The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-01-21 ........ ..... .. ...... ....... ...... ...... '. . . . .. . ..... . .. .. .... . .. '.' ... .... . . . .... ...... ..... . . .. .. .... ..i '. .......... .'.' ....'. . ...... .:... ........ i.' '. ... ..... ..... ..... .... ....... *Approximate allowable time setfor agenda item may change dep~r1ding on . discussion: Please use the designated minutes as a gUideline only. ....i...... i ...........i · ........... .......... ........ ....... ..... ..... ........ ..... .... .....t Meridiaii City Council Agendaz,January2I, 2003 Page I ofL... All materials presented at public meetings shall become property oftheCityOf Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related tOdocllmcnts.imdforhcariig~?...... please conlict the City.Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. '.... ....i...... .. ":. .... ........ ..... . ........:..:....... .'. ....... '. . .... . .. ..... .' '. . . ..' . .... ....... :. .. '.. 2. '3. .. . . 7. .'. 8. .. ..t . . ..... ... ...... .' .: ....i... ". .....:. ":'. .". '. :... ...... . .... ......... . . ... '.. .' ... ..... ...... .... ......... ....... .." ..... .. .... '.' .... i.. '. ... '. ... .... ..... '. . ... .... ... '. .... .( ........ ". ......... .': .... ...... ... '..: . ....... .... ..... . ': ... / . ..... . ....... ... .... .. ..: ........ . ...... ...i'.', ............/ ...... i. ............ ii.ti./2.:::: ........ ........ €J~yQ!3'l\'!~~~:If\.N i:iii............................................................................ PRE~COUNCIL.iMEETIN~. ......... ............i:..i A<?~.N DA............. .....ii ........: ........... ............. ... ....: .......:...... :....i..:..._...~..,.... c' ..,. .............. Tuesday, JanuClry~1,.29p~ Clt~:PP p~l1'l. ..... ..'..'. ......... ......' ..........t.i.................. ................ .....:......... ... ....... '. .... .......... ........... ....................... ...... ..........>ti:ii.iCJtyCounc'l c:~.~mbers........ ...... .. .. ............... ............... ;>: ............ ........,..~-. ............... 1~ RolI~caUAttEln~~P9El;:. ..... i>:i.i ......... ... ........./: :........ .....i Tamrfl-y. de VVeerdi..ii.. .......... .............:. Cherie McCandless. ....... ....... .>.. iti.MayOr Robed Corrie i... 770 "s ...... Adoption of t~El ~gencjCl:>.. ......... ........... ................:..... ... .. · . ..............,. .'..... COr'ltiril.l~d frOm .JanlJCiry 14, 2003: Discussion I Decision on MUBS BimngDirc~ctive: Table until February-4, 2003 (5 min[jtes) ........... ... ... ...... . . .............. ii.......... .i.i.' .......... t ii ii: ii ................... : .......... ......ii ... '.' ................. .............. ........... ............. ...................................... ....... ....... .......:ii.ii..........i:i/. .........:....... .....: .... ....... . ..... ........ ....... ........... ii ......... .' .... .............i:i/i...... ". ....i..... iii ........... .... ......................iii:ii . ...... ...... .......... ..... .......... ......i...... ......... ......ii.. ....... .' ......... ... it.... ....... .... :.. .......:. ... . .' .... ..' '.. ..... Bill Nary Keith Bird. .... ... ..' . .. '. .. .. .. :' ....... ...... '.. . .' ". . . .i..... .' ....: ........ './ .. ..' ..: ..:. '.. ....:... . . ...... ..., :. . . . '. 4. DiscUssion of Fire Department Plan Review and Inspecti(:>n Fees: (10 minut~!)) Get response from other orgCiDi~~~i<?ns .........>... ..... .... DisCUs~iorlOf Lee Centers F'1'9Jecf(tka PowcjerRiver Subdivision): (25 minutes) Table Until February: 4,2003.... ................>.... Discussion Of Dust Ab~t~ment OrdiDCiDce: Get input from other (5 minutes) QrgCini;zCitions& prepare for Public Hearing on 3 F04..03 .......> Discu1sed 5. 6. Discussioh of TUlly Skate Piil'k:: (5 roinute~) '...:'. Discussion oflnfrastructure6f Urban Renewal District: (5 minutes) Move to Item 19 ofthegegularAgenda .......... .. . . '. '" :.' .. . . ...i' i i. .:. ...... '.. .... .... . ..... i' .i ..... ... ... ... .:' .... ...... .'. . ... :'. 'i..' '. ......- .' '. .:., '. .: .'.: .' / .... .. .. ..i . '.. .' .... ... .. .... CITY OF MERIDIAN PRE~COUNCll MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, January 21, 2003 at 6:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. RolI~call Attendance: X Tammy de Weerd k Bill Nary =z= Cherie McCandless )( Keith Bird () Mayor Robert Corrie Adoption of the Agenda: ~(/'C t(J a/~i?b{; 2. 3. Continued from January 14, 2003: Discussion I Decision on MUSS Billing Directive: ft/'ote.?v1VI'i1 hI;; I-zu/,/lt1, 4l!!-/2t?t? 3 (5 minutes) t1 . 4. Discussion of Fire Department Plan Review and Inspection Fees: ~ _ (10 minutes) 9fbt/lt2fj?17hU ~ o/?1.VL cnpc1/)v/ba/lOA.-/ Discussion of lee Centers Project (fk~ Powder River Subdivision): (25 minutes) '/aUt.. tVM.;f/l rebrutVLJ /f1J; Zoo'? Discussion of Dust Abatel'!1ent Ordinance: _? ,../.-.,. ~ (5 minutes) ??J-&T l)-M.~ ~~. e;/A.e-t. tY1--J,,'t./hI_e&t,.O (7 f' ~jJ ~ j;rv ;? lit cJY.- :J - 4- -{):3 Discussion of Tully Skate Park: (5 minutes) C;C/:rc:uJsec0 5. 6. 7. 8. Discussion of Infrastructure of Urban Renewal District: (5 minutes) ~i9V'€-- iz:; ~. $'Iq &+ flee /Le r(cvV drtfv * Approximate allowable time set for agenda item may change depending on discussion. Please use the designated minutes as a guideline only. Meridian City Council Agenda - January 21, 2003 Page 1 of I All materials presented at public meetings shall become property oftlle City of Meridian. Anyone desiring acconnnodation for disabilities related to documents andlor hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888.4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting, January 17,2003 Pre-Council Meeting MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 21,2003 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 8 REQUEST Discussion of Infrastructure of Urban Renewal District: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORN EY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: p/~J ~J Z) (L/;J) 1/ Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA TuesdaYJ January 21J 2003 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: + Tammy de Weerd X Bill Nary Cherie McCandless ---y- Keith Bird o Mayor Robert Corrie 2. Adoption of the Agenda: ~ ve a..( a/~dJ 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of January 7,2003 Pre-Council Meeting: d/J?fYVvvL-- B. Approve minutes of January 7,2003 City Council Regular Meeting: cvffJ/tlt'1.I:?..-- C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: M102- 012 Request for waiver of the requirement of tiling of the Rutledge Lateral by Pinnacle Engineers for Kent Mortensen - 521 West Broadway Avenue: c~v-:e.- D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: M102- 009 Request for adjustment of area of impact between the cities of Meridian and Boise in an RUT zone for Winston Moore by Winston Moore - northwest corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road: atlrt?VlZ./ E. Order Granting Remand to Planning and Zoning Commission: MI 02-011 Request to remove certain parcels in Dunbar Estates Subdivision from City of Meridian's area of impact for Packard Estates Dev., LLC by Packard Estates Dev., LLC - south of East Ustick Road and west of North Cloverdale Road: ajd(h4'='V'<-.', F. Addendum to Development Agreement, Correction of Legal Description: AZ 01-008 Request for annexation and zoning of 12.71 acres from R1 and RUT to C-G and R-40 zones for Baltic Place Subdivision by L. C. Development, Inc. - Franklin Road west of Locust Grove Road: ~1~~ Meridian City Council Agenda - January 21, 2003 Page 1 00 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888.4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting, 9. 10. 11. G. Development Agreement: AZ 02-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 354.38 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Lochsa Falls Subdivision by Farwest LLC and Daniel Gibson - south of West Chinden Boulevard and west of North Linder Road: afpYo V~ H. Agreement for Services, The Land Group, Inc. - Settlers Park Restrooms: t:':.-pjJYO VZIL I. Award of Bid I Contract for Well No. 25 Waterline Road Crossing, Irminaer Construction: 4~t?V1L- 4. Department Reports: 1'14/'112.. 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) CJ.J - 0/11 nt? IlL 6. Ordinance No. : Amending Ordinance No. 02- 968 to Correct the Legal Description: AZ 01-008 Request for annexation and zoning of 12.71 acres from R1 and RUT to C-G and R-40 zones for Baltic Place Subdivision by L. C. Development, Inc. - Franklin Road west of Locust Grove Road: CtpY'i'VV<L> Ordinance No. 673 - q q g AZ 02-010 Request for annexation and zoning of 354.38 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Lochsa Falls Subdivision by Farwest LLC and Daniel Gibson - south of West Chinden Boulevard and west of North Linder Road: ~~ Ordinance No. t/ 3 -'10/9 AZ 02-022 Request for annexation and zoning of 119.83 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Havasu Creek Subdivision by Farwest, LLC - south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road: ?LfY'/67V'L- Ordinance No. & 3 - /00(/ : AZ 02-023 Request for annexation and zoning of 6.06 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Mashers Farm Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 895 North Ten Mile Road: ~(/ue.- 7. 8. Public Hearing: AZ 02-024 Request for annexation and zoning of 15.4 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Cobblefield Crossina Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 4450 North Linder Road: t:<.:flvrmfj fa pre-(lc~ -1/;: 1/ 6-/--e. m- c~v2Lf... , Public Hearing: PP 02-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 building lots and 15 other lots on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossina Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 4450 North Linder Road: , dlilrnuJ ,/-v; fJre?t~ .-f/f 1 cl,-f .{tr-r c~v.u:... Meridian City Conncil Agenda - January 21, 2003 Page 2 of3 All materials prescnted at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring acconunodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888.4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting, 15. 16. 17. 18. 12. /8 Public Hearing: CUP 02-032 Request foVa Conditional Use Permit for a PUD for 64 single-family detached homes, '& single-family attached homes and 1 single-family existing home on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossina Subdivision by CMD, Inc, - 4450 North Linder Road: ?i--l?zrrfUtJ Iv I'~ j?~ I:;/' f e le -fZr<- af? f?7VC/t-J. Public Hearing: Rz 02-008 Request for a Rezone of 1.99 acres from R- 15 to R-40 zones for proposed Creekside Arbour II by Bill and Lucy Leavell - 1425 Northeast 51h Stree~,/ f ('.t' C . J!....., Clrm-Mj -/JO jff'€jJf<A-f! 1/ r<l C -c rrv Uj1J?7PVA Public Hearing: CUP 02-040 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for apartment units on 1.99 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for ~roposed Creekside Arbour II by Bill and Lugyc Leav~1I - 1425 Northeast 51 Street: dlt'lrrfi.e[J h j?/lt:jot?U'- f"7~ {e/-( hr arJ'/YOV~ Public Hearing: Wireless Communications Tower Ordinance: trrdt--np'l-?--G0 7'2::> &e- jJY.e.j?~ c;G Public Hearing: Amendment to Meridian City Code 11-2-2, Definitions of the Zonina Regulations Ordinance: or~~oV --ro ~e ;01't(!/V./L.eK.- Public Hearing: Amendment to Meridian City Code 11-15-5, Postina Reauirements: COf1-'~ -;VA- 10 I~ 2-~'-{)3 Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies: WfJlY 0 tr<-"" 2rr~ Ct'L{r;f7J,.. IJ.f -I-11.-fr-a joIYucftvut.. 0:1 Jil-lJalv ~/U'.-w(~ bJIY/c-t 13. 14. IQ, Meridian City Conncil Agenda - January 21, 2003 Page 3 of 3 AJlmaterials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring acconunodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888.4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting, p UuSe P os--/: ~ puh-iL" G YLo-h'te - lhCV/ifrg! NOTICE OF HEARlNG CITY OF MERIDIAN PROPOSED ORDINANCE REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO ZONING REGULATIONS NOTICING AND POSTING REQUIREl\1ENTS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Meridian will conduct a public hearing on Tuesday, January 21, 2003, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho to accept public comments and testimony on the proposed Ordinance regarding amendments to Zoning Regulations Noticing and Posting Requirements. Copies of the draft Ordinance / proposed amendments to the Zoning Regulations Noticing and Posting Requirements are available for public inspection and review, at the following location: Meridian City Hall City Clerk's Office 33 E. Idaho Avenue Meridian, Idaho 83642 The public is encouraged to review the proposed ordinance, attend the public hearing and offer comments and testimony. Oral testimony may be limited to three (3) minutes per person. Written comments are welcome. Please send written comments to the Meridian City Clerk, 33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho 83642 by Thursday, December 12, 2002. All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. The hearing will be held in a facility that is accessible to persons with disabilities. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 72 hours prior to the public hearing. DATED this 27th day of December, 2002. Publish 30th of December, 2002 and l31h of January, 2003 February 7, 2003 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING February 11, 2003 APPLICANT ITEM NO. REQUEST Approve minutes of January 21, 2003 City Council Regular Meeting: 3-Jt AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: COMMENTS I/V liJP py(i Date: Phone: Materials presented at pUblic meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, January 21,2003 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: X Tammy de Weerd X X Cherie McCandless X o Mayor Robert Corrie Bill Nary Keith Bird 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Approve minutes of January 7, 2003 Pre-Council Meeting: Approve B. Approve minutes of January 7,2003 City Council Regular Meeting: Approve C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MI 02- 012 Request for waiver of the requirement of tiling of the Rutledge Lateral by Pinnacle Engineers for Kent Mortensen - 521 West Broadway Avenue: Approve D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: MI 02~ 009 Request for adjustment of area of impact between the cities of Meridian and Boise in an RUT zone for Winston Moore by Winston Moore - northwest corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road: Approve E. Order Granting Remand to Planning and Zoning Commission: MI 02~011 Request to remove certain parcels in Dunba'r Estates Subdivision from City of Meridian's area of impact for Packard Estates Dev., LLC by Packard Estates Dev" LLC - south of East Ustick Road and west of North Cloverdale Road: Approve F. Addendum to Development Agreement, Correction of Legal Description: AZ 01-008 Request for annexation and zoning of 12.71 acres from R1 and RUT to C-G and R-40 zones for Baltic Meridian City Council Agenda - January 21,2003 Page I of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian, Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888.4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Place Subdivision by L.C. Development, Inc. - Franklin Road west of Locust Grove Road: Approve G. Development Agreement: AZ 02-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 354.38 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Lochsa Falls Subdivision by Farwest LLC and Daniel Gibson - south of West Chinden Boulevard and west of North Linder Road: Approve H. Agreement for Services, The Land Group, Inc. - Settlers Park Restrooms: Approve I. Award of Bid I Contract for Well No. 25 Waterline Road Crossing, Irmin~er Construction: Approve 4. Department Reports: 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) 6. Ordinance No. 03-997 : Amending Ordinance No. 02- 968 to Correct the Legal Description: AZ 01-008 Request for annexation and zoning of 12.71 acres from R1 and RUT to C-G and R-40 zones for Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C. Development, Inc. - Franklin Road west of Locust Grove Road: Approve 7. Ordinance No. 03-998 AZ 02-010 Request for annexation and zoning of 354.38 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Lochsa Falls Subdivision by Farwest LLC and Daniel Gibson - south of West Chinden Boulevard and west of North Linder Road: Approve 8. Ordinance No. 03-999 AZ 02-022 Request for annexation and zoning of 119.83 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Havasu Creek Subdivision by Farwest, LLC - south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road: Approve 9. Ordinance No. 03-1000 : AZ 02-023 Request for annexation and zoning of 6.06 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Moshers Farm Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 895 North Ten Mile', Road: Approve 10. Public Hearing: AZ. 02-024 Request for annexation and zoning of 15.4 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 4450 North Linder Road: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval Meridian City Council Agenda -January 21,2003 Page 2 of4 All materials presented at public meetings shalt become property of the City of Meridian, Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888.4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 11. Public Hearing: P P 02-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 building Jots and 15 other lots on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield CrossinQ Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 4450 North Linder Road: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 12. Public Hearing: CUP 02-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a PUD for 64 single-family detached homes, 8 9 single-family attached homes and 1 single-family existing home on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield CrossinQ Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 4450 North Linder Road: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 13. Public Hearing: RZ 02-008 Request for a Rezone of 1.99 acres from R- 15 to R-40 zones for proposed Creekside Arbour II by Bill and Lucy Leavell - 1425 Northeast 5th Street: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 14. Public Hearing: CUP 02-040 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for apartment units on 1.99 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for proposed Creekside Arbour II by Bill and Lucy Leavell - 1425 Northeast 5th Street: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 15. Public Hearing: Wireless Communications Tower Ordinance: Ordinance to be Prepared 16. Public Hearing: Amendment to Meridian City Code 11-2-2, Definitions of the ZoninQ Regulations Ordinance: Ordinance to be Prepared 17. Public Hearing: Amendment to Meridian City Code 11-1S-5J PostinQ Requirements: Continue Public Hearing to January 28, 2003 18. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies: Approve 19. Discussion of Infrastructure of Urban Renewal District: Meridian City Council Agenda - January 21, 2003 Page 3 of 4 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian, Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. Meridian City Council Meetinq January 21, 2003 The Regular Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:23 P.M., on Tuesday, January 7,2003, by President Tammy de Weerd. Members Present William Nary, Keith Bird, Tammy de Weerd, and Cherie McCandless. Members Absent: Mayor Robert Corrie. Others Present: William Nichols, David McKinnon, Brad Watson, Gary Smith, Ken Bowers, Bill Musser, Dean Willis, and Will Berg Item 1. Roll call Attendance: X Tammy de Weerd X Bill Nary X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird o Mayor Robert Corrie De Weerd: Okay we will go ahead and call this meeting to order. It's Tuesday, January 21st. It is 7:23 and the City Clerk will have roll call attendance. Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: Number 2, Adoption of the Agenda. Council, any changes other than the addition of Item Number 8 from Pre-Council, Discussion of Infrastructure of the Urban Renewal District? Nary: Madam President, would that be added, then, as Item Number 19 on the Regular Agenda? De Weerd: Is there anyone in the audience here to -- that is interested in that item? Okay so, we will add it as Number 19. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Yes. Nary: With that addition, I would move to adopt the agenda as presented. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor -- oh, I'm sorry. Okay all those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 3. Consent Agenda: Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 2 of 62 A. Approve minutes of January 7J 2003 Pre-Council Meeting: B. Approve minutes of January 7,2003 City Council Regular Meeting: C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law for Approval: MI 02- 012 Request for waiver of the requirement of tiling of the Rutledge Lateral by Pinnacle Engineers for Kent Mortensen - 521 West Broadway Avenue: D. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law for Approval: M102- 009 Request for adjustment of area of impact between the cities of Meridian and Boise in an RUT zone for Winston Moore by Winston Moore - northwest corner of North Eagle Road and East Ustick Road: E. Order Granting Remand to Planning and Zoning Commission: MI 02-011 Request to remove certain parcels in Dunbar Estates Subdivision from City of Meridian's area of impact for Packard Estates Dev., llC by Packard Estates Dev., LLC - south of East Ustick Road and west of North Cloverdale Road: F. Addendum to Development Agreement, Correction of Legal Description: AZ 01-008 Request for annexation and zoning of 12.71 acres from R1 and RUT to C-G and R-40 zones for Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C. Development, Inc. - Franklin Road west of Locust Grove Road: G. Development Agreement: AZ 02-010 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 354.38 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Lochsa Falls Subdivision by Farwest LLC and Daniel Gibson - south of West Chinden Boulevard and west of North Linder Road: H. Agreement for Services, The land GrouPJ Inc. - Settlers Park Restrooms: I. Award of Bid I Contract for Well No. 25 Waterline Road Crossing, Irminger Construction De Weerd: Okay. Consent Agenda. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda as shown and for the Clerk to attest and the President to sign on the proper contracts and papers needing those things. McCandless: Second. Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 3 of 62 De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Mr. Clerk, roll call vote. Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. De Weerd: All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 4. Department Reports: De Weerd: It looks like Elroy we didn't need you. That's always nice, isn't it? It was that very informative letter you gave us. Okay Number 4, Department Reports. Staff, is there anything that you would like to report under this item? Item 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) De Weerd: Okay we did not move anything off the Consent Agenda. Item 6. Ordinance No. Amending Ordinance No. 02-968 to Correct the Legal Description: AZ 01-008 Request for annexation and zoning of 12.71 acres from R1 and RUT to C-G and R-40 zones for Baltic Place Subdivision by L.C. Development, Inc. - Franklin Road west of Locust Grove Road: De Weerd: So we will go to ordinance -- or Item Number 6. Mr. Clerk, what is the ordinance number? Berg: I'm sorry, Madam President, I didn't have this to you earlier. De Weerd: That's all right. Berg: Number 03-997. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. We wjll ask the City Clerk to read Ordinance Number 03-997, amending Ordinance Number 02-968 to correct the legal description of AZ 01-008, request for annexation and zoning of 12.71 acres from R-1 to RUT to R-G and R-40 zones for Baltic Place Subdivision by LC Development in title only. Berg: Thank you, Madam President just a question to the attorney, if I may, jf,it's proper to have another ordinance number or have an amending ordinance referring to the old ordinance? Nichols: Mr. Clerk, President, Members of the Council, I would prefer that we keep our ordinance numbers in order, as long as it refers back to the one that's being amended, I think is appropriate. Then, as far as the ordinance book goes, I would recommend that a notation be placed on that original ordinance that was amended by 03-997, so that there is a cross-referencing in effect. Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 4 of 62 De Weerd: Mr. Clerk, does that answer your question? Berg: It answers my question, Madam President. We have done it several ways and just whatever the current legal counsel advise, I will do. Thank you, Madam President. Ordinance Number 03-997, an Ordinance amending Ordinance 02-968, finding that certain land to be known as Baltic Place Subdivision, the location of which lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, and finding that the owner has made a request for annexation in writing to the Council and that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated High Density Residential District (R-40) and General Retail and Service Commercial District (C-G) and declaring that said land, by proper legal description as described below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, and repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith, and directing the city engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the area to be annexed to the Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer, and Assessor and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2315. De Weerd: Thank you. You're getting good at that. Okay you have heard the reading of Ordinance Number 03-997 by title only. Is there anyone who would like to hear this ordinance read in its entirety? Hearing none, I would entertain a motion. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I'd move the approval of Ordinance Number 03-997, which is amending Ordinance Number 02-968, to correct the legal description of AZ 01-008, request for annexation and zoning for Baltic Place and for the suspension of the rules pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-902. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay it's been moved and seconded. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES Item 7. Ordinance No. AZ 02-010 Request for annexation and zoning of 354.38 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Lochsa Falls Subdivision by Farwest LLC and Daniel Gibson - south of West Chinden Boulevard and west of North Linder Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay Number 7, Ordinance Number 03-998, request for annexation and zoning of 354.38 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for the proposed Lochsa Falls Subdivision. Mr. Clerk, will you read this by title only. Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 5 of 62 Berg: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 03- 998, an Ordinance finding that certain land to be known as Lochsa Falls Subdivision located south of Chinden Boulevard, west of Linder Road, north of McMillan Road and east of 10 Mile Road and which lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, and finding that the owners Elroy E. Brandt, Elroy Brandt, Marty Goldsmith, Sunjay Ray, M.D., Daniel Gibson, Jr., Justin and Tamra Martin, have made a request for annexation in writing to the Council and that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated Low Density Residential District (R-4) and declaring that said land, by proper legal description as described below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, and repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith and directing the city engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the area to be annexed to the Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer, and Assessor and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Okay you have heard Ordinance 03-998 by title only. Anyone who would like to hear it in its entirety? Hearing none, I would consider a motion. