HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous (2)Brad Hawkins -Clark
From: Sharon Smith [smiths@meridiancity.org]
Sent: Thursday, May 16, 2002 12:00 PM
To: Brad Hawkins -Clark
Subject: RE: Kouba Lot Split
Ln
071696.WPD (166 080696.WPD (162
KB) KB)
Sorry for the delay.
r�
We find that the ordinance 736 and Conditional Use Permit were approved August 6, 1996.
In July 16, 1996 minutes, DA is mentioned. But I don't see where it was approved. ??
Sharon
-----Original Message -----
From: Brad Hawkins-Clark[mailto:hawkinsb@ci.meridian.id.us]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 11:29 AM
To: 'Sharon Smith'
Subject: Kouba Lot Split
Sharon,
Okay, call me somewhat schizophrenic, but I do, after all, need to know what the Clerk's
record shows for this Kouba issue that I e-mailed you about last week.
On June 3, 1997 (item #13), Council approved a lot split for Lamont Kouba at 835 E.
Fairview Ave. The approval was contingent on passage of an ordinance approving the split
and a DA being recorded. Do you show any record of either the ordinance being prepared or
approved or a DA being prepared or recorded?
Thanks!
Brad
1
J
ORDINANCE NO. 736
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN
REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN
THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1
EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of
Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of
said City to annex to the said City real property which is
described in Section 1 below:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City
Council of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho:
Section 1. That the real property described as:
A parcel of land situated in the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of
b 0 G u 5 i 0 Section 7, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise
Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described
as follows:
Commencing at the 1/4 corner common to Sections 6 and 7;
thence along the North line of said Section 7, S
89°28'06" E a distance of 180.00 feet to a point;
y,�& ,
Ge4a-,-'thence S 00°34144" W a distance of 45.78 feet to the
28 southerly rights-of-way line of Fairview Avenue, a 5/8
l inch iron pin and cap marked "RAJ 943", THE POINT OF
INNING;
P.Eti .JcST Or
thence along said rights-of-way line N 89°11'04" E a
distance of 10.98 feet to a Brass Cap set in concrete,
marked station 47+16.6;
thence continuing along said rights-of-way on a curve to
the right having a Delta of 00°0833", a Radius of
55,916.02 feet, a Tangent of 69.53 feet, a Chord Bearing
of N 89°15120" E, a Chord distance of 139.06 feet, an Arc
Length of 139.06 feet to a point which bears S 00°34'46"
W a distance of 0.25 feet from a 5/8 inch iron pin and
cap marked "JUB 944";
thence leaving said rights-of-way line S 0003446" W a
distance of 629.75 feet to the South line of the NW 1/4
of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of said Section 7, a 5/8 inch
iron pin and cap marked "RAJ 943";
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - JOHNSON\ROUBA Page 1
J
thence along the said South line of the NW 1/4 of the NW
1/4 of the NE 1/4 of said Section 7, N 89°42'38" W a
distance of 330.00 feet to the SW corner of the NW 1/4 of
the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4 of said Section 7, a 5/8 inch
iron pin and cap marked "Hubble 4999";
thence along the North-South centerline of said Section
7, N 0°34144" E a distance of 373.56 feet to a 5/8 inch
iron pin and cap marked "RAJ 943", which bears S
00°34144" W a distance of 300.00 feet from said 1/4
corner common to Sections 6 and 7;
thence S 89°28'06" E a distance of 180.00 feet to a 5/8
inch iron pin and cap marked "RAJ 943";
thence N 00°34'44" E a distance of 254.22 feet to THE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
Also a portion of Fairview Avenue, as shown on the
official plat of U.S. Highway No. 30, project No. F-
3281(5) highway survey on file in the office of the
Department of Highways of the State of Idaho, more
particularly described as follows:
A strip of land in the N 1/2 of the NW 1/4 of the NE 1/4
of Section 7, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise
Meridian and the S 1/2 of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of
Section 6, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise
Meridian, to wit:
Commencing at the 1/4 corner common to said Sections 6
and 7, THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
thence along the centerline of Fairview Avenue N
89°11104" E a distance of 189.82 feet to a point of
curvature;
thence continuing along said centerline on a 00006'09"
curve to the right, having a Delta of 00008'37", a Radius
of 55,966.02 feet, a Tangent Length of 70.14 feet, a
Chord Bearing of N 89°15122" E, and a Chord Distance of
140.28 feet, an Arc Length of 140.28 feet to a point;
thence leaving said centerline S 00034"46" W a distance
of 50.01 feet to the southerly Rights -of -Way line of
Fairview Avenue;
thence along said southerly Rights -of -Way line on a
00006'09" curve to the left, having a Delta of 00008'3311,
a Radius of 55,916.02 feet, a Tangent Length of 69.53
feet, an Chord Bearing of S 89015120" W, and a Chord
Distance 139.06 feet, an Arc Length 139.06 feet to a
Brass Cap set in concrete, marked station 47+16.6, the
point of tangency;
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - JOHNSON\KOUBA Page 2
J
thence continuing along said southerly Rights -of -Way line
S 89 ° 11' 04 " W a distance of 10.98 feet to a 5/8 inch iron
pin and cap marked "RAJ 943";
thence continuing along said southerly Rights -of -Way line
S 89°11104" W a distance of 87.82 feet to a point;
thence leaving said southerly Rights -of -Way line N
00°48'56" W a distance of 47.86 feet to a point on the
section line common to Sections 6 and 7;
thence along said section line N 89°28'06" W a distance
of 91.04 feet to THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian, and shall be zoned C -G
General Retail and Service Commercial; that the annexation and
zoning is subject to the conditions referenced in the Findings of
Fact and Conclusions of Law as adopted by the Meridian Council on
the request for annexation and zoning; that all ditches, canals and
waterways shall be tiled, including those that are property
boundaries or only partially located on the property.
Section 2. That the property shall be subject to de -
annexation if the owner shall not meet the following requirements:
a. That the Applicant will be required to connect to
Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and
sewer mains will serve the land.
b. That the development of the property shall be subject to
and controlled by the Zoning Ordinances, the Subdivision
and Development Ordinance, and the Meridian Comprehensive
Plan adopted January 4, 1994.
C. That, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall
be required to enter into a development agreement as
authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the
development agreement shall address inclusion into the
subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G 1., H,
R, L and M of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the
City of Meridian, and other matters; that the property
may be de -annexed if the terms and conditions of the
Development Agreement are not satisfied.
d. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply
with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in
particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - JOHNSON\ROUBA Page 3
J
development time schedules and requirements, and 11-9-605
M which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways.
e. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind
the Applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns.
f. That the Applicant shall meet the requirements and
conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law, particularly, but not limited thereto, Conclusion of
Law Nos. 12, 17, 19, 20, and 23, and that the property be
developed as a commercial planned development or under
the conditional use permit process, and the Applicant
shall meet the requirements of the Conditional Use
Permit, and meet the Ordinances of the City of Meridian.
