finding number 16. The other findings that are here are consistent with the information which in 17~also deals with the inconsistency which has to do with the designation of this property on the Comprehensive Plan generalized land use map which shows presently single family residential. As a condition of zoning is that the zoning has to be in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Corrie: All right. Any other comments from staff? Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that we approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order of denial for the application for annexation of Queenland Acres, Inc. Bentley: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Bentley to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order of denial on the request for annexation and zoning of Queenland Acres, Inc. Any further discussion? Hearing none, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: BIRD, YEA. ANDERSON, YEA. ROUNTREE, YEA. BENTLEY, YEA. MOTION CARRIED: ALL YEAS. 15. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF .96 ACRES (OLSON BUSH INDUSTRIAL PARK) BY RAY ROBNETT - 3036 LANARK STREET: Gigray: As I recall my comment on this one is that there was a question concerning whether or not this would require a development agreement or whether or not it would be subject to approval of the site plan. We went ahead and prepared one just in case. (Inaudible) Bird: Mr. Mayor I was under the impression that we had done the same -this is already developed subdivision. I didn't think it went with the development agreement which I realize is the next agenda item. It says in here that on 3.14 that this is contingent upon a development agreement, but I thought we had waived that. I might be wrong. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 23 Corrie: I think we wrote it here that the applicant complies with all the city requirements. Such agreement will not be needed. I think he has in this case. Bird: 3.14 a development agreement should be required as a condition of annexation. Corrie: Shari any other questions of staff? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I think the only real issue that remained on this was the ditch issue and having staff and the applicant get together and work with whoever is in charge of that drain to determine the best course of action for future piping or non piping of that entire drainage area. That was the only ordinance requirement that there seemed to be a question on. Rountree: Shari or Gary refresh my memory so I can have it on tape, what's the size of pipe that we've normally deferred requiring tiling on? Is it 48? Stiles: It's 48 inch, and I think Nampa Meridian said it required a 36 inch pipe, but we still have questions about the recharge from the ground water in that I don't think Nampa Meridian even knows what kind of flow they really have. Rountree: I'm sure they don't. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Shari I don't believe that is not an irrigation ditch. That's a drain ditch isn't it that runs down there? There's water running in it year round. Stiles: It is - Bird: Something to do with the aquifer and stuff like a lot of the ground water coming to it and it fills. Stiles: It may be that some of the property owners in that area want to pipe it so they can reclaim that area because it is so deep and it does take - if they elected they could use that area, but I don't know that the staff would recommend doing that at this time without doing some research into it. Bird: I thought somebody said something about we needed to get the engineer of BLM or somebody in there to find out about that. Was it you Gary that mentioned that we need to get or Charlie? Rountree: I did and I don't know if that's been investigated either by Gary or Mr. - Smith: As I understand it it's not under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers. Bruce Freckleton checked with Corps and it's not theirs. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 24 Bird: Whose ditch is it Gary? Smith: Well Nampa Meridian claims jurisdiction on it as far as maintenance goes, and you're right Councilman Bird. It is a subterranean drain and it is called the Evans Drain and it does have water in it year round and that's its function. If it was ever piped the pipe would need to be water gathering pipe, rather than just a water conveying pipe. At this point we don't really know what size pipe it would take. Nampa Meridian has said at one time that they did know. Then we received correspondence not too long ago from them that they don't know. I've asked for a clarification on that from their superintendent, but I haven't heard anything from him yet. Bird: Gary, in your professional opinion do you think 36 inch pipe would handle that? That's apretty - Smith: I guess opinions are plentiful and everyone has one. Bird: We can all be lawyers and have all kinds of opinions. Smith: I don't know that I could add any value to the conversation by venturing one Councilman Bird. I really don't know. The highway department, ITD, saw fit to reportedly install a 60 diameter culvert under Eagle Road, and I'm sure that they did that for some reason, and I don't know what it was, but for Nampa Meridian to come back and say we could do this in a 36 diameter pipe, I'm not sure what that comment is based upon. Bentley: As I stated in the previous meeting, we've already gone to the extent of having people bond. RC Willey's bonding for the same ditch, and I think that's the only thing we can do until we find out for sure what the requirement is going to be. Smith: Mr. Mayor one other thing that I might just toss out on the table. We are dealing with Nine Mile Drain to the south and west of this site, and on that drain because it was under the Corps of Engineers jurisdiction, we were very specific that no piping was allowed because of the reason that it is a drain, that it is accepting subsurface subterranean waters, and I don't know. There may have been some wildlife issues. I don't recall that specifically, but I do know that the Corps was very specific about not allowing it to be piped, and in looking at the two ditches, this is Evans Drain is much more of a drain than the Nine Mile Drain is at that point. Corrie: Any other questions? All right I'll entertain a motion. I need to ask Mr. Gigray is that 3.14 need to be in there or taken out? Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 25 Bird: It's pretty clear Mayor. It says that as long as he complies with the city ordinance that we don't need a development agreement which the next item we would probably take care of that anyway. Gigray: I would need some direction from the Council because if you choose not to go with the development agreement route and you're determined to go the other way, then you're going to want to change part three of the decision and order because it says that the developer will enter into a development agreement and then there are all these series of conditions here. If this were a matter of presenting site plans for approval by Planning and Zoning, you could use the same language we used in the other one and you would just direct as part of your decision that that introductory phrase would be changed to that other language and then I would just resubmit this with that other language in there. In other the site approval by Planning and Zoning is -this was another one where it was submitted to either go by site approval or development agreement. Bird: We had approved to go by site development in the original had we not? Okay my motion has to delete the development agreement? Gigray: Yeah, you would just part three the introductory phrase here of the decision and order you would - Rountree: Mr. Mayor related to the discussion that we had about the piping, I'm not so sure that required piping is a good idea in that particular body of water, but to clarify the point in the findings, I would recommend that on page 5, item 16.12 last sentence of that paragraph, the first recommendation would be to spell Corps correctly. Spell check didn't catch that one. The last line engineers or the developer, insert or the developer provides an engineering study that the the size would be 48 inches, the size would be 48 inches or greater, or (inaudible) sufficient bond for future tiling. Make the same verbiage change on page 21 paragraph 3.12. Gigray: Yeah. Rountree: I'm giving the owner some more options. (Inaudible) Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that we approve the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order granting application for the annexation and zoning for the applicant Ray Robnett 3036 Lanark Street deleting all references to development agreement and inserting the appropriate language that would substitute for the development agreement lead ins and including the verbiage changes in paragraph 16.12 on page five paragraph 3.12 on page 21. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 26 Bird: Second. Corrie: Okay motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Bird to approve the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order granting application of annexation and zoning on item number 15 with the deletions and insertions of the appropriate language as made in the motion. Gigray: Mr. Mayor point of information just to ensure that I would be following the action of the Council, what I would propose to do then would be to change the phrase in part three of the decision and order to read detailed site plans are to be prepared by the applicant of any improvement upon subject real property be reviewed and approved by Planning and Zoning Commission which plans will be complied with as follows and then it would just be that list. If that's what you wish to do. Rountree: I think it's superfluous and redundant that it cites "development" but yeah. That would be correct. (Inaudible -off the microphone) Corrie: You're not going to change anything. You just want to comment on it. Any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Robnett: Yeah, just to keep me from having to call Shari up at 8:00 in the morning and explain all this to me. So I have the option of posting a bond for the ditch. I don't feel that it's economical to hire somebody to go out there to do a study. We've got everybody from we don't want the ditch tiled at all to a 60 inch pipe; is that correct? So that I can just post a performance bond for it. Now I have spoken with the gentleman at Nampa Meridian Irrigation, Bill Henson, and what their standard requirement is for that ditch is 36 inch concrete reinforced non-jointed fabric cloth gravel packed pipe. It's not just a matter of throwing in a 36 inch pipe. They want the water to be able to infiltrate. They want it semi-purified when it comes in and everything, and I've done this very elementary. I went to the gentleman. He's very aware of the project. He knows exactly where I'm at. He's been out there, and with that information I went to MASCO, who is a reputable contractor here in town and got them to give me an estimate on doing all of the above. Concrete reinforced pipe, gravel pack, filtration, cloth and everything. Can I use that estimate based on if it's tied to lot and block and width of the lot. There was some indication that it needed to go 20 feet passed and I asked Nampa Meridian and they said no, that's not their requirement. They're not even actually requiring the ditch to be covered at this time. They did say that they would find it very cumbersome if one Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 27 guy did his, three stores down the next guy did his, and they would like to see if and when it ever got done that it be done from Eagle Road in a continuous manner until you got to another open space. And do when I post the owner of the property will post a letter of credit and is Meridian City the beneficiary of that letter or is it more specific Nampa Meridian? Bird: The City- Robnett: And the other plans and specifications the other requirements that were on there, then I submit those to Shari Stiles or the building department? Bird: Public Works Robnett: Just that you and I have gone over it and everything is pretty much okay, but there was a request in there for submitting a set of plans. Stiles: Are you talking plans for the ditch itself? Robnett: No, plans for the building to check our setbacks - Stiles: That's done, it's in place, everything else is -- Robnett: Fine, okay. Corrie: I have one question for Mr. Rountree. Your insertion that under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers the developer provide the size which would be 48 inch or greater post a significant bond. Is that just a letter from him say it would be? Is that what you are asking? Rountree: Yeah if he could provide a letter from an engineering firm or Idaho Transportation Department if they do the study and say it needs to be 60 inches. That's public record if you could supply that to the City. That would be great information. That wouldn't cost you more than a phone call. Robnett: Well I might do that - I looked I mean I've been out there for five months looking at that project, and I too just have an opinion. But it looks like if you put a 36 inch pipe with no irrigation in there, it would be half full right now today. So there's a significant amount of water going through there. Thank you. Bird: Thank you Ray. 16. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT - OLSON BUSH INDUSTRIAL PARK: Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 28 Corrie: Council, I'll entertain a motion as far as the development agreement then in this case. Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we (End of Tape) I move that we take item 16 the development agreement for Olson Bush Industrial Park off the agenda. Bentley: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bird second by Mr. Bentley that we take item number 16 the development agreement Olson Bush Industrial Park off the agenda. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. 17. ORDINANCE #812 -ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF OLSON BUSH INDUSTRIAL PARK: Corrie: Mr. Gigray, comment. Gigray: Again Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, as a safety valve I would appreciate this being maybe sponsored and maybe put on the agenda and make sure the Public Works is happy with the legal description. Rountree: Mr. Mayor I have a question for Gary. Had you had an opportunity to look at the legal description on this one? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, Councilman Rountree, I think have - I think my associate has reviewed this. We've been to be pretty careful with these, and we are requiring that they be submitted by a licensed land surveyor as one of our ordinance requirements. But I can't say for certain. I will make sure that I check that so that on your second reading I will have that verified. Bird: Mr. Mayor I move that the Meridian City Council pass Ordinance #812 annexation and zoning of Olson Bush Industrial Park and for the public readings of tonight 1/19/99 and 2/2/99. Bentley: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bird second by Mr. Bentley to have Ordinance #812 first reading 1/5/99. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 29 Corrie: Mr. Clerk would you read Ordinance #812 title only? Berg: Thank you Mr. Mayor. (ORDINANCE #812 WAS READ TITLE ONLY) Corrie: Okay that concludes the first reading of Ordinance #812. The second reading to be January 19~h, 99. Before we start on the public hearings, I'll entertain a motion to have a ten minute recess. Bentley: So moved. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made and second. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. (TEN MINUTE RECESS TAKEN) 18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GENERAL AUTO REPAIR & SERVICE BY JOHN BISS -WEST OF MERIDIAN ROAD: Corrie: I'll open the public hearing and at this time I'll have staff give a report. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council you requested that this be placed back up for a public hearing because of some of the issues that remained with the extension of Pinwood Street. The (inaudible) of the entire parcel of property that was not shown on the conditional use permit and Mr. Biss is here tonight to answer any questions you may have. Corrie: Since this is a public hearing, I invite the applicant's representative to speak. Name and address please. Biss: It's John Biss, current place of business is 1334 E. First Street, Meridian. Corrie: Okay anything you want to tell us about your request? Biss: Just answer your questions you got. Corrie: Council, questions of Biss? Rountree: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Biss and Shari as well, I think one of the biggest issues we had was the landscaping and the setback or buffer strip if you will on that particular Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 30 corridor. I think we have 35 feet. That's what has been talked about with you, and you have difficulty in providing that given the lay out of the lot and - Biss: I don't really have difficulty providing it. The only real problem I have is they're not asking that of everybody on Meridian Road. They just approved a development straight across the street for only 15 feet. It's my understanding there's only two people that's asked for the 35 feet, and that's the one piece of property that I bought half of and Norm Fuller owns the other half, so that's the only piece of property they they're going to ask the 35 feet of landscaping on. I just thought it's going to look funny with 35 feet of landscaping in front of my place and the person beside me only having 15 feet and across the street only having 15 feet. Rountree: You don't have any problem providing landscaping consistent with what's adjacent to you or what may be adjacent to you? Biss: No Rountree: Okay. Biss: In fact my original findings show 20 feet because Shari said that would be fine but then you come back and say 35 is what had been requested in the annexation of the property. Rountree: We also have some information from the Public Works Department about the need of an easement in order to get hook ups for city water and sewer. Biss: The gentleman that I bought the property from still owns the property of the easement actually. There's a 50 foot easement there now for Pinwood Street that may or may not go through some day, but I've got verbal permission for the easement for the sewer. I have an easement agreement that I have access to that property, but I guess I need another easement agreement for the sewer. Rountree: A question for probably Gary or Shari, do we have documentation that identifies that easement? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council, Councilman Rountree I think there is documentation concerning the 50 foot wide ingress egress easement. It's identified I believe as an access easement. I believe that's all we have or all that's available. Rountree: And would that be sufficient for the utilities or do the utilities have to be outside of that easement? ~, , ~`~ Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 31 Smith: I would have to read the easement and see what it says specifically. If it's an exclusive easement to access only, then it wouldn't be sufficient. At least I don't believe it would from a legal standpoint and Mr. Gigray could probably address that better than I, but the easement would be between Mr. Biss and the property owner, N & D, I believe. Biss: Back when they were building the road, I called both the City of Meridian Public Works and they had me call the civil engineer, and they told me I got an 8 inch water and 8 inch main being stubbed into the property. What they didn't tell me is that vyas a main line that they planned on going back through Pinwood Street so somewhere along the line somebody has got planned for an 8 inch sewer and water going through Pinwood Street. I would assume that they had plans and permission to do so. Rountree: That's all I have. .Bentley: On your diagram that's done by your architect, Rendition, they show a temporary entrance off of S. Meridian Road. Biss: Yes. Bentley: Okay and that's between two landscape - Biss: Right. Bentley: If and when Pinwood goes through, are you going to change your access to Pinwood? Biss: At the time that I sold the property to the highway district, I took what I thought was substantially less than the property was worth for a trade for a guarantee to access to my property. And then later the Ada County Highway District says they want that to be a temporary, so they granted a temporary approach upon future redevelopment of that property. Only at that point in time would they ask that approach to be changed, and that's only if Pinwood Street ever went through, and Pinwood Street is still a big if. Bentley: Okay. My question is when Pinwood goes through, are you going to close the temporary access with landscaping to match what's existing? Biss: At this point in time, I'm not planning on closing it at all. I don't have any plans to do any more development, so I don't - my agreement with the highway district anyway is that I won't have to worry about that unless I plan to do further development on my property. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 32 Bentley: But the one thing I'd like to see is if that development occurs and your entrance changes, that this temporary be closed in with landscaping to match what's there. Biss: If in deed the temporary driveway has to be closed, yeah, we'd have to do something with it. Bentley: Thank you. Corrie: Any other questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Okay, thank you. Anyone else for this development request for conditional use permit to speak tonight? Anybody against the conditional use permit? Okay, hearing nobody else asking for public hearing request I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing on item number 18. Bentley: Mr. Mayor I move we close the public hearing for item 18, John Biss's conditional use permit. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley second by Mr. Bird to close the public hearing on item 18 request for conditional use permit by Mr. John Biss. Council you have before you make a motion to either accept, deny or change the - I'm sorry. All those in favor of the motion close the hearing say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: Discussion? I guess we need a discussion before we make a motion. Rountree: I have none. Mr. Mayor I would move that we direct the city attorney to prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions and Order of decision on the request for conditional use permit by Mr. John Biss, and that the Findings of Fact reflect a favorable action on the part of the city for the conditional use permit and that the permit be conditioned with concerns addressed by the City Planning and Zoning Director, Stiles, as it relates to landscaping,along Meridian Road and the points of access as discussed by Councilman Bentley. Bentley: Second. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 33 Cowie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Bentley on the motion to have the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as stated in the motion. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. 19. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 7.84 ACRES BY PAULA. HOFFMAN (MERIDIAN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH) - SOUTWWEST CORNER OF MERIDIAN ROAD AND USTICK: Cowie: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite any staff reports. (Inaudible) Gigray: I have submitted to you Mr. Mayor and members of the Council a memo regarding this particular agenda item. My review of this file in preparation for this meeting, I have some concern regarding the action the Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended a designation of L-O, limited office district, and I believe the application was submitted for a low density residential district, which is R-4. That would be a material change in the notice that would have been provided for the public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission, which the requirements of Idaho Code are that you have to renotice the public hearing, and I believe the process should also include that there were going to be hearing and a recommendation of limited office district that the applicant should make an amendment to their application for that district. I recommend in this memo a procedure as you will see under recommendations for the Mayor and Council to follow in this matter to ensure number one that I have interpreted the record appropriately which I believe that Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning, as well as the City Clerk could answer those questions, and then you may want to determine if the applicant has a representative here, what their position about amending their application, and then I recommend that you remand it back to Planning and Zoning. That the applicant amend their application, that there would be a staff report on the amended application which of course one of the analyses that we have to have is whether or not the application and the zoning designation is in conformance with the comp plan, and also that notice is given to the neighboring property owners as well as to the published notice of the zoning designation that would be recommended and sought, and I must disclose for the record that I'm a Presbyterian and a member of Boon Memorial Presbyterian Church. I make this recommendation (inaudible). Cowie: City Clerk, Planning and Zoning are these facts stated correct? What we have in this file I guess that it was advertised L-O and people had the neighboring property owners was R-4? Is that correct? Stiles: It was advertised as R-4. Bird: This being ran through as an L-O now? Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 34 Cowie: (Inaudible) Berg: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, the application did have R-4. My understanding is with confrontation with the Planning and Zoning Director during public hearing processes that they thought an L-O zoning would be more appropriate, but the application does have an R-4 zoning. If I'm not mistaken, I thought that was the conversation at the hearings. Cowie: All right. Is the applicant here? I guess - Hoffman: Paul Hoffman, 3235 N. Mountain View Drive, Boise, 83704. Mayor and Councilmen, I want to ask Shari when I made the application I believe that you pointed out in the hearing that the zoning I indicated on there didn't exist for.Meridian, because on the application I took a zoning classification from Ada County at which point then the discussion because okay, what is the appropriate zoning application for this location, and at that time it was brought to my attention that the parcel across the street, which is the new park was an L-O zone and also in the zoning book a church is a permitted use in an L-O zone and for those two reasons we said okay well let's make it an L-O zone, and that's where that went. Was that accurate? Stiles: The request was made for an R-4 zone, however, churches are not permitted in that zone. But we did discuss was it an L-O would permit a church. However I think that we probably need to look at a split zoning for because I don't think it's appropriate that we would zone that corner L-O because it's not intended for an office development and that's not the use that you are proposing. You are proposing a residential development so we may be looking at a split zoning that you need to apply for. Hoffman: Thank you. Did you folks understand that the corner lot is like one plus acres, so anyway that particular issue, that's my understanding. However the Council recommends we proceed, I believe I would be open to that. Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I just want to augment my advice here, and I think this is the first time since I've been here this type of issue has come up and just not only for this situation, but for future direction the Planning and Zoning and for the City Council, I always think it's best that the applicant, that the Planning and Zoning Commission make their rulings on the applicant's application. Either they recommend that it be or not recommend. You can receive this as a recommendation of denial of their application of R-4 and then proceed with the public hearing on that basis. The reason for my instruction here was so that the applicant understood that the better application or that they ought to amend their application when you remand it back then they can take appropriate action to amend it so when Planning and Zoning takes it up again, it's under a new application, and what has happened in this instance is I believe Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 35 this has caused some confusion which is understandable. No one has intended anything by that is that you get notices that go out to one that says it's a public hearing for an application for limited office and another one goes out saying that it's for an R-4 and anytime there's a material change in an application you have to renotice everything to whatever that change is. Hoffman: Are you speaking to the notice that's posted on the building? Gigray: There's a number of notices. There's a notice on the building. There's a notice to affected property owners within 300 feet, and there's also a notice that's published in the paper, and as I understand the record in this instance that we have notices that were sent in the mail that may not have been the same as were published in the paper, and in any event for this Council to consider an application for an L-O zone, unless the notice went out that way, we would have a problem, and the developer does not want to have an application process with a procedural problem because then it's subject to challenge and that doesn't do anybody any good. Corrie: So if I'm reading this correctly we should cancel this public hearing recommend it back to the Planning and Zoning for the specific recommendations then that you mentioned here. Gigray: Right and I'd also recommend it as you've already done is have the applicant at least be able to address the Council knowing what the advice that you've received is: They may decide no we don't want to do this. We want the public hearing (Inaudible) position is. Bird: Mr. Mayor I got a question for Mr. Gigray. Is he wants -they're talking about an R-4 and an L-O zone there. His new application should show that, shouldn't it? Gigray: Absolutely. Bird: So if you're coming back and wants (inaudible) if you're going to do