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I would move the approval of Ordinance Number 03-998, request for annexation and zoning of 354.38 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Lochsa Falls Subdivision and pursuant to Idaho Code 50-902, waive the reading of the rules. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to accept Ordinance Number 03-998. Mr. Clerk, roll call vote. Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 8. Ordinance No. AZ 02-022, Request for annexation and zoning of 119.83 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for proposed Havasu Creek Subdivision by Farwest, LLC - south of East McMillan Road and west of North Locust Grove Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay Item Number 8, Ordinance Number 03-999, request for annexation and zoning of 119.83 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for the proposed Havasu Creek Subdivision. Mr. Clerk, will you read this by title only. Meridian City Council January 21 , 2003 Page 6 of 62 Berg: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 03- 999, an Ordinance finding that certain land to be known as Havasu Creek Subdivision located south of McMillan Road and west of Locust Grove Road and which lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, and finding that the owners MacJocust, LLC, and Renata Ham, have made a request for annexation in writing to the Council and that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian, zoning designated Low Density Residential District (R-4) and declaring that said land, by proper legal description as described below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, and repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith and directing the city engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the area to be annexed to the Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer, and Assessor and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. You have heard the reading of Ordinance Number 03-999 by title only anyone that would like to hear it in its entirety? Hearing none, I would consider a motion. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I would move the approval of Ordinance Number 03-999, request for annexation and zoning of 119.83 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Havasu Creek Subdivision and pursuant to Idaho Code 50-902, to wave the reading of the rules. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 03-999. Mr. Clerk, roll call vote. Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 9. Ordinance No. AZ 02-023 Request for annexation and zoning of 6.06 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for', proposed Moshers Farm Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 895 North 10 Mile Road: De Weerd: Thank you. I am assuming on Number 9 Ordinance would be 03-1000? Okay. Okay Mr. Clerk, will you read the Ordinance by title only for 03-1000, request for annexation and zoning of 6.06 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Mashers Farms Subdivision. Berg: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 03- 1000, an Ordinance finding that certain land to be known as Mashers Farms Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 7 of 62 Subdivision, located at 895 North 10 Mile Road and which lies contiguous or adjacent to the city limits of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, and finding that the owner, Betty Mosher, has made a request for annexation in writing to the Council; and that said land be annexed to the City of Meridian and zoning designated Medium Density Residential District (R-B) and declaring that said land, by proper legal description as described below, be a part of the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho, and repealing all ordinances, resolutions, orders, or parts thereof, in conflict herewith and directing the City Engineer to add said property to the official maps of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and directing the Clerk of the City of Meridian to file a certified copy of the ordinance and map of the area to be annexed to the Ada County Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer, and Assessor and the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, pursuant to Idaho Code Section 50-223 and Section 63-2215. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Clerk. You have heard the reading by title only of Ordinance Number 03-1000. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to have it read in its entirety? Hearing none, thank you Council? McCandless: Madam President? De Weerd: Mrs. McCandless. McCandless: I move that we approve Ordinance Number 03-1000, request for annexation and zoning of 6.06 acres from RUT to R-B zones for proposed Mashers Farms Subdivision with suspension of rules. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay it's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance Number 03- 1000. Mr. Clerk, roll call vote. Roll Call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 10. Public Hearing: AZ 02-024 Request for annexation and zoning of 15.4 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 4450 North Linder Road: Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 02-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 building lots and 15 other lots on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 4450 North Linder Road: Item 12. Public Hearing: CUP 02-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a PUD for 64 single-family detached homes, 8 single-family attached homes and 1 single-family existing home on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 4450 North Linder Road: Meridian City Council January 21,2003 Page 8 of 62 De Weerd: Thank you. Okay Item Number 10 is a Public Hearing on AZ 02-024, request for annexation and zoning of 15.4 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision. We will open up with staff comments. Bird: Madam Chairman Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Can we also open 11 and 12, which are the same -- which one is a CUP and the other is a Preliminary Plat, open all three at the same time? De Weerd: At your pleasure. Okay we will open, then, Item Number 10, 11, and 12, Public Hearings AZ 02-024, PP 02-022, and CUP 02-032. Staff? McKinnon: Thank you, Madam Chairman, Members of the Council just a little bit of house cleaning first. If you could look at Item Number 12 on your agenda, I'll make one correction. In the agenda, it says that there are six single-family attached homes and it needs to be corrected to eight, especially if you're going to use the agenda tonight to make your motion. There are a total of 73 units, 64, and six and one doesn't add up. There are eight units. De Weerd: So, 64 single-family, eight -- or detached, eight single-family attached? McKinnon: That's correct. De Weerd: And one existing home? McKinnon: That's correct. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. McKinnon: Members of the Council, on the overhead we have prepared tonight in the PowerPoint presentation you can see the outlined area of the application we will be dealing with tonight. As we stated earlier, it's an annexation, a Conditional Use Permit, and a Preliminary Plat. The piece of property is located on Linder Road, with frontage on a small flag lot that's approximately 50 feet wide running up to McMillan. That small flag lot area has been set aside as an area for a pathway with six exercise facilities. Those types of facilities are similar to those you see on the greenbelt or other pathway systems from time to time that would have pull-up bars or sit-up benches, those are the type of exercise equipment you would see on that small chimney type of flag that goes up there. I point that out, because it becomes more difficult to see as we go to the next slide. This is the revised Preliminary Plat for the proposed subdivision. The four single- family attached houses would be located on these long narrow lots located centrally within the subdivision. The subdivision has a number of interesting amenities. The islands within the main collector into the subdivision, they have provided some additional islands into the small knuckled areas and the applicant has made some changes to the original plat by providing a stub street to the east. When originally discussing this in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission, there were numerous Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 9 of 62 changes that were requested and all those changes have been made by the applicant. The application you have in front of you meets all the requirements that the Planning and Zoning Commission has set forth for you tonight. There were some minor modifications, such as notes added to the plat, that still need to be made by the applicant. However, it now meets all the requirements of the city for the Planned Development Ordinance, among those would be the requirement for two amenities. One of the amenities they have provided is the aforementioned pathway and the large open space lot, which was discussed at the last meeting that could possibly turn into a swimming pool and a clubhouse for the subdivision. Staff supports the application that's in front of you tonight. There is only one item of discussion that staff feels should be brought up to you at this time and it has to deal with Page 5 of the recommendation for the Conditional Use Permit, that's Item Number 15. That recommendation was an and/or recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission. It was setting aside with -- it was set aside as an and/or, because there was some discussion at the Commission level that required additional discussion with ACHD and I will highlight that for you. As noted in the applications, there is one single-family existing home. That single-family existing home is located on Linder Road and that's the highlighted portion that I have got right now. It fronts onto Linder Road right now. In the different revised plats that we have seen for this, we have seen two different designs for this house to either take access off of the main road into the subdivision or to have the house continue to have access off of Linder Road. It was decided at the Planning and Zoning Commission level that there could be an and/or recommendation, that if ACHD were to approve access off of Linder and the city approve access off of Linder, the existing driveway for the home could remain. However, should ACHO and the city desire that they bring in the access from the northern boundary of the property heading south to the existing garage -- the existing garage is on the south side of the property facing west -- that if the city and ACHO require that it be brought in this way, that they bring in the driveway this way and close the driveway onto Linder Road. That's the major issues that we, as staff, have and we feel that should be brought up to you. At this time, I would ask if you have any questions of staff. De Weerd: Council, any questions at this time? Okay. Is the applicant present? Okay. Come on up if you will raise your right hand. Do you promise and affirm that the testimony you give tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Ralphs: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Please state your name and address. Ralphs: My name is Rod Ralphs. I live at 2730 North Greenbelt Place here in Meridian. I represent the applicant CMD, Inc., the developer. Prior to responding to any questions the Members of the Council may have, I have some proposed layouts of elevations of homes that would be going into the subdivision. One of the things that we have gone through -- thank you, staff. One of the things that we have tried to create with a fairly unique property was kind of a neighbor or very close-knit neighborhood, almost like a north end look, and that's what we tried to accomplish. These are some elevations and I have some here that I'd like to hand out to Council, if I may approach. Meridian City Council January 21,2003 Page 1 0 of 62 De Weerd: Okay. Give them to the Clerk. Ralphs: As staff indicated, all the recommendations and suggestions made by Planning and Zoning we have complied with. Going back to the green area there just south of the flag lot right here. We are proposing that we will be putting in a swimming pool and a clubhouse and that along here you will see a walking path that meanders, so we would have trees and landscaping in the area. Then, these little smaller rectangle areas you would see, those are the workout or the exercise stations. I believe something similar to that existed at Chief Joseph not too long ago, where people were able to go and walk along an exercise path and participate in different activities. Between the exercise path and the swimming pool area, those would be the amenities that we would propose for this subdivision. In response to the issue raised by staff regarding the house here at the entrance, that house presents a unique situation for us. The garage is on the west part of the house and there is actually building -- or a structure here in the back with rooms and storage, so we would not be able to bring a driveway in here on the east side. So we -- depending on what ACHD recommends, this house, this front yard basically consists of a driveway, if we have to go that route. Actually, we would prefer to be able to preserve some access with the existing driveway going out to Linder. Having said that, if there are any questions from Members of the Council, I'm open to respond. De Weerd: Thank you, Council. It doesn't look like it. Ralphs: Thank you very much, Madam President. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to enter testimony? Please raise your right hand. Do you promise and affirm that the testimony you give tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Converse: I do. De Weerd: Please state your name and address. Converse: Tawnya Converse, 4550 North Linder. De Weerd: Thank you. Converse: Yes I just have a couple questions and, hopefully, they can be cleared up. I live just north of the -- yes. Thank you. I have a question regarding future development possibilities of our property. There is no current stub road leading in and I'm not quite sure what the regulations are if we were to develop our property. I think it's deeper than what is allowed for a cul-d-sac building site. It runs about 640 on the short side and 720 on the long side and I wasn't real sure where that leaves us with our property. De Weerd: Okay if you can just state what your questions are, we will ask either staff or the applicant to, hopefully, respond to you. Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 11 of 62 Converse: Okay also, I have a question regarding the fencing. When I was at the last meeting I was under the impression that it would vinyl fencing all the way around, but I guess, it's cedar, and horses, which we have, like to chew on cedar. I wasn't sure how far off the property line it's going to be. Will it be right next to it? How are going to keep the livestock from ruining that type of fencing? We also flood irrigate and I don't think that's real conducive to a wood structure. Also, our flood irrigation, I was wondering how they are going to -- if they are going to elevate slightly on their side of the fence line, so that we are not flooding the homes that would be built there. I think that's about it. Just some minor little -- De Weerd: All legitimate questions. I'm surprised the developers haven't talked to you about those. Would you remain standing and, David, can you answer some of the questions as far as lengths, if -- in future development if a stub road would be needed from this property to theirs. I guess the developer would need to talk about the fencing issues but you could probably do the irrigation and the roadway. McKinnon: I would be happy to, Madam President, Members of the Council, and Mrs. Converse. Mrs. Converse, you were at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meetings, both of those, and it was discussed by members of the Council and recommend by the Planning and Zoning Commission for an additional stub street to be located someplace going into the Converse's property. The Planning and Zoning Commission -- I don't have a copy of the minutes handy -- well, I do have a copy of the minutes handy with me. It was decided at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting that -- that rather than provide an internal car access to the Converse lot, there would be a pedestrian pathway located approximately mid block of this long block between Linder and the stub street that goes to the north. That a pedestrian access could be located here, provide pedestrian access, rather than full vehicle access between the two lots, so that in the future when Converse's property is developed, that there would be a pedestrian access, rather than full vehicle access. The Planning and Zoning Commission felt that that would be more appropriate than requiring a stub street either in this location located off of a curve going into the Converse's property. They also felt that there would not be one that would be required at this location, as there would be someplace centered into the small traffic islands and it would create a problem. That's the most appropriate location that they felt for a ped path would be right here and the other reason for the pedestrian pathway to connect to the Converse property is so that they could relocate a ditch into that pedestrian pathway that they hadn't addressed in their original plat that they submitted. That's the reason for the lack of stub streets to the Converse property. Mrs. Converse is correct in pointing out that if she were to develop her property in a manner that had a cul-d-sac, just went into a cul-d-sac, it would be beyond the 450-foot maximum as allowed by the Planning and Zoning Ordinance Book. There is the ability in the future, as they develop, to provide a stub street to the north from the Converse property, which would, then, be able to connect to this property. There is a stub street located here that could be brought across to the other property. Interconnection, vehicular, is not completely eliminated by not requiring the stub street to the property. However, it would be required upon the Converses to provide a stub street to the north and the property to the north to provide a stub street to the east to connect with the proposed development in the future. Those are things that were all discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting and their recommendation was for no access Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 12 of 62 requirement on the Cobblefield Crossing people. As far as the fencing, in the staff report the fencing was -- it was not a requirement for fencing at that time. However, there was a requirement for a detailed fencing -- a detailed fencing requirement for a six-foot fence, but the details of what type of fence could be worked out at the Final Plat. In the front of the subdivision, that would be the eastern side of the -- it would be the western side of the property right here, it was discussed at the Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting that that would be a vinyl fence and that vinyl fence would match up with the subdivision to the south, Baldwin Park Subdivision. It would be a five-foot vinyl fence matching in color. I believe it was a sand color and as for flood irrigation, I'm probably not the best person to be able to answer that sort of question, but my understanding -- I'll defer to Brad, Mr. Watson, on that -- that typically flood irrigation allows you only to flood your area. Then, if water leaves your property, you would be responsible for that. I would have to -- that's about my understanding of flood irrigation. Brad would probably help me out. Watson: I don't know that I can help out a whole lot, but I would think that the engineer, while doing the site civil to this project, would take that into account and make sure that it's draining away from their houses, rather than to their houses. He would probably be more appropriate to answer that question. Converse: What about an answer on the fencing? De Weerd: We will have the applicant answer on that Maybe he can further elaborate on the flood irrigation issue. Converse: Okay. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Could I ask, Dave, on the -- the issue on the stub street that Mrs. Converse has brought up here, if you put the -- right now the stub street is about there correct? McKinnon: That's correct. Nary: And so, what I thought I heard you say was that what would happen in the future is that this property would have to have a stub street north, this property ,have a stub street east. Wouldn't that, essentially, just sort of cut this corner off into this little island on the end by doing it that way, instead of having a stub street here? McKinnon: Right there? Nary: Yes having a stub street somewhere in this location. I guess I just am afraid that in the future no one is going to want to develop -- I don't know how big this piece is. It must be 35 acres, probably, somewhere in that range? McKinnon: The property that we have highlighted is only 15. Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 13 of 62 Nary: This one here? McKinnon: The highlighted -- the bolded one this is only 15 right here. Nary: So, then, this must be only five? McKinnon: About five or seven. Yes six. Nary: Six ad, then, you're going to cut a corner -- they are going to have to cut a corner of it off to provide vehicular access from here through this one into there, which doesn't seem like that makes any of these very developable at all. I guess I'm not sure that that's a great solution to the problem. McKinnon: Madam President, Councilman Nary, I wouldn't disagree with that. The typical development pattern that you see on these long narrow lots would be a single street that runs down the middle, whether it meanders or it's a straight distance. Typically, it would meander, would be to double load that street and put lots on both sides. If you were to put that -- that stub street to the north at this location, the stub street to the north at this location, you create a block length that would be very average from where the laser pointer is now to where the stub street would be. That would be a very average block length, double loaded, just like you would see in a grid pattern. It doesn't necessarily destroy the ability to develop that, but it would somewhat restrict the developability of that. In a long narrow lot, you typically would just double load that street. Nary: It seems like I remember we saw that particular pattern within the last year, that same kind of a deal, almost this shape of lot, the same thing, stub street to the north. McKinnon: Right. Nary: You had houses on both sides and, then, one -- basically a straight sort of meandering stretch that ended up in a curve down here at the bottom. McKinnon: Right. Nary: And it seems like it took us forever to get through that, because of the way that was done. I guess maybe she's raised a good question that maybe the -- I guess we just need some further discussion from the developers about -- about where the stub street should be and maybe through ACHO, is that another option that we ca'n proceed on? McKinnon: ACHO would not object. I went to the staff meeting with ACHO, they wouldn't object to additional stub streets. Nary: Okay. McKinnon: The presentation I gave you tonight was the recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission and ours was somewhat different from the Planning Meridian City Council January 21,2003 Page 14 of 62 and Zoning Commission. We did recommend a stub street to the north from this -- along the northern and somewhat northeastern boundary, that we would prefer to see one there to provide the interconnectivity, but the Commission felt that an interconnecting pathway would be just as -- would be sufficient. Nary: All right. Thank you. De Weerd: So, Dave, your -- in your staff recommendation, they would, essentially, have two stub streets to the north? McKinnon: That's correct. Or it may not be to the north, necessarily, but to -- De Weerd: Or to the west? McKinnon: That's correct. De Weerd: Okay. McKinnon: If I can go back and find that. De Weerd: So they would provide a stub to the northern piece -- well, both northern piece properties in one-way or another? McKinnon: That's correct. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Well, while you look that up, we will ask the applicant when he comes up to respond to your questions. Converse: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Converse: Thank you so much. De Weerd: Is there any further testimony for this Public Hearing? Do you promise and affirm that the testimony you provide tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? English: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. Please state your name and address. English: Brian English, 4650 North Linder. I'm the next property that you're talking of running the stub road into. I, too, have a couple of questions. First off, have you accounted for the traffic across the street in this design? Right between the two properties, between Converse and ours, is where you have already approved a major stub road coming out of Bridgetower. There is going to be an elementary school right down that road, there is commercial buildings there, and what's proposed here is to Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 15 of 62 have a stub road running on either side of this. ACHD has already raised issues that the Bridgetower road is too close to the intersection to have a light. I'm not saying I'm going to be at this property forever, but I do want to try and preserve the developability of it. Doing stub roads like that, especially when you take into account along that north - - along McMillan Road, you're bringing in a power line and they are still arguing about how many feet are going to be taken for the power line. Right now, I know Ettinghouse, which is the property on the corner, had been talking about litigation, because they bring the power lines within about 10 feet of the two houses there. I was just informed developer has the little wedge and the next property under option right now, so some of the stub roads could go in there. The way the power lines are going to go in, have those things been factored into the development? The power lines are for Idaho Power going over to the Locust Grove substation is already approved, the easements are being sought. The other questions I have are right now, according to the plat map -- can you go to the plat map? McKinnon: Sure. English: We show sewer and water coming to here and, then, you have got to bring it up. Water goes on the east side of this street. Are you going to take the sewer across the street, up, and back into the properties up here? How are you going to get there, because -- to maintain your separation between potable water and sewer lines? Because one of the things that has been discussed all along and when you did the Camp Plan was protect the developability of these outlying properties and if we don't -- I don't want to be cut off. De Weerd: I'm sure our staff can answer that, Mr. English. English: I'm going to check my notes to make sure that -- and I have the same concern with the wood fencing. Pressure treated fences last about seven to eight years in that area. Water in the summertime is about 30 inches deep. You put a cedar fence in that sits in water, it will wick, unless they take protective measures when the fence is installed. There are things you can do, plastic bag the fence, gravel around the base of the fence, all that stuff will add about two more years of life to the fence. Having livestock, which both I and the Converses have, against a cedar fence, all you're asking for is gnawing and they will -- as Converses know, I have -- we have a fence between the two of us and there is hot wire there now, because even though it's all on my property, her horses liked it. I have -- I express the same concern, being the next property over. I guess the concern about irrigation has been expressed to the Planning and Zoning. I apologize for missing the P&Z Meetings my wife had health issues that I had to attend to. I wanted to preserve the water the way it was. I get 36 hours of water. I will start it -- tu rn it on and 12 days later it tu rns on again for 36 continuous hou rs. That's the type of -- length of time I would need to irrigate my property. De Weerd: Council, any questions for Mr. English? Bird: I have none. Meridian City Council January 21,2003 Page 16 of 62 De Weerd: Brad, do you have any response in how the stub of the -- stubbing of the utilities would be? Watson: Madam President, Council Members, the Preliminary Plat that I have shows water and sewer going to the northern boundary in Linder Road of this subdivision, so that's what would be required as part of the to and through policy. De Weerd: I'm sorry, I didn't, but as long as Mr. English had his answer, then, that's alii need. English: You didn't fully answer it. De Weerd: Mr. English, we need to get you on tape here. English: You have two staff asking questions at the same time, but having the sewer and water stubbed adjacent to each other, when you go to run it parallel, how do you get the separation that's required between a public water supply and the sewer? You either go to extreme expense to double pipe your sewer or you take the sewer line across the street down and back across, which ACHD doesn't want. Watson: I'm sorry, Madam President, Council Members, I -- any water line and sewer line that we put in or allow to be put in meets all state regulations regarding -- English: Twenty-five foot of separation? Watson: They are required to have 10 feet of separation by state regulations from any water -- potable water supply to a non-potable water pipeline and that's what's shown on the plat. Although their separation -- I don't have a scale -- is probably not adequate on the Preliminary Plat. When engineered drawings come in, they certainly will have the proper separation or they will be bounced. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Okay is there any other testimony? Okay applicant, would you like to come forward and answer a couple of the questions that were raised? Ralphs: Certainly, Madam President. De Weerd: Thank you. Can you restate your name? Ralphs: Certainly. My name is Rod Ralphs I'm representing the applicant CMD. De Weerd: Thank you. Ralphs: As for the first series of questions regarding potential flooding and the type of fence that's going in there and potential stub streets, I first address the fence issue. We are going to put in a vinyl fence here on the front and it will match the existing subdivision to the south, so it will be a harmonious look there. What we came in with here is cedar. There was an existing fence there for horses and we would put our fence right there at the property line and if we need to explore a hot wire, then, we can Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 17 of 62 certainly do that. Four stub streets, as has been indicated, we have this piece here to the north -- and if we could go back to that other piece, Dave. That one. Yes. Okay. This is 7.7 acres here that we have just procured and -- or is under option, rather. We have a stub street coming up here and what we would envision is that the Planning and Zoning and Council would require us to go east and west on that piece and, then, there could be some access here from the north and, then, off of Linder. We have provided for the required 20-foot pedestrian. That also allows for an easement for the Settler's irrigation canal. Existing irrigation concerns will not be interfered with. We are not allowed to interfere with those in any way and so existing water rights cannot be interfered with. Any kind of issues involving power easement, we have developed several projects that are along Ustick that involve power lines. That's just part of the development phase where we address that with Idaho Power, where the poles go in, placement of homes along that and bearing the risk of the marketability of those lots. Typically, what we see with those power lines is there would be a landscaping berm and that is where the Idaho Power will allow those to be placed. I don't know if there were any other issues that we haven't addressed. De Weerd: Were you able to address the -- how you will elevate your piece of property, so that it's not flood irrigated along with the Converse property? Ralphs: What we would do along here, along where this ditch and where this irrigation would go, whatever the ditch height is on the Converse piece, our -- we would berm up the ditch bank on our side. Then, we would place the fence on top of that increased berm height, so that berm height would, actually, be higher than the Converse side, so if there was any flooding that was going on with the irrigation there on the Converse piece, would go into the Converse property, instead of into our subdivision. Then, the fence would be on top of that elevated berm. De Weerd: Okay. Any questions? Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Yes, Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Ralphs, the other issue that was raised was about the development across the street and the school. I guess I didn't think I heard you mention the relationship with the road and the traffic from across the street in this particular -- Ralphs: What we are working with -- and this is in preliminary discussions with ACHD, is the discussion of -- they are putting in, I believe, a center turn lane to address those traffic counts and flows. That's, really, all the information I have for you at this point. Anytime you put -- you know, when Sridgetower was put it, with the number of homes that are going in there, with a school, certainly there was anticipation by Council and the Commission that there would be incredible traffic flows there that should be addressed. ACHD is addressing that with their -- I believe the insertion of a left turn lane but as far as regulations, as far as distance to stop lights and those type of things, I don't have that information for you tonight. Meridian City Council January 21,2003 Page 18 of 62 Nary: I guess the other question, I guess -- and maybe I'm just hung up on the wrong thing, but on this stub street up here, I guess I still have a concern that right now you may have an option on this land. If that happens, I guess we are cutting this off by creating, essentially, a stub this way and a stub north from this one, it creates this little island right in the section right here. It seems to -- I guess it could be open space or something else, but it's not really much use for a home or something in that spot just because of that. It still makes it very difficult, from an access point into this subdivision, by not having any other access into it, except off of Linder Road. I think we are going to have significant traffic here and very little connectivity by this piece. If the original staff report was to provide a stub street, why wasn't -- why wasn't that desired just because you didn't want one in this location, as well as north? Is that the reason? Ralphs: Well, we thought we could address connectivity by going here to the north and the distance here, you could actually put in a lot here. You would not have an unusable island, you would actually be able to come up here, come across, and, then, drop down in here and, then, access out to Linder through here or up through here. That was the findings of the Planning and Zoning and we sort of didn't have any argument with them, that there was a road needed here to the north, and placing it at that location, along with the pedestrian walkway, would be able to address that. As far as future development, I mean, obviously, we are not -- we will do whatever you ask us to do. We are developing this 15 acres, which we have already put in -- let's see, we have one, two, three -- we have three stub streets, plus an access point, plus a walkway -- actually, two walkways on a small 15 acre piece. Then, as we go to develop that 7.7 acres, we have provided for as much access as there could possibly be on this piece. De Weerd: Any other questions? Mr. McKinnon, do you want to say what you said in the public record? I think we'd all like to hear it, too. McKinnon: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. I was just showing Commissioner -- Chairman -- oh, boy -- Councilman Nary how that property could be developed in the future and the example I was giving about double loading the Converse property and the property to the north. I just drew a small diagram that basically shows how the property could be developed in a manner that's different than what Councilman Nary has stated earlier. That you would have just a piece of property that would be blocked off, you would, actually, have a double-loaded street that would be a standard block length, rather than just having a piece of property that was blocked off and wouldn't be usable. That's just a typical development pattern you would see on the long, narrow lots so you don't have a piece of property that would be unusable. It's kind of hard to correlate what I have got on this small drawing in words, but it's a lot easier than -- a picture is worth 1 ,000 words, but I don't think you want me to keep gOing. De Weerd: No, but we do know you were going to be working on that ordinance anyway on road lengths and block lengths, so -- okay any other questions, Council? Thank you, Mr. Ralphs. Ralphs: Thank you. Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 19 of 62 De Weerd: Okay this Public Hearing is still open. Council, what would you like to do? Sure, Mr. English. English: One question I was just asking your staff, associated with the irrigation, the water comes off the ditch to the east of where this property -- the flag lot is. We jointly maintain it and get together every year to clean that stretch out that's on the -- you know, runs parallel to the farm and do a ditch clean out. I'd like to have it that the development be a part of the clean out to maintain that jointly -- joint portions of the ditch and we have somebody help us do the digging on the sections that not on any of our individual lands. De Weerd: The Council will consider that in their motion. Mr. Attorney? Nichols: Madam President, staff. Wouldn't the ditch be -- have to -- wouldn't that feeder ditch have to be tiled? McKinnon: It would have to be tiled. That's correct. Nichols: So, the portion that would be open -- or the part that would be tiled is on the development and, then, it would be -- it would open up as it left the development onto the existing parcels. English: Excuse me, sir. There is a section that's before it gets to the development that's open, too. It's a concrete ditch, but you still have to clean it out every spring. Nichols: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Mr. English, is that to the east of this little chimney lot? So it's on someone's -- it's on another individual's property altogether? English: I think it, actually, sits in the easement for the Settler's Ditch. What it does is it comes out and parallels -- you can -- if you were a broad jumper, you could stand on the edge of the concrete ditch and jump into the Settler's Ditch. It's just a couple of feet. That one doesn't show it. Do you have your pointer? It comes off right about here and parallels -- goes under this where this flag lot is and right here there is a junction box where part of the time the water flows along this line here. Part of the time, you know, when you close the one gate, open the other, it comes down and comes across here. This part up here, we get together every year, as all the property owners right now are getting together and digging that out. That's still going to need to be done, it's not part of the tiling, and I just don't want to be the one that does all the digging every year until such time as I leave. De Weerd: Mr. Nary? Nary: Well, Mr. English, I don't know that we can make them come out and dig up this side that's not on their property. I don't know that we can make them do that. They can Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 20 of 62 certainly agree to do that and they can agree to do that as neighbors, but I don't think we can make that a condition that they come out and work on this property that's not theirs. They are going to be required to tile theirs. English: It's a concrete ditch and it's not -- I understand what you're saying. If they want to use the water and have full water when the water is theirs, they should have somebody out there cleaning out the ditches is the issue I'm raising. Nary: I agree, but if your other property owners don't want to participate, that doesn't mean they don't get water. English: Not if we go after them and they volunteer to -- Nary: Right. They aren't very good neighbors if they don't, but it doesn't mean that they legally have to go out there and dig those ditches out for you, so -- I don't think we can make them do that. English: I think we have had one year in the nine that I have been there that we haven't all gotten out there to take care of the ditch and that was the year the two of us were laid up. Nary: And that's great, we just can't make them. That's not a legal obligation we can impose. De Weerd: Okay Council, this hearing is still open. I would consider someone making a motion to close it. McCandless: Madam President, I move to close the Public Hearing. De Weerd: Do we have a second? Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES De Weerd: Okay. Do we have a motion? Nary: Madam President, I just had one question for staff. David, you raised a question regarding the either/or recommendation from Planning and Zoning and the one I was looking at was the Site-Specific Condition Number 1, was the one I noticed that. Is that the right one? McKinnon: On Page 5. recommendation. It's actually Number 15 of the Preliminary Plat Nary: Oh. I'm sorry. That's why -- I'm looking at the wrong recommendation. Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 21 of 62 De Weerd: Oh, I thought it was the CUP. McKinnon: I'm sorry. It's on the Preliminary Plat. Nary: I was just looking at the wrong recommendation. McKinnon: Madam Chairman, you're right -- I mean Madam President, you're right, I did say the Conditional Use Permit, but it is in the Preliminary Plat. De Weerd: Thank you. Nary: And, then, looking at that -- it's Page 5, Number 15, and which -- just refresh my memory, which of those ones did you say was recommended? McKinnon: Both were recommended. Nary: Well, but -- by you, not by the Planning and Zoning Commission. If we are going to make a motion, which one are we supposed to pick because I can't remember what you said? McKinnon: Madam President, Councilman Nary, staff doesn't have a strong opinion either way. It's sixes either way if look at it. One, you would have the landscape buffer that would be a solid landscape buffer that would match up with the solid landscape buffer to the south, with no penetrations through it. Otherwise, you would have a driveway that breaks up a landscape buffer. You would have a landscape buffer, driveway, landscape buffer, road, landscape buffer, and so it's a little bit cleaner if you don't have the driveway there. You do have a house that has a garage that fronts onto Linder, and so it may just be appropriate to leave it on Linder or leave it up to ACHD and leave the same language as is and allow ACHD to make that decision. Nary: So we could leave this recommendation, if we were going to approve this, the way it is and wait and see what ACHD recommends. McKinnon: That's correct. If you were okay with both of those. If you had an opinion either way, you should make it in your motion. Nary: All right. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay any other questions for staff? I would entertain a motion. Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve AZ 02-024, the request for annexation and zoning of 15.4 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Incorporated, 4450 North Linder Road and for the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order and to include all staff comments. De Weerd: Do I hear a second? Okay. That motion dies. Do we have another motion? Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 22 of 62 Nary: Madam President, I guess I don't have a motion yet. I guess there are some questions that I still have and I know we have closed the Public Hearing, so -- and I don't know if there are more answers than what we had, but I guess I still have concerns on the connectivity of this. I think it is very positive steps that have been taken by the developer, but I am a little concerned about this particular project along Linder in this location and the development across the street. The connection between these other properties, trying to make sure that all of the properties get developed properly. I guess I'm just concerned about the -- about this particular project, it's just the first of these particular ones right now, but with Bridgetower across the street, a school, I think the two adjacent property owners have raised some -- at least sufficient consideration. The developer has been very good at trying to address all of those, too, so I'm not trying to penalize anybody. I guess I just need a moment to try and figure out if this is the best way to go at this juncture and we should just go forward on this or whether or not we need to rethink a little bit about it as I didn't know if anyone else had any thoughts about it. De Weerd: Mr. Nary, I have concern, too. I know in our Comprehensive Plan, our -- we have placed great emphasis on connectivity and also, as we have seen in other areas along these busy arterials, we really want to minimize the accesses out onto them and through better connectivity we can have that happen. I guess we've almost gotten spoiled in the North Meridian area with the large-size developments that have been coming in. We already see the road grid, see the connectivity and that is a benefit to the larger size parcels. With that said, we don't want to penalize the smaller parcels and the developmentability of those and not achieve the connectivity that we want to allow traffic to flow and certainly to flow internally and not at so many access points. I do have the same concern that you have, Mr. Nary. It's difficult if we can't see where the access points of the subdivision across the street from them are and it is also something that ACHD really needs to playa large part in. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Dave, could you take it back to that one slide, please? I guess to really highlight my concern is right now, until this piece, which, as the developer stated, it's in option right now -- until this piece gets resolved, there is only one access into this property right here and it's right here. McKinnon: Madam President, Commissioner -- Councilman Nary -- sorrY. There actually is a separate stub street that comes from the south from Baltic Place -- or Baldwin Park. Sorry about that. Nary: Right here? McKinnon: Right there so there is an additional access and that, I believe, is part of Phase 2 that you have recently approved for that, so it will be constructed. That would be a secondary access point. There is more than just one access point directly off of Linder. Meridian City Council January 21 , 2003 Page 23 of 62 De Weerd: Dave, do you know where the access in relationship to their entrance is across the street? Where is Bridgetower's access point? Nary: Right here. From what I'm, understanding, David, it's right between these two properties right there is that correct? McKinnon: That's correct and that meets ACHD's offset requirement. Nary: The offset requirement for -- from this access to this access here? McKinnon: That's correct. Nary: Or the offset from this corner to there, are you talking about? McKinnon: It meets both of those offsets. They have agreed that that's the appropriate location, that this access right here meets the offset requirements of the access into Bridgetower here. It still meets the access requirements further to the north onto the Converse property, which would still allow the Converses to have access to their property off of Linder. Nary: But if these were to develop, then, David, then, there still is an access here and there would be an access here correct? McKinnon: If they develop separately -- Nary: If they were to develop separately. McKinnon: If they were to develop separately, that's correct. The most appropriate location, as you pointed out, would possibly be in a line directly with the access coming out of Bridgetower. As President de Weerd pointed out, we, unfortunately, don't have the ability always to require that all the lots come in at the same time to see that pattern develop, so we have to look at the lots as they come in. Nary: And Baltic Place is at what -- you said this is phase two of Baltic Place at the south of this property? McKinnon: Baldwin Park. Right. It comes right up in here. Nary: Is what? McKinnon: Baldwin Park. Nary: Oh, Baldwin Park. Okay and where is that currently in the -- McKinnon: Boy, the plans are ready to be approved. Landscaping is in on Linder and I believe it's, actually, in onto their subdivision right now. Phase 1 is built and there are buildings being built in Phase 1 and Phase 2's plans are ready for approval. Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 24 of 62 Nary: And I believe that that access -- that access that -- from this stub street here -- McKinnon: Where are you at? Nary: Right there. McKinnon: Okay. Nary: Where does that come out on Linder? How much further south does that go into Baldwin Park and, then, how much further south of Linder is that exit? McKinnon: [don't have the exact number. I can tell you that it is a -- it rounds about as a block in the center in Baldwin Park. There is an access road that comes in off of Linder that heads north and, then, wraps around a small block, so that there is a double front. There is a house, street, house, house, street, house, and landscape buffer before you get to that access. I don't have a direct -- an exact measurement. I might be able to find that information in ACHD's report. They may say what the offset is from Baldwin Park. Nary: Well, I think you have answered what, I guess, I was determining, because it sounds to me is that -- from what you're saying is that it's a meandering road that winds around through Baldwin Park. It comes through here, so if you live in this section of the subdivision, you can either take this wind around way through this subdivision to get there or you can basically come in and out of here, I guess. McKinnon: That's correct. Nary: And that's your two options. De Weerd: I guess if your goal is to reduce the amount of access out onto the arterials, you want more connectivity towards the front of your subdivision to allow for them to come to a central point. I'd almost like to see an access to the north along that front part, than -- rather than in the back part. It would be -- because, I agree, that's a huge burden on this 15 acre parcel to have four stub streets, so where can they be best placed is I guess -- because we certainly -- I would imagine on the Converse property -- and, maybe, even on the English property. We don't really want to have an access out onto Linder, you would have just way too many in a short distance. Well, I'm not a developer, so I just don't know. Well, we do need to do something, either reopen -- J guess we have a number of options that we can do. Reopen the Public Hearing and continue it for further information on how to manage access points in that area, to at least allow comment by the applicant, or you can -- I would accept a motion, if you wanted to make a decision at this point. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 25 of 62 Nary: I would move that we reopen the Public Hearing, because we have had some discussion and the developer has the opportunity to provide us with further input. I don't know, I guess, if I'm ready to make a decision tonight or not, but at least they should have the opportunity to provide us more information based on the discussion we have had at this point. I move to reopen the Public Hearing. McCandless: I'll second that. De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor to reopen the Public Hearing say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES De Weerd: Okay. The Public Hearing is reopened. Council, do you want to hear from the applicant? Okay. Mr. Ralphs. Thank you. Will you restate your name? Ralphs: Okay Rod Ralphs, representing the applicant CMD. Dave, could we go to that one that shows the stub streets and, then, if Council would remember, the seven-acre piece to the north. This piece right here is going to be able to provide access up to McMillan and you would also be able to pull in here from the west side, from the English piece, and so we need to leave this one here to be able to provide the connectivity to this next piece. That would also provide, eventually as we get -- and, you know, obviously, we would be coming here for the approval of our plat on this, but we would be tying into McMillan, providing access there. Then, there would be the stub streets here that would allow for appropriate size lots along here, so there wouldn't be an unbuildable lot. I would, again, refer Council back to the drawing that Dave presented. They can have an east-west access, but we do need to have this stub street here to the north to provide for access into this next piece and to allow access to McMillan. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I know you have kind of said it already, Mr. Ralphs, but I think you heard our concerns about trying to deal with these smaller parcels. I did -- in fact, one of the things I did forget to mention, but I do really like that path that you have created to the north. I think that's an excellent amenity to this project. I think that's a very nice and different amenity that we have seen, so I really like that. I honestly didn't realize that's what Chief Joseph used to have. I didn't know that's what that was supposed to be. Couldn't figure out what those bars were for but, I guess, because -- I guess there is just some question about trying to deal with the remainder of this piece and the piece across the street and trying to have access into all these things. I guess I'm just -- I'm just torn. I don't know that this is the best -- or the only way to do it, but I recognize the concerns the neighbors have brought forward as to trying to make their pieces still viable, as well as provide some safer access off of Linder, so not everybody is just coming down that street. I guess I'm not really sold that that southern stub street is going to solve that problem. I agree with you that the northern stub street is definitely needed and it just makes sense that the eastern one is needed as well. I'm just concerned that as those Meridian City Council January 21 , 2003 Page 26 of 62 other two lots -- I guess maybe three lots are developed in that north along Linder, the two folks that are here. I think there was one more piece north of that, that we are just going to end up with these very difficult to manage, difficult to connect, difficult to -- for people to a layout and try to put together. I know that's not your fault, I'm not trying to blame you, it's just, you know, this is the only opportunity we really have to decide if it works for us or not. Ralphs: That's correct. Nary: If we approve this one, we have pretty much set in motion what you can or cannot do with those other pieces. This is our only opportunity, because it's an annexation, for us to say, no that maybe that doesn't work yet. Maybe there needs to be more -- either discussion with those property owners and some way to find something that fits everybody -- and recognize you could get this to fit these neighbors. They sell their property and somebody else wants something different, so I really want to try to balance those fairly. I'm not trying to penalize you I'm just concerned, because we won't get another chance to deal with portion, except for this. Ralphs: And I understand your concerns, Councilman. We have gone to ACHD and this is the configuration that meets with all of their approvals. I really believe, you know, short of -- short of the two northern properties going out and expending the money and coming up with their own engineering layouts to match it up, you really are shooting in the dark, so I understand completely where you're coming from. However, the stub street to the north can -- going into that north piece, the 7.7 acres, you can tie into the west, you can loop down, and you can get the access through those. Those can work with the configuration that Dave shared with you. That gives them the access off of Linder, it gives them the access out of -- to the east -- you know, and I'm just proposing that they can hire their own engineers to come up with it. I mean they would have an engineer that would -- or a road that would have access in here, so you would have access here off the west, off the east, and whoever up here, Mr. Ettinghouse, if there were ever to be an access there to the north, they can address that with them at that time. Really, what we have got here is -- with this stub street here and with the proposed layout, that we would be coming to you with -- shortly you would have access here on the east and on the west of this subdivision and, you know, they can develop it. I have no idea whether they are going to go commercial or residential and if they were to sell it, I have no idea what that developer is going to want to do. If there was some conflict and if there had been some -- you know, perhaps an expenditure. for an engineer to layout some possible layouts for that property, so that we wer13n't trying to imagine something that hasn't been created yet, it is, it's just shooting in the 'dark. We have really come to you with something that we believe is the best and we have run it by ACHD and for this piece ground, with the accesses we have got, I think it can work with the adjacent pieces. I think it can work in harmony but, again, you're being asked for those two northern pieces to guess what they are going to go with, you know, the density of housing. Whether it's going to be mixed commercial residential, we really have no idea and it's a guessing game that we really don't have a time frame on either. De Weerd: I guess we just don't want to continue to make the same mistakes by putting too many access points out to busy roadways. You mentioned an access to the west, Meridian City Council January 21,2003 Page 27 of 62 that's only if -- if that's feasible. I guess that's why I'm a little bit concerned by providing access closer to and letting that piece of property access out off to yours. Yes, you shouldn't have that burden. It's just something that we need to pay attention to. Ralphs: I understand. I sympathize completely and that's why you're in the hot seat, Madam President. Again, we -- we have addressed it with as many stubs as we can and knowing what we -- with the access to McMillan, everything will be able to tie in through. You will be able to connect to McMillan, Linder, and you will have a couple access points off of Linder, but there is a guessing game here. I guess that's why we are all kind of feeling a little frustrated right now. We really don't know what those two uses for those two five acre pieces will be, when they will be, what they will be, and that's why Planning and Zoning said let's go pedestrian stub street on that south piece. There will be a walkway there, it's always there, and as we begin to put in concrete some of these things here to the north off that seven acre piece, there will be a stub street to allow them access to the east. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I agree with the applicant to the point that if English -- he decides to develop that through the one that's one lower they are landlocked anyway. We can have him put stub streets all over in there he's already got three, plus the main entrance. Who is to say what some developer might come in and get both of those five acre parcels and don't want to drop down in there, want to go out to the east or somewhere. My biggest concern is having entries onto Linder. I'd like to see that one, the first going south on that side of the road. That's my biggest concern. I don't know how you can -- sure, I'd like to look out for the other two properties, too. That's only right to do that, but, also, these developers have come in and put out a good plan. Like Councilwoman de Weerd said, you know, it's -- the big ones -- we have been kind of getting spoiled having the big ones come in where we have had our in and outs at the half mile, which we like. I think these developers have bent over backwards and I understand the frustration of the two owners of the other property, but they might not want to develop for 20 years. They might not want to develop for 30 years. We don't know. Ralphs: And if -- you know, and if in getting the approval, tonight we waive having that driveway coming off that existing home, then, we will do that. We won't go either/or we will just tile that up and have a continuous landscaping berm. We could do, that tonight. It's certainly not our first choice, but I mean if that's what it takes to get this approval tonight, we will have to do that. De Weerd: Are there any further questions for the applicant? Dave, do you have any comments? McKinnon: Madam President, Members of the Council, just -- and Mr. Ralphs, just a couple comments. Going back to the original staff report that Mr. Hawkins-Clark wrote for this project, there was a lot of -- he wrote in his additional considerations -- I believe it was Number 3 -- it's not in front of you right now -- concerning this block length that Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 28 of 62 we are dealing with right now. It's Block Number 1, this larger block that we have been talking about where this is an additional stub or maybe if the stub should be there. Then, this block length is -- in Brad's original staff report he said whether it's a pedestrian pathway or if it's a street, I believe it would be appropriate and the staff would support the 20-foot pathway, rather than a stub street, because of the number of stub streets that are located within the subdivision already. At the two Public Hearings for this, which I was in attendance, there was discussion about a stub street going up to the Converse property. One of the things that we have tried to accomplish as a staff is to make the city more pedestrian friendly. That was one of the things that we looked at and we talked about having a ped path, rather than a road, to add something that provides the connectivity, but supports -- or promotes walking, rather than driving everywhere. If people within this subdivision, the Converses, if they are not able to walk from point A to B point through that ped path, they have to drive from point A to point B. Then, we have eliminated any possibility or any encouragement of them to use that as a pedestrian access, so while encouraging interconnectivity for cars, we have also tried to encourage interconnectivity with pedestrian pathways. That was the justification for adding the ped path in that location, rather than the street, because it would provide interconnectivity and promote the walkability of the community and getting that off street, rather than on street as a sidewalk. The only other comment I had is for Mr. Ralphs and it's one that I have already brought up to him. It would just be for Council as well, it was just the fact that we have got a -- we have got some drainage area that's shown in that green area that we talked about earlier. They want to put the pool -- they are showing that as drainage right now, so there is going to be some reworking of the Drain Plan for this and just wanted to make Council aware of that. There is going to have to be some Drainage Plans that are revised in order to accommodate a swimming pool and a clubhouse in that area. Other than that, I really don't have any additional comments. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess this is for Mr. Ralphs and for Mr. McKinnon but is that -- is that -- I don't know, whatever that pathway that goes north, whatever you call that, that's a private path. Ralphs: That belongs to the homeowners association. That's correct. Nary: Okay so, David, I totally agree with having pedestrian interconnectivity, but why would they use it? Where would they go? There is nothing for anyone to go there for. If they use that pedestrian path between the adjacent properties to the north down through here, what are they doing? I mean there is nothing here for them to use it for, except to walk into this subdivision, which is fine, but there is no other -- there is nothing -- they can't use that. The school is across the street. The parks over here I mean it's nice to have, but it doesn't appear that it adds any particular value to the -- either this property or the adjacent property, because there is nothing for them to do, so who would use it anyway? There is nowhere for them to go. Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 29 of 62 McKinnon: Councilman Nary, it's very similar to stub streets. We build a stub street and there is no place for that stub street to go at this time, but we have provided the interconnectivity between the two subdivisions. Rather than a person that lives in this subdivision -- in this subdivision in the future as this develops, rather than having this person have to take a car and drive out to the arterial -- drive out to the arterial, back onto the Linder, and, then, back in and go to this house, it provides a means of interconnectivity for walking between subdivisions. It's not intended to be a regional walking system, like we have shown on our Comprehensive Plan to provide for recreation, it's just to provide for interconnectivity in lieu of a stub street. In addition to that, this serves a secondary purpose. The pathway at this location, because this is an easement for a drainage or an irrigation ditch that will be tiled right there they will be able to cover that and provide -- they are going to have to provide that open space anyway to accommodate that drain that's going to be tiled right there. It provides a secondary purpose of providing interconnectivity in the future, just as a stub street would. When the Converse property redevelops in the future, it would have to provide connectivity to that pathway, so therein lies the value of that, it's for interconnectivity. There is no intrinsic net benefit to recreation by putting that there. De Weerd: Habits are harder to change than creating pathways. Is there any -- Nary: And I guess that's my point and I do understand what Dave is saying, but I don't necessarily think -- this is a path that has to be there anyway. I do think it does add some value, but I think our concern is that the volume of traffic along this roadway is not going to alleviate by having this as an entrance -- an entrance right now into these two separate properties. Potentially an entrance in between them and with only the really really relief of that is this stub road and that northern stub road and I don't know when this property to the east is going to develop. De Weerd: Mr. McKinnon is Linder going to be a three lane or a five lane? Is that-- McKinnon: Madam President, I believe ACHD's desire at this time is that it remains a three-lane road, rather than a five-lane. The staff report you received from ACHD that is in -- that we have with us tonight shows that they'd like a 96-foot right of way, which would be a five-lane road. I believe they have changed their minds since the time this report was written. De Weerd: So at this point-- McKinnon: At this point I believe ACHD would like this to be a three-lane road', De Weerd: Okay. Okay anything further, Council? McKinnon: Madam President, I have one question that's for our Legal Department and it has to do with ACHD. Bill, if ACHD has changed their mind in regards to the right of way width and the required right of way width for this application, should we be adopting ACHD's recommendation for this project as part of our own or should there be separate language to be as ACHD approves? Meridian City Council January 21,2003 Page 30 of 62 Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, Mr. McKinnon, that's the big question. That's the question as to whether the city is in a position to try to preserve these right-of-way corridors. I don't think that the issue is completely settled with ACHD, because they are looking at other ways to preserve those corridors without necessarily having to buy all of the right of way. My preference would be right now what you have is -- what the Council has in front of them is a report or findings from ACHD that says certain footage. That's what the Council has before it to act upon and from a municipal perspective, if the required roadway width from ACHD is less than that, that may well affect the Council's decision as to whether to approve development and whether to approve annexation. I think what's relevant is what's before them and right now that's a wide enough roadway to go to five lanes, if they -- if they do it. De Weerd: Well, I guess the next question would be, then, to Mr. Nichols -- in the approval of these other developments, we have put in the condition based on recommendations from the North Meridian Area Planning and any special conditions that come out of that be accepted by the development. Baldwin Place to the -- or Baltic -- whichever property is to the south, has that condition on it. This would affect their planning as well, if they -- if they are going to change or are they just going to increase the amount of buffer. That presents an interesting scenario, doesn't it? Nary: Madam President, if they were to increase the existing -- the buffer and, then, lose that existing house -- isn't that where the existing house is now? De Weerd: Right now are they asking for right of way for a five-lane road? McKinnon: Madam President, I was just talking with staff over here. There has been a Traffic Safety Meeting that was held just today. Captain Musser was in attendance and they did say that Linder would be developed to five lanes. De Weerd: Five lanes. Ralphs: And in answer to Council's question, that house does sit in front of that. We would not lose that house if it goes to five lanes. Just make it a little tighter. Maybe driving a Yugo would be one of the conditions of living in that house. De Weerd: Definitely has to be a European made car. Ralphs: One of those Minis. De Weerd: Yes Council, any further questions? Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Ralphs, one other question. On that -- that exercise park to the north there, is the intent currently -- unless that other piece is purchased by your client, just fence that off to the homes adjacent to this piece? Meridian City Council January 21,2003 Page 31 of 62 Ralphs: It would and that was actually discussed at the Planning and Zoning level. The concern being that, you know, that was the private property of the homeowner's association. We wouldn't want to create just an open park area, so there would be open fencing there. It wouldn't be a tunnel of six-foot vinyl, but it would be an open type fencing that would proceed along there to keep out existing livestock that would be there. Right now, there is livestock to the east and west of that piece, but we have fencing in there and I think it was in the notes. McKinnon: Madam President, Members of the Council, it is in the minutes and it was reflected that it was a three-foot vinyl fence. De Weerd: Thank you. Nary: How wide is that piece? Ralphs: It's 50 feet wide. De Weerd: Okay. Hopefully, we have answered all of the questions or we are going to be here all night. I don't want to eliminate anything, but we do need to move along here. If we are not ready for action, you know, we wouldn't want to close the Public Hearing, but if it's -- if you're ready to take some action on it, I would entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Council, are we sure now that we don't need anything through the Public Hearing? We have got all the answers, everything we need? I mean we don't have 100 percent answers, but -- Cherie? McCandless: I don't know that we could get anymore answers, but I would be more than -- I would like to continue the Public Hearing and think about it a little bit. De Weerd: I'm sure the developer would rather you think about it, than be unsure and vote against it, so -- Bird: I think that, Council, I would make a motion that we close the Public Hearing on the annexation and zoning and Preliminary Plat and the CUP. ' De Weerd: Do I hear a second. Okay. Nichols: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: Mr. Ralphs, although it wouldn't involve necessarily engineered drawings, how difficult would it be to come up with some drawings of how those -- the English parcel Meridian City Council January 21 , 2003 Page 32 of 62 and the Converse parcel might conceptually be developed without, you know, a great deal of detail? Just some concept drawings for the Council to see how those two parcels might be developed, either separately or perhaps together? Ralphs: As far as the dollar figure and complexity, as Council well knows, you'd really have to sit down with those properties owners and we -- you know, I think we would have to do this as a joint effort. They would already have to have in mind what they want to do with it and so if there were some thoughts about going commercial, they have got to come to the table with that. If they want to go R-4, if they want to go R-8, we can conceptualize a lot, but there has kind of got to be some type of a target from the northern homeowners or property owners there. I don't know if that exists. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I wasn't necessarily looking for that -- maybe that level of detail, but I was getting the sense from the other property owners that there hadn't been a real sit-down discussion with them or am I just mistaken and did I misread that? Ralphs: Oh, we have met with both of them in regards to purchasing the ground. We haven't extended offers to either one. The English's indicated they were not interested in selling at the time we spoke with them and we have never gone back with a second visit to the Converses, so -- Nary: Maybe I misspoke, then, Mr. Ralphs. Ralphs: Okay. Nary: I'm not saying you've got to buy their property. Ralphs: Right. Nary: I'm saying have you had a discussion with them about the concerns they raised about the viability of their property and having that kind of discussion, not just buying it. Ralphs: No, we have not discussed their time frame, their desires to develop it. We entered into preliminary discussions with them and, then, we moved in on-, this 15-acre piece. ' Nary: Because I guess my sense from the discussion was we currently don't have a neighbor meeting requirement. It's in an issue that's later on our agenda tonight and it sounded to me that maybe some of their questions could have been resolved with a neighborhood meeting type of discussion. Not a discussion to buy their property, I'm not saying to do that and not necessarily a discussion to help them develop their property, because I don't think you should have to spend your money or your client's money to do that either. I think they -- I guess they have raised some legitimate concerns and I think it's the reason, I guess, this half of the bench, at least, is really in a Meridian City Council January 21,2003 Page 33 of 62 ( I, quandary over this particular piece. I'm just not going to speak to that half, I just don't know. I think maybe that's one of the things that I guess makes me -- makes me, I guess, in puzzlement over this one, because I think some of their issues are very legitimate. I guess it doesn't sound like you have ever had that discussion with them over their issues and concerns. I didn't hear from them either, like you said, that they were looking to develop soon or how they would want to develop or whether it was housing or residential or commercial or mix, whatever. I didn't hear any of those things. All I heard them saying was that they wanted to leave their property viable for whatever they wanted to do in the future. We have been wrestling over here as to what is that and how does that look. What does that mean to them and trying to, then, do this third- party conversation to try to do that? I guess what I would rather see is that you have that conversation with them and maybe there isn't any way to satisfy their concerns, but I guess I'd feel better if you had that discussion. I don't know if that would take five minutes or whether you need to come back another day. Ralphs: You know, and -- Councilman, I know that could take just, you know, a few minutes or whatever. I know that we have had two Planning and Zoning Meetings on it when these kinds of issues -- the development issue -- this is the first we have heard of it tonight, you know, and we would be more than happy -- you know, and that's two meetings and, then, we get -- and, then, we are encountering that situation -- those issues tonight. Certainly, you know, we will go and we will visit with them, but as far as -- we know the uncertainty that's involved. Certainly, we can visit with them and -- but we have had two meetings already at the public level where these issues could have been addressed earlier as well. De Weerd: Well, it appears we have a couple of options here. One is we can just delay this until further on in our agenda or we can continue this until the next -- until next week, so that some of these questions that I would ask that -- that you give specifics of what information you're looking for, so if you'd like them to talk to the neighbors -- Ralphs: And let me have some specifics -- De Weerd: -- what specific information are you looking for that you want them to come back with and that's whether it's later on in the evening or if it's next week, what specifically are you looking for? Because I mean I can second a motion, but as you would have a split vote, there is no one here to tie it, so we just need to move this along. If we could give them some direction on what we would like them to answer, that would be helpful. Nary: I guess here is what I would like to do and I make this in the form of a motion. I would move that we continue this matter to the end of our agenda. I don't know that this needs to take a week, but it seems like we have had a three-way conversation tonight over concerns that have been raised by the two other adjacent property owners in regards to what they believe is the viability of their property in relation to this development. What I'd like to do is move that we continue this to the end of the agenda, give you the opportunity to talk to them and, again, not under the discussion to purchase their property, but in a discussion as to what they believe makes this property -- or how this property impacts the viability of their property. It hasn't been very clear, I Meridian City Council January 21,2003 Page 34 of 62 can't give you, necessarily, a direction as to what specific things their concerns were, the level of traffic that this would cause, and by the access onto Linder Road, which I think Councilman Bird has also raised, it having felt that this property, as well as the adjacent property, all accessing onto Linder Road. Again, I'm not -- I recognize that that may not be adequate time, but since we seem to talk a whole lot and we haven't really gotten very far, I'd like at least the opportunity for you to have some discussion with these folks. I think we probably need a little break and, then, we are going to have another hearing. We have got some discussion about some other things, so that might take a little while to get there, it might take a half an hour or an hour, but I don't necessarily want to set this over. I think you have put together a very good project I want to at least make sure that's clear. I don't have a problem with your project at all. I think what you're trying to do is very good, but I think it is our responsibility to look at all this and, as I stated earlier, this is our only chance to really do that in regards annexation. If you would indulge us and my motion would be to move this just to the end of our agenda to give you some opportunity to talk with these folks and, then, we will take it up again at the end. That's what I would like to do. McCandless: Second. De Weerd: Okay. We have a motion to move this to the end of our agenda and a second. All those in favor say aye. Those opposed? All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 13. Public Hearing: RZ 02-008 Request for a Rezone of 1.99 acres from R- 15 to R-40 zones for pro~osed Creekside Arbour II by Bill and Lucy Leavell - 1425 Northeast 5 h Street: Item 14. Public Hearing: CUP 02-040 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for apartment units on 1.99 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for ~roposed Creekside Arbour II by Bill and Lucy Leavell - 1425 Northeast 51 Street: De Weerd: Would you care to take a break or shall we do the next hearing and, then, take a break? Okay thank you. Okay our next item would be 13 and 14, Public Hearings for RZ 02-008, request for rezone of 1.99 acres from R-15 to R-40 zones for the proposed Creekside Arbour I[ and the Public Hearing for CUP 02-040, request for a Conditional Use Permit for apartment units on 1.99 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for Creekside Arbour II. We will open it with staff comments. McKinnon: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. I'll give you a brief outline of the project and, then, stand for questions. On the overhead that we have on the PowerPoint presentation, the area that we will be discussing tonight has been balded. It's just south of Fairview Avenue off of 5th Street. Move forward. The area that we are discussing tonight would be the area that I have highlighted in the center of the project -- in the center of the photo it's the rectangular shaped piece of property. Some older photos. This is, actually, just a continuation of the existing Creekside Arbour Phase 2 this would the Annex Number 2 of Creekside Arbour to the south. It's, actually, to the south and to the east of this project. There already are apartments buildings this Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 35 of 62 is just a continuation of the existing apartment buildings as another phase. Here are some elevations of the buildings for you tonight. Apartment buildings some apartment buildings that we have on site, some photos, and that really ends the photo discussion. If I can go back to the site plan right here just to orient you, this is the road coming in off of -- this is 5th Street coming in off of Fairview Avenue. Fairview Avenue is to the north, so north is to the left on the photo. The applicant has requested this all be zoned R-40, which is in compliance with our Comprehensive Plan, which designates this property as high density residential. Staff supports the rezone onto the Conditional Use Permit for this project and there were, essentially, two things that the applicant proposed that the Commission and staff disagreed with and it was found in the site-specific recommendations of approval. One of those was that they remove all of the proposed rock that they had shown on the perimeter planner adjacent to the fence on the east of the property and on the north side of the property. The applicant had requested that they be able to place rock, instead of organic bark and the other types of ground cover. The Commission recommended that they remove the rock as proposed and replace that with organic. In addition to that, there was a requirement for some additional two-inch caliper trees to be placed between the areas that are now shown as the garbage facilities. If you can -- it's hard to make those all out, but within the project they show the garbage, a three yard dumpster here, one across the driveway here, and one at this location. Our Landscape Ordinance requires that you have no more than 12 lineal -- linear parking spaces aligned in a row without a landscape buffer. Rather than install a landscape buffer, the applicant proposed putting in a garbage dumpster, in lieu of the landscaping, and so we have asked that they either pull the dumpster forward and put an additional tree in there to have landscaping, rather than the garbage in lieu of that. The applicant, I believe, is in agreement with doing that and they will work with staff in order to make arrangements to do that. As I stated before, this is a continuation of an existing project and it's just bringing it closer towards Fairview. It is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, staff does support this, and I stand for any questions. De Weerd: Thank you, Dave. Are there any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Applicant? Raise your right hand. Do you promise and affirm that the testimony you provide tonight is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Knopp: I do. De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address. Knopp: My name is Larry Knopp. My address 355 South 3rd Street, Boise. I'm the architect representing the owner on this project. We have discussed the items on the site-specific requirements with the staff and have agreed on the items that they have discussed. We are in agreement and this is the final phase or the continuation of the project. They have -- we have stubbed in all the utilities, the streets in, we have fenced the perimeter fencing and so this is the final part of this development. Pretty straight forward, I think. Meridian City Council January 21,2003 Page 36 of 62 De Weerd: Okay. Any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Thank you. Knopp: Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. This is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Okay staff, Council, anything else? Thank you. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Is the Council sure, they don't have any public comments? I'll make a motion that we close the Public Hearings on RZ 02-008 and CUP 02-040. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Thank you. It's been moved to close the Public Hearing. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES De Weerd: Thank you. Any discussion? Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve RZ 02-009, request for rezone of 1.99 acres from R-15 to R-40 zones for the proposed Creekside Arbour II by Bill and Lucy Leavell at 1425 Northeast 5th Street, for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order and to incorporate all staff comments. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay it's been moved and seconded to approve the request fo(rezone of RZ 02-008. Is there any further discussion? Okay all those in favor say aye. Those opposed? Oh. I'm sorry roll call vote. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES De Weerd: I got ahead of you on that one. Sorry. Okay. Meridian City Council January 21,2003 Page 37 of 62 Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve CUP 02-040, request for a Conditional Use Permit for apartment units on 1.99 acres in a proposed R-40 zone for the proposed Creekside Arbour II by Bill and Lucy Leavell. 1425 Northeast 5th Street and for the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order and to incorporate all staff comments. McCandless: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 02-040. Mr. Clerk, roll call vote. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. MOTION CARRI ED: ALL AYES De Weerd: Okay I would entertain a motion to take a break for 10 minutes. Nary: So moved. De Weerd: Second? McCandless: Second. Bird: All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES (Recess.) (Reconvened at 9:23 P.M.) Item 10. Public Hearing: AZ 02-024 Request for annexation and zoning of 15.4 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Cobblefield. CrossinQ Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 4450 North Linder Road: Item 11. Public Hearing: PP 02-022 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 building lots and 15 other lots on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossiml Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 4450 North Linder Road: Item 12. Public Hearing: CUP 02-032 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a PUD for 64 single-family detached homes, 8 single-family attached homes and 1 single-family existing home on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone Meridian City Council January 21,2003 Page 38 of 62 for proposed Cobblefield CrossinQ Subdivision by CMD, Inc. - 4450 North Linder Road: De Weerd: Okay. Council, I will bring this meeting back to order at 9:23. I realize that we tabled Items 10, 11, and 12 until the end of our agenda, but it looks like they are out of conference, so -- are the developers and the neighbors -- are you ready to come back up before us? Would Council agree to move this before 15 okay? Nary: They are ready. De Weerd: Okay. Well, Mr. Ralphs, it's nice to have you back. You're already sworn in, so I won't -- I won't make you do it again. Ralphs: Appreciate it. De Weerd: Okay. Well-- Ralphs: If we could go back, Dave, to the -- well, let's see, let's go back to the plat where you can get a really good look at the flag -- one more. There you go. Thank you. In meeting with Mr. English and Mrs. Converse, as we prepared to develop Cobblefield II, which is our second phase here, we are going to work very closely with Mr. English in arranging for this stub street here to the -- enabling him to have access in here. Then, English's and Converse's will work together in creating some type of a circular or a stub street to enable them to have access through here. Then, I guess currently -- and I think it's subject to the winds of change, I guess, but ACHD has agreed to allow an access here off of Linder, but it actually splits that property line, so half of it is on English's and half of it's on French's. That's just a matter of English's and French's have got to work together as far as whoever sells first, to -- or, I'm sorry. Converse. I have been doing that for nine months, do you know that? Sorry but, anyway, as they work -- if they will work together, they can enhance the likelihood of them having access here off of Linder with the current plans that ACHD has with that access point directly opposite Bridgetower. I guess, what we are coming back to the table with is we keep our stub streets where they are, but as we develop Cobblefield II, we make sure that -- Mr. English has indicated that his piece right here is about 250 feet wide. He's not a three lot wide piece. He actually has to have that road centered as much as possible to allow him to have development on both sides. We are going to work with them on getting that stub street placed where he will be able to have that access and I guess, in summary, that's what we had discussed and would work with. De Weerd: Council, any questions for Mr. Ralphs? Bird: I have none. Nary: I don't. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Ralphs: Thank you. Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 39 of 62 De Weerd: It looks like Mr. English has additional testimony? English: I know I'm still under oath and I'm not going to -- Nary: Just state your name again. English: Brian English 4650 North Linder. I guess this all comes back that we are trying to make sure -- and one of the reasons why this issue has come up is ACHD has told me that they are not going to give us any access roads there anymore. They don't want anymore further north and jf that happens and stub roads aren't built in someplace else, and they also perceive McMillan to be 96-foot wide with five lanes and -- we are in a corner where you can't get access for utilities. I'm just trying to make sure we protect our rights for utilities. I'm not opposed to what they are proposing here, I think they have tried to do as good a job as they can, and I think Tawnya is the same way. We are not opposed to that. It's just don't leave us out. Thank you. De Weerd: I appreciate that. Mrs. Converse, do you have anything you would like to add? Just please restate your name. Converse: Tawnya Converse. De Weerd: Thank you if you can pull that mike down a little bit. Converse: You're telling me I'm short. Yes, I mean I don't think it's up to them to do any more than they have already done. I mean they have done an excellent job and it's just we are just stuck and there is no decisions that they can make, everything is up to the city and ACHD as to what happens to our property. I think there is still a lot of ifs, but there is nothing that they can do about it. It's up to you as far as where we can put residents to access our property and what we need to do. I just hate the thought that we have to rely on who sells when and who doesn't, more so my property, because I won't have an east exist, because I don't know, you know -- and I won't have an exit onto Linder, unless the English's would go down the middle, if even that's allowed. That's alii have to say. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I was just going to say, you know, Mr. English did an excellent job of getting this access point into this property on the west side of the road to basically split the difference between the two properties. I think the future is going to be that there wouldn't be two access points off these properties at some point. You know, I think by having that split is probably the best you could get and that's probably the likelihood. I think all we wanted to see tonight -- and not to delay it further -- was that you folks were satisfied as well, but we were concerned about your issues, but also that the developer has made sure we have heard all of them and I think we have. I think you have done -- Meridian City Council January 21 , 2003 Page 40 of 62 I mean they have done the best they can. I think we have done at least at this juncture the best we can, and I think, realistically, as we stated, it's unlikely that ACHD won't allow any access on this property. The likelihood is that it would match up with the road across the street and that would be the only access, though, at some point in the future, so what happens at that point we don't know, but that seems like, from what we have got. That's the best we can do with all three of those pieces of property and the fourth piece, that's probably the best we can do to make them all usable and viable in the future. De Weerd: Well, I think with the Converse piece of property, you will have access out onto Linder at that split point between your property and Mr. English, so you will have that access if you happen to develop before Mr. English and you. Then, will probably be asked to stub to the north to have that access into his property and, then, out onto McMillan at some future date, so -- okay. Are there any other questions from Council? Okay would you like to close the Public Hearing? Nary: I would move to close the Public Hearing. Bird: I would second it. De Weerd: Thank you. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES De Weerd: Okay discussion? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: I would accept a motion by one of you. Nary: If Mr. Bird wants to renew his motion. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve AZ 02-024, the request for annexation and zoning of 15.4 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Incorporated, 4450 North Linder Road and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order and include staff comments. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Well, we have had a motion to approve P -- I'm sorry, AZ 02-024. Mr. Bird, have you considered including in that motion the typical language for the -- any future recommendations regarding the North Meridian Area Plan in terms of that roadway? Meridian City Council January 21,2003 Page 41 of 62 Bird: Yes that was included in staff comments, I believe. Nary: I think we have discussed it. I don't remember if that was in the staff recommendations. We discussed that that was a condition that we have placed in other properties, including the adjacent property. Bird: Yes, that does include that. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: If second accepts. Nary: Yes. De Weerd: Any further discussion? Okay the motion is to approve the request for annexation and zoning for Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision, to include all staff comments, and the additional language on the roadways. Mr. Clerk. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALLAYES De Weerd: Okay Item Number 11, PP 02-022. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we approve PP 02-022, the request for Preliminary Plat approval of 73 building lots, and 15 other lots on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Incorporated, 4450 North Linder Road. For the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order and to leave the stub roads as shown on the Preliminary Plat as now. Nary: Second. De Weerd: It's been moved and seconded to approve the Preliminary Plat for Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision any further discussion? Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Bird, there was the question of that -- about the alternatives on the site- specific conditions, whether the -- in regards to the existing house. There is the either/or to leave -- Bird: The either/or -- Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 42 of 62 Nary: -- or to eliminate the first option, which would require that the access be not on Linder, but on the -- Bird: And he said that the applicant agreed to that as the way we have it. Yes, That's fine, Nary: So we would eliminate the first of the either/or? Bird: Yes. Nary: Okay. I agree. De Weerd: Is the fencing issue on the Preliminary Plat or on the CUP? I thought you could answer that quicker than I could find it on my-- McKinnon: I believe it's in the Preliminary Plat. It was a requirement that they submit a fencing plan with the Final Plat. De Weerd: Yes, Nary: Condition 5 I think he said they would agree to put a hot wire or whatever to eliminate any potential damage to the fence. De Weerd: Okay. Nary: So that would -- I guess that would be part of the conditions that -- De Weerd: Okay so are you ready for the question? Nary: Yes, De Weerd: We don't need roll call vote on this -- McCandless: Yes, we do. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Oh so, Mr. Bird, roll call vote. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. De Weerd: Okay Item Number 12, CUP 02-032. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve CUP 02-032, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a PUD for 64 single-family detached houses, eight single-family attached houses, and one single-family existing home on 15.4 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for the proposed Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 43 of 62 Cobblefield Crossing Subdivision by CMD, Incorporated, 4450 North Linder Road. For the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order and to include all staff comments. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay it's been moved and seconded to approve the Conditional Use Permit 02-032. Mr. Berg, roll call vote. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. De Weerd: Thank you very much. Appreciate your working together on this. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 15. Public Hearing: Wireless Communications Tower Ordinance: De Weerd: Okay Item Number 15, Public Hearing for the Wireless Communication Tower Ordinance. Mr. McKinnon, we'll start with the staff comment. McKinnon: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. You should have received three different sets of ordinances tonight and, as we stated, we are just going to talk first about the Wireless Communications Tower Ordinance. The reason that this is before you tonight is the Planning and Zoning Commission has made the recommendation to you that this should be adopted and it basically does a few things for the city. One -- first of all, it sets the standards. Currently, we have no standards for cell towers. Someone comes in, automatically, it's an unlisted use, and it's a Conditional Use Permit. We have no standards for design or no standards for location, so this will give us some standards. The second thing this ordinance will do for us, it will provide some guidelines for stealth towers. We would like to encourage the use of stealth towers and have made it easier to receive approval for stealth towers and to allow stealth towers in residential districts through a Conditional Use Permit where a standard cell tower would not be allowed. Finally, what this ordinance does is it provides additional noticing requirement that people within 600 feet of the proposed cell tower receive notification, rather than the standard 300 feet for that. We will be able to notice more people, we will have some design standards, and we will be able to encourage the type of cell towers in Meridian that we would like. Among the standards that we would be adopting would be a co-location standard, which would require people that build towers in the City of Meridian to provide those towers to be available for other people to provide their services on the tower. Rather than have Meridian turn into a cell tower farm with numerous cell towers, you would have one cell tower with at least two, if not three, accompanying uses on that. That's it in a nutshell. I assume that you have had the opportunity to read through this ordinance and I stand and ask if you have any questions at this time. De Weerd: Council, do you have any comments or questions? Nary: Madam President? ( Meridian City Council January 21,2003 Page 44 of 62 De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: This is just a really minor thing, Dave, but as I was looking through this, the definition of wireless communication facility -- McKinnon: Sure. Nary: -- the definition says a steel monopole, guy wire tower. Is that the right term? Isn't it guide wire? It's not a guy wire. McKinnon: I think so. Spell check doesn't catch that. Nary: And I'm not -- I wasn't trying to be funny, like I usually am, but I just didn't know. didn't know if that was really a term. I thought it was guide. McKinnon: Guy wire. I have seen it spelled guy wire and that's -- from the material I had it was guy wire, but I could be totally wrong with that. Nary: I just didn't know if that was the right term or if that was a -- McKinnon: I believe that's the term that's used in other ordinances that would be used for modeling was the guy wire and that's one of the types that we would like to discourage. Nary: So it must be guy wire. McKinnon: It must be correct. One other thing to point out is -- as I was going through this ordinance, the recommendation was this be Chapter 22 of the Zoning Ordinance. I recognize that once we got passed 11-22-2, rather than have 22 written in like on the definition, it says 11 dash question mark dash three, if you could replace all the question marks with 22, that would be very appropriate. Nary: I also won't comment that I used to read Captain Musser's reports as Officer Musser, but I'm still going to trust him to use the term here. McKinnon: I have had the opportunity to talk with numerous people in the business of wireless communication towers. A lot of them felt that this was very appropriate to have something in place. They didn't necessarily agree with the restrictiveness of it, but they felt it was very important that each city that they work with have some sort of guidelines, so that they know how to plan and how to designate locations where they can build those poles. Many of them that I talked to said this is very fair and the inclusion of stealth towers is something that they encourage in the future as well, however, they are much more expensive to the people building them. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 45 of 62 Nary: Just one question, David, and it's probably here and I just didn't see it, but I like the 600-foot noticing requirement for those that require a CUP, but is there a -- is that because there is a height requirement to have a CUP if it isn't a stealth tower? McKinnon: No. The require for a Conditional Use Permit is that if you're trying to -- a stealth tower in a residential zone or the Old Town zone or a C-N zone, would require a Conditional Use Permit for a stealth tower. Then, in all the other zones it would require a Conditional Use Permit. Nary: So is there any concern, then, that if you're building a stealth tower, you're going to put a tower inside a steeple that's already existing -- McKinnon: Okay. Nary: -- and the intent is that it's not even going to be noticeable at all, we are going to send notice to 600 feet away on something they are not even going to see. Doesn't that -- is that worth -- I heard you say that sometimes people felt it was maybe more restrictive, but doesn't that seem a little onerous to -- if you're building a stealth tower? I understand if you're building a 50-foot tower or, you know, a 75-foot tower, that looks just like a big lattice antenna, because you would give larger notice, because it's so visible from such a long way away, but if you're building a stealth tower, it seems to sort of defeat the purpose of doing it. McKinnon: I think that would be a very appropriate amendment to be added to that, that stealth towers not be required to have any additional notification. If you'd like to take that a step further, we could eliminate the stealth tower Conditional Use Permit requirement from those that want to build in the residential areas. That would be 11-22- 5.2, stealth towers, otherwise, hidden facilities, may be permitted through the Conditional Use process, if you -- the easiest way might be just to strike that, rather than having to go through the Conditional Use Permit process, which would require notification in the first place, just allow those per staff. Nary: Madam President, I guess -- because to me, if the issue is if the Zoning Administrator determines that it isn't a stealth tower and the person believes that it is, then, we could address that issue or whether it's applicable to this condition use. If the intent is to encourage, essentially, non-visible antennas, that's what we want them to do, so it doesn't make much sense to make it more onerous to have them go out and do that. That seems reasonable to me. I don't know about any -- . McKinnon: It seems very reasonable to me as well. Bird: I agree with that. McKinnon: So, the way of handling that -- would you want to modify 11-22-5-A.2, which says that stealth towers and otherwise hidden facilities in the R-15 and R-40, C-N, Old Town zones, be permitted through the Certificate of Zoning Compliance process or the Conditional Use Permit process? Meridian City Council January 21,2003 Page 46 of 62 Nary: Yes at least that way there would be a check for someone that it is compliant, that it is a stealth tower, and that somebody doesn't say it is when it isn't. Like I said, if they disagree, they could certainly appeal that to Planning and Zoning Commission or to us or however that would work. They could certainly have an appeal to make -- I don't think they are shut out if the Planning and Zoning Department says it's not and they say it is, they are just stuck, I assume they would have a way to appeal that decision and be able to deal with that. McKinnon: That's correct, Councilman. Nary: But a Certificate of Zoning Compliance is probably adequate for those types of constructives. McKinnon: So, you'd like the modification to be made to strike Conditional Use Permit process and replace that with Certificate of Zoning Compliance? Nary: Yes. McKinnon: Okay. De Weerd: It looks like you have much of the consent of the industry, since they are not here, and they certainly have had a long enough time period to comment. It seems to have been going on forever. Mr. Berg, do you have a comment? Berg: Yes, Madam President, just to make known, again, that Dave referred to the people within 600 feet that are still just the property owners. McKinnon: That's correct. Berg: Not the residents, not the people living there renting, it's the property owners, and that's how it is conformed with all of our other notifications. De Weerd: Thank you for that clarification. Okay Dave, I appreciate all the work you have put into this, because there has been a great deal from the first draft we have received, you have added a number of papers, so I appreciate the thoroughness in what you have put into the detail on this any other comments, Council? Okay let's -- this is a Public Hearing and I see some people out there that want to comment. Do any of our two reporters or ACHD representative want to -- okay? Council? ' Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we close the Public Hearing for the Wireless Communication Tower Ordinance. Nary: Second. Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 47 of 62 De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES De Weerd: Okay. It's-- Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Yes. Bird: The proper thing right now, if we agree with this -- we evidently do, we instruct David to -- if we make a motion to instruct David to have, an ordinance brought forward? De Weerd: They need it prepared. Bird: Yes. That's what I mean. Nary: Does it need to go to the Planning and Zoning first? McKinnon: This was recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission to you. Bird: So what we do is recommend the drafting of it and bringing it forward? De Weerd: Is that a motion? Bird: That's a motion. De Weerd: Do I have a second? McCandless: Second. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay it's been moved and seconded to prepare the appropriate documents for the Wireless Communication Tower Ordinance for approval. All those -- Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Just to make it clear for the record, that would include the amendment to 11-22- 5.A-2, that stealth towers may be permitted with a Certificate of Zoning Compliance, rather than a Conditional Use Permit. Bird: Yes. De Weerd: First and second agrees? Meridian City Council January 21 , 2003 Page 48 of 62 Nary: Yes. McCandless: Yes. De Weerd: That's-- McCandless: Yes, I do. Nary: Me, too. De Weerd: Now, on this, I don't need roll call, but when we pass it, we do? Okay. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All Ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 16. Public Hearing: Amendment to Meridian City Code 11-2-2, Definitions of the Zoning Regulations Ordinance: De Weerd: Dave, Item Number 16. This is very exciting to see on here. I have been waiting for -- these next two for, I think, over a year, year and a half. You started working on that a long time ago. Nary: Good things come to those who wait. De Weerd: Yes. Thank you. We have a patient staff. It is a Public Hearing. I will open the Public Hearing and for staff comments. McKinnon: Item Number 16 you have in front of you tonight is basically just a list of definitions of uses that we have shown on our schedule of use control that we do not have defined. When someone comes to us and says what is a machine shop, we have now something that would allow us to say a machine shop is -- and we have a definition. It gets rid of some of the ambiguity in our code by us being able to fit things in, which might not necessarily fit. It provides some clear guidelines as to what certain uses are and what the city expects out of those certain uses. That's all I have for you. There are a number of definitions some that were added. Again, this has been recommended to you for approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission, they held a Public Hearing there was no comment at that Public Hearing, other than discussion between staff and the Commission. I'd ask if you have any questions. De Weerd: Okay. Council, do you have any questions? Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: David, I think it's wonderful. I agree with the Council President. I did notice in the documents we have that mobile was deleted and manufactured home community was added in. Those are the only ones that show highlights and add-ins. Is there a reason for that? Is that just how the document came out or is it something else? Meridian City Council January 21,2003 Page 49 of 62 McKinnon: I'm sorry about that, Madam President, Commissioner -- Councilman Nary still having a hard time with that. Nary: So do a lot of other people. McKinnon: These are all new ones, they should all be underlined, as they are all new, and the formatting just came out odd on that. Mobile should be stricken. The highlighting -- I'm not sure why it is highlighted. That would be my error, but we are striking mobile and replacing that with manufactured is the intent of that. Nary: So it was intended to highlight those differently. All of these are new and -- McKinnon: That's correct. Nary: Okay. De Weerd: That will be corrected in the final version any other questions? Okay is there anyone else who would like to testify on this -- on Item Number 16? Just have to ask. Okay. Council, I'll entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Nary: So moved. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES De Weerd: Okay. Discussion? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Then, I would pray for a motion. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I'd move that we have staff prepare the amendments to the Meridian 'City Code 11-15-5 of -- or, excuse me, 11-2-2 of Definitions, Zoning Regulation Ordinance, and return those to the City Council in due course. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay there is motion to approve the amendment to Meridian City Code 11- 2-2 and ask for the appropriate paperwork to be drawn up. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 50 of 62 MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 17. Public Hearing: Amendment to Meridian City Code 11-15-5, Postinq Rea u irements: De Weerd: Okay. J will open the Public Hearing for Item Number 17, Amendment to Meridian City Code 11-15-5, and Posting Requirements. Dave. McKinnon: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. This one I'm going to spend -- this ordinance I will spend a little bit more time on, than I did the previous two. If I could have you all turn to Exhibit A, I will explain to you the format that this is in and explain to you some of the changes. In Exhibit A, this -- the first part is basically some housekeeping. Currently, the ordinance reads that the applicant needs to provide the City Clerk with a list of property owners and that's not how this process has been working for a number of years. The Planning and Zoning Department has been providing this list of names for a number of years to the applicant. In addition to that, we have requested -- the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended striking the language that any additional area that may be impacted by said application, as determined by the Zoning Administrator. The reason that we asked for that to be stricken, the part regarding the Zoning Administrator making the determination, is so that there would not be any ambiguity in code. Rather than having someone come in and, then, having Brad or whoever the new Planning Director would be, say we think additional people should be noticed. Then, in the future they say this wasn't handled correctly, this was ambiguous, you made this requirement -- you did not make this requirement on other people, it would keep us out of any of those discussions. If you'd like to have that flexibility that can definitely be placed back in. I as a staff person, would always like to collar that as much as possible and leave the ambiguities as much out of the equation as possible in order to maintain equality for all applicants. Then, finally, on that is city staff will do the notice -- will do the mailings and that's how it has been done for a number years, but it wasn't written that way in the code. That's some housekeeping issues. On Item Number 2, the requirements of the applicant rather than have the posting notice for one week, we've asked that the posting be done 10 days prior to the hearing. That just provides the additional measure of public notice, rather than the statement of seven, just set a standard of 10 days prior to the hearing. Those would be calendar days, not business days. The Land Use Planning Act in their references to postings or notices, they use the same language regarding 10 days versus seven days prior to the hearing and those would be understood as calendar days. De Weerd: Mr. Berg? Berg: Excuse me, Madam President. I don't understand the term calendar days. McKinnon: Consecutive days, rather than business days, including Saturdays and Sundays. Berg: Okay the only reason I say that, because we just reversed some of that stuff in the election law, to not include Saturday and Sunday as days counting, but that's okay. I just wanted to -- Meridian City Council January 21,2003 Page 51 of 62 McKinnon: Okay we are intending on counting Saturdays and Sundays. Berg: Okay. It's clear. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. McKinnon: There is a statement that we eliminated that we added later. Under Item Number 2, it states that the applicant delivers a notarized statement they have posted it and we have added that in another location further into the report, rather than at this location, and we set forth some new signage requirements. The new signage requirements model similar to Eagle's. Eagle has the large four-by-four postings and they have it on four-by-four plywood mounted onto four-by-four posts at least three feet above the ground. On the back of your application you should -- on the back of your packet you should see the posting requirements by the city. It gives you an example of what it looks like and this is the direction that we would like them to go with that and the requirements go forward in explaining how that needs to be done, under what sizes and what requirements. If you could flip to the next page for Item Number 3 not in keeping in line -- or not keeping in line with Eagle, we have added some exceptions to those requirements that some Conditional Use Permit applications, such as group child care homes, annexations, Preliminary Plat applications that contain less than five acres of land. Also, rezone and Camp Plan amendments that are less than three acres in size can use the smaller 11-by-17 notifications. We felt that it would be appropriate for the smaller types of projects to have a smaller type of posting, rather than a large four-by- four sign in front of a single family home for a group child care. We felt that that was overkill and that an 11-by-17 would be appropriate. And so you may have some discussion tonight as to what sizes those should be, staff would encourage some discussion on those items, and what items should or should not be required to meet the new noticing requirements. Again, there is some additional language concerning the requirement for the postings. The little D under all of this states that signs need to be removed three days after the Public Hearing. Currently, we have nothing that requires that they be removed. There are a lot of 11-by-17 signs that are strewn throughout the city that have never been removed. This is just a safeguard to require that they be removed after the hearing. Item Number 3 on this page is something that we had a lot of discussion with at the Commission, both on August 29th and at the last Commission meeting that I attended in December. We talked a lot about neighborhood meetings and whether or not we should make it a requirement for all applications that come to the Planning and Zoning Commission to have a neighborhood meeting. We talked about whether we should exempt some uses from that and we decided ratherthan'to exempt some uses, such as we have with the noticing requirements. We felt that if we worded the language too -- worded it so that the language was that we strongly encourage them to have a neighborhood meeting, that in our pre-applications that we strongly encourage them to do that. Let them know at that time that if they don't do it and the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council feel that it is necessary, the Planning and Zoning Commission could make it a requirement at that. They would have their forewarning from staff, they have the language that says it's strongly encouraged, and they have language that says the Planning and Zoning Commission and Council could make it a requirement. It sets them forth on notice that they should do it, if they don't do it, they Meridian City Council January 21 , 2003 Page 52 of 62 may have to do one anyways, it will slow down their application, and that's the way we ended that discussion and this is the recommendation that came to you. Additional discussion on that, I would encourage that. Like I said, there was a great deal of discussion on those -- on that issue, on the neighborhood meetings. We do have, like I said, the final page of this, it gives the outlines for how signs should look. It gives some size guidelines for the size of letters and with that, I'd stand for any questions that you might have concerning the new noticing standards that were recommended to you by the Planning and Zoning Commission. De Weerd: Thank you, Dave. Council, do you have any questions? Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess the one thing -- I did bring up a couple of things to Dave before the meeting and I'll just put those on the record as well. I did propose today to leave more flexibility on the additional noticing and the reason -- the reason for that -- and if the rest of you don't agree with that, that's fine, but we can't foresee every single thing that can come along and I agree that how you cut and dry 300 feet is very, very simple. The intent of this ordinance is to make sure people know what's happening and what we listen to and hear over and over from folks is I didn't know. I didn't know, I didn't see the sign, I never -- I don't read the newspaper. I don't come to City Hall to see the postings, I had no idea until my neighbor down the street told me, hey, did you know they were going to build something over there. If our intent is to make sure people know and that's really all this is about, then, there should be some flexibility. We can build safeguards in there -- I mean if we aren't being arbitrary, then, we have to be able to support -- the Zoning Administrator has to support why they want additional notice, whether it's because the type of use that's being proposed is going to impact the school. The school district is 350 feet away, that's the nearest school, and they feel that the school district still should be notified about it, then, I think that's reasonable. I think if it's -- we can either limit the additional footage, you can leave it open ended as it was, you can, you know, add an additional buffer, another 100 feet or another 300 feet, that they have the flexibility and they have to identify the uses and the reasons for it. It isn't just arbitrary, but it has something that the Planning and Zoning Administrator has to identify why it is necessity to do that. Again, if a person has an issue with that, they can bring that up, but I do think the intent is to make sure people are aware of what we are doing and what's happening around them. As this city grows, more and more and more, especially in the north, but allover, we are going to hear that more often. We hear it all the time now. I'd rather just have that level of flexibility, so that they can do that and do that if it's necessary. The other thing I had mentioned today was on that section -- I think it's Section 2-A -- excuse me. Section 2-C, about providing an affidavit or notarized statement that they did comply with the posting requirements and what I suggested to Dave and he commented is they have a photograph. It seems like everybody has a camera or everybody has a digital camera, that they provide a photograph, because the other thing we hear a lot of is, well, there is a sign, it's this little rinky-dink sign and you can't read it it's too small. I know we have tried to adjust some of those things, but, you know, again, I'd like to be able to tell somebody here is what Meridian City Council January 21,2003 Page 53 of 62 the person said was there. Here is a picture of it, you know, is that on the property, because if there is an issue, at least we have some idea of what it looks like. Many times we have asked the same question, well, where was it, what did it look like, and did it comply. It's not a big thing. On the neighborhood meetings issue, I guess I didn't chat with Dave about this. I like the idea of having a neighborhood meeting. I guess my only thought is, is that I think we just need to fish or cut bate. I think we need -- is the neighborhood meeting important or is it not. To strongly encourage them is great, but if you had somebody go through the entire process and come here before us and we say you should have had a neighborhood meeting, why don't you go back and start over and have a neighborhood meeting. By that point they are all mad, all the neighbors are mad, and, eventually, what we seem to find when they get here is they are mad at us. They are not mad at anybody else anymore, they are mad at us. To, then, send them back out the door to do it over is going to make it worse and they are not going to reach any concessions. Many, many times we have seen developers, especially the ones that develop a lot in Boise where it's mandatory to do it, do it routinely, because that's just the way it gets done. They also know that it solves some problems. Tonight we probably wouldn't have had the same issue if they had had a neighborhood meeting. We have seen many of these projects that probably would have been done a lot smoother if they had it or at least we would have identified the issues that they couldn't agree on a lot better if we would have done that. It can be very onerous and I recognize that if we put it on every one -- and maybe what we need to do is identify the types of projects that it needs to be done on, but I think strongly encouraging is nice, but I don't know that it's going to get anything. We have seen so many developers I think, come in here, and say you don't require it, so we didn't do it. We are just going to argue to you on whether we want it and they will ignore it and do what they want. I'm tired of that. I think of our intent, people have notice they have an opportunity for input, to try to work those problems out before they get here. Then, I think we make it mandatory and maybe we just identify what it is that we think the types of projects that we need that for. Oh, and the other thing -- and if we are going to do that, then, I think what we want to make clear is that the noticing requirements are the same as what it is in the first part, so to make sure the language is the same. It will allow the Zoning Administrator to expand the mailing, we will make the language of the neighborhood reflect the same and mail. We don't want them -- we don't want to notice two different people, we want to make sure we notice everybody the same. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nary. I had that same thought on at least the neighborhood meetings. I would be in support of it. I know Boise does it. I don't know if Nampa does it or not. I know they have talked about it. I don't know if they have done that or not but people that are building in Ada County and getting used to that, are developing and it's - - it does make things a little bit more clear going into the development specifically what the concerns are. What staff and the decision-making body needs to really concentrate on so, Keith or Cherie, do you have any comments? Bird: I agree with you. McCandless: I agree. Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 54 of 62 De Weerd: Okay. Well, since Mr. Nary has been through here with a fine tooth comb, we wiJllook to him to make the motion, but it is a Public Hearing and I would invite any comments from those that are still with us, do you have any comments you'd like to make on the public record? Any staff? McKinnon: Madam President? De Weerd: Dave. McKinnon: Members of the Council, just a couple things. Just to go back through what Councilman Nary touched on tonight. As far as the inclusion of land area that would be as determined by the Zoning Administrator, some sort of constraints or guidelines for that, as to when and what he could do I believe would be very appropriate. From time to time developers can feel that the Zoning Administrator is more of an adversary than an ally and I don't want to be in a position where, you know, that the Director of Planning has to make justification without having any guidelines or constraints in place. De Weerd: You could add, or his designee. McKinnon: No. No it's not so much one person or his or her designee, it's just that if you had standards -- De Weerd: I'm sorry, Dave. I am making light of your comment. McKinnon: Thank you. Got it the picture requirement that Councilman Nary brings up, that would be 2-C, the applicant shall submit a notarized statement and include language regarding a picture for that. Staff would have no objection to that. That's a great comment. I know that some cities actually do, do that, and require that. It's very important sometimes -- I have actually seen where people have removed the notices after they have been posted and if we have a picture documentation that shows that it was done, it's very helpful. On to the discussion on neighborhood meetings, that Councilman Nary discussed we have no objection as staff to requiring the neighborhood meetings, but if we do require the neighborhood meetings for all applicants or limited them, some additional restrictions should be required. Boise City with their application requires that they submit -- they have their neighborhood meetings prior to submission of the application. In addition to that, they have set forth guidelines that say if you're going to have a neighborhood meeting, you have to notice them at least seven days in advance, so they have an opportunity to plan for it. It doesn't help if they get a notice that says tonight we are going to have the neighborhood meeting. It doesn't give them an opportunity to stand for that so some additional language would need to 'be placed into that if there is a requirement for the neighbor meetings. Staff wouldn't object to that, but some additional language should and could be included in that. Some minor wordsmithing of the language that's been recommended to you tonight by the Commission could be accomplished in a matter of a few minutes. It would take some time just to sit down and figure out what that is and whether you want it to match up with Boise City's directly or if you'd like to modify that to meet with whatever you would like, that would be fine as well. I can provide either for you in a short period of time, but I think some additional requirements should be added if we are going to, as Commissioner Nary said, fish or cut bate. It sounds like we want to fish, but we got to Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 55 of 62 set something that -- to be guidelines for that and I think that those would be appropriate to add. De Weerd: Mr. Nary always comes up with some new quotable terms. Mr. Nichols, do you have comment? Nichols: Thank you, Madam President. With regard to the neighborhood meetings issue, if it -- it if comes down to that becomes a point where you want more action on it, we could simply pull that out, adopt the rest of the standards. Staff can continue to work on the neighborhood meeting section and bring it back to you as a separate additional amendment. If -- when you see what Boise City has on those items and think maybe it doesn't really work for Meridian, we can pull that out, set it aside, just simply have the other things that you have talked about, and adopt those. It doesn't have to be an all or nothing, just to remind you and I know you know that, but just a reminder that that might help speed some of this along. De Weerd: Thank you, Mr. Nichols. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I'm -- since I'm the one that brought it up, I would be more than willing to work with Dave and maybe we can put some language together, the two of us. We can certainly bring something back within three weeks -- three or four weeks. I mean I don't know that there is an urgency that we do this tonight -- I mean I think we want to get this accomplished, but I think we need to at least bring back a proposal within three or four weeks. De Weerd: I was going to give you five minutes. Nary: Or two weeks but at least three or four weeks and that way we have time to at least look at that and see if we want to use the type of requirements Boise City has or we want to change them, make them a little better, streamline them a little bit, easier to give better guidance. We can bring that -- and I agree with Mr. Nichols, if we don't like that, if we want to spend more time, we can certainly separate it at that point, but I think in three or four weeks, David, I could probably meet, get it accomplished, and at least get something back to you. De Weerd: So would Council like to go ahead and make a motion on the rest of those, to exclude the neighborhood meeting section? Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: We can either do it that way, which would be my preference, but Councilman Nary thought that they -- we didn't -- it wouldn't be necessary to do that if they can get back with the whole thing in three to four weeks. I guess we continue the Public Hearing -- Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 56 of 62 we can continue the Public Hearing or we can close the Public Hearing and make a motion to take that out, pass everything else and -- De Weerd: Yes. I think probably Mr. Berg just mumbled a comment that it might have to go back to Planning and Zoning and he does have a good point, by taking this out of the document. It will at least allow us to go ahead and move forward on the noticing requirements and, then, let the amendment go through the appropriate channels. Even if you come back in three or four weeks, it will still probably need to go back to Planning and Zoning, because it would be a significant change. McKinnon: Madam President, Members of the Council, and our Legal Department, that would be a question I have, is at what point does it necessarily have to go back? Is it at the Council's discretion as to whether or not the change is significant or is there some bright line definition of what significant would be? Nichols: Madam President, Members of the Council, I can't remember exactly what the code says. I think it just -- maybe Councilman Nary can help me out if he remembers, but it seems to me that there is required to be -- all the zoning amendments have to go in front of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I believe that may be a State Statute requirement. If all we are doing is saying neighbor meetings are mandatory, I don't know that that's a significant change. Then, if we go into what they have to say and how it's laid out, what they have to have in the meeting and those kind of actual structure of the meeting that may be a significant change. Then, again, I'm not so sure that even -- that on this particular type of an ordinance, if you did go ahead and make the change, brought them back here, didn't go back to P&Z and you adopted the ordinance. I'm not sure that that would be a -- I just don't think it would be a successful challenge to the ordinance under those circumstances. Those that would have been interested could have been here to see what the actual change was, but maybe the development community wouldn't view mandatory neighbor meetings as a huge change. McKinnon: Madam President, Members of the Council, as I was reviewing what I have written here, I have actually included all of those standards that are in the Boise City. Standard, just as should, instead of shall language that they should attempt to notify homeowners within 300 feet, that they should either be hand delivered or mailed to the recipient at least five days prior to the meeting. All that language is in there, it's just rather than having shall language, it has suggestive language. The simplest thing to do would be to change the shoulds to shalls, to get rid of the permissive language, make it a requirement, and, then, we could have the additional statement that ,.they submit something upon application that they have had the neighborhood meeting. An affidavit of legal -- an affidavit of -- someone help me out -- an affidavit that says they have had their neighborhood meeting, a letter that says when it was, who attended, that could be a simple statement to be added to that. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 57 of 62 Nary: I guess the one concern -- and I was trying to look at the Planning and Zoning Commission's requirements on the issue they reviewed, because the amendments of the code don't require that we have a Public Hearing. It's just -- it is just a legislative function, but it doesn't require that. I certainly know -- I certainly think of both sides, that if you were a developer and we had discretionary language requiring them to have a neighborhood meeting, they may not care. If you're required to now have a neighborhood meeting and that's going to impact you to do your business, as well as some additional cost, I mean you have to rent a room and something else to have an actual meeting, maybe you would want to come and tell us that that's not such a great idea. I do think that there probably maybe needs to be some further discussion about that. We are not necessarily bound by that, but I couldn't find quickly on how much leeway after the Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed it and made a recommendation to us that we need to send it back to them, because we have made some significant changes. I agree also, with what Mr. Nichols said, that we certainly -- there hasn't been any input, really, from the outside community on that. It may be -- it may be something to -- as was suggested earlier, to separate that particular piece out at this juncture. Since we don't have it, it's not hurting us. If we want to sit down and come up with some things and see whether or not we get some further input if we make it mandatory from people like the building contractors and those types -- and defining what types of situations require a neighborhood meeting, then, maybe we would get some better input, that might be better. The only other issue we had talked about -- and I guess I'm not reading everybody very well tonight. We had talked about the issue regarding providing more notice on whether or not the Zoning Administrator has the flexibility to require more notice and potentially more fees if it's beyond the cost of what's already being done on whether or not we want to allow that. I think it gives the city more flexibility in situations where it's warranted and right now I guess I just always hate the answer of that's the rule and we can't do anything else. I think we'd rather have some flexibility. Is that a significant enough change to require Planning and Zoning to rehear that -- that, again, I don't know. Would a developer have been concerned about it enough to say, wait a minute, you're going to make me post it 600 feet away -- or give notice 600 feet away, I certainly would have -- and pay an extra fee for it, would I have come and had some concern about that. I guess it's always a possibility, but, I don't know, I guess I'll leave it to all of you. If you don't want to do that, but I just think we'd rather have more flexibility, as much as we legally can, to give us the ability to make sure that there is adequate notice out there to the public, so that's not a concern. Nichols: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nichols. Nichols: A couple of suggestions. One is on the last point. Staff can certainly insert a limiting language, such as up to an additional 300 feet, which would, then, limit the discretion of the Zoning Administrator. I would think that if this issue was really a burning issue with the development community, they would have been at one, either the P&Z or here to say, yes, this is a great thing to take this discretion out, make it a bright line standard that we can live with and they are not here. With regard to the neighborhood meetings issue, if you think you're going to make it mandatory, I would Meridian City Council January 21,2003 Page 58 of 62 just encourage you to leave this permissive language in for now. Then, clean it up with whatever you want for mandatory, so that at least you start the ball rolling, start them thinking about this issue of being strongly encouraged, and perhaps required later, so that you have started that part of it. Don't just not address it -- or I'll go ahead, leave it in, and continue with it, but just work to make it mandatory, if that's your pleasure. De Weerd: What's your pleasure? Mr. Berg remember, Keith's not feeling well, let's not prolong th is too long. Bird: Don't make me the -- Berg: I'm sorry, Madam President, I'll forego my input and let you go about-- De Weerd: Well, I will use an excuse. Mr. Berg, did you have something? You can comment. Berg: Okay quickly, I just had a couple things, is I don't know on some property if we need to address a site triangle issue. These things are going to be up three-foot off the ground and making you have not in the right of way or anything like that, but we do have sight triangle issues on some corner properties, especially if they are small parcels that may not have much of a width. Another concern was a four-by-four post. I know that's really nice, but sometimes in the wintertime it's tough to get -- dig up posts. Just didn't know if that was ever thought of or if you have some exceptions to that. Just a third thing was on the example that you used, if you're trying to follow exactly what you did on your example, you had the Public Hearing notice centered, but your example doesn't show it centered. Another thing is I think somewhere we should have City of Meridian somewhere on there that stands out, showing that this is a City of Meridian project. I know that you have listed some of the wording, I presume that's just suggested wording, or is that mandatory wording? The reason I say that is because as you get closer and closer to some of these other cities, it might be important that they know City of Meridian, City of Boise, not in little letters. Another question is if this is an example, do we need to put the address of where Meridian City Hall is or where ever we are going to have the hearing, like just what our notice says if they have a question about the item, if they have a phone number, they can call? That's just kind of going off of what we have on our little 11-by-17 yellow sheets. Not saying you can see them from the road, but that's what we have on those. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I think we might be a week or two early on this application. I think we need to -- because we have got so many different departments involved in posting of the notices -- I mean, evidently, the Clerk's Office hadn't even seen this revised notification. I would continue this for another week and let's get the things -- let's get it back so that we look professional and get all the departments that have anything to do with it okayed on it and that includes Mr. Nary, too, Councilman Nary. No, I'm -- I want him to be in on the wording of it. That would be my motion. Meridian City Council January 21. 2003 Page 59 of 62 De Weerd: Okay. There is a motion on the floor-- Nary: Second. De Weerd: -- to continue this until next week and a second. AI] those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRI ED: ALL AYES De Weerd: Okay do you have a clear indication, Dave, of what all you need to clarify? McKinnon: Madam President, Members of the Council, I think I do. Get some direction from you, would you like additional language as proposed by Legal Counsel to add up to an additional 300 feet, so the Zoning Administrator has some discretion? Move forward to 2-C, to add language regarding adding a picture to be submitted to the City Clerk's Office. De Weerd: Yes. McKinnon: Item Number 3, the neighborhood meetings. As we stated early, we want to go fishing, so we want to add that, possibly. I like what Mr. Nichols had to say about adding it now and, then, in the future we can move forward with it. Would you like to see some alternative language for that and leave this the way it is and have some alternative language as well? Nary: Madam President? I think on this one, I would leave it the way it is, other than to make sure that the noticing requirement and the neighborhood meeting is the same as the noticing requirements of the CUP. Let's leave it at this, as Mr. Nichols suggested, but let's work towards seeing whether or not mandatory wil] work. We want to get some better input from developers groups and things like that, so that way they are not getting caught unaware that they are being required to have now an additional meeting that may have more impact on them than the discretion right now. McKinnon: No problem. Going on to the page with the example, as noted by our City Clerk, he said that it needs to be noticed per the requirement of the ordinance. Would you like me to make that change? 1'1] just go ahead and make that. Do you want the additional language as suggested by Mr. Berg, to have the City of Meridian, the address of the location of the meeting, and a phone number added to the sign? Nary: Yes. McKinnon: Okay all those wil] be done. If I can address one issue that Will brought up that was extraneous to that, was the sight triangle, and our Sign Ordinance does address the issue of sight triangles. That's not an issue per the Sign Ordinance. The idea of a four-by-four post, an alternative to that in the frozen ground, the only thing I can think of that would be an alternative to that would be the type of signage that's allowed for street signs, where you have a base and, then, they put sand bags on it to keep it from blowing over. I don't know if that's the most appropriate way of doing it. It looks like a temporary sign. Some additional input, if you have some, would be Meridian City Council January 21, 2003 Page 60 of 62 welcomed by staff as to what type of alternative that might be, or if you would like us to pursue alternatives. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I'd only suggest that the reference to the sign ordinance be included in here, so that they know what the sight triangle requirements are. I think probably just some language in that Section A -- would that be the appropriate place -- some language there that said, you know, alternative -- alternative posting would have to be approved by the Planning and Zoning Administrator. McKinnon: Right and the requirement of three feet above the ground and, then, in accordance with the Sign Ordinance. Nary: The only other thing, Dave, that I think would be important to, again, provide some balance is that additional 300 feet that the Planning and Zoning Administrator has discretion to require additional noticing, would have to identify the locations. The reasons for the additional noticing, so that the applicant knows that it isn't arbitrary, the person would have to identify it's the schools, it's these homes, this apartment complex, whatever -- the reason why. McKinnon: Okay I can add all that. When would you guys like to see this back with those corrections? De Weerd: It was moved, seconded, and passed next week. McKinnon: Next week? I will get it done tomorrow morning while it's still fresh in my head. De Weerd: Thanks, Dave. McKinnon: Thank you. Item 18. Water, Sewer, and Trash Delinquencies: De Weerd: Okay moving on. Item 18, Water, Sewer, and Trash Delinquencies this is to inform you in writing, if you so choose, that you have the right to a predetermination hearing at 7:00 P.M. -- I'm not sure why this says 7:30, but 7:00, Tuesday, January 21, 2003, before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and to defend a claim made by the city that your water, sewer, and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. Services will be discontinued on January 22, 2003, unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her water, sewer, and trash delinquency? The two out there must be good people and I'm -- there is no response. I don't have to read the no response. Okay they are hereby informed that they may appeal or have the decision of the city reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Court pursuant to Idaho State Code. Even though they may Meridian City Council January 21,2003 Page 61 of 62 appeal, their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn-off list is $30,571.98 -- .89 cents. Sorry. Is there any discussion? Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: I would entertain a motion. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve the delinquency turn off list for Tuesday, January 21, 2003 and the turn-off date is January 22,2003, in the sum of $30,571.89. Nary: Second but I believe there should be two turn-off dates, the 22nd, and the 29th. Bird: We were doing it a week apart and, then, I heard -- somebody said that they didn't need that anymore. What was the deal on that, Gary? Smith: Madam President, Council Members, it had to do with the number that we have for turn off and they are able to -- I think they are able to accomplish 300 on one turn-off day, but I -- and I don't know how many there are number wise. If we could schedule two days, I think it would probably be safe to do that and, then, if they can accomplish it on the first turn-off day, then, that would be fine. Bird: When do you want the second one, Gary a week apart? Smith: Yes. Bird: The 29th? Smith: Yes, sir. Bird: Okay. Include in my motion January 22nd and January 29,2003, as cut-off dates. De Weerd: Does second agree? Nary: Agree. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 19. Discussion of Infrastructure of Urban Renewal District: De Weerd: Okay we do have an Item 19 and it's the discussion that we brought over from Pre-Council on infrastructure of the Urban Renewal District. There was some Meridian City Council January 21,2003 Page 62 of 62 question at the Meridian Development Corporation about the infrastructure in the Old Town area and if it would support urban renewal and I think -- Cherie, did you ask that this be put on here? I'm not really sure who put it on here. Maybe the Mayor did. Public Works, you have been looking into that? Watson: Madam President, Council Members, Steve Siddoway notified me after that meeting earlier this month that that was a topic of discussion and during the superintendents meeting last week I discussed that with Water and Sewer staff and we will be looking into it over the next several months. l1's not a quick thing. Steve Siddoway did invite me, so to speak, to the next MDC Meeting in February to discuss this so t am aware of it and doing something, De Weerd: Okay. Well, great. Appreciate that. Okay. If there isn't anything, further-- Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I just want to publicly thank -- since the ACHD representative is here, that they did put up a sign at Chateau Park notifying people there is a park there, so I appreciate them doing that. I want them to know that I noticed that and thank you very much. De Weerd: Well, thank you. If you will take that word back and maybe, you might ask if we get our public parking signs. Or, Mr. Clerk, are you working on that? Didn't one time we ask that public -- or the public parking lot be identified from Main Street? Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay, J will entertain a motion to adjourn, Nary: So moved, McCandless: Second. De Weerd: All those in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES De Weerd: Okay adjourned at 10:25 -- or 35. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:35 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) ATTESTED: WILLIAM G. BERG, J ., 2 /1/ DATE \\\\\1111111"'1/ \\' <r:: toll'~ III ,,\\ _, 0, .fI;;:J:"lh III " 4: '" . <Iv // 03 "... \ :trJ // ~ ',", >">0 ~ ,. . 'l / 2 0 cprV ,-,.94 /; '1; ~ i ~ "6 %: SEAIJ MEETING DATE: Item Packet Pickup JOJrl,,{,{AAth ;21, 2003 C: <,Ot:: A-;-.a: MtNTiWt "G-~ ~4t C>,/'~1J- < ~ :A 1>); (; <J d ""l o.(:;?.s. 3't?3 k O.t> v < ~^ ~~;; '<./'.o ()~ ~~ To: Mayor Corrie From:Gary D. Smith, PE CC: file Date: January 23, 2003 Re: Construction Agreement Mayor: Attached are two (2) original copies. of a construction agreement between the City of Meridian and Irminger Construction for installation of a 12-inch diameter water supply main, with fittings, from an existing water main in Victory Road into our new well lot for Well NO.25. The cost of this installation is $8,226.00 and was approved by City Council at their meeting held on January 21, 2003, Consent Agenda - Item I. I would appreciate receiving your signature, and that of City Clerk Berg, on each of these two (2) original copies and returning both to me via my City Hall mailbox. I will copy the agreement to City Clerk and Finance. ::kY~'~ From the desk. of... G Page 1 Gary D. Smith, PE Public Worlm DIrector Meridian Public Work:! Department 660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite 200 Meridian, Idaho 83642 (20S) 898-5500 Fax: (208) 887-1297 STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND CONTRACTOR ON THE BASIS OF A STIPULATED PRICE THIS AGREEMENT is dated the \ s;t t-\ day of cr ~ U . in the year 2003 by and between City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho (hereinafter called OWNER) and Irminger Construction, Inc. (hereinafter called CONTRACTOR). OWNER and CONTRACTOR, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: Article 1 WORK. The CONTRACTOR will complete all Work as specified or indicated in tl)e Agreement. The WORK is generally described as follows: The Project includes all labor, materials, and permit fees required to construct the supply line to Well 25 as shown in Figure 1. The Project for which the Work under the Agreement is described as follows: Construction of Well 25 Supply Line. All replacement materials and workmanship will meet the City of Meridian Standard Specifications and Drawings. The Contractor should become familiar with the specifications. Detailed Description of Work The work is described in Figure 1. Article 2 ENGINEER The City of Meridian Public Works Department will be the ENGINEER. The City of Meridian Public Works Department is to act as OWNER's representative, assume all duties and responsibilities and have the rights and authority assigned to ENGINEER in the Contract Documents in connection with completion of the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. Article 3 CONTRACT TIME. The Work will be completed within forty five (45) calender days from the date when the Contract Time commences to run. Time is of the essence. Article 4 CONTRACT PRICE. OWNER will pay CONTRACTOR for completion of the Work in current funds as follows: $8,226.00 Article 5 PA YMENT PROCEDURES. The CONTRACTOR will submit an Application for Payment upon completion of the Work. Applications for Payment must be submitted to the Public Works Department. Payments. The OWNER will make progress payments on account ofthe Contract Price on the basis of CONTRACTOR's Application for Payment as recommended by the Public Works Department, on or about the 15th day of each month during construction for Applications submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the Ist day of that month. All progress payments will be on the basis of the progress of the work measured by the schedule of values established in Article 4. The OWNER may retain up to 5% of the amount ofthe payment until final completion III 312003 Page I of 4 and acceptance of all Work covered by this Agreement. Upon completion and acceptance ofthe Work, payment will be made in full, including retained percentages, less authorized deductions, within thirty (30) days. Article 6 INTEREST. All moneys not paid when due will bear interest at 12% per annum or the maximum rate allowed by law at the place of Project, whichever is less. Article 7 CONTRACTOR'S REPRESENTATIONS. In order to induce the OWNER to enter into the Agreement, the CONTRACTOR makes the following representations: 7.1 The CONTRACTOR has familiarized itselfwith the nature and extent of the Work, site, locality, and all local conditions and Laws and Regulations that in any manner may affect cost, progress, performance or furnishing of the Work. 7.2 The CONTRACTOR has studied carefully all drawings of physical conditions. 7.3 The CONTRACTOR has given Public Works Department written notice of all conflicts, errors or discrepancies that he has discovered and the written resolution thereof by ENGINEER is acceptable to CONTRACTOR. Article 8 CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The Contract Documents, which comprise the entire agreement between the OWNER and the CONTRACTOR concerning the Work, consist ofthe following: 8.1 This Agreement. 8.2 Exhibits to this Agreement ~ N/A. 8.3 Information For Bidders. 8.4 Drawings. 8.5 CONTRACTOR's Quote. 8.6 1999 Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction, including Division 100, except as superseded by the Information For Bidders, contained herein. 8.7 Revisions to the Standard Specifications and Special Provisions. 8.8 Documentation submitted by CONTRACTOR prior to Notice of A ward. 8.9 The documents listed in paragraph 8.2 above are attached to this Agreement (except as expressly noted otherwise above). 8.10 City of Meridian Standard Specifications & Drawings - 2002 8.1 I EleD General Conditions There are no Contract Documents other than those listed above in this Article 8. The Contract Documents may only be amended, modified or supplemented by written Change Order. 1/13/2003 Page 2 of 4 Article 9 MISCELLANEOUS. 9. [ No assignment by a party hereto of any rights under or interest in the Contract Documents will be binding on another party hereto without the written consent of the party sought to be bound; and specifically but without limitation moneys that may become due and moneys that are due may not be assigned without such consent (except to the extent that the effect of this restriction may be limited by law), and unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under the Contract Documents. 9.2 OWNER and CONTRACTOR each binds itself, its partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party hereto, its partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives in respect of all covenants and obligations contained in the Contract Documents. Article 10 OTHER PROVISIONS. None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, OWNER and CONTRACTOR have signed this Agreement in triplicate. One counterpart each has been delivered to OWNER, CONTRACTOR and ENGINEER. All portions ofthe Contract Documents have been signed or identified by OWNER and CONTRACTOR or by ENGINEER on their behalf. The Agreement will be effective on --1 /2. q /0 -3 .20_ , I Owner CIT F MERID N Contractor ~ "Y~ -;:.. "?: 0(; Cc... jJ. ~"'.~:(-:~-1 _ 1111; ^ >. ~Q..\'f\ \V (;6Q ~ " \..l -=---r c...Q'I\J~ . ~c... By: Name: c...\,C:\:> ~ , -;;:"-'::1'(\ ~Go~R. ~~/?~. ~ Attest: 1/13/2003 Page 3 of 4 " I 1 :) :1 I I ! , j , , d .1 :1 , ') :? '; ,j i II I l ,I '1 ! I " :1 ~ I II :1 :1 n 'I .j il II il II il :1 I I I i I I i I I I I , I I I I , I ! i I I j I I I II II I, )t I Ij il I I ! il I '<~. .~ \1 r!:J I Figure 1 - Description of Work / / ~ ~ INSTALL f 1 - 12lt Tee (Mj x FI ) _ 1 - 12" Valve (~L x FI) ---- -. -" . ""':::-- ---..,. ---<;j5" ~;-~L '/::'- .~...... i' '. ~:~.-'~. .~ _....'---..:'. _--i , ~ .? . ~~ -~ ~ _ .~- --~::"r~-= --:::::_____~~- --- ~ ...- '- ---- --- -- I~ f ..-- .- ~ __ ~:_ _~~''','~:'' "?-~=-~ _---=:::._....-~_.-:-:::: .,'~ ':.;:":;.'[~~ -': --- /;-:=-[.~Y~i=;"---'; ~-~- ~ ~ ";> - .. '. '" \ r \ ! l 0 ...,- ^ n \/ 'n 1'\ ,\ .ID ...,.u ......-,-1- -c-,..,--..,-" If"( T\1\'\:7 '.:;-) -~~... ' '"-,. :(~ : \....~ ! "r' . J \ ~ J~ '\ '..... . ;:, ~:[f!::: "~--:1:::: '.c:-_ - \ ~__- ~ ~/ ': ~ '- ~~~.:.-====-:tr~;;;:~~"-- ,~-=:-~u_; ,~, ~ ....-..,,~ :"',. ~ ..........--- -""",/ ,\ ...::;.,!....=...:;.......;... -' ~ '<}~~~~ ......-.V "\\ \ \\, '50:00'\ I ... ....,...,~.(....."'<.::~.>, " --s..\ \..... \. I. \ ~ I " ~ '-. ,,'- ''"\:;. ',- \ ' \ " '\\\~, \' \, INSTALL ~BLOWOFF " , , \ \ "" ,,\;<\~'\ '\Rer bq~ QefQil(?>)12(W) \ 1\ \ , \ \\\' \ \\ \\\ '\ \ ,,= \ -::-\.7 wc~ zl-\--? i \ ' I. '" \ --- \, \', ,-~ ~. "'1,_ " '\ \ \\\ \ ~ ,---~ '\ \ \ ,\ \ ,\--. '.', ~iG=-L OC~ .:V . i \ \ \ \ \\\ \ --.;'~ '. \ \ ,~'1 Ii. , TOP OF' : <': ~\\~~\ \\\ \\ ' \~'('\ " \, , \~"<;II' I \ \ BANK \\ \ >~"lJ~\ \ \ \>.! \ \' \ . \ \ '0 \j '\ \ \. \ \-1 \- \ '~ I \ <llGO.CO \ ' \ >\~\!JY\' "\ \ \ \\\", '\ \ \ \ \ ;)' t~ \\>.\ \\ \\\\ \ \ \ '--, ',;' II '\ \~\:\~. ' \ ". ~ \\, \ J./ 1 I \ \\\\\\ . \ '\~; I I \ -'. \~\ \\\ " \, \ \ \, \ \ ~~;, , \ \~ \ '\ ~ \ \ I) \ \ \ \ \ \ \ -, ..\... \\ \ ..., ~\ \ \ \ \ \\'..., ) "":\ --'-') t"~~~ \ \ \ \ \ \ ~\ I,. '. \ \ \\,\\' \ "~ \ \\ '\ \ \~~, ''S \ \ \ \ \' \ '" \ \ \, ~" '" ~ \ \ \ \ \ \ l \ \\ \ \, \, , , "" ", \\\ \ \\ ~ 'I, \ \ ~ '" , \ \ \ \ . \ \\ \. ~ '\ (1 ,~), "- . \\ \~ \ ~\';;- '\0 ''\ "\.. '\ \\ \ \ I \\ \ \ \ "~ , ",.., \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ I " '" ", , ~- -JNSTALL 72 LF _----.-:~LPVC WATER MAIN (-------<::--~ ".,. - '. .,/~~-- \::'~- . ,,~-; ~ ,~ -~ .']L'P- ,J.- ~ -";- ,~(~~ \ "::..'!__~;4.~~....J/ 1 i; \ ,i , 6":Jl~R' , \ i \ ,I RIDEN8tl.UGH CANAL t:.ASE!~IENT \ \ " \ \ j \ '\ \ \ \ J' , \ I i --S>\ \ i . (1\')\ \ \, i\ \ . I ,-I . \ \ \ \:\ l i \ \ \ \ I , \ \ \ I \ \'~ \ ........ \ , \ \ \ \, .~ ~ 'I I I Iii tl tl ".. <) I . Ie' ... ~. :Yl '- , 1,~:"TI. - ~J ! I ~ . i ~ I is< I I OJ I l, 1'- i~" -1- 1>18iPi~ ~ ! I I I I i I I I ~ [ a c'"'~,~;~~;l;I!H~r~,LJ "n~jQ '6U;;j~~~\:1 II)....H{} }:t I I ~~" jl : I :'I.,1~......+...." . I__~ [ ~J1''''jll \NELL 25 LOT PLl\N ~ '11 Lot 2, Block 1 Messina Hills Sub NO.1 I ~ Ii Ii " " 11 ,J 11 n I' " " p Ii Ii Ii II il 1: " " ;i ~ i (1 Ii Ji II 'I 1. ji Ii !I II 1I I' II II " il 'I II I, I I I I I II II i I 11 h jl ,I J ADA COUNTY RECORDER J. DAVID NAVARRO BOISE IDAHO 01/24103 12:02 PM DEPUTY Bonnie Oberbillig RECORDED - REQUEST OF Meri dilln Ci tv AMOUNT .00 6 111111111I11111111111111111I111111111 103012603 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. t7 J -/0 tJ 0 AN ORDINANCE FINDING THAT CERTAIN LAND TO BE KNOWN AS MOSHERS FARM SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT 895 N. TEN MILE ROAD AND WHICH LIES CONTIGUOUS OR ADJACENT TO THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO; AND FINDING THAT THE OWNER, BETTY MOSHER, HAS MADE A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION IN WRITING TO THE COUNCIL; AND THAT SAID LAND BE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AND ZONING DESIGNATED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-8); AND DECLARING THAT SAID LAND, BY PROPER LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS DESCRIBED BELOW, BE A PART OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO ADD SAID PROPERTY TO THE OFFICIAL MAPS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO; AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN TO FILE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE AREAS TO BE ANNEXED WITH ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AUDITOR, TREASURER AND ASSESSOR, AND THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, PURSUANT TO IDAHO CODE SECTION 50-223 AND SECTION 63-2215. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. FINDINGS: That the following described land is contiguous and adjacent to the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for annexation to the City of Meridian, Idaho, by the owner of said Property, to-wit: A parcel of land located within the South Yz of the Southeast l/4 of the Northeast % of Section 10, Township 3 North, Range 1 West, B.M., Ada County, Idaho. Being further described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the East line of the Northeast Quarter of said Section 10 from which the East l/4 corner of said Section 10 bears South 00000'03" East, 118.70 feet; ANNEXATION AND ZONlJ-JG ORDINANCE (AZ-02-023) - 1 thence leaving said Section line and following the centerline of Ten Mile Drain as Shown on the Record of Survey for Mosher Property, filed in the office of the Ada County Recorder on July 9,2001 as Instrument #101068151, the following three (3) courses: North 50013'54" West, 85.10 feet; North 66001 '30" West, 448.10 feet; North 67030'48" West, 271.80 feet; Thence, leaving said centerline of drain, North 00000'03" West, 209.64 feet Thence, South 89037' 17" East, to a point on the aforementioned section line, 726.00 feet Thence, continuing along said section line, South 00000'03" East, 545.32 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains an area of approximately 6.06 acres. BASIS OF BEARINGS: The Record of Survey For Mosher Property, filed in the office of the Ada County Recorder on July 9, 2001 as Instrument #101068151. SECTION 2: That the above-described real property be, and the same is hereby annexed and made a part of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. SECTION 3: That the real property herein by this ordinance annexed to the City of Meridian hereinabove described shall be zoned Medium Density Residential District (R-8). SECTION 4: That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, comprehensive plan and all official maps depicting the boundaries of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-02-023) - 2 SECTION 5: All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. SECTION 6: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 7: The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner plainly and clearly designating the boundaries of the City of Meridian, including the lands herein annexed, with the following officials of the County of Ada, State ofIdaho, to-wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, all in complIance with Idaho CodeS63-2215 and S50-223. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 21!j? day of ~T~{,.l-~:J- ~ 2003. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 2/!J day of (T~u...tVv;; , 2003. ATTEST: IMu.-:-P~~ ~t~~ERK (I :: ~ ~_ First Reading: 1- 21-03 %. i? Coo.. ....QJo 0 f '" v '->1' c;1. ;;: '. Adopted after first reading by sUSl3;1tStQ ".~et~,,~ allowed pursuant to Idaho Code 50- 902 Yes' \./ 1'1 . QU.: '-Rlfo' \" . l\.... /1/:. "d~ ,.~\\\. Second Reading: " '~.'. ,."" Third Reading: ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-02-023) - 3 STATE OF IDAHO, ) : ss. County of Ada. ) On this 1-\ day of ~(1V\A.ACv\li ,2003, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appe red ROBE~T D. CORRIE and WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk of the CITY of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNEJ~ WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written,;, 0""" 'Co'" NSl!J1i) ~<::~ Q~~--_.fIi;o$ Ii) ,," l"I"'..e. h~.;f x (> Ii) "0 Jl.-~ ~.~-r..:r,o;, ~ I'~ ~~~~e tJCI:J I "'V \ 0 " ( \ 0 IiJ I tl ~ \ J : (\ , I f;J '0 ' I " <> _~"" br-1C~/O ill 9 v- "",;:, UJjlJ..... 0- ~ )>.d-r;.--~~....... Q <>o::"~OF ~e:l> 1!>tl1 III ",,,,,, (SEAL) 2 ht0LmS~r11 ~~ NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO ,. RESIDING AT: JJ u1A C(){A/J[~k ' JdakiJ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: I Lf'-Zg-O<; Z:\ Work\M\Meridian\Mcridian J 5360M\Ma;hers Farm AZ02-023 PP02..Q2l CUP02.