Section 3. That the City Clerk shall cause one ( 1) copy of
the legal description, and map, which shall plainly and clearly
designate the boundaries of said property, to be filed with the Ada
County Recorder, Ada County Assessor, and the State Tax Commission
within ten (10) days following the effective date of this
Ordinance.
Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: There being an emergency,
which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Ordinance shall
be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval
as required by law.
PASSED by the City Council and approved by the Mayor of the
City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this 6 � day of August, 1996.
APPROVED:
8 -- ROBERT D. CORRIE
G`+: ?�3����'%
ATTEST:
���•``�'�
F
1332 -?
WILLIAM G. BERG, JR./
7
--/CITY CLERK
,, `r-—?.
.. .r J�.yr�S.��:..j.. �r.W ��l�rlary ....
.....Yr .. ..• •v `..ri1 � :=i �
1J/i1J: 111111\
STATE OF IDAHO,)
ss.
County of Ada, )
I, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk of the City of Meridian,
Ada County, Idaho, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing
is a true, full and correct copy of an Ordinance entitled "AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL
PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED IN THE NW
1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST,
BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE."; passed as Ordinance No. 736, by the City Council and Mayor
of the City of Meridian, on the j7�1 day of August, 1996, as the
same appears in my office.
DATED this _ day of August, 1996.
City Clerk, City
Ada County, Idaho
STATE OF IDAHO,)
ss.
County of Ada, )
, 1111 t 11, 111:1, 1//,
SEAL
71
%��Q,���T lri� N� �R�
C,OU� ,
•J'�ff1flitlltlS111\\\\
On this day of August, 1996, before me, the undersigned,
a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared WILLIAM
G. BERG, JR. known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed
to the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he
executed the same.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my
official seal the day and year in this certificate first above
written.
SEAL
— � 9
o a �
10
�Ia111f1�li1
Public for Idaho
ng at Meridian, Idaho
mission Expires D.� Ziz
ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - JOHNSON\ROUBA Page 5
J
N. I/4 CORNER
SEC.T
3
0
3
No E. 114 , 9
1571 A
ii
Meridian City Council
July 16, 1996
Page 8
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Bentley - Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Decision or recommendation?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, The City Council of the City of Meridian approves the conditional use
permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the
conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law that the use should be
denied if the owner does not give his consent.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree on the decision and
recommendation any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #4: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO C -G BY
LAMONT KOUBA AND RICHARD JOHNSON:
Corrie: I will open the public hearing now, and is there a representative.
Bob Daugherty, 5001 N. Eugene, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Daugherty: Mr. Mayor and Council members we are here on behalf of Lamont Kouba, he
has a piece of property that is situated at 835 East Fairview Avenue in Meridian. He is
proposing a commercial development, the property is a little under 4 acres, 3.78 acres.
The commercial development he is planning on that is he is proposing would be geared
towards the automotive and recreational industries, primarily sales and service. In your
packet you can see the initial building that is facing Fairview, he is proposing a jet ski
dealership and an automotive parts store that would be in the first two buildings. The
other three smaller units to the south are, would be unoccupied at this point but he has
been talking about the possibility of like an espresso shop, something similar in that nature
and the rear buildings. That area is more conceptual in nature and that is something that
we had discussed with staff members. Those buildings would be geared even more so
toward the automotive type industry, as far as service type facilities. There has been
discussion of items such as a welding shop, perhaps automotive detail, RV repair, things
similar to that. I believe that through the Planning and Zoning Commission we have pretty
much met all of the staff requirements as far as our set backs, our requirements as far as
the utilities. Currently on the site or previously on the site there was a single family
Meridian City Council
July 16, 1996
Page 9
residence and various out buildings and the remaining of the property was in pasture. To
the east of our property is Rountree Chevrolet and to the west is Meridian Auto Sales. The
property primarily to the south is vacant and there is a residential area that is to the south
and east which overlaps our southerly property line by approximately 21 feet. In our
discussions with staff members they have indicated the required set back as being 20 feet
from a separation of any commercial development. They specifically required a planting
strip from the residential area which we have adhered to in our site plan. I guess at this
point if you have any questions I would go ahead and entertain those. We do also have
a few items that we would like to discuss as far as the facts and findings. There are a
couple of issues that we would like to bring up.
Corrie: Do you want to bring those up now?
Daugherty: I will, on page 23, item 21, it was indicating that all waterways so forth be tiled.
In this southwest comer of our project we have Five Mile Creek drainage that runs through
there. My discussions with Ms. Shari Stiles indicated that we wouldn't be required to the
that anyway. I guess what I wanted to do was to bring that up now so that we can perhaps
eliminate the possibilities of confusion down the road. Perhaps we can get that Five Mile
Creek omitted from that statement there. Our property owner is in agreement with signing
the development agreement. There was also an issue taking place as far as the access,
we are currently in negotiation with the property owner to the east which is Eleanor
Johnson. They have leased their property to LB Industries and we are in the process of
negotiating with both of those folks to obtain an easement on the east side of our property,
the west side of theirs. There was a 40 foot strip that was left vacant to access the rear of
that property should and when they develop it. In our discussions with ACHD they required
our access to be moved to the east side of our property which ACHD's requirements would
be that 40 foot strip would no longer be able to be used because it would be too close a
proximity to our ingress and egress. So what we are trying to do there is a shared access
with them, them providing the ground and us constructing the entryway and that would
also provide access to the rear of their property when they decide to develop it. There
were also some concerns as far as the EPA that were brought up in the testimony with the
Planning and Zoning. I guess I would like to relay a little bit of information with regards to
that. I am sorry it was DEQ. There was a pest site previously on the property and there
was some concerns as far as contamination. DEQ has sunk some test hole wells and they
have done a lot of monitoring. Mr. Kouba has employed Mark Torf Environmental
Management Company to do some work there. He since then has cleaned up the property.
We have a verbal okay from Eileen Lorch from DEQ that says that the property is clean
but it is going to take about two weeks to get those reports and get everything back to us.
So that is an issue that has been addressed and I believe that it has been handled. There
is a letter that we received also as a concern from one of the property owners which is
Ruth Crow. She has a property that is two parcels to the south of us. She was indicating
J
Meridian City Council
July 16, 1996
Page 10
that her concern that her property would be landlocked if we don't provide a public access.