some residential developing in there and not limited office, then you've got to file as both zonings on the property. Hoffman: I think Shari's recommendation is based on the fact that we have residential on the corner. Not so much that we're going to develop residential, but that it's already there and that's fine. I don't believe there would an objection to that. I guess what's going through my mind now it's not so much this issue but we were before Planning and Zoning twice and now to go back and revisit this whole issue again. There were a whole number of other issues that need to be addressed before you, and I'm wondering okay procedurally are we just talking about that particular issue or am I having to revisit Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 36 the whole thing with Planning and Zoning again. You know there are other conditions that the Planning and Zoning Department recommended that we - Bird: Start over and make new so you will have the whole ball of wax again. Gigray: I mean that can be part of the record. It's not like you start with new information. Sorry Mr. Mayor. I believe that the new application and staffing is going to of course build on what's already there. It's not like you're really starting all over again, but the problem we have and my advice to the City Council and to the Mayor is that we have a state statute that very specific about notice and we have state supreme court decisions that say if notice isn't filed in accordance with that statute, it's a due process issue and if anybody challenges it, they go to court and you can pass an ordinance and you'll get the ordinance vacated and you'll be back where you started all over again, so we know there's a procedural problem at this point. So the best thing to do is send it back so that that can be corrected. Whether or not the church wishes to amend its application or says no, we want R-4 or nothing. They can take that position, but whether anyway you look at it, we got a notice problem at this point. The only way to fix it is to send it back. Hoffman: One other related issue. It's my understanding now this was a couple of years ago that I looked at the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. That intersection is slated for strictly residential. So it was somewhat a surprise to me if it's accurate to learn that the park was zoned L-O because I know there wasn't any to my knowledge the church owners didn't receive any notice about the change to the comprehensive plan, so I guess what I'm asking is how did that happen you know because if you look at it that property isn't slated to be L-O. It's just residential. Now if we go in and ask for an L-O and somebody looks at the comprehensive plan, and say well L-O is not part of the comprehensive plan. Now we're going to be asked to apply for that particular procedure of changing the master plan. Can somebody speak to that what's going on there? Corrie: Okay Mr. Gigray go ahead and then Mr. Bentley. Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, Mr. Hoffman, whatever action has been taken with regards to any previous matters, I don't have any personal knowledge with regards to that. I would say if there were procedural issues affecting that particular action, if the time period has run since that action has taken, then it would be moot at this point. It doesn't make any difference. What in your situation I think your best advice is to talk to your people who were advising you about the development of this particular site, review the ordinances of this city and the comp plan and make your best judgment about what the most appropriate application is based on your intended use of that property. We could not - I would not and I have instructed staff to give information about the application of our ordinances of what is permitted and what is not permitted, but the actual decision where maybe you could go this way or you could go that way Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 37 always has to be up to the applicant as to what is in their best interest. At this point what you're dealing with from my perspective and my advice to the City Council is a procedural problem. That is an application was made for an R-4. That was heard and then there was a recommendation to the City Council that it be not zoned R-4 but it be zoned L-O. So then that's a material change from the application and if the commission is seeking to make a recommendation to change that application to something else, then it ought to be renoticed to have a hearing because if the law didn't provide for that, it would be like you'd come in and say I want R-4 and the commission and the City Council will change it light industrial. I'd get a notice that it's going to be R-4 and I'm not opposed to that. I live next door, don't go to the hearings, and I don't care, and the next thing I know I've got a light industrial zone next to me and I'm going to scream bloody murder, so that's why that law is set up that way so if there are material changes the neighboring property owners, the person who the law recognizes have an interest and entitled to notice have an opportunity to address that specific question and what happened here is we ended up with a material change and then we have a notice that goes out part of it is in accordance with the original application. Part is with the recommendation of Planning and Zoning Commission and so we have a problem there too. The only way to correct it and because our law says the commission and the governing body, which is the City Council have to if there's a material change renotice it and my legal opinion and advice to this Council and Mayor we have no choice then to send it back. Corrie: Shari did you have a comment? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council the only comment I had was regarding the park site. If you would like me to go into that, I will. Bentley: In light of the discussions we've had with the Counselor, I'd move we cancel this public hearing and remand this application for annexation and zoning by Paul ,Hoffman for Meridian Presbyterian Church back to P & Z so they can clean up the zoning issue. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley second by Mr. Bird to cancel the public hearing and remand this matter back to the Planning and Zoning Commission with specific recommendations. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye? MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: Counselor since the motion was to cancel the public hearing, do we need to have a motion on it or was that it right there? Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 38 Gigray: Well I believe the motion that was in order would be to remand it back. I'll just prepare an order for your signature in light of that. (Inaudible) Bird: He closed it with the motion didn't he? Corrie: All right. Thank you. 20. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR REZONE OF APPROXIMATELY 4.296 ACRES FOR PROPOSED SCOTTSDALE SUBDIVISION BY WOLFE COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES, LLC -SOUTH SIDE OF W. FRANKLIN ROAD: Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and staff report. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council this is the remainder of what used to be known as the Scottsdale Subdivision which was an R-15 zone. Currently there exists there the castle known as Dreamland Child Care Center and the remainder of the property they are proposing to develop as an L-O Subdivision. Staff has no outstanding issues. We've received response from the applicant on our concerns and we are confident they will comply with our conditions as recommended. Corrie: Anyone else have comments? Okay this is a public hearing. I invite the representative of the Scottsdale Subdivision. Elg: Van Elg, Briggs Engineering, 1800 W. Overland Road, Boise, Idaho. Do I need to be sworn? Oh, you're not doing that anymore? (Inaudible) Elg: Representing the developers of this Scottsdale Subdivision which includes a rezone and a preliminary plat application. The property is located you may be more familiar with the Dreamland Daycare Facility. Some people refer to it as the castle out there on Franklin Road. It's located in that general area. The daycare facility is located here, and Will this is the same board that we presented at P & Z so you have all of this documentation in your record. We've requested a rezone. The property is currently zoned R-15, which is a high density residential zone. That's for higher density residential development, multi family dwellings and so forth. To the east we have some four-plex units. I believe this property is zoned R-8 and to the south and the west, we have a zoning of R-4. To the north we have C-G and I-L so this is kind of an anomaly in the area right here with this R-15 zoning, which allows for such high density residential. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 39 In talking with the client, we suggested that he request a rezone to L-O for a couple of reasons. The first being that if we were to come in with an R-15 zone request right here and multi family, we felt that we probably would meet with some very significant opposition of any surrounding owners especially these folks here in the Finnway Park and Crestwood Subdivisions to the south and west. We were surprised to find out that even the people in the four-plex units were quite concerned about any density even four-plex development occurring in this area, some of the comments we received. With that in mind we looked at the L-O and that serves very well as a transition zone by definition in the Meridian City Ordinance between such uses and the client agreed to that suggestion. We then requested that we hold a neighborhood meeting although it's not required by the City of Meridian. We felt it would be advantageous to get polls of the folks out there in that area. We did that and we sent to about 70-80 letters to surrounding property owners. I think that information is submitted in your packets also. Of those 70-80 letters that we sent out and invited to the neighborhood meeting, one person attended, lived here in Crestwood, and we have a comment from him and a statement from him that says he has no opposition to the project as shown in the preliminary plat. We received a number of phone calls from folks with varied requests. Some wanting pathways and interconnections here so that they could access a daycare. We can get into some of that in the preliminary plat discussion, but the primary concern was that they even the four plex units which are two story, they were concerned that they would be looking down on an unsightly development. So I tried to reassure them that the type of development that will be constructed will be very pleasing and pleasant, and the client went out and took pictures of developments that he believes this site looks very similar to these types of professional buildings and I might point out that that's what they intend to do is professional office type complexes. Dental offices, doctors offices, attorney's offices, no. (Inaudible) Elg: Anyway, they'll be pleasant and attractive. If you're familiar with the Ustick Road between Cole and Maple Grove, there's a number of dental offices and things. That's where most of these were taken from, and that's what he intends to model his project after also. There's a chance that he may build one or two of the buildings as a marketing - to market the project first and get the thing off the ground and get it started. I don't know where he's at on that. But that was initial discussions was what he was pondering. With that I guess I can close my comments on the rezone. If you have any comments of me, I'd be glad to address them. Corrie: Council any questions? Bird: I have none. Bentley: I have none. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 40 Rountree: I have none. Corrie: Thank you very much. Is there anyone else from the public who would like issue testimony in this hearing? Hearing none, I will request a motion to close the public hearing. Anderson: Mr. Mayor I make a motion we close the public hearing. Rountree: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Anderson second by Mr. Rountree to close the public hearing on the rezone for the Scottsdale Subdivision. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: Discussion, motion? Bird: Mr. Mayor I move that the Meridian City Council approves the rezoning as requested by Wolfe Commercial Enterprises on 4.296 acres for proposed Scottsdale Subdivision. Corrie: And do you want to propose that the attorney draw up the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law? Bird: And the attorney to draw up the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bird second by Mr. Anderson to approve the request for rezone of the Wolfe Commercial Enterprise and to direct the attorney to draw up the approval of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. 21. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SCOTTSDALE SUBDIVISION BY WOLFE COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES, LLC - SOUTH SIDE OF W. FRANKLIN ROAD: Corrie: I'll open the public hearing and staff reports, Shari on this one. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 41 Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council staff has no problems with this subdivision provided they comply with our recommendations of our memo December 4t", 1998. Corrie: Any further staff comments? Then I will invite the representative from the Scottsdale Subdivision to testify. Elg: Thank you. I guess I'd incorporate my comments of the rezone into this one. Sorry, Van Elg, Briggs Engineering, 1800 W. Overland Road, and yes. I'd incorporate my comments from the rezone into this application also at this time, and then add some regarding the preliminary plat. In the original application we had not included some things that the City requested during a Planning and Zoning Commission. Since that time we've modified this plan and resubmitted it, and I believe Shari that you have a copy of that now. Did you get the revised one? I believe we sent ten copies. It's dated 12/16/98. Stiles: 17? Elg: Right about the surveyor's signature there, there should be a 12/16. Bird: 12/16198. Elg: Okay in that we addressed the comments that the Planning and Zoning Commission had, and they did have some changes to those staff comment letter that Shari just referred to. In general we agreed' with all of the comments of staff. We did agree to go ahead amend it. We had suggested originally that the sewer line and the (inaudible) that would be provided through this area here be allowed to be placed under an easement rather than a separate lot. But Bruce prevailed on us and we agreed to take that as a separate lot. (Inaudible) came up with a good suggestion. I don't know why we didn't think of it first, but he suggested that we take the drainage out of this lot here and place it underneath the sidewalk which we agreed to do and that seems to work fine for us. So you'll see that this is now lot drainage is located here. We've also included setbacks that Shari request. 