Currently there is no public access through our property or through the property that is
directly to the south of us. She does however according to cur legal description we have
drawn up some pictures and have a copy of her deed that if you care to see those we can
show you that there is access provided to her property from the west side of her property.
No less than 3 different streets and two alleys it looks like that go into her property. I
guess that, I do have one more thing. The site plans that you have were revised site plans
which indicated that the initial building that is up front facing Fairview Avenue there is 340
by 25 foot areas, your plans may indicate a 50 foot that was a change that we had
submitted. The second part of the planning and zoning process since then our architect
has suggested that we reduce that to 40 feet. I have some new site plans which just reflect
that change if you care to see those. I think that is all I have if you have any questions I
would be more than happy to try and answer those.
Rountree: I just wanted to reaffirm that you had no other comments on the draft findings
of facts?
Daugherty: I believe that is all.
Rountree: I would like to see both of those items that you mentioned, the deed showing
access and your new site plan.
Daugherty: The shaded area on the drawing is reflecting the deed on Mrs. Crow's
property. In our initial evaluation there seems to be some problems with the deed itself.
But nevertheless there would still be access.
Rountree: I have no more questions.
Morrow: I have a couple of questions, the new site plan that you are showing us is
basically flopped over and that is for the common access point off of Fairview that you
addressed earlier.
Daugherty: That is correct. That was actually addressed in the second part of our
Planning and Zoning meeting, when we had gone to them we had indicated that was a
requirement of ACHD. We provided them updated drawings and I was assuming that you
had those updated drawings that showed the building basically where it is. The only
change we were doing from that from the site plan that they had was 40 foot buildings or
that you should have would be the updated 50 foot wide building which would be the C,
D and E and those we have reduced back to 40. 1 believe that they were 40 on that original
plan on the very first one that showed that building on the east side of the property. So if
that is the one that you are having then yes it is basically kind of flipped.
Meridian City Council
July 16, 1996
Page 11
Morrow: That is correct and then there is a difference in terms of apparently spaces J, K,
I mean F, G H, L, I, J, K, M.
Daugherty: From the original site plan that is correct. The last one we had submitted tc
Planning and Zoning and to Ms. Shari Stiles you must not have the updated version then.
Morrow: It is apparently not part of this packet. Unless it is buried somewhere else in here.
My next question is this site is proposed to be under one ownership is that correct?
Daugherty: That is correct.
Morrow: So this is not a subdivision process anticipated here?
Daugherty: No sir.
Morrow: You are aware that at some point in time if it is to be subdivided it will have to go
through the subdivision process?
Daugherty: Yes
Morrow: That is all the questions that I have.
Corrie: Any further questions from Council? Thank you sir, anybody else from the public
that would like to enter testimony on the request for annexation and zoning?
Gary Lee, JUB, 250 South Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Lee: I would like to hand out a vicinity map showing the property in question. We were
contacted by Ron Crow who is Ruth Crow's son last Friday. Apparently he had been
discussing some issues with his mother and she brought up this particular conditional use
and annexation to him and he started looking at some of the paperwork that she received
in the mail and was a little bit concerned with the property. As stated earlier a letter had
been sent to the City by Mrs. Crow requesting that a public street be considered to provide
access through this proposed development to their south boundary. As you can see on
the vicinity map is probably similar to what you received earlier where her property is
located in relation to the planned development. We show that there is one public street
access in the property on the west boundary that being Washington Avenue. There is a
small private road in that Catherine Park Subdivision kind of down on the South end but
it is not a public standard road, it is quite narrow and probably would never be convertible
to a public road. As you can see there is no access into Danbury. Badley Avenue which
is to the west through another parcel could eventually be extended to this property at some
Meridian City Council
July 16, 1996
Page 12
future point. The concern that we had noticed looking at this not only the Five Mile Creek
being an obstacle to cross but to service her property north and east of the File Mile. But
the length of the proposed street coming off Washington into the subject property would
be the 450 maximum length allowed by the City of Meridian for access to properties. We
see a real need there for a secondary access point somewhere in that northern say 30 or
40% of the property. The comp plan calls for mixed planned development in this particular
area. I suppose that could mean a number of things, although there is no specific plan in
mind at this point. I can see probably some mixture of single family, maybe some duplex
and maybe even some apartments. There are apartments now that border her property
along the west boundary so maybe there could be some transitional things going in there.
But in any event we would have to have an adequate public road system to service this
area. Particularly if we have some higher density developments in there it is going to
generate some additional traffic that would probably be better to exit to Fairview rather
than going into the local streets that are in that Washington Avenue area. And again we
would like to reaffirm Mrs. Crow's request that the City consider a public street through the
property that is before you tonight. If you have any questions I would be glad to answer
them the best that I can.
(Inaudible)
Morrow: Gary, I have a question here, on the northern boundary of the Crow property and
the southern boundary of this property before us it doesn't look to me like the are
contiguous, what is the little, what is this and what is this?
Lee: That is separate ownership.
Morrow: Both parcels they are two different parcels of ground here?
Lee: Yes
Morrow: And are they the same ownership or separate or different for those two?
Lee: I don't know for sure if they are or not. Any road that would come down there would
obviously have to go through there. That particular parcel is going to need access as well.
Morrow: So really the bigger issue here is access, the Crow property at least has one
access and potential another one on Badley. But these two properties here have no
access.
Lee: They are in worse condition, absolutely.
a
Meridian City Council
July 16, 1996
Page 13
Morrow: Thank you.
Corrie: Any further questions of Council? Thank you Gary. Anybody else from the public
that would like to give testimony at this time? Council, questions?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have some questions of Gary and Shari, either or both. With respect
to these two parcels that we have identified, Gary do you know if they are under different
ownership and what the status of those properties?
Smith: No I don't Councilman Morrow.
Morrow: And would you have a proposal for access to those two properties?
Smith: No
Morrow: Shari, do you have any thoughts?
Stiles: I don't know how they would get access except through the Ruth Crow property if
there is no access through Fairview.
Morrow: Let me ask you this, what does our comp plan call for for those two properties?
Stiles: Those are in mixed planned use development area.
Morrow: Thank you
Corrie: Any other questions from Council or staff?
Rountree: I would have a question for the applicant. It appears that there would be an
enclave of non -annexed property that would have no access with this proposal and the
way the property boundaries fall to the south. Would the joint use of the access off of
Fairview be one that the applicant and the owner would consider either permanent
easement or public access to provide that access to that parcel of land?
Daugherty: I guess currently what we are looking at is there are two other properties that
are in between that parcel of ground and they actually do have access to that property off
of Washington. I guess because of the fact that Five Mile Drainage in is in there that is
just a problem with the parcel of ground itself I guess. I don't see that us granting an
easement is going to solve their problem.
Tolsma: Are you speaking of the two parcels of ground directly south?
J
Meridian City Council
July 16, 1996
Page 14
Daugherty: No, there are two parcel of ground that sit, they would be to the south of us
and north of the Crow property, there are two separate parcels there. There is a one acre
parcel and then there is another strip in there that they are under separate ownership they
are not under the same ownership. (End of Tape) sent to the Mrs. Johnson who is also
the property owner of Rountree which is to the east of us. And then there is another, the
smaller parcel there is property held by I believe it is Daily so it is two separate individuals.
I guess what we are saying is the property basically has this problem to begin with and I
don't believe that should be something that we should have to resolve. I guess that is
something where they do have access there are ways to get over Five Mile Creek and
access that property and we believe that should be their responsibility to handle that.
Tolsma: Have you talked to the two property owners that are directly south of you, those
two small parcels?
Daugherty: Specifically I have not.
Tolsma: So you don't know what their thoughts are about being land locked in there?
Daugherty: I believe that Mr. Kouba has talked to the Johnson's about that parcel but we
haven't been able to contact the Dailey's at all. At this point there, I don't believe that there
are any current negotiations to purchase that property now. I guess I might add one more
thing, the gentleman from JUB had indicated that they might look at something like, I guess
it was hard to say, something like apartments or town houses I guess in that area. We
don't feel that a street I guess going right down the west or the east side of our property
to access a bunch of residential units going right down through the middle of strictly
commercial development, I just don't feel that would be an appropriate use of the site the
way that we are proposing it. In addition, the access that we are proposing is on the east
side of our property which is actually on the Rountree property. If you follow that line down
that easement that we have worked, that we are in the process of working out with them,
what it would do it go directly into the back part of that Danbury Subdivision without having
to make a right turn and then go south, go to the west and then south. I think that we are
basically putting our project in jeopardy by doing that.
Corrie: Mr. Daugherty, are you aware of a letter from the APA to the Planning and Zoning
Administrator, did you get a copy of that?
Daugherty: Yes sir I did, it clarified a couple of issues. Their initial statement was that they
wanted a sidewalk constructed from our front building to the sidewalks along Fairview
Avenue. In that particular location there are no sidewalks along Fairview Avenue. They
have indicated that what they would still like to see and I think we would be willing to go
ahead and do that is to construct a sidewalk from our front building there to the right of
Meridian City Council
July 16, 1996
Page 15
way of Fairview Avenue. I believe that was their preferred option.
Corrie: Any further discussion from Council? 1 will close the public hearing. Council
discussion or pleasure?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, if I might with respect to the issue of access, it is a very difficult issue.
However, what we are doing here on Fairview, particularly on this site is we are creating
a line that exists between residential uses and commercial retail types of uses. If we
extend the line that has been drawn for Danbury Fair that would seem to indicate that
everything south of that line is a residential use in some nature. Now it appears to me that
It is going to take some operation amongst property owners in that area for those folks to
get their properties developed at any rate, no matter what is done with this particular
property. So, it is a tough issue with respect to access but I don't think you access the two
parcels that we are talking about here when we are talking about a joint access along a
common property line between the Rountree parcel and this parcel. And so, I don't think
you can get to these two properties without effectively taking away the use of the property
before us. With respect to the issue of the sidewalk and APA there is provision within the
findings for the staff report to deposit to ACHD's trust fund I think that is an appropriate
manner of handling the sidewalk issue. There are no sidewalks anyplace along Fairview
in this area. So I don't think it is reasonable to expect to have those built now, there are
also no specs for those. So the logical course of action to me seems to be to deposit to the
trust fund and at such time as they are built they are funded by ACRD. Those would be
my two thoughts concerning the two issues that were brought up.
Corrie: Any other comments from Council? Mr. Rountree?
Rountree: I agree with Walt with what he said with respect to the sidewalks. I am
somewhat concerned with the potential difficulty of providing access to that parcel. And
by acting on an annexation and or use when the property on Fairview potentially land
locking that site particularly being the middle property being owned by one of the owners
that is involved in this and I don't know that there is recognition that they are doing this to
themselves. I would like to see that some kind of an effort made with those property
owners that they are aware of what is going on. Even though they have been notified of
the hearing I believe some effort should be made with the Johnson property to make sure
that they understand that they are severing any ties with the adjacent property.
Morrow: Question, Charlie, what would you do with that property? The thing is if you are
going to have a line between commercial and residential at what point is potential access,
what benefit is it?
Rountree: I guess I am more concerned with the access proposed for this site is actually
J
Meridian City Council
July 16, 1996
Page 16
on property owned by that middle, by the people that own that middle property at least that
is how it was represented that is who is paying taxes on that property. I guess if I was
assured they do that was going and they wouldn't find out at a later date and all of a
sudden get into a situation where they got contrary about providing access to this property
and then seeing this thing again. Because access shifts or changes on Fairview. That is
the only concern that I have. As far as what I would do with it I would sell it.
Tolsma: I might ask a question of Mr. Smith over there, Gary, do you have a copy of this,
well directly to the west of Mrs. Crows property right about in the middle isn't that where
the apartment complex is located?
Smith: Yes, correct.
Tolsma: And wasn't that in future phases supposed to have access to Fairview Avenue?
Smith: That is what they reported yes.
Tolsma: And they were also going to tie into Badley Avenue at that time?
Smith: Badley does tie into the complex right now.
Tolsma: And when the future development then would go to Fairview Avenue.
Smith: Yes
Tolsma: So then at that time then possibly Badley could run into the northern part of Mrs.
Crow's property?
Smith: Yes sir.
Tolsma: And then we could probably also have partial access or provide for access to this
property then to the west those two little parcel that is between Mrs. Crow's property and
the proposed project.
Smith: You would have to cross Five Mile Creek with a bridge. We also have a sewer line
a trunk line that extends from East Crossbill Court to the west through that second parcel
of property over to Five Mile Creek and then north along Five Mile.
Tolsma: It goes down Badley to Five Mile Creek?
Smith: No, Crossbill Court in Danbury Fair Subdivision to the east of the larger of those
Meridian City Council
July 16, 1996
-a_c--e 17
two parcels between Crow's property and the proposed project.
Tolsma: The little strip to the east that is in there that goes to the property line at the end
of the culdesac?
Smith: Yes off the culdesac yes. There is a sewer line trunk in there that extends to the
west across that, see where that stub drain is, it is just north of that stub drain and it runs
over to Five Mile Creek and then north on Five Mile. So that property has a sewer trunk
that crosses through it also. It might be a good spot for a small neighborhood park.