25 foot along Franklin Road I think it was Shari. We've also shown the irrigation easements that were requested by the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District along the front. As you can see that's going to kind of chip away at some of that building size up on that north end of the project, but that's okay. We can deal with that. Keep in mind that any of the buildings that you see here are purely conceptual. We were just drawing them in to see how we could fit it in. If we could make it work with the lots. The developer may come in with something completely different. We tried to show parking and how we could fit if those lots were reasonable in size to accommodate a reasonable building and still provide one parking space per 400 square feet of office area. We batted around a number of design issues on this. We considered larger lots. But then realized if we did that, that the developer could come in and place two story units here and that that may cause some difficulty. It's highly Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 42 unlikely even if we had the larger lots the developer would put the two story units in this area. I just don't think it's very economical for them. The nature of these types of professional buildings is typically single story, but in any event we batted that around some and decided if we went with the smaller lots, we would significantly reduce the capabilities of any of these buildings going up high and we would limit them to single story and still be able to provide adequate parking. There may be some cross access easements and things, which I think ACHD will be happy with anyway with respect to parking and access to parking lots, and the lot owners can deal with those issues. The other thing that we discussed in the Planning and Zoning Commission was staff comments regarding the landscape buffering. This was an issue for some of the people that called. As I said primarily those (End of Tape) Elg: ... wanted to know how we were going to protect them from the unsightly development. I don't think that's the concern, but the - we told them we would provide buffering, and in fact the developer after we discussed it agreed that buffering would be -building buffering into the project right now would be a marketing tool for the resale of the individual lots. So they agreed to provide buffering as part of the platting process. The only thing that we didn't like was a 20 foot requirement and that we construct it immediately. The reason being is that if we construct a 20 foot landscape buffer right now and you can see that this building is pushed right -which is basically the setback and this building is pushed right up against that. When they come in to build that building, they are going to wipe out a good share of that landscaping in trying to just construct the building. So what we suggested is that the developer will construct ten feet as shown on the preliminary plat landscaping and basically what that boils down to and (inaudible) suffice Shari in lieu of submitting any other landscape plans, the developer will construct basically one tree per every lot that fronts on their property boundary in this location here and then various bushes and grass along that boundary along with a fence also. That should provide ample buffering given the nature of the buildings and a significant number of trees along that boundary, and we hope that would suffice for the landscaping plan. In essence some of the lots will have two or three trees, maybe four trees and some will have one or two that they will have to install when they develop. I'm sorry the developer will have to install prior to platting, then the individual lot owners can come in and as stated here, they'll be able to redesign or add to the landscaping as necessary back there. The reason for this is that they may have patios and things that they want to include back there that could go into the buffering area, but if we try to design that now, we preclude them. So allowing them to come in with their own plans and landscaping seems to make good sense for construction and provide them for adequate flexibility. I guess with that I'll close my comments on the preliminary plat for Scottsdale and open myself up for any questions. Corrie: Questions from Council? Bird: I have none. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 43 Rountree: I have none. Bentley: I have none. Corrie: Questions from staff? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, the only comment I would have is I would like to see a landscape plan approved prior to signature on the final plat. I'm not sure that in some instances that two trees in a hundred foot section would be considered adequate buffering. And in regard to the remark about the statement about the patios back there, there is a 20 foot setback there that they would not be able to have any covered patios or they could have maybe a concrete slab or something like that, but they understand no structures would be put in. Elg: Yeah, we just want to make sure that they didn't preclude concrete slabs and so forth. Stiles: I would just like the two inch caliper tree per each adjacent residential lot to be taken off there and that the landscape plan that you'd submit to us prior to signature on the final plat. Elg: Okay. Mr. Mayor and Shari, I guess you're referring to the comment under the typical landscape buffer detail? Stiles: Yes. Elg: Would you have another suggestion for the number of trees perhaps - (Inaudible) Stiles: I guess I would just like to see something fairly consistent along there, regular intervals of trees and then maybe you know when you're talking about maybe only having two trees back there and we do have a three inch caliper requirement. Elg: Put a buffer between units? Stiles: Well based on square footage of your asphalt, you know your overall landscape plan. Either that or have something in your covenants that's going to require something more significant than maybe two trees back there. Elg: Well I guess Mr. Mayor and Shari, I guess what I'm getting at is that there's still an additional ten feet of landscaping that will be covered by the individual lot owners, which Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 44 provides them with flexibility. So the trees we're planting isn't going to be all that you are going to see as far as landscaping. There still will be additional landscaping that other ten feet. Anderson: (Inaudible) Elg: They have to review them through Shari, so if Shari says that they have to be trees, they will Bird: Mr. Mayor, Shari, on the introduction the recommendation to the City Council Planning and Zoning, on page five, 1.5, are you disagreeing with that? What he says is basically wrote up right there. Are we disagreeing now with that concept? Stiles: I'm sorry Mr. Bird, what are you referring to? Bird: Page five Shari, 1.5. Developer to install a ten foot wide planting strip at (Inaudible) an added ten feet, which is what he was talking about trees to be down the entire -could be required prior to obtaining building permits or at time each individual lot is developed. I have to agree with the engineer. If you're going to make him put in 20 footer on some of those places, he's not going to be able to get around to build the buildings. What we want to see is the finished product after everything is finished, and that's when the landscaping and stuff can come in. Each lot is going to have different landscaping by the way the building and stuff is put up. I don't know Shari, is this 1.15 good enough for you? Stiles: Councilman Bird, Mayor and Council, this was our initial comment that we made and after we made that comment Van had come up with the scenario of going ahead and doing the ten feet and then having the developer do the additional ten feet. I have no problem with that. I would still like to see the landscape plan, which is typical that we require a landscape plan that we can approve prior to signature on the final plat so that they can also bond for those improvements prior to signature on the plat. Bird: I have no problem with that afterwards, but you're in agreement with what this is saying. I mean I have no problem with the requiring the landscaping plans, site plans, but that don't specifically say that in this. Until they start obtaining building permits. Stiles: For the additional ten feet. Bird: Yeah, that's right. Stiles: That's fine. All I'm asking is that you bring something in for that ten feet that the developer is required to - Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 45 Elg: For the first ten feet? Okay. Bird: Each building is going to sit different and be landscaped different. I mean they're not going to want ten lookalikes I don't believe out there. Corrie: Any other questions? Okay thank you. Elg: Thank you. Anyone else from the public who would like to issue testimony on this request for preliminary plat? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Bentley: Mr. Mayor I move we close the public hearing. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley second by Mr. Bird to close the public hearing on request for preliminary plat for Scottsdale Subdivision. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: Any discussions? I'll entertain a motion on the request for preliminary plat. Bentley: Mr. Mayor I move we approve the preliminary plat for Scottsdale Subdivision subject to staff comments and landscape review. Corrie: Do you want to include the attorney to prepare the ordinance? Bentley: Yes, and have the attorney prepare the ordinance and Order of Decision. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley second by Mr. (inaudible) -motion stated. Any further discussion? Rountree: Mr. Mayor would we move forward with this without having approved the rezone? Gigray: This is preliminary plat. Rountree: Still can't plat it without the proper zoning. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 46 Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, the final action we have (inaudible) decision the City of Boise is pretty well - Rountree: I didn't want to hear this Bill. Gigray: The final action would be on the final plat. Rountree: Okay. Gigray: And this is the preliminary. Cowie: Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. 22. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MAWS SUBDIVISION NO. 3 BY TEALEY'S LAND SURVEYING -NORTH OF PINE & WEST OF LOCUST GROVE: Cowie: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite staff comments. Shari? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this was an application that was previously submitted as townhouses. However there were some restrictions in the annexation of the property that did not allow attached dwellings. We have made some comments on this application. The plat has not been revised to reflect all the changes required, however, if they comply with the comments as written, I don't see any real issues with this proposal. Cowie: Mr. Smith. Smith: Mr. Mayor, City Council members, I guess the only question that the Public Works still had was what the status was of the pressurized irrigation requirement. That's all I have. Thank you. Cowie: Okay, since we are in a public hearing, I'll invite the representative from the Maws Subdivision. Pavelek: My name is Richard Pavelek. I have offices at 915 W. Jefferson, Tealey's Land Surveying. This development did have a previous life and it was contorted and we did have some surprises in terms of the issue of attached versus detached and the developer still has need of going ahead and he had basically reconfigured the proposal to fit all the ordinance requirements for sizes of the lots, and these will be conventional size lots. At this time we believe that we can meet all the conditions of the approval that Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 47 were recommended to you by Planning and Zoning Commission. In response to the City Engineer, I thought we had dealt with the irrigation issue previously. We had dug through the Treasurer's receipts and at the time that the property was brought in phases one and two were in fact applied for. The water rights were vacated for the property. Now we can go back through and verify that with the previous records, but my recollection is that in the documents that we had received from the city's treasury office, we had shown that those rights had been vacated. I believe in 1993 and we had provided staff with those reports. If there's something that we've missed, we'll be happy to go back through and deal with that, but my understanding is that monies are paid in to the city for well development rights for the property and the rights to irrigation were removed from the property. So that's my understanding of the situation and between now and the final plat I guess we'll go through this again to make sure that this in fact has been covered. Maybe I should explain. At the time the subdivision was developed the developer had the option by ordinance to either pay a well development fee to the city or to provide pressurized irrigation. At that time the developer chose to exert his right and vacate his irrigation rights. So I believe the current ordinance has been modified since that time. Bird: Gary, is that previous ordinance, do you know anything about this because there is a stipulation in here 1.20 regarding pressurized irrigation. Now whether we approve, disapprove, whatever this 1.20 has got to be taken care of. Smith: The option existed. I don't believe the ordinance has been changed in that regard. The option existed for the Council to require pressurized irrigation or allow the developer to pay the in lieu of pressurized irrigation well development fee. I can't tell you if that happened on this total parcel of ground or not. The property still has water rights. They can be recovered. They petitioned out of the easement, but the water rights still exist and they can be recovered by payment of a fee for the lot sizes. That isn't an impossibility at all. I don't remember when the Council started requiring the pressurized irrigation in lieu of the well development fee, but that has been a policy decision that the Council has made for the past several years to get us out of the domestic water sprinkling of irrigated areas. In terms of whether or not that fee was paid for this entire parcel of ground, we would have to check the records through the treasurer's office. Corrie: That was back iri '91 or'92 when I was on the Council. Bird: Mr. Mayor was that a policy to come in even they were not developing the whole thing but to purchase the buy out at that time for the whole thing? I can't believe that the developer would put his money up front for property that he don't plan on developing. ~~ Meridian City Council January 5,1999 Page 48 Smith: That's what I was going to add Councilman and Mayor that typically the developers paid the well development fee for that portion that they were final platting. Bird: I have to agree with that. Smith: That was a condition for signature by myself and City Clerk for the Mayor and City Council. Pavelek: Mr. Mayor I think this is an issue that can be determined. We simply came across a series of receipts, and it would have appeared that it had been paid, but if it hasn't I guess we'll have to deal with that. But at this point in time it's my understanding that they have been paid, but as I say it can remain a condition until the final plat, and we'll deal with it at that time. Bird: The only problem as I read this article and if I'm looking at it thinking right and I could be way off base, but we have to give you a variance from the requirement of not having pressurized irrigation at this time to pass this if I'm reading this right. Pavelek: I don't think so. Gigray: I would - Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Councilman Bird, as I understand this requirement, it would be a condition of approval of the preliminary plat so this would be a matter of conditions that the applicant would have to meet before final plat was submitted for your approval. And at that point you would probably if they can establish legally that they are not required by reason of some grandfathering to be exempted from this requirement, then I think that would probably come through with a staff report that that information has been supplied. If they can't establish that and they do have to request a variance then they'll make an application for the variance, and that would be processed probably before the final plat. Bird: Let me ask you a dumb question then. This is a preliminary plat, and this is conditions that was passed upon. It don't say anything about the final plat. So you're telling me that we don't have to worry about this in the preliminary plat, that it will be taken care of in the final plat? Why would that be in there then? Gigray: Well what I'm saying is that condition would have to be -there would have to be proof of compliance with that condition and that proof would have to be established by the applicant that they are not required to meet that condition by reason of a legal cause that they would have by the payment of this fee if that were established, or they would have to comply with this condition which is obtain a variance from the city before final plat is approved. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 49 Bird: Mr. Mayor as I understand now and you guys can tell me if I'm off base, but as I understand now we are requiring pressurized systems. Okay. For this preliminary plat all other preliminary plats are based on pressurized systems. Am I not right? And it don't have nothing to do with the final plat. It's the preliminary plat that states it. I just don't understand why this thing is in here stating that we have to make a variance to pass the preliminary plat. It's in the preliminary plat. There's nothing about the final plat. I'm just trying to clear it up for myself. I'm in a daze I guess on this thing. Rountree: Mr. Mayor if I could. I think what it's saying is that in order to approve the way it is requested, we would have to pass a variance. We don't have to approve it the way it was requested. We can approve it that it would meet all the ordinances of the City of Meridian, and they will provide a pressurized irrigation system. Unless they can demonstrate a hardship, then they can submit a request for a variance to the city, which is probably a better way to handle it as opposed to having a condition saying you must approve a variance in order for the pressurized irrigation not to be proposed for this development. Bird: That's what I'm saying Charlie and you said that could pass this variance at final plat, but what you just got through saying makes sense to me. I'm just being dense. Rountree: It's 10:30 (Inaudible) Bird: I just can't figure out why we got it in there if we don't need it. Corrie: Any other questions? Bentley: I have none. Bird: I have none. Corrie: Is there anyone else here from the public who would like to issue testimony in this? Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Bentley: Mr. Mayor I move we close the public hearing. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley second by Mr. Bird to close the public hearing. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. l~ Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 50 Corrie: Comments, decisions and motions. Are you ready for the motion, have at it. Bentley: Mr. Mayor I move we approve the preliminary plat for Maws Subdivision No. 3 by Tealey's Land Survey subject to staff conditions and the resolve of the irrigation issue. Bird: Second. Bentley: And have the attorney prepare the Findings of Facts and Order -prepare the proper Order. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley second by Mr. Bird to approve the preliminary plat with conditions and have the attorney prepare the proper order. Further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. 23. REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OUTSIDE SEATING BY TODD MASON D/B/A MOXIE JAVA - 106 E. WILLIAMS: Corrie: Staff. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is a request for outdoor seating at the Moxie Java on Williams and East First Street. The initial site plan that was submitted showed the seating would be on the lawn area adjacent to East First Street. However that was not what the applicant intended. Their intent was to have a couple of table on the north side of the building there adjacent to where the entrance is, and the staff would support that with the condition that a minimum five foot clear walkway be provided at all times. Corrie: Any other staff reports? Any questions from Council? Anderson: I have a question. I guess it's been a while since I looked at this drawing, but I'm somewhat familiar with that building and it almost seems to me like there could be a safety issue there putting seating out there. It seems like there's drive up windows on both sides of the building as well as there's parking out along the far north end of the property so you have cars backing up. You'll have cars turning from one of the drive up windows rounding this. What's going to be out there to protect somebody out there sitting from getting run over? Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 51 1~ Stiles: They're not proposing anything. That's a good point. There probably should be some kind of ballards or something to protect the area, but the applicant can maybe speak to provisions they may make for that. Donman: Jennifer Donman, 2407 Snyder. I wasn't aware that that would be a problem. I don't see why there would be any reason why we couldn't put anything up. Do you have any suggestions? Stiles: Possibly some of the ballards like they have that you put around gas meters or something like that. I don't know if that would be adequate. But at least probably at a couple of strategic points for each side there is probably appropriate. Anderson: I guess I was thinking something a little more attractive like some type of decorative landscaping plan or a big concrete thing or something like that. But it just seems like there would be an awful hazard there to me. Corrie: Do you want staff to get together with them and see what they can do as part of the conditional use. Bird: Mr. Mayor what you're asking us is the staff want to continue the public hearing until the 19~"~ Corrie: It's not a public hearing. It's just a request for conditional use permit. Bird: Yeah, but it's a public hearing. Corrie: No, it isn't. Bird: Okay. Anderson: I guess it's their liability if someone gets run over, but I guess my opinion maybe staff ought to make some recommendations for some possible solutions or something like that. Corrie: They can do that in your motion for conditional use permit. Any further comments? Bentley: I have none. Bird: I have none, Mayor. Rountree: None. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 52 Cowie: Okay, I'll entertain a motion on the conditional use permit. Bentley: Mr. Mayor I move that we approve the conditional use permit for outside seating for Moxie Java with the suggestion that they get the staff and come up maybe some sort of safety things to protect themselves in the parking area. Cowie: With Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order of Decision? Bentley: Yes and instruct the attorney to provide the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order of Decision. Bird: Second. Cowie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley second by Mr. Bird to approve the conditional use permit with the staff giving them recommendations for outside seating and also for the attorney to draw up Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order of Decision. Any further comments? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Cowie: So if you will just kind of get with Shari. 24. WATER /SEWER /TRASH DELINQUENCIES: Cowie: (DELINQUENCY READ BY MAYOR) Is there anyone present who wishes to contest their water, sewer and trash delinquency? All right you are hereby informed that you may appeal to have the decision of the city reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho Code. Even though they appeal, their water will be shut off in the amount of the turn off list is $52,046.49. I'll entertain a motion to approve the delinquency turn off list. Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that we approve the delinquency water turn off list and direct the Mayor to commend staff for the new format that the list has been presented to the Council. It's now readable and we can understand it. Anderson: Second. Cowie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree second by Mr. Anderson to approve the 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 January 5, 1999 Page 53 25. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: A. KENNY BOWERS: DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL OF COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION FOR ARCHITECT SELECTION FOR NEW FIRE STATION: Bowers: This will be short Bentley, about an hour or so. Mayor Corrie and Council I'd like to just take a few minutes to give you a little bit of history on our committee that we've put together for this building. We have met for the last four or five months a couple of times each month and on this committee we have full time firefighters, volunteer firefighters. We have city council personnel, we have rural commissioners, and we have P & Z member. Nick Corral has done most of our drawing for us. We went through the building, the plans of what we think the building should look like, and to make it a (inaudible) for out in this area. I'd like to also at this time recognize we do have two rural commissioners out in the audience. Mike Ingram and Steve Bravo clear in the back. On this committee, we had Nick Corral, Brian Zimmerman, Ed Pierce, John Thompson, Malcolm MacCoy, Ron Anderson, Keith Bird, Mike Ingram, and Steve Bravo plus myself so we had quite an array of people on the committee. As we got into this about halfway through we found out that there's a state law that we cannot ask for bids for our architectural firms, so we just had to ask if they would send us packets to show us the jobs sites that they have done before and the work that they would be able to do for us. We advertised twice in the Valley News Times. We received all the packets on December 9~h. We sent ten out in the mail. Two packets were picked up here at City Hall. But we only received seven packets back. December 16~" we met the committee, went through all the packets to see if any of them was in favor of working on our building, giving us some ideas. At that time we had three architectural firms that we thought would do us a good job and had built fire stations or proposed and worked on fire stations before. We were ZGA, Arrowrock, and Olsons and Associates. December 215, we had all three companies come in and give us a presentation, show us pictures of some of the buildings they had done, give us some ideas of what we can do with the property out there since we're in the hole kind of having to come up to Franklin Road. We listen each one had about an hour with questions and answers afterwards. After they gave their presentations, the committee met and we would like to recommend that ZGA and ourselves try to work out an agreement on a contract of what they would charge us to be the lead firm architectural firm for the fire station, and I guess this is the first time I've done this so I don't know quite what our next step is, but I guess there are quite three or four different ways of doing contracts. They'll go hourly or they will go per bid or they will do different things. So at this time we would like to ask the City Council if they have any questions or any help that we can have to help us out on this. Anderson: So you did not have ZGA prepare a resolution for tonight? Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 54 Bowers: No, I did not. I was under the impression that we had to get City Council's approval first before ZGA could come in and give us a proposal. Anderson: I guess that was my understanding is that's how the City Council gives approval is by passing a resolution and they would have you draft that. Bowers: Paul from ZGA was not under that impression either. He said he wanted to get an approval from City Council, and that's what Mayor Corrie had told me also. Bird: I was under the impression they were going to do the same thing that they had done on the city hall thing that Paul was going to draft up a resolution and bring it forward for us to accept. Now we're kicking ourselves down two more weeks. Corrie: Mr. Gigray do you got any comment on this? This would have to go through our legal staff as well a resolution. Gigray: Well I think given where you are at this point given the presentation you could accept the report of the Chief and you could tell him to proceed with ZGA to come with the necessary documents and I hear from Councilman Bird that you want to go in the same direction that you are going with city hall and bring it back to the next meeting for approval. Bird: I know we can't go on the same -all we have to come is standard AIA, contract form between architect and owner, which is the city. It's a standard AIA contract. Now all we have to decide is whether we want to pay them a flat fee, an hourly fee, or a percentage of a bid fee. Most jobs are done on a bid fee completely through. That was my understanding from the meeting we come out of. I don't know if that was Ron's, but however the Council would like to -which way do you want to pay them? Do you want to pay them by the hour or do you want pay them by the job or do you want to pay them by the bid fee, the percent of bid fee? Isn't that the way you got it Ron? Anderson: Yeah. Bird: Was basically what we had to select there? Anderson: Yeah. Bird: Standard AIA owner architect deal there. That's city, school district, everybody uses that form. Anderson: Well I would make a motion that we enter into a contract with ZGA Architects for the architectural drawings for the new fire station and do that on a percent basis of the project. (~ Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 55 Bird: I'll second that. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Anderson second by Mr. Bird that we contract with ZGA contract on a percent of the project. Any further discussion? Anderson: I guess my understanding of the percent is that we have the option of going to ZGA and negotiating what that percentage will be and my understanding is that a standard is somewhere around 7 or 8% on these types of projects so possibly the committee or a couple of representatives from the committee could actually do that negotiation process with them and determine what that percentage is going to be prior to us entering into that contract. Bird: I think you're right, Ron. I also understand and in fact all three firms said that that was certainly negotiable, and depending on what size, how much -Nick has done so much preliminary work, that's going to help tremendously cost wise so I think we need to go in and just negotiate with them. Corrie: (Inaudible) Anderson: Probably we'll get together as a committee and select a couple of representatives. Corrie: You two and the two Councilmen would be a good committee to do the negotiations on that . Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: My suggestion would be that Keith and Ron and the other two sitting out there could go and negotiate with them. Bird: That's fine with me. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, just from the Council and from the City extend appreciation to those members that are here and those members who are not here for the work they did and the hours they spent in coming up to this recommendation. I appreciate it and think you made a very good recommendation, and I think we've got a good choice and finally we're getting somewhere. Bowers: I will pass that along to the committee and I'll get a hold of Paul first thing in the morning. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 56 Anderson: Just a comment for the other City Councilmen and the Mayor. There are some drawings out that if you haven't seen yet maybe Kenny could bring those and show them at the next Council meeting or something that Nick worked on and that probably will be the basic concept that we go off of. There maybe some slight changes from ZGA, but pretty much how the station would look from a conceptual standpoint. (Inaudible) Come: Thank you Kenny. Bentley: Before the commissioners leave and while we're on the subject of fire stations, I would like to see us pursue put some plans together for the Ten Mile station and maybe getting the two entities together and discussing where we could be time wise for putting together the building of the substation out there too. So sometime down the line we can schedule a meeting together and go over this. I think it's time we crank ahead. You'll have a feeling of where you are financially and we can see what we can get done with that. Because we got the same situation. Nick's got some preliminary plans for that too, so we'll see how things fit together. We can get that scheduled in the near future and have a discussion of that. Bird: Mr. Mayor, before we get off this, I would just like to state that the city don't know how much Nick has saved us in dollars for the work he has done, and I really want to commend him for the work and you know I know he's like all firemen, he gets to sleep 24 hours a day and get paid for it, but we appreciate it. Anyway thank him very much Kenny. He's really saved us a lot of money and he's done a great job. Too bad he isn't a licensed architect. We wouldn't have no problem. B. GARY SMITH: DIGESTER FACILITIES AGREEMENT AMENDMENT TO EXISTING KELLER ASSOCIATES DESIGN CONTRACT: Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council members, the first item is an amendment to the contract that we presently have with Keller Associates for the design of our digester facilities upgrade. Part of their original agreement involved some preliminary investigation into converting the digesters from the mesophilic to thermophilic digestion, and what that means is that's a higher temperature digestion. John Shawcroft, superintendent, and the design engineer went back to Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin and visited a site back there that has utilized this thermophilic digestion and they concluded that yes, this was something that we needed to include in the upgrade of our digestion process, and so this amendment is to cover the engineering cost to include that phase of the upgrade into the design plan so that it can be built. And they are going to utilize as asub-consultant the firm that is in Sturgeon Bay, Wisconsin that recently completed Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 57 one of these processes, and that's part of this cost. The only problem that I had with all of this is that I'm a Green Bay Packer fan and I found out after the fact that Sturgeon Bay is about five minutes from Lambaugh Field and I didn't go. Anderson: They were in San Francisco losing. Bird: Gary this is a necessity. I mean this is something that we definitely need. Smith: Yes, sir. It's going to increase the quality of the sludge that comes out of the digestion process significantly. These things are operating at -the thermophilic digestion operates at about 120 degrees Fahrenheit. The digestion that is taking place now is in the high 90 degrees, so there's a significant increase in the heat production and the bacteria involvement in the digestion of the sludge, so we're going to get a lot better product. Anderson: Question. Does the additional heat, is that going to create more aroma around the plant? (End of Tape) ...as far as odor, odor hasn't come up. I guess that I tend to think that the odors with better digestion of the sludge we're going to get a better control on the odors than what we presently have. Along with the de-watering process that we are going to-in fact we are opening bids tomorrow or the next day on buying the centrifuge equipment for the de-watering process. So we are going to have what they call a class "A" sludge that comes out of this process. We won't have the restrictions at all that the 503 regs, I believe they are termed places on us right now with a class "B" sludge that we have to monitor so closely where the sludge goes forever, the ground testing, so forth. This class "A" sludge is-I think it is almost useable as it comes out for domestic use. Corrie: Comments or questions? Bird: I move that we enter into this amendment to the existing design contract with Keller & Associates for the sum of $18,820. Rountree: Second. Corrie: Okay, you want me to approve it, sign it? Bird: Excuse me, I forgot that. For the mayor to sign and the clerk to attest. Rountree: I'll second that too. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 58 Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we approve the motion by Mr. Bird and seconded by Mr. Rountree to approve the lump sum amount of $18,820 for the contract. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Smith: Second item that I have is a short form contract for the drilling of exploratory test well for Well #8. The sum of $21,511.90 for Steven and Sons Well Drilling in Boise. Corrie: Any comments or questions? Bentley: I have none. Bird: I have none. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. Mayor, I move that we enter into this contract with Steven and Son Well Drilling for Well site #8 and for the mayor to sign and the clerk to attest in the sum of $21,511.90. Rountree: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bird, seconded by Mr. Rountree to enter into the contract and mayor to sign, clerk to attest. Well site #8 by Steven and Son Well Drilling Incorporated for the amount of $21,511.90. Any further discussion? Hearing none, al those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Smith: Third item that I have is the request to the city to enter into an engineering agreement for the design and construction monitoring for the pump and pumphouse for city Well #18, which is located on Lot 12, Block A to Summerfield Subdivision #1 and that's located near the northeast corner of the intersection of Locust Grove Road and Ustick Road. We have several years previous drilled a test well there. We have all the hydro-geologic information on that site and it's part of a small park area for the subdivision. We've also have had power installed, power transformer installed there and this is a well site for-the council declared an emergency for me so that we could get a well driller started and he will be on the site the 15~ of February to start the drilling. The civil engineer disagreement will allow the civil engineer to complete the design facilities, the design of the facilities for the pump and pumphouse. He did have a small start on this some time ago when we started out with the test well. This contract would be with civil survey consultants they have been doing our pump and pumphouse l Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 59 installations since Well #14. They have done a great job and they are quite reasonable in their costs and they're very responsive. So I would request that you approve of this engineering agreement with Civil Survey Consultants Incorporated of Meridian, Idaho. Mr. Mayor? Corrie: That's both a design fee and construction fee? Smith: Yes, the design service fee is shown on page 3 down at the bottom last paragraph is not to exceed the amount of $10,464.50 without prior approval of the owner and they're estimating construction services fees at approximately $7,303.50. Bird: Not to exceed again, Gary, on the $7,303.50 Smith: So far that would be a good statement, yes sir. Bird: Is that how you need in a motion, not to exceed, or just... Smith: Well... Bird: If it's not to exceed, then they can't go over it. Is there a chance they can go over it? Smith: There is if they have problems, I don't expect it that they will. In the past experience they haven't. We've stayed under their estimates so, however you want to handle that. Bird: I'll put not to exceed incase... Smith: It just depends on if they run into some problems. Anderson: You just get a change order or... Bird: Mr. Mayor I would like to make a motion that Meridian City enters into a professional service agreement with Civil Survey Consultant for Well #18, Lot 12, Block 8, Summerfield Subdivision #1. The design fee be $10,464.50 and the construction fee to be $7,303.50. The mayor to sign and the clerk to attest. Bentley: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bird, seconded by Mr. Bentley and motion stated by Mr. Bird. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 60 Smith: The last item that I have is the bid results for janitorial services for the city buildings. This was kind of a joint effort between the City Clerk Will Berg and myself. I put some bid documents together and Will kind of shepherded it through the bid process and gathering of information. He has thankfully put together a memorandum together, thank you will for putting together the memorandum together that kind of outlined what took place in soliciting these bids. We had five bidders. The bids ranged from a low of $1,883 per month by Enviro-clean of Meridian to $3,600 per month by Maid in the Desert. Will made some calls to and requested some references from the two low bidders the low and the second low and based on the references that were supplied he and I guess Angel made some calls to get some information, Brittney to get some information. They asked six questions, the same questions of each one of the references and you can see by the responses, particularly on Enviro-clean that they varied. Custom cleaning service for the most part had very similar comments to the questions or answers to the questions. The very last page that Will has put together in your packet shows the amount that is presently being paid by the city for services that we have by various people, companies. You can kind of compare that with what the low bid is and what the second low bid is. The other thing that isn't reflected in that last page is, I might add, that the City of Meridian right now is providing all the cleaning equipment and the cleaning materials. The paper products, soaps, so forth, so that would be in addition to that $2,716 that we are presently paying. Cowie: I think we are also we are paying a little bit of workman's comp for some of them aren't we? Bird: We better not, they are contract. Smith: Well, I'm not sure we are, probably should be, or somebody... it's not reflected in this price, no sir. Cowie: You mean in this one here? Smith: In the $2,716 is not. The bid prices that we received do reflect workman's comp. They also reflect the fact that they are supplying all the materials, they are supplying all the equipment for the cleaning process. Vacuum cleaners, dusters, rags, all the paper products, paper towels in the restrooms, cleaning solutions. Shampoo for cleaning the carpets, wax for vinyl floors and that sort of thing. That is all part of the bid. It's a package deal. The city isn't involved in it, it's just... Bird: Certificate of insurance and liability and everything? They were all capable of meeting the minimum standards? Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 61 Smith: Based on their bid, yes sir. I didn't require a bid bond on their bids, but there is a requirement for insurance, a certain level of insurance, liability insurance and also, there is a requirement that they pass a security investigation by the police department, background check, excuse me. Bird: Are these two low capable of handling this? What they've got here is not very big buildings, absolutely not very much. (Inaudible) builders don't have much more than I do. Igo back to the old saying, the lowest isn't always the best. Smith: Mayor and council, I think Shari would like to make a comment too concerning Enviro-clean. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and council, the only concern that I had was that they are presently located, they are operating out of their home in Gem Park Subdivision. They have no accessory use permit, or conditional use permit. I kind of hate to see the-probably the fact that they do have the low bid is because they are not running a legitimate place of business and they are competing against people that are. Bird: That's right. Can I ask you one question, Will or anybody. What is the liability that they have to-do we require the city when we hire a subcontractor to put up the $500,000 liability bond which we've changed in that ordinance? Any subcontractor working for us should have that, right? Gigray: I don't know that we have a policy in place to deal with that in terms of minimum requirements. We could research to see whether you have such a one in place. I'm not aware that you do. Now, you may have a practice of making that requirement and you can make it a specific practice by making it a bid requirement when you send out the invitation for bids, which is what I believe is what Gary has done. Bird: What did you put on there? Smith: The-as far as insurance requirements are concerned, their workman's compensation was required by the state statutory limits for the state. The employers liability was statutory. Comprehensive General Liability bodily injury $500,000 each occurrence and annual (Inaudible) ,property damage $500,000 each occurrence and annual (Inaudible) and personal injury $500,000 annual (Inaudible). Bird: That's our general. That's okay now, can they meet these? Smith: Well, they have to provide that certificate of insurance before the notice to proceed is issued. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 62 Bird: Well yeah, I realize that, but has anybody checked to see if these two low bidders are capable of-that one is working out of their house, I would really question if they can come up with $500,000 liability. Smith: As part of the bid process, we never ask for (Inaudible) until we give them notice of the award and then they have a certain time in order to come back with the requirements, sign the contract, provide the certificate of insurance. Bird: I'm familiar with one of them real well, they were used a lot on big commercial jobs, they do a lot of clearing. They are next to high, I guarantee you that they are a legitimate business and will be there everyday and have got the people to do it. I love saving $1,000, but if we give a contract, we get half service in the first place before I give out the results and ask them if they are capable. You are entitled to do that. Say hey, I want to see your certificate of insurance, who is your policy holder and I want to see your workman's comp thing. I have a feeling that you are going to be surprised... Corrie: I would recommend to the council that they be very cautious about Enviro- clean. If they are not even up to standards as far as (Inaudible) are concerned, we are contributing to the delinquency of the cleaning company. Bentley: My preference would be to go with Western Building. Corrie: Don't have to go with the low bidder. Bentley: I know, and we are sitting virtually at what we are paying now, but we are paying for all the equipment and all the supplies. So we still would be saving money with them. Bird: Can't do that. You can't take-we have to disqualify (Inaudible) before we can do that. Gigray: Well this is a bid for services, not for equipment. Corrie: So you are not under statute. Bird: You don't have to take the low bidder? Gigray: No, it's a matter of-it would just be if somebody wanted to raise the issue politically. That's-you have to decide this is in the best interest of the city for whatever reason. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 63 Smith: Well when the city clerk calls the bidders and informs them who the bid was awarded to, they are going to ask why and in all fairness we need to have some kind of response to the people that did submit a bid as to why... Bird: Was this publicly open? Smith: Yes. There was... Bird: Does everybody know what they bid? Smith: There was one person at the bid opening and he was next to high, Mr. Harris, he was in the middle wasn't he? Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the council, if the issue over the compliance of Enviro-if they-according to your records and that office that they are showing, they're not in compliance with city ordinance, you could say that you request verification as to whether they are or not, prior to whatever time and then could continue this to determine when do you have to make (Inaudible). Smith: Sixty days from the day of the bid opening. We have 60 days to make the award. The bid was open December 22"d. Gigray: If you have a known commodity, if the council feels they have someone that they know does a good job based on experience-I suppose that is a good answer to that one. Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the council, as usual with my experience of bids, either you have lots of them and you have problems, or you don't have any of them and you don't have any problems. This janitorial service, the more we dealt into it, the more uneasy it gets to be to figure out quality of service versus price. You can't say absolutely that this person is not going to give you the quality of service with the lowest price, but you have this thing in the back of your mind that I don't think we were paying outlandish prices for janitorial services, but if you compound the cost of the service by adding supplies and equipment and they're still almost half of what you are paying now, it seems to make you wonder if someone didn't read the bid package, or are you missing something from the whole picture. So, I've talked to Gary quite a bit, since this isn't my expertise for janitorial service, if there are some other things that we can do, ask more questions, give more references, but I feel we have to justify to whoever we don't give the bid to why. We had Shari drive by and look at the residence, of course it's a residence, but we don't know if it's like some of the businesses that they operate their billing and telephone service out of their house, and they actually do their work out of a storage unit, or somebody else's business. So there are a lot of assumptions that I don't want to get saying that well, we think this or we think that, if you want us to Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 64 investigate further, we will, but we are on some kind of a tight deadline trying to get this resolved in January. I know several of departments would like to have janitorial services. Rountree: It seems to me that there is some question as to the ability for Enviroclean to give us the level of service that we would expect, and I think on that basis we could reject it just on the information we received from the interviews, it seems to be clear that they don't do a particularly good job for any of their clients. Not to mention how they may reside and work out of their home in Meridian. I heard what Mr. Bird said about Custom Cleaning Services, that their accounts don't look particularly big, but they seem satisfied. In fact, it's not often that you get better than average janitorial service from the ones that I've been involved with. It's usually a continual battle. I don't see any reason why we would reject them. It seems to me that they've put together a professional proposal. They've got some professional accounts, their accounts seem satisfied. Granted Western Buildings could do it, but they are big and they've had an opportunity to get big because of accounts like ours. I would say that we look at Custom Cleaning Services, give them an opportunity to perform, if they don't pertorm, let's have an out clause that is very clear on our contract with them that due to nonperformance or dissatisfaction they are out within however many days we can work in the contract. Whatever they are willing to sign and deal with the next highest bidder. I've got to think if they are willing to please the customers that we've contacted, they are going to be willing to please us. (Inaudible) Bird: Who are you giving that to Charlie? (Inaudible) Rountree: Custom Cleaning Service. Bird: Oh, the next one up the 2100? Bentley: They still have to go through the scrutiny of the police department anyway. Bird: They also have to get their proof of liability in. Rountree: They have to meet all the terms and conditions that they were presented, if they can't... Bird: Is that a motion Charlie? ~~~ Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 65 Rountree: I would move that we proceed and enter into an agreement for janitorial services with Custom Cleaning Services authorize the mayor to sign and the clerk to attest. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, seconded by Mr. Bird to (Inaudible) the requirements that Mr. Rountree stated in the Custom Cleaning Services be awarded the contract based upon the conditions. Any further comments or discussion? Mr. Gigray? Gigray: Just a point of information, I don't know what the bid specs required, but it would seem to me to be advisable that the city have an option to provide notice of termination of the contract without cause. When you get into cause in the government area, raises some issues. If they would allow us to do that, I think that's the best way. If you don't like it, just give them the notice it's going to take awhile to transfer to somebody else anyway. Rountree: Right, that's a good point. Smith: Item #10 in the agreement is-it deals with termination and it says this agreement may be terminated immediately by owner by for breach of this agreement by janitor and either party may terminate this agreement by 30 days written notice of termination to the other party. Bird: That takes care of it. Corrie: They understand they have to go through the police? Smith: Yes sir, that was part of the specifications. Corrie: Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: So you will do that Mr. Berg, give you that leeway there Gary. Smith: I would just to say one more thing, I wish each and everyone of you a happy new year and all the best for this coming year. I think it's going to be very busy again. We haven't had any winter yet, no one has slowed down, it's still going great guns. Thanks a lot for your support. Corrie: I believe I didn't see approval of response letter to Bureau of Reclamation Mr. Bill Gigray. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 66 Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the council, I have prepared here which is an inner office memorandum which I circulated to Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, and Tom Kuntz for their comment about proposal for the res~onse to the letter that was sent by the department of interior dated December 4 h, 1998 concerning their proposal to transfer their interest in certain property to the Nampa/Meridian Irrigation District. I have attached to the material that I've just handed to you a copy of the letter that was sent by the department of interior and of course in this instance, we would propose that the letter be addressed to the Mr. Steve Dunn at the Bureau as is requested on the last page of the letter from the Bureau and this proposal would propose that the mayor would sign this letter as an official response on behalf of the city. As I understand it and Gary, Shari and Tom can correct me if I'm wrong they have basically approved the form of this particular letter. What this letter proposes to do is first set out that it's official response. It's been authorized by the council. Secondly, is to address the interest of the city in this matter as to why it is responding. It tries to make a strong statement of the fact that the providing park and recreational amenities throughout the city for it's residences and important goal of the city and I'm summarizing this, that it is growing at unprecedented rates and basically the need for this type of development is increasing and in this instance, we have a situation where the juxtaposition of the various canals and laterals and drains throughout the city and the planning jurisdiction is quite extensive and of course a quicker view of the map would clearly establish that. Then we try to set out in this proposal of what the city's concern is, understanding that we want to be delicate in the way that it's presented. First is that the-our first interest of course and concern is to maintain our ability to maximize what we have already established as the city's interest and then the history and experience of the city officials was what I have heard over the months that I have been here and dealing with department heads and yourselves with regards to the concern about what the bureaus proposal is. That is and I've worded this, it is the perception of this city that the Nampa/Meridian Irrigation District finds that development of pedestrian pathways and parkway uses is not in it's best interest. So we are not saying well they're this or that, it's our perception based on their history and that they've shown some flexibility with regards to existing parkways along drainage ways and then stating that the city appreciate and anticipates that they will continue with that flexibility but they have not shown flexibility on canals and laterals and the city anticipates that position will continue and that in the event this action is forth coming they may become even less flexible. So the third part of the letter is a request that the department consider transferring it's interest to the city on the condition that the city would continue to pursue the designation of these areas as part of it's park and recreational system and that at such time as it would determine that an area is totally unsuitable for that development the city would then transfer or assign it's interest to the Nampa/Meridian Irrigation District and then an alternate part of the request would be a minimum as an alternative that the bureau transfer their interest to the district, that-upon the condition that the district in good faith would negotiate with the City of Meridian for an appropriate license Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 67 agreement and I say similar in format to existing license agreement, we've just about got that concluded. I have received (Inaudible) revisions who included a lot of the requests that we had made of them as a result of our meeting. I have sent back my response to that which was a couple more requests, I haven't heard back from him since my last letter. Then saying that's only a back up position of the city. Sothis was sent out as a proposal. We do have to respond by the 15th. I can advise you that the facts which is the foundation for Ada County Trail Systems which is really the reinstated article and name of the former Boise River Foundation which has to do with the development of the Boise River. Green Belt is definitely in support of this position and their board has asked if the city responds, could they have a copy of the letter and I said if the City Council would grant that permission I would share a draft that the city would respond with their people. Also, it's my understanding in talking to Judy Peavey-Derr that Ada Planning is in very supportive of what I would anticipate the city's position is. I've talked to Norm Holme who is the Planning and Zoning Director of the City of Nampa, knowing that Larry Bledsoe was now gone, I was concerned that their might be a lack of communication in Nampa about this very issue and alerted him that they needed to respond as well and I would hope that we might get permission to share what the city's response is with Nampa so that they might respond as well. So anyway, this was the kick off of proposed response for your consideration. Bentley: Further more with that, APA discussed this briefly at the last meeting, last month and all the cities that were there from Ada County, representing Ada County and they are all against this also. Nampa and Caldwell were in attendance also. It is going to be further discussion in the January meeting and I really look for some resolution to come out of them in support of either giving it to the city or to the counties and keeping away from Nampa/Meridian. Gigray: I was advised that I think Commissioner Bisterfeldt was particularly at one meeting I know that Judy Peavey-Derr attended was pretty adamant about not wanting this to happen so there could be numerous (Inaudible). Rountree: A couple of comments. I think the basic letter is well founded and good. There is a couple of areas that I think we might want to address in the first interest of the city. Not only are we looking at pedestrian ways and recreational amenities but I think we are also looking at aesthetic amenities in some neighborhoods and we have some real eye sores out there because of poor care and maintenance and lack of cooperation on the part of Nampa/Meridian Irrigation District to do things. So I think we need to address those aspects even when they are not suitable for parkways and that sort of thing, they have to be incorporated in the context of our community not just these open areas or these areas of noxious weeds and blight. So we need to address that as one of our issues. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 68 Gigray: Could I have a question, because that's a real good point. Would we be in a position to say that we would take over that or we would be in a position to care for that, would that be part of our parks and rec area? I'm just trying to figure out how to fit it in here, because that's how I've kind of posed this. Rountree: That is something that the council would certainly have to consider, but I would think that our first choice would be to work cooperatively with the neighborhoods, the subdivisions to see if we couldn't work something out with the neighborhood associations and our developers, but at last resort, if it fit well with our pedestrian ways and park systems, yeah we probably ought to. Get some of these areas cleaned up, like the stretch of the canal there off of Cherry Lane between the Christian Church and the Vineyards coming out of the high school, it's never going to look any better than it does now, and it's an eyesore to stop and look at it. There's things like that out south that are going on with open fences and weeds on one side and yards on the other. I would hope that we would commit if we could get control of those rights-of-way that we would look towards improving them, even if we did nothing, they probably wouldn't get any worse. If we did nothing more than mow the weeds and gather up the... Gigray: Static's and just general maintenance, weed control. Rountree: Weed control, trash removal. Then on the second page under the third, the city request, the second paragraph B, at a minimum alternative transfer to the bureaus interest. I think that is too wishy-washy in terms of us being able to control our destiny there. I think if it goes to Nampa/Meridian, it should go to Nampa/Meridian only upon, in our case, our community and Nampa/Meridian executing a memorandum of agreement or understanding or some kind of binding document that outlines the use, the care and the maintenance of those corridors within the city limits, in the city-or within the area of impact in the City of Meridian. Only until that's satisfactory or that's executed to the satisfaction of both parties would that transfer take place. Otherwise we want it. Gigray: I throw it out as an option. I thought you may want to say I don't want to do that at all and strike it out. I though it would be easier to through out some options. Rountree: I don't have a problem with them having it as long as they understand that we're going to be a player. Not a sit back one. Other than that, I think it's pretty sound. What you might want to do-get a hold of Jim and bounce it off of him. I'll get you his number if you don't have it. I think you've got his card. Gigray: I have that note. Rountree: Call him up, he said he would be more than willing to give us an editorial. There is a key point that you'll kick them over you'll probably have it then. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 69 Bentley: I agree. Corrie: We need a motion to authorize to have the letter signed and... Rountree: I make a motion that Meridian City Council and mayor authorize the further editorial of the letter to the Bureau of Reclamation dated in response to their letter dated 12/17/98. Continue drafting be done by the city attorney and provide final document for signature by... Bentley: Response has to be in by the 15rn Rountree: January 11, 1999, for circulation and signature. Bentley: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree and seconded by Mr. Bentley to approve the motion as stated. All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All aye. Corrie: Request for Darlene Stutzman regarding vacation of public right-of-way. That was denied once and needs to reapply I think. Shari do you want-Will go ahead and give your speech. Berg: I guess I had the privilege of being contacted by Darlene, which ever she goes by, as I know her as Ms. Stutzman and she said she needed to make a requirement from ACHD for this application. This was during the time that Shari was on her vacation and so I told her she needed to submit a letter to the City Council to get this on the agenda and I think Shari has further comments to the in-depth of the previous stories behind this situation. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and council, Ms. Stutzman did come in previously and request a vacation of the right-of-way at that time it was denied by council. As part of the Sterling Creek Subdivision staff had requested that they make that a pedestrian walkway, however, that requirement was removed by council, but it is a perfect walkway over to Five Mile Creek, although they did have access to Five Mile Creek in other areas. There currently exists an old railroad car, what is that, some kind of railroad car or something, it's there to stay I think. People use it now as a walkway. Washington would align almost perfectly with that existing bridge over the Five Mile Creek. Then across the Five Mile Creek is-it's not called a pedestrian walkway, it's a drainage lot that goes to Danbury's Subdivision, but there is access through two Danbury Subdivision in that area and the people in Danbury Fair have expressed concern that that be maintained as a pathway. I assured them that if the vacation was considered in ~. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 70 the future there would be another application and they would get the opportunity to testify at the public hearing. That's what she needs to do, she is going through the Ada County Highway District process apparently, I guess it's already been denied once, she would just have to start over as far as... Gigray:.) represent a highway district, so I'm somewhat familiar with street vacations and issues regarding cities. I know that you have a county wide highway district over here. When I saw this, it posed an-it's the first one of these that I've seen but I do think one of the issues here that we may want to think about is how we process any kind of application for street vacations. Ada County Highway District is the one that has jurisdictional authority to do it, but they can't do it without the approval of the city. In my view the best policy on these would be that the city not entertain such action unless they file the petition with the Ada County Highway District, they've noticed all of the hearings, then we could hear it as part of that process and make our comments and decision as part of a filed petition. My concern would be that someone files a petition, you take an action, say yeah, we approve this, if you do, for how long? What's it subject to? What are the conditions? Where is the staff reports? It seems to me if they file a legitimate petition to vacate a property then there is some legal process in place and then we could deal with that as an (Inaudible). As I saw this, it didn't look like-has she applied? Stiles: Previously she had Gigray: It's been denied? Stiles: Yes. Gigray: I think... Rountree: That's the way the record sits at this point. So until she goes back through ACHD we are done with her. Gigray: Yeah, because I think otherwise you would be entertaining these things all the time. They would come in here and want to get a read from you-will you approve this, then I'll go over to ACHD to make my petition. I think that is where they ought to go and then you can take a look at, get the staff reports that you need and then take action on whether you would approve it or not. Corrie: Send her back. Okay, anyone want to handle these two resolutions tonight? Bird: Which ones? Corrie: Resolution 172 and 208 changing the-well, let's we've got one for empowering the city treasurer to make investments. That's superceding resolution 208. We have in Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 71 your packet this supercedes and gives the chance that the states that the city treasurer is (Inaudible) invest Idaho funds and then the committee is set up. If they want to hear it it's not on the council agenda, but go ahead. We need to get this going. Gigray: Since the action taken on December 15th and the resolution that was passed, on that data I've met with Dean Buffington and Kari McNeal of that firm. Their concern was as the resolution was previously passed, it provided that we would establish an account with Buffington and Moore and they were also a little concerned with whether or not a committee that had a condition that there be an actual signing by one other member might require meeting and a process problem in terms of what their needs are with regards to how the investment process would actually work in the field. So in response to that comment I have submitted for your consideration a resolution which would supercede the original one, so that the original one would stay in place and then this would just take over at some point as you might pass it... (END OF TAPE) Gigray: What it does is it in terms of the language of this particular resolution provides that in part four here that the city treasurer is hereby authorized and directed and empowered to seek investment advise from Buffington, Moore, McNeal and so on in accordance with their proposal to the city rather than establish an account there and assign all necessary documents together the clerk to carry out the directive and empowerment and then in part three the city treasurer is hereby directed and empowered by this resolution to invest such idle funds of the city as reasonable upon the advice and approval of the investment committee which advice and approval may occur at such times as provides efficiency and decision making and the management of investment accounts. The idea was to try and make this so it could work in the field. The committee could do the job that you ask it to do and of course the state law requires the empowerment be to the city treasurer. As this was done before it required the signing and you could still have the clerk attest or you could have a committee member do that, but the-anyway, I've submitted this, Dean Buffington has commented that this is fine. It's slightly different than what you did before. (Inaudible) Bird: I move that we, what are we going to number the resolution number? Rountree: As a new one, 208. Bird: This is going to be 208 again? Rountree: 208A. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 72 Gigray: Whatever your next number is, 209. Bird: I move that we accept the past resolution 209. The suspension of rules? (Inaudible) Unknown: Don't have to worry about that. Bird: For the mayor to sign and the clerk to attest. Rountree: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bird, seconded by Mr. Rountree that resolution 209 be approved and mayor to sign and city clerk to attest. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: Thank you we got that one. Do you want to do the other resolution, amending resolution 172, there was just some lines taken out. Bird: This is on that time and a half? Corrie: Yeah. Just changing the date August 26t" to September 26~", 1998. Is that correct Mr. Gigray that is all that was changed on that? Gigray: It was just a house keeping matter and I think I did a little memo that you have with it just saying that I under the open meeting law I think you can do this, I believe the mayor and the clerk have exercised good faith in putting all matters on the agenda and you can add (Inaudible). Rountree: Just a question, what's the difference between August and September? Gigray: This was advice that I received from the clerks office that this needed to be changed and I think this has to do with when this would take effect and that it needed to take effect in September, not in August. Bird: Was it because the fiscal year ending or what? Rountree: It doesn't end in September. Bird: That's what I was going to say. September 26~" would be the... Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 73 Gigray: Maybe the best thing to do would be to table this till next meeting and we can clarify what the origins of this request were. I did receive a request (Inaudible). Anderson: Don't have to table it because it isn't on the agenda. Bird: No. Corrie: I'll bring it off and put it on the agenda next time. I'll even find out... Smith: Mr. Mayor, I think that date came about during the length of time that the discussions were going on concerning the administrative leave time that the exempt employees had accumulated. Bentley: Well lets work it out and do it next time. Bird: We'll get it next time. Corrie: I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. One thing, Gary on your transportation taskforce the speed limits have already been changed on Meridian Road. Smith: Good. Bird: Mr. Mayor, we as a council has got one thing to do here. This is the first meeting of January and we need to elect our new council president and vice president. So if you will entertain a motion, I make a motion to nominate somebody. Corrie: Are you all ready for it? Bird: I'm ready, are you ready Ron, you ready Charlie? Rountree: It's still today. Bird: I move that we-I nominate Charles Rountree as council president. Bentley: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bird, seconded by Mr. Bentley to nominate Mr. Charlie Rountree as continuous president of the council for the year 1999. Any further comments? Rountree: I guess the only comment that I would have before you cast your ballot, in the way of discussion, if that's the case, there may be some assignment changes. Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 74 Bird: Whatever you want to do, that's your baby. Rountree: Okay. Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Bird: Mr. Mayor, I nominate Glen Bentley as Vice President of the Meridian City Council. Rountree: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bird, seconded by Mr. Charlie Rountree that Mr. Glen Bentley be nominated as Vice President of the council. Any discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. Corrie: Now I'll entertain a motion... Rountree: I just have-it's really not an item, but the planning session for the end of the month, everybody up for that? Corrie: I won't be here, but... Rountree: Two things that I've got is we want a session with Mr. Gigray about where we are going with process and procedure and we'll get with-get you more specifics. We also want an affidavit from you that we will get this stuff sooner for council meetings. If he wants to meet with us or talk about the things that they want to do in the way of trash pick up, recycle, programs that they think they would like to offer the City of Meridian, those are the only two things that I have at this point for that meeting. Give me your thoughts and ideas for that and we'll schedule it for the last week in January. Bird: Are you going to do it the 26th Charlie? Rountree: We would normally do it the 26th, yeah. With that I'll move to adjourn. Corrie: Also I need to talk to you about (Inaudible) we can talk about that later. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we adjourn all in favor say aye. ( ~ Meridian City Council January 5, 1999 Page 75 MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:53 (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) r D. CORRIE. MAYOR "~,,,n„„tp~+~ ATTEST o'rs'{ ~ ~~~*''~~, 's ~~. $~L ~ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., LERK s a" a ,70' r 181; , ~P~`*~.~