Morrow: If I may ask, Gary, with that easement extending to the west that means that there
is no building on top of that easement through that property. It appears to me that it leaves
just a little, it would leave a very small sliver on the south side of the easement.
Smith: If that stub drain is correct, if everything is in scale on this drawing that is correct.
Morrow: So we are rapidly looking at a piece of property is pretty much consumed with as
Charlie says there is not much developable there anymore.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Corrie: I must assume that we are waiting on a comment from Gary.
Smith: I am sorry, I am going to have to ask for you to repeat that.
Morrow: It was a comment from the standpoint that with the easement to the west for the
sewer interceptor and with the stub drain and the Five Mile Drain we are not talking about
a piece of property that there is much left of is that correct based on this drawing that we
are seeing?
Smith: Yes sir correct.
Morrow: And for the most part that is not buildable or it wouldn't be buildable except for
the stuff to the north of the easement it appears according to this.
Smith: Yes
Morrow: And Ron has indicated there may be an access to this property from this piece
right here where the multi family is.
Tolsma: It might be that you have to build a bridge.
J
Meridian City Council
July 16, 1996
Page 18
Morrow: Across Five Mile.
Smith: If you extended 5th Street where R-15 is noted down there, Washington and 5th,
5th Street right now extends north through that parcel that is numbered 1304 and it ties
into Badley Avenue which extends from the west to the east. That exists right now, it
doesn't show on this map but that is in place out there. It is a private road through the
apartment through that 1304 parcel. Badley I believe is a public road over to the boundary
of that parcel and I am not sure if it continues on or not but it does connect with an
extension of 5th that is a private road. The gentleman that developed the apartments on
parcel 1304 had plans to extend 5th Street north to Fairview. I don't know if he owns that
property above 1304 or whether that just has a zero in it, it is labeled R-8 open field. What
the plan was to extend 5th Street north of Fairview and continue the apartment
development (inaudible). As Councilman Tolsma mentioned at that time Badley could
conceivably be extended over to the Crow property for access to that property. And it
would have to cross Five Mile Creek to get to her property that is on the east and the north
of Five Mile. If there was any access needed for that property between this project that
is being proposed and the crow property it could be provided from the crow property but
again there are several what ifs in that line.
Rountree: Given that explanation I am a little more at ease about being able to access
those parcels.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Morrow: I have no further questions.
Corrie: Any other comments from Council? Entertain a motion on the request for
annexation and zoning to C -G.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, we need to do something with the findings of fact and conclusions as
prepared for Planning and Zoning. I guess my inclination would be to adopt these with the
added phrase that exempts the tiling of Five Mile Creek.
Bentley: Second
Rountree: Was that a motion?
Morrow: That was just a point of discussion. I will make it a motion, I move that we adopt
the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for P & Z to be amended that under
article 21 of the conclusions that we add the phrase not required to tile Five Mile Creek.
J
Meridian City Council
July 16, 1996
Page 19
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to approve the findings of
fact and conclusions of law by Planning and Zoning with the addition to item 21 on page
23 not to the Five Mile Creek, any further discussion? Roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Bentley - Yea, Rountree - Yea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move to instruct the City Attorney to prepare an annexation
ordinance.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree for the attorney to draw up
an ordinance, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #5: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A
RECREATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE USE BY LAMONT KOUBA AND RICHARD JOHNSON:
Corrie: I will now open the public hearing, Mr. Daugherty.
Bob Daugherty, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Daugherty: Again we are here on behalf of Lamont Kouba, just a continuation of the
annexation and zoning in requesting a conditional use permit for construction of a block
building facing Fairview Avenue which is reflective of your site plans. We have brought
along some pictures and also an architectural rendition of what we anticipate the front
building looking like. The pictures are of a development that is over in Boise that is very
similar in construction. The artist rendition will actually show more along the lines of what
our building would actual look like. If you would like to see any of these. The small picture
down at the bottom we are anticipating that those will be R & M Steel type prefabricated
buildings and those would be the buildings that would be located to the south of our
project and those we would anticipate would be very similar in nature to the ones at
Rountree Chevrolet. We have had several discussions with staff members along with
Public Works Department and the various utilities. All of the utilities are on site, we have
as previously discussed a sewer main at the southwest comer of the property. There is
power and basically all of the other services are located off of Fairview Avenue. We
Meridian City Council
July 16, 1996
Page 20
believe that everything is pretty much handled, with the exception of getting the drawing
and the engineering done to submit to the appropriate agencies. If you have any
questions with regard to this conditional use, I guess I would be more than happy to try
and answer those for you.
Corrie: Council, any questions.
Rountree: On how you represented the photographs, are those a likeness of what you
propose to build or is that actually a development that has been done by the applicant?
Daugherty: No, that is similar in construction, that is a similarly constructed development
over in Boise that doesn't have anything to do with our applicant. That was just primarily
to show the construction type standards.
Tolsma: Have you seen all the comments of Bruce Freckleton and Shari Stiles?
Daugherty: Yes I have.
Tolsma: And you have no problems with those?
Daugherty: No sir we don't.
Rountree: I have a procedural question, can we act on a conditional use permit without the
annexation having been acted on?
Fitzgerald: No, you an go ahead and have your public hearing and then we will adopt the
annexation ordinance and then we can move on the conditional use permit.
Morrow: I think normally do we not continue the public hearing for the next meeting in
case there is any additional testimony?
Fitzgerald: That would be fine.
Morrow: I have a question for staff, I don't have any questions for Mr. Daugherty. Shari and
Gary, is this conditional use permit application for a single building or for the entire project.
Are your comments directed to the entire project as proposed to us or just for the first
building?
Stiles: Councilman Morrow, Mayor and Council, I haven't looked at this specific plan that
was presented tonight. I want the applicant to realize that this approval shouldn't be for
total development, this is just the first part. For one thing I think the parking requirements
Meridian City Council
July 16, 1996
Page 21
haven't been met in the phase 2 even if they were all if it was entirely to be used for ware
house they would be short on the parking space. So, I think they just presented this
because they wanted to annex and zone the entire property at this time and the have
specific plans for phase 1. But they still would need to meet all of the findings and
(inaudible) changed significantly from what they presented. (Inaudible)
Morrow: So if I understand what you are saying correctly and your comments were
directed towards uses A, B, C, D and E which is assumed to be one building with multiple
tenants based on the pictures that we saw is that your understanding?
Stiles: My comments as far as the Five Mile Creek and the buffering of the adjacent
subdivision would apply to the whole project.
Morrow: I understand that, what I am after here is the conditional use, I understand the
protection on the perimeter but with respect to are you telling us that we are looking at a
single building and the conditional use requirements for that single building which is
similar to the picture that we saw which is at the corner of Plantation Lane and State
Street at Boise. This picture, it has multiple uses in a single building.
Stiles: I think that the development agreement could still address the entire parcel as part
of the annexation but I just basically think they are asking for approval of the first main
building.
Daugherty: Perhaps I can clarify that, in our discussions with Planning and Zoning what
we were seeking was a conditional use permit on that front building. with the
understanding that once that is developed then what we would do is proceed with the back
portion of the property, the R & M Steel type buildings and that would fall under a separate
conditional use permit, does that help clarify it.
Morrow: That clarifies your position and based on that Shari is telling me that her
comments are two fold therefore the perimeter plus the first building.
Stiles: Yes
Morrow: Gary yours are the same?
Smith: Looking through my assistants comments they are pretty generic to the whole site.
Morrow: Thank you, I have no other questions.
Meridian City Council
July 16, 1996
Page 22
Corrie: Anything further from the Council? Anybody else from the public that would like
to give additional testimony?
Gary Lee, JUB, was sworn by the City Attomey.
Lee: I would just like to reaffirm our client's position, Mrs. Ruth Crow about her desires to
see a public street access in the north of her parcel. Thank you
Corrie: Thank you Gary. Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony?
I guess we need a motion to continue the public hearing.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we continue the public hearing on the request for
conditional use permit for recreational automotive use by Lamont Kouba and Richard
Johnson to August 6.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree to continue the public
hearing on item 5 to the Council meeting on August 6, any further discussion? All those
in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE ON FRONT SETBACK BY
CAMERON CORDOVA:
Corrie: I will open the public hearing on the request for variance. Is Cameron Cordova
here?
Cameron Cordova, 8706 Fircrest, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney,
Cordova: Mr. Mayor and Council you have all the notes on this request. I filled out the
application and the outline provided, I filled that out to the best of my knowledge. I guess,
I don't have any idea whether there was anybody within that 300 feet that were contacted
that opposed that variance or if there any concerns that I need to address.
Corrie: Does Council have any questions?
Morrow: Well the obvious question, how come you are in this fix?
Cordova: We were under construction when we found the pin in off the sidewalk there.
Meridian City Council
August 6, 1996
Page 5
conclusions as prepared for us.
Corrie: Any other discussion of Council?
Rountree: I think the findings reflect the discussion that we had at our previous meeting
quite well. I have no problem with them.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, if there is no further discussion I would move that we approve the
findings of fact and conclusions of law as written for us for the variance request by
Cameron Cordova.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley that we approve the findings
of fact and conclusions as written, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Bentley - Yea, Rountree - Yea, Tolsma - Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
Corrie: Decision motion?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, it is decided that the application for a variance to the front setback
requirements for Lot 2, Block 11 Tract Subdivision No. 4 is hereby granted as it relates to
the placement of the garage only. It must be placed at a setback of 18 feet or more.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion was made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree on the decision, any
further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #5: ORDINANCE #736 - KOUBA ANNEXATION:
Corrie: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING
CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND
SITUATED IN THE NW 1/4 OF THE NE 1/4 OF SECTION 7, T.3N, RAE, B.M., ADA
COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anybody from
the audience that would like to have Ordinance #736 read in its entirety? Hearing none
I will entertain a motion on Ordinance #736.
Meridian City Council
August 6, 1996
Page 6
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that the City of Meridian adopt Ordinance #736 with
the suspension of rules.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree that we approve Ordinance
#736 with suspension of the rules, roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow - Yea, Bentley - Yea, Rountree - Yea, Tolsma -Yea
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JULY 16,1996: REQUEST FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE USE BY LAMONT
KOUBA:
Corrie: I will now open the public hearing and invite the applicant to start.
Bob Daugherty, 5001 N. Eugene, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney.
Daugherty: Mr. Mayor and Council members, we are before you again this evening and
requesting the conditional use permit for Mr. Lamont Kouba. I believe during the last
meeting we pretty much covered all of the issues, we were waiting however for the
annexation. I don't believe that there were any additional concerns if you have any I guess
I would be prepared to answer those at this time. If not I guess we would just seek
approval.
Corrie: Council, questions?
Morrow: I have just for recap, Mr. Daugherty, this is the parcel that is 3.87 acres, and there
is an access agreement between yourself and the adjoining parcel?
Daugherty: That is in the process right now. There has been a draft that has been
forwarded to their attorney and they are in the process of reviewing that right now.
Morrow: It seems to me that there was a little sliver of property at the very bottom of this
parcel of ground that someone was supposed to research and see who owned with
respect to access. Did your owner own that property?
Daugherty: There is a property directly to the south that according to the tax roles an
owner by the name of Daley with no address owns it, we have no further information on
Meridian City Council
August 6, 1996
Page 7
that.
Morrow- So there is no information with respect to that piece of property that we are able
to get other than the name of the person that owns it, it is a very small piece of property.
Daugherty: That is correct.
Crookston: I am sorry what was the name of the owner again?
Daugherty: I believe it is Daley.
Morrow: I would ask a question of Gary Smith, does that mean that this parcel of property
is effectively landlocked?
Smith: I am going to need to look at the map and see where that piece of property, was
that the sliver of property that was just
Morrow: It was very narrow and very long.
Bentley: Mr. Mayor, if my memory serves me correctly weren't we talking about the one
map we had showed I can't think of the name of the street but it has been extended but
our map and the drawing they gave us didn't show that on there. Was Washington Street
the one?
Smith: Yes, Washington Street was the one proposed for vacation by another person.
Bentley: What is the next street north, we had talked and we said the one street had been
extended farther than it showed on the diagram that we had.
Smith: Badly is north of Washington.
Bentley: Does it extend into this property that we are talking about?
Smith: No
Daugherty: The property in question according to my employer indicates that there seems
to be some errors with the deeds that could have created that problem there. The fact that
Daley's doesn't seem to have any address and they haven't been able to send out the
taxes. Our information was that it was a possibility that it was going to be going up for tax
sale. But currently we haven't been able to ascertain who or where the owner is located
of if in deed there is an owner there. The information that we have was taken directly off
J
Meridian City Council
August 6, 1996
Page 8
of the tax information at the County level. The last meeting, the concern primarily that was
addressed was over the Crow property and I though that we had pretty much resolved that
issue that there is access to that property.
Morrow: Let me ask you this, is this property right here part of the annexation chain, the
one that is directly below this sliver? (Inaudible)
(Discussion Inaudible)
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have a question of Gary, how does this particular piece of property
get, how do we address the issue with respect to the property in terms of access or in
terms of determining whether or not it is a lot or if there is a property right there?
Smith: The only thing I can think of would be a title search process. I don't know of any
other way to determine who the owner is.
Morrow: How do we keep it from becoming landlocked?
Smith: Well, we know that if this property is developed as it is proposed it would restrict
access from the north. There isn't any access from the east because that existing
subdivision Danbury Fair. The only access and then I believe Five Mile Creek is on its
west boundary. So it could be accessed from the west but it only appears to be 60 feet
in width, is that about right?
Daugherty: I think it is approximately 40 feet.
Smith: 40 feet, so it is very possible as Richard said it is a result of the survey lines that
didn't match from one property parcel to another. And depending on the direction from
which surveys were done they left gaps. There are gaps and overlaps that you see on
these assessor maps all the time. I don't recall seeing one this width or the fact that it has
a name attached to it. It makes it a little suspicious that it is a survey overlap or a gap.
Daugherty: Mr. Johnson indicates that the Daley's owned the parent property prior to the
subdividing it, Daley was the original owner of that parcel. It might give a little better
indication it was an error in the actual deed recordings. Which also, the property only
being 40 feet in width would limit the availability of anybody to really develop that parcel
in any case. It seems like that it would either become owned by Mr. Kouba or the Johnson
parcel which is directly to the south of it.
Corrie: Counselor, would a title search would that show this up that it could either an error
or actually held by somebody, would it show whether it is actually owned or it is just an
Meridian City Council
August 6, 1996
Page 9
error?
Crookston: It would not show necessarily that it was an error, we can get the deeds for the
property and the adjacent property from the title company, it would tell us who the owner
of the property was.
Morrow: I believe Shari has a comment.
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, the property to the south of this which includes the parcels
that you are talking about as well as the Ruth Crow property have several splits in them
that are not really understandable. One of them is owned by Trakel that is part of, or
adjacent to the property where in a later item on the agenda the Stutzman vacation there
is a small narrow piece that is owned by someone else. To the south of the Ruth Crow
property there is a another little piece that is where Carlton comes in from the west. This
little piece is a landlocked piece, I wasn't aware that there was yet another piece to the
north of that. I have no idea how those subdivisions took place because they don't make
any sense. Either they were meant to be part of a future right of way, I just don't know what
happened to them. There is a big question about the property to the south of this and how
and why these divisions took place. It doesn't help you any.
Crookston: Shari, is there not then a problem with maintenance of that property because
at this juncture we don't know who the owner is and probably the adjacent land owners
have no obligation to maintain it so doesn't it just lie there in essence in seed and growing
weeds?
Stiles: I could look the owners up on the information that we have here at City Hall if that
is Council's wish if they want to research that further. But if it is landlocked it is worthless
property really to someone. It should be either incorporated as part of this project or I don't
know how you enforce that when there has been possibly illegal splitting of property that
hasn't been detected by the County. I don't know the history whether it had to do with
Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and their easements for Adkins Drain or I really don't
know why that would take place and it would take a title search and some investigation to
find out why that was the way it was.
Crookston: If a piece of property is sold without access there are provisions that provide
that the buyer can obtain access through the property adjacent to it. If access is necessary
for the use of that property.
Stiles: I would think that would be true.
Corrie: So where are we now?
Meridian City Council
August 6, 1996
Page 10
Crookston: Well I am not sure that the conditional use, it is my understanding that Mr.
Kouba is only going to use the land for the conditional use of which he owns, the problem
becomes what is going to happen with that property. If we can't find out who the owner
is and even if we do find out who the owner is the owner can just say I don't care. He can
say I will sell it if somebody wants to come and pay me $5 million for it or whatever price.
But I am not sure that it is a problem for the applicant because it is not included in his
conditional use. It is, the biggest problem I see is what it going to happen to the property
who is going to maintain it.
Corrie: Do I have the understanding that it really has nothing to do with the conditional use
permit they are requesting now but they will later who owns some land as far as being
landlocked it could come from the south and also the west.
Morrow: I guess my question to the Counselor Mr. Mayor is do we have any potential
liability with respect to the property in terms of landlocking it by actions that we may take.
Historically when we add properties that have the potential of landlocking we have tried
to guarantee an access or stub road or something like that to the property does that in this
case apply?
Crookston: I think that it applies, but I think that it is more applicable in the annexation then
it is in the conditional use.
Rountree: That can be addressed with the future annexation that needs to take place for
the rest of this property since it is not in the City at this point in time.
Crookston: It could but at this juncture we don't know that an annexation application would
ever be filed and requested. The problem as I said earlier the problem becomes who is
going to care for that property?
Bentley: Well who is caring for it now?
Crookston: Do you know Mr. Daugherty?
Daugherty: I would suggest that nobody is caring for it currently, as you had stated, I don't
believe that piece of property, we are not asking for a conditional use with reference to that
piece of property. If that property is going to be landlocked with the conditional use permit
it is currently landlocked. You are not changing the disposition of that property by granting
our conditional use.
Crookston: I think that is very correct. We are not landlocking it by granting a conditional
use, if the property is landlocked that was committed between the prior people that deeded
Meridian City Council
August 6, 1996
Page 11
property let's say surrounding it and if the city desires to ensure that property has access
i think that is more of an issue that should be addressed in the annexation and not in the
conditional use.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, one more question to the Counselor, what would your advise be for
us then at this point from a legal standpoint?
Crookston: I think that you have the ability to revoke the annexation ordinance and try and
resolve the matter. I think it would be appropriate possibly to do that but I think the real
problem is finding out who the owner of that property is and contacting them and see if
they have any problem in either having Mr. Kouba use it or Mrs. Crow or any adjacent
owner.
Stiles: Would it be possible to table this for just either to the end of the meeting or a couple
items and let me look that up on the information we have and see if we can determine that
ownership?
Crookston: That would be fine with me, that is up to the Council.
Rountree: Do you have that information available?
Stiles: I am not sure an owner will show up but I do have that information from the
Assessor's office.
Crookston: I think the question for the Council is whether or not they want to consider
withdrawing the approval of the annexation ordinance and holding that for whatever period
of time that the Council desires so that there could be an attempt to find out who the owner
is and see what can be done with that. Shari is this property at all in line with where a
roadway might be?
Stiles: It is really hard for me to determine wither that, what the purpose was for that split.
I would think that a lot of the remanent left and some of the parcels that have been created
in this area are worthless unless they are determined to be a future right of way or a
drainage easement or something like that that perhaps Nampa Meridian or Ada County put
up on the block someday and said here is an extra 40 feet that we have no use for it is for
sale.
Crookston: If the property is where a roadway would be located which we don't know but
if it was Ada County Highway District could condemn that land if it is adjacent to the Five
Mile Drain Nampa Meridian Irrigation District could also condemn it and use it for either
one of them for their governmental purpose. I don't know that the City has a purpose for
J
Meridian City Council
August 6, 1996
Page 12
that land because we don't provide road service. Even if it is where a road should be.
Morrow: If I might suggest let's defer this for a minute and let Shari do some research and
maybe move on to the two ordinances and then bring this back and take a look at it. I
guess so we can move forward.
Daugherty: Could I interject one thing before we do that, at the last hearing there was a
lot of discussion as far as that northerly line of the subdivision that is adjacent to our
property. It was indicated during that time that was somewhat of a defining line and that
there was some discussion as far as to the north of that line was primarily like commercial
type developments and to the south was residential areas. I would like to interject that
parcel that is in question is indeed to the south of that line as referenced in the previous
meeting and that it might be more appropriate that should that ownership be determined
no matter who owns it that would be more appropriate that would be residential which
would be accessed from the south or from the west. And that perhaps it might not be as
much of a consideration as we are making it here.
Corrie: Were you making that as a motion to hold that until after 7 and 8 are done and then
come back to it.
Morrow: Yes
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: All those in favor of the motion? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #7: ORDINANCE #737 - HASKIN/GREEN ANNEXATION - C -G:
Corrie: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING A
CERTAIN TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE SE 1/4 OF THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 8,
T.3N, RAE, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have Ordinance
#737 read in its entirety? Hearing none I will entertain a motion for Ordinance #737.
Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Ordinance #737 with suspension of rules.
Tolsma: Second
Corrie: Motion by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Tolsma to approve Ordinance #737 with
J
Meridian City Council
August 6, 1996
Page 19
Corrie: I will do it Wednesday, there is an Air Quality Board on Wednesday I will get a
reading on it.
Bentley: I move to table.
Rountree: Second
Corrie: Moved by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree to table this to the August 20
meeting for a report back from the Air Quality Board, any further discussion? All those in
favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #6: PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED FROM JULY 16,1996: REQUEST FOR A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RECREATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE USE BY LAMONT
KO U BA:
Corrie: Shari do you want to let us know what is going on here?
Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I submitted the map that was generated from our GIS
information, there is a .223 acre piece directly south of the referenced property that is
valued at $1500. They have an ownership shown as James and Susan Daley with an
unknown address. So I don't know how they are getting any tax revenue from a property
with an unknown address. Directly below that is a .969 acre property owned by Elnora
Johnson that owns the Rountree Chevrolet piece. I don't have any answers for you here,
I don't know how those subdivisions came to be in effect whether they were part of a
previous drainage system as I mentioned before. Whether they were auctioned off as
unusable property by perhaps an irrigation district but the properties are not usable in their
present configuration. It would seem that either the property to the North would have to
provide access to them or the property to the South it seems more logical that the property
to the south would provide access as an extension of a residential development as it is
entirely adjacent to single family residential development. I don't see what purpose an
access from Fairview Avenue to these properties would serve. Unfortunately that is all the
information that I have.
Crookston: Well if the taxes aren't paid the County will have the right to take it back in
three years, it usually doesn't occur in four years.
Stiles: I don't know how they would be assessing any taxes if they have no address for an
ownership on that property.
Meridian City Council
August 6, 1996
Page 20
Crookston: They can assess the taxes but they can't inform the owner which is a problem.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I guess what I would like to see with this from my perspective we
press on with the conditional use for the recreational automotive thing and at the same
time instruct staff to notify both Ms. Johnson who I am sure is aware since she is an owner
of the Rountree property immediately north and these folk if it is possible to find that these
are potentially land locked properties and they need to be noticed that it is up to them to
protect their interest as best they can. If anything has developed in terms of the Crow
property and it and looks like if one other piece of property develops then that truly does
landlocked them. The Council has already approved a locking system to the east, unless
we withdraw the annexation ordinance we have approved a lock out from the north and
we are rapidly getting into a position where with the other properties we are not going to
be able to approve anything with them in terms of locking these two properties out. And
so I guess from my perspective I would like to see those property owners notified in some
manner of record that they need to be protecting their interest.
Crookston: I am sorry Mr. Mayor and Council the other avenue to proceed with and it is
totally up to the Council is to provide a means of access through the property through the
Kouba property so that there is at least for lack of a better statement a curb cut so that you
can get into the property or across it or whatever. But that is totally up to the Council. You
would have to go back and change the annexation ordinance or at least make that a
condition.
Tolsma: I have a question for Counsel, there are still two other forms of access to this
property, one to the south and one to west.
Crookston: There is no road access to my knowledge.
Tolsma: (Inaudible)
Rountree: I don't see that we are any farther along then we were last meeting. Access
can be provided to those parcels from the south or the west. I don't see any reason to
reconsider the annexation. The folks that own those properties have been noticed for both
hearings.
(Discussion Inaudible)
Morrow: I guess from my perspective Charlie I just want to make sure that those folks that
own those, I don't want to see somebody show up here a year from now saying I didn't
know.
Meridian City Council
August 6, 1996
Page 21
Rountree: I understand.
Morrow: I am in favor of pressing ahead of approval of the conditional use and getting on
down the road but also at the same time making sure that those folk are notified by us the
City of Meridian that it is their responsibility to look out for their own interest because they
now are land locked on two sides and they need to be a little protective of their property
rights.
Rountree: I agree and I think we ought to do that in concert with the County since they are
partners in this thing as well.
Corrie: Any further discussion? Hearing none I will entertain a motion from Council.
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the request for a conditional use permit
for recreational automotive use by Lamont Kouba, also to instruct our staff to inform the
property owners to the south, the Daley's and Johnson's of the situation that the properties
are now land locked on the north end and east side and it is in their best interest to protect
their property rights by representing themselves in any future actions that may come with
surrounding properties.
Bentley: Second
Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley, you heard the motion any
further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?
MOTION CARRIED: All Yea
ITEM #9: FINAL PLAT: THE LANDING SUBDIVISION NO. 9 BY LEON BLASER:
Corrie: Is there a representative? Council any questions?
Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would just like to see a brief presentation concerning the property
and the response. I know we have a written response that Mr. Jacobs has provided to us
concerning the questions asked by staff.
Jacobs: The general comments, I probably should identify myself, Keith Jacobs, Pacific
Land Surveyors. We have reviewed these comments, general comments 1 through 8 and
agree with them. We indicate that this is in the flood plain, flood plain X and it is only less
than a foot deep and it shouldn't be a problem we can protect the homes from being
flooded. We will of course submit our plans to Nampa Meridian Irrigation District and have
them approve them and have the letter and agreement in that respect hopefully we can