(J3 J \AZOrd.doc ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-02-023) - 4 ~ - >- ...JO:: C2~ O::z...J <(wO 0.20 .-<CW6 ___ I ...J (/) OW !,LI t~ g t'- . (t')CO o C\I O'>t'- co (/) ~ ~5 "f(j) \X) I> 8 ~ 0 s: Z ~N ..... <(!:: s- om 0:: O~&l 0::> - _ .0 Z (j) zO::O::::r: ("') W LU<l: WOO:::l-o:;:::$:oQ on: ~ ~li:~- ~<(gO~5 Z LL :g >- ~ffi o (j) Q) I- ui ::E a::: ffi (/) 0 ~ OI (j) o ~ C> LLZ Oz I-Z z- -C> Ow a.m NOoooo.o~IW 209.64' . , :" SOO~3"E . . .545.32' .. :9 G:l .{; Q~ /~ .. cb r I ~v. ~ IS . 0." .... "!:v ~ CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To: The Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor of Ada County, and The State Tax Commission of the State ofIdaho I, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk, of the City of Meridian, Ada County, State of Idaho, do hereby certify that the attached copy of Ordinan~No. oj- /O{)O , passed by the City Council of the City of Meridian, on the 2/ ~ day of,7t1lJvI.V?!!2003, is a true and correct copy of the original of said document which is in the care, custody and control of the CiW\~lffi~tl of the City of Meridian. \'\\~~\\Of M~:::"II ...' ~ ~ tlV/ /L; " :\" ""1. 'l ~ ...:. "'POb '/1", 'l $' v cP" "'IJ~_ v ~ :::-.:if '0 -;:. . - ~ - - - :: = STATE OF IDAHO, ) : ss. County of Ada, ) On this 1-\ day of ~~~ . in the year '200'3 , before me, 9-.V\RO--r\ ?;yv-u.B:-......, , a Notary Public, appeared WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known or identified to me to be the City Clerk ofthe City of Meridian, Idaho that executed the said instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of the City of Meridian. (SEAL) o.pI10tl"l:/ 0""0. N S.!J;:"(P 00: ""O"';fA'-;.::...;rJ'-Ooo ;gO: /~ ~ "'!t(J.. '\.d<.Q. Elc..<:J, ""V \~-r ~ c , , D EI t ~ III ::I I f C C , , lJ o \ , tJ '" " c,' ItJ ~C> ~~..fom.~..~~O~1tJ o:<!>-r-i~--~ ...n~9 <l'1<l'1~~OF~<1> t::Ja....~ ~hGlh6YI(SrV~c .t~~ Notary Public for Idaho Commission Expires:~ -1,<6 -C6 Z:\Work\M\Meridian\MeridianI5360M\Ma;hers Farm AZ02-023 PP02-021 CUP02-031 \CertificatimOrclerkOrd.doc CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AZ-02023 January 17,2003 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 21,2003 APPLICANT ITEM NO. 18 REQUEST Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SmLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: vV {l/rttl Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ADA COUNTY RECORDER J. DAVID NAVARRO BOISE IDAHO 01/24/03 12:02 PM DEPUTY Bonnie OberbHlig RECORDED-REQUEST OF Meridian City ~MOUNT .00 7 111111111I111111I11111111111111111111 103012600 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. tJ;J-997 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 02-968 FINDING THA T CERTAIN LAND TO BE KNOWN AS BALTIC PLACE SUBDIVISION THE LOCATION OF WHICH LIES. CONTIGUOUS OR ADJACENT TO THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO; AND FINDING THAT THE OWNER HAS MADE A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION IN WRITING TO THE COUNCIL; AND THAT SAID LAND BE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AND ZONING. DESIGNATED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-40) AND GENERAL RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-G); AND DECLARING THAT SAID LAND, BY PROPER LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS DESCRIBED BELOW, BE A PART OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO ADD SAID PROPERTY TO THE OFFICIAL MAPS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO; AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN TO FILE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE AREAS TO BE ANNEXED WITH ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AUDITOR, TREASURER AND ASSESSOR, AND THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF THE ST ATE OF IDAHO, PURSUANT TO IDAHO CODE SECTION 50-223 AND SECTION 63-2215. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MA YOR AND THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. FINDINGS: That the following described land is contiguous and adjacent to the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for annexation to the City of Meridian, Idaho, by the owner of said Property to-wit: L.C. DEVELOPMENT, FRANKLIN ROAD SUBDIVISION REZONE TO R-40 A parcel ofland located in the NWl/4 of the NE1I4 of Section 18, T.3N., R.IE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the corner common to Sections 7,8, 17 and the said Section 18, from which the V4 comer common to said Sections 7 and 18 bears South 89046'13" West, 2654.29 feet; thence South 89046' 13" West, 1327.12 feet to the East 1/16 comer common to said Sections 7 and 18; ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-OI-008) - 1 thence along the West boundary ofMedimont Subdivision No.1, as same is recorded in Book 75 of Plats at Page 7794, records of Ada County, Idaho South 00029'15" West, 293.00 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence continuing along said West boundary and the West boundary of Medimont Subdivision No.2 as same is recorded in Book 79 of Plats at Page 8453, records of Ada County, Idaho, South 00029'15" West, 1039.09 feet to the southwest corner of said Medimont Subdivision No.2; Thence generally along the bank of the Hunter Lateral North 51029'39" West, 132.92 feet; thence North 63025'13" West, 205.41 feet; thence North 61005'52" West, 203.20 feet; thence departing said bank North 00038'34" West, 670.68 feet; thence North 89021 '26" East, 129.06 feet; thence North 45029'15" East, 35.51 feet; thence North 00029' 15" East, 71.99 feet; thence South 89030'45" East, 327.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 9.41 acres, more or less. L.C. DEVELOPMENT, FRANKLIN ROAD SUBDIVISION REZONE TO C-G A parcel ofland located in the NW1/4 of the NEl/4 of Section 18, T.3N., R.1E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the corner common to Sections 7, 8, 17 and the said Section 18, from which the.~ corner common to said Sections 7 and 18 bears South 89046' 13" West, 2654.29 feet; thence South 89046' 13" West, 1327.12 feet to the East 1/16 comer common to said Sections 7 and 18 and the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence along the West boundary of Medimont Subdivision No.1, as same as same is recorded in Book 75 of Plats at Page 7794, records of Ada County, Idaho, South 00029'15" West, 293.00; ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-OI-008) - 2 thence North 89030'45" West, 327.00 feet; thence South 00029'15" West, 71.99 feet; thence South 45029'15" West, 35.51 feet; thence South 89021 '26"West, 129.06 feet; thence North 00038'34" West, 386.60 feet to a point on the North boundary of said Section 18; thence North 89046'13" East, 488.80 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 3.58 " acres, more or less. SECTION 2: That the above-described real property be, and the same is hereby annexed and made a part of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. SECTION 3: That the real property herein by this ordinance annexed to the City of Meridian hereinabove described shall be zoned High Density Residential District (R-40) and General Retail and Service Commercial District (C-G). SECTION 4: That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, comprehensive plan and all official maps depicting the boundaries of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 5: The zoning designation set forth in Section 3 of this ordinance is subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Development Agreeml,'lnt by and between the City of Meridian and the owner of the land described in Section 1 dated the "qlf:,. day of ~d':J-. ,2o(} Z, and that the uses are to be developed under the planned unit development (/ process and conditional use permit process. ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-OI-008) - 3 SECTION 6: All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. SECTION 7: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 8: The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner plainly and clearly designating the boundaries of the City of Meridian, including the lands herein annexed, with the following officials of the County of Ada, State ofldaho, to- wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, all in compliance with Idaho Code 963-2215 and 950-223. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this J~U1.-L7-- ,2003. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this JtL-nU<:Vt.(,f ,2003. (/ 2/51' - day of Ur-9 day of ~) MAYO ATTEST: .JI~Jr~ , 11 SEAL CITY CLERf( ~ r ~ 7~ & 2 First Reading' ! -- p! -0 ., %. ~ u.sr 1~ ,,,I:;) .f! . , $", . ""1 (', '?' " Adopted after first readlllg by suspen~n0S~~&.af:l..,,~1iowed pursuant to Idaho Code 50-902 Yes: X" No: //I/{Ii,: '..~",. ' ,\,\"" ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-OI-008) - 4 Second Reading: Third Reading: ...-- STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss. County of Ada. ) On'this 2\ ~ day of :x.1/VUA~ ' 2003, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ISQDE~~. .~' and WILLIAM G. BERG, JR.~ known to me to l?e the ~nd Gity {:;Clerk, resp\ftfi\~ely, oWhtcrt~ ofMeridian~ Idaho, and who executed the withi&1~t~~ilt, ~~aSRltowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. (SEAL) OlllllllllDIl'" <>oooJ~L~~~. .,(~ort~~>~. 8J~'/ ~ ..,- \.~Y"''(I. iI<%l ( ""V. , fl, D ( , III " : I II ::l I I I:l '" \ I I/J Ii \ /.. III ~-o.. }....!:CJBt..\.C:'-~..1t " )'>....;:.;,--,~~. ..":t"~013lY... 4''''......... Sh{1/)U'fI'~'+ev NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO RESIDING AT: A-d~ Cou:;(uy, "klt2lw MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: if -2g-05" Z:\ Work\M\Meridian\Meridian t 5360M\Balic PlaceAZO !-o08 PPO 1-009 CUPO 1-0 15\AZOrd.doc ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ~01-008) - 5 c- ~ ~~~ ~ I -3 0 \ r0 - o 0- CJ2 z~ 0 S \ "2- I.U c-l. \ 0 ~ 4:. '# <'l .,. a cO ~ o~~ 'b .::> -- "0 .' ~ OW l- e:: ~:l:. ~ .....;. u.l <:( ~ ------- ~~ZuJ as 'Z.o9 "<"" r,- s::: . -' uJ. 0 z. u- a:. ~ ~-Go3 0 ow- ~9 (~~ Z iG r ,>%1 =- <::0 <:( 0- t:ul~ I O~z() 111 (j) 00 ..--- 'S ~~ .... ~% o~ .. (0 .... u.J U1 6 i~ z. ~o J.. '1M SNI)\O'f 'S \i ~ 6 \1.l ~ I&O'Z~~ \. N\..S \.,SZoOCS ~ ~ r:i \ 0~ (t;1,/l ul ~ 0- u) <9 u..Z oz 'Z~ _<9 ou.! o..cCl u) ul ~ b ~ to. \\~ ,9Z" LSO\- M..~.9~oCON CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY CLERK OF mE CITY OF MERIDIAN To: The Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor of Ada County, and The State Tax Commission of the State ofIdaho I, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk, of the City of Meridian Ada County, State of Idaho, do hereby certify that the attached copy' of Ordinance NottJ-CJ9"7, passed by the City Council of the City of Meridian, on the 2/fJP day of JdIIUC?-h ,2003, is a true and correct copy of the original of said document which is in the care, custo y and control of the Citr. hferk . .. . \\\1 II fllf", of the CIty of Mendlan. ,,\\\\\ Of MEirJ. IIIIII.! . ~.\~ ~4 ~ ~' (} orPOA.1 'IV ~ 5 .;;.0 i(:-a ~ ~ ~ S - - STATE OF IDAHO, ) : ss. County of Ada, ) On this 2tyf day of c&C(Aw_a/LL~, in the year 2003, before me, SV\.O-it./fYl .srru:.-ttv 0 , a Notary Public, appeared WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known or identified to me to be the City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho that executed the said instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of the City of Meridian. 11"'01"..... ~;)~o. ..~L~.A..::~~. ~ . l' A. ;:~y...,;: ~"J /~ 0 - ~j.."\-$.. Qc,j ~ \ ~ " , , III : ~ ~ Ii ;Ii 1 I A '0 \ l · -:> \ I CI " .b_.C' .0 ~.. O'~..~ uJj1J'\l.-:~O.. · .r.:.t~---- ~. ...~.uOF1P.. 11'""....... Z:\ Work\M\Merid ian\MeridianI5360M\B alic PlaceAZO I-OOs PPO 1-009 CUPD 1-0 15\CertificatimOfClerkOrd 12 3D 02.doc (SEAL) ~haJlJn~j.'Ll'~ Notary Public for Idaho Commission Expires: 01 - ZiS -O'f) CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN - (AZ-OI-0ci8) ADA COUNTY RECORDER J. DAVID NAVARRO BOISE IDAHO 01124/03 12:02 PM DEPUTY Bonnie Oberbillig RECORDED - REQUEST OF Meridian City AMOUNT .00 7 1111111111I11111111111111111111111111 10312112601 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. tl.J - 998 AN ORDINANCE FINDING THAT CERTAIN LAND TO BE KNOWN AS LOCHSA FALLS SUBDIVISION LOCATED SOUTH OF CHINDEN BLVD., WEST OF LINDER ROAD, NORTH OF McMILLAN ROAD AND EAST OF TEN MILE ROAD AND WHICH LIES CONTIGUOUS OR ADJACENT TO THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO; AND FINDING THAT THE OWNERS; LEROY E. BRANDT, ELROY BRANDT, MARTY GOLDSMITH, SUNJAY RAY M.D., DANIEL GIBSON, JR., JUSTIN AND TAMRA MARTIN, HA VE MADE A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION IN WRITING TO THE COUNCIL; AND THAT SAID LAND BE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AND ZONING DESIGNATED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-4); AND DECLARING THAT SAID LAND, BY PROPER LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS DESCRIBED BELOW, BE APART OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, ST ATE OF IDAHO; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO ADD SAID PROPERTY TO THE OFFICIAL MAPS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO; AND DIRECTlNG THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN TO FILE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE AREAS TO BE ANNEXED WITH ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AUDITOR, TREASURER AND ASSESSOR, AND TI-IE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, PURSUANT TO IDAHO CODE SECTION 50-223 AND SECTION 63-2215. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. FINDINGS: That the following described land is contiguous and adjacent to the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for annexation to the City of Meridian, Idaho, by the owner of said Property, to-wit: A portion of Section 26, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: ANNEXA TlON AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-02-010) - ] Commencing at the southwest corner of the NW Y4 (W 1;4 Corner) of Section 26, Township 4 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Thence N 00021' 10" E 660.00 feet along the west line of said NW Y4 to a point; Thence S 89008'39" E 293.34 feet to a point; Thence N 00021' 10" E 297.98 feet to a point; Thence S 89008'39" E 1016.42 feet to a point; Thence N 00029'24" E 274.52 feet to a point; Thence N 87002' 18" E 268.50 feet to a point; Thence S 71 048'42" E 140.90 feet to a point; Thence S 20011 '42" E 121.80 feet to a point; Thence S 54051 '42" E 196.60 feet to a point; Thence S 83030'42" E 232.70 feet to a point; Thence S 73036'18" E 489.75 feet to a point on the west line of the NE Y4 of said Section 26; Thence N 00037'38" E 1805.40 feet along said west line to the nOlihwest corner of said NE 1;4 (N Y4 Corner); Thence S 89038'20" E 1898.50 feet along the north line of said NE 1;4 to a point; Thence S 00021'40" W 656.84 feet to a point; Thence S 89004'32" E 545.00 feet to a point; Thence S 00055'28" W 168.00 feet to a point; Thence S 89004'32" E 180.00 feet to a point on the east line of said NE Y4; Thence S 00055'28" W 1825.66 feet along said east line to the southeast corner of said NE Y4 (E l/4 Comer); ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-02-010) - 2 Thence S 00025 '24" W 250.00 feet along the east line of the SE 14 of said Section 26 to a point; Thence N 89034'36" W 352.71 feet to a point; Thence S 00025'24" W 700.50 feet to a point; Thence S 89034'36" E 352.71 feet to a point on the east line of said SE Y4; Thence S 00025'24" W 368.33 feet along said east line to the southeast corner of the N 1'2 of said SE 114 (S II 16 Sections 26 and 25); Thence N 89013' 14" W 2620.88 feet along the south line of said N 1'2 to the southeast corner of the NE 14 of the SW Y4 (CS 1/16 Corner) of said Section 26; Thence N 00037'38" E 185.90 feet along the east line of said SW 114 to a point; Thence N 89022'22" W 365.90 feet to a point; Thence S 00037'38" W 185.90 feet to a point Thence S 89022'22" E 365.90 feet to the southeast corner of said NE 114 of the SW Y4; Thence S 00037'38" W 1330.19 feet along the east line of said SW Y4 to the southeast corner of said SW ]14 (S 114 Corner); Thence N 88058' 19" W 1301.41 feet along the south line of said SW Y4 to the southwest corner of the SE Y4 of said SW 114 (W 1/16 Sections 26 and 35); Thence N 00029'44" E 2648.34 feet along the west line of the E 12 of the SW 14 to the southeast corner of the SW Y4 of the NW 14 of said Section 26; Thence N 89008'53" W 1307.47 feet along the south line of the NW-1I4 said Section 26 to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description, said parcel containing 357.15 acres, more or less. SECTION 2: That the above-described real propeliy be, and the same is hereby annexed and made a part of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-02-010) - 3 SECTION 3: That the real propeliy herein by this ordinance annexed to the City of Meridian hereinabove described shall be zoned Low Density Residential District (R-4). SECTION 4: That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, comprehensive plan and all official maps depicting the boundaries of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 5: The zoning designation set forth in Section 3 of this ordinance is subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Development Agreement by and 2 tV..2- between the City of Meridian and the owner of the land described in Section 1 dated the day of .:lit h?iCi r (j , '2003, and that the uses are to be developed under the planned unit development process and conditional use permit process. SECTION 6: All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. SECTION 7: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect f'i"om and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 8: The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date ofthis ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner plainly and clearly designating the boundaries of the City of Meridian, including the lands herein annexed, with the following officials oftheCounty of Ada, State of Idaho, to-wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State ofIdaho, all in compliance with Idaho Code 963-2215 and 950-223. ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-02-0l0) - 4 off PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 21 ~ day of -cJahNtl./vt] ,2002. --' ('~f A~ROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this Z -- day of ;; t~1 ,2002. U \\\\1111111//11 \\\ '!': i'\fi" IIII ATTEST: \\\',.,j 01 itJ1l.^ III/. t J ~';:'r-;'" ~ <'/4/1./-:-", .d1~~~ t) f v ~0o~o~r~.v \ CITY CLERK I Z':: - First Reading: - 1--lJ-! ~ .~~ ~ Adopted after first readmg by sus~~ ~}tq!S~u ~y:owed pursuant to Idaho Code 50- L/ ~ ::&' 'l-,; " 902 Yes: x..- '/;,/~~ 00''''''7":' ~)",....", Second Reading: Ill,::.' "i ',.\\\\\\ Third Reading: MAYO ST ATE OF fDAHO,) 55. County of Ada, ) On this 2\ day of iC0'Vl,UCUV-? ,2002, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally app red~- -, GJ~R+e.~ and WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., I Vr>.. L^ \-v i:.'L known to me to be thy ~~rt Gvi~xfJ~l;(.ofthe CiTY fNIeridlmf,ldaho, and who executed the within instrument, and ack&&~tlged to A1e' fhaf1hi'bty of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. oct:l"OQ ,,',)~ON s.A:'? oQ~ ~----~~Q Q~~':;:O't~):,~~ tJCitjf "t' '\ ~ III f ' P 11 f ~ I!I i:l I f P o \ , tJ1 o \ ' ~ o , b.-_ ,C,' t:l 00 ..r~..:. U.t:l~~..~~.4t .Q~.<{~~--1Q~oQo Z;\\Vork\M\MCridiaJ1\MC~8iIlIRfil.~\LOChSa Falls Sub AZ02.0 I 0 1'1'02.009 CUI'02.012\AZOrd.doc (SEAL) ~. VI 0J1nt ~nU:,-J{u NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO RESIDING AT: .!Ida. Low(~T~ I J;La;JvJ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ~ - 2~-C;:; ANNEXATiON AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-02-010) - 5 m ,6 ~ 'oee ~ I'-- 0) M..ge.LeoOOS ..- ..- -l -l sn s: m ..... 1m ""t ..- 0 .0 (0') co ..- co z ,pe"gp9l 3. vv.6l~OON.. / I.,:., ...cc lIJ lIJ lIJ lIJ ~ ~ lIJ lIJ lIJ ~ lIJ ~ ~ lIJ ~ lIJ ~ ~ lIJ (9 l!l ~ ~ !2 N N ~ ~ Co iX> PI ;,r ~ ~ ;,r ~ ~ ~ ~ Z :!'I" 'Q' ~ '" ~ ~ it: IX) N m ?\I IX) ... ... liS in ;,r ;,r ;,r f... ?\I .... '" i1i 0 N 0 -:r ..-- 10 10 0 '" <n <n '" I") N I") '" $ 0 0 j:... ..-- b ~ (., (., 8 en 8 en en 8 b en 8 en m 0 0 IX) ,.... N IX) .... (0 (0 (0 0 IX) IX) tI) z z z tI) tI) tI) tI) tI) tI) tI) tI) z tI) tI) z z tI) tI) ~ m ~i= (;l; $m fil8 ~ g l?- 10 88 ~ ..-- ~::i 8 8 88 .... .... lIJ(9 ("j r-:-i <t.ici g N ai 18g g vi ~~ lB to lBlB ;;;z ..-- m m .... <O'Q' N I") co <0 .JlIJ <'I N<'I <'1..-- ..-- ..-- <'I 'Q' ..-- ..-- N (') ..-- I") ..--1") .J W N<n :5~ <0.... ~ 0.0 ..-- NI") 'Q' 10 (I) .... co m Z ::i ::i ..-- .... ..-- ..-- ..-- ..-- ..-- ..-- :J .J.J ..J..J .J::i ..J ..J .J .J .J .J .J ..J ~ ~ .. - a~ ~3aNIl S ,99'SlS ~.. M.Sl,SSoOOS ~ 15 ~ o (0 mN Z ~1\.1 !:LI. N (0') ..t...~ f' co ,VS"9S9(/) 'M.ov. ~l~OOS !:l S '" w ~ ..... -l on b o II) '<l' II) g 0: ~ :::l ili w bb t~ ~ 0) co co..... W o c::: s: ::!i el w o,N t~ ; 0)0 co'- (/) s: Mi'- ~~ ~ <> (0') m..- z Gl ..- ...J ,00.099 ~ '\l'--. ~B t I 00 ~> . 0 :s: Om&: z::::> Z LU 00 'V 0001- Z..J ~ ~ <i! .~ - u.. t) O<(W a:::(f)w OI o o ..J o U3 fii ~ n:: o z~ <( lIJN I-'Q' --(I) 0:::>(") _ 00 co 0::: ci 0 w~~ :lEoQ I- - LL n::Z O lIJ<( 1-[5 >- ~ffi I-- ui :::E 00 (I) (I) '" fQ ~ z e w ::: ~ in o 1ii 00 0 / <C' CERTIFICA TION OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To: The Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor of Ada County, and The State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho I, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk, of the City of Meridian, Ada County, State of Idaho, do hereby certify that the attached copy of Ordinance No. 0,'3- Cj1t3 , passed by the City Council of the City of Meridian, on the 2/ s:j7 day of c' 'ttllt~, 2003, is a true and correct copy of the original of said document which is in the care, custod and control of the City Clerk of the City of Meridian. \'\\\\\\flll~I~~::,rJIII \'\' _I 0 .\it<..rtfl' 1/" ~" .,""' VLri //,,/ $''' C} ?PO,!;;).}! -7o''Jy ~ ~ cp ."'lre; '::- S ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ 3 % STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss. County of Ada, ) On this ~t day of ~(1vWaA~ ' in the year '7/0'\):j , before me, /S\U:UIA5Y\ ~\'VV:.HA ' a Notary Public, appeared WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known or identified to me to be the City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Idaho that executed the said instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of the City of Meridian. (SEAL) 'l'OliHilDO€l <:>~ON SNJOI;, ~o ~~____ o~ lit ... n1' A.;;''' . ~~ o ,... 0 J!.~ "-<( l>~..-r.:l(J> ~ I--~ ~-~~~ aCO I ""Y .. P lil : \ '" tl I I D III I f 0 11 \ , Q P \ / Q (I .. .b-....... . '" '0 Q 00 d"....~-V1j)J\":-::~ 00 9 h.,~---~ ....n?>:.<Co Oq'~"'~OF ~ <!\Oo QI:I'n.r>...... ~.hOJ\OV\gm~-+~ Notary Public for Idaho Commission Expires: 04 - z ~ -Db Z:\Work\M\Mcridiml\tvlcridian I 5360M\Lochsa Falls Sub AZ02-0 I 0 1>1'02-009 CUP02-0 12\CcrtilicationOIClcrkOrd.doc CERTIFlCA TION OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AZ-02-0 1 0 ADA COUNTY RECORDER J. DAVID NAVARRO BOISE IDAHO 01/24/03 12:02 PM DEPUTY Bonnie Oberbillig RECORDED - REQUEST OF Meridian City AMOUNT .00 6 111111111I111111111111111111111111111 103l)126~)2 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 03- q q 0; AN ORDINANCE FINDING THAT CERTAIN LAND TO BE KNOWN AS HAVASU CREEK SUBDIVISION LOCATED SOUTH OF McMILLAN ROAD AND WEST OF LOCUSt GROVE ROAD AND WHICH LIES CONTIGUOUS OR ADJACENT TO THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO; AND FINDING THAT THE OWNERS, MACLOCUST, LLC AND RENATA HAM, HAVE MADE A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION IN WRITING TO THE COUNCIL; AND THAT SAID LAND BE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AND ZONING DESIGNATED LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (RA); AND DECLARING THAT SAID LAND, BY PROPER LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS DESCRIBED BELOW, BE APART OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS OR P ARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO ADD SAID PROPERTY TO THE OFFICIAL MAPS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO; AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN TO FILE A CERTIFIED COpy OF THE ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE AREAS TO BE ANNEXED WITH ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AUDITOR, TREASURER AND ASSESSOR, AND THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF THE ST ATE OF IDAHO, PURSUANT TO IDAHO CODE SECTION 50-223 AND SECTION 63-2215. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. FINDINGS: That the following described land is contiguous and adjacent to the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for annexation to the City of Meridian, Idaho, by the owner of said Property, to-wit: A parcel of land located in the N 1Iz of Section 31, Township 4 North, Range 1 East of the Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, being more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the northeast corner ofthe NW1I4 of Section 31, TAN., R.IE., B.M., the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-02-022) - 1 Thence S 00041' 44" W 25.00 feet along the east line of said NW l/4 to a point on the south right-of-way of E. McMillan Road; Thence S 00037'57" W 639.70 feet to the southwest corner of Crest wood Subdivision No.1; Thence S 89045'35" E 987.43 feet along the south line of Crestwood Subdivision No. 1 to the northwest corner of Lot 8 of Crestwood S ubdivision No.1; Along the north line of said Lot 8; Thence S 89057' 51" E 1395.89 feet to a point; Thence S 89046'01" E 250.00 feet to a point on the east line of the NE 1/4 of said Section 31 ; Thence S 00033'41" W 495.07 feet along said east Line to a point; Thence S 89028' 16" W 508.49 feet to a point; Thence S 00033'41" W 167.66 feet to a point on the south line of said Lot 9; Thence N 89046'30" W 1137.57 feet along the south line of said Lot 9 to the southwest corner thereof, said point being on the westerly boundary of Crestwood Subdivision No.1; Along said westerly boundary; Thence S 00034' 16" W 332.50 feet to a point; Thence S 89"43'01" E 328.99 feet to a point; Thence S 00036'09" W 986.71 feet to a point; Leaving said westerly boundary; Thence N 89015'53" W 1320.86 feet to a point on the west line ofthe NE ~ of said Section 31 ; Thence N 00041 '44" E 643.13 feet along said west line to a point; ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ~02~022) - 2 Thence N 89046'30" W 985.43 feet to a point; Thence N 00038'42" E 1994.70 feet to a point on the north line of the NW 14 of said Section 31 ; Thence S 89045'44" E 987.19 feet along said north line to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description. This parcel contains 120.77 acres, more or less, SECTION 2: That the above-described real property be, and the same is hereby mmexed and made a part of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. SECTION 3: That the real property herein by this ordinance annexed to the City of Meridian hereinabove described shall be zoned Low Density Residential District (R-4). SECTION 4; That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as ',bp. official zoning maps, comprehensive plan and all official maps depicting the boundaries of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 5: All ordinmlces, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. SECTION 6: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 7: The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (1 0) " days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy ofthis ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner plainly and clearly designating the boundaries of the City of Meridian, including the lands herein annexed, with the following officials of the County of Ada, State ofldaho, to-wit: the R~corder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-02-022) ~ 3 simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State ofIdaho, all in compliance with Idaho Code S63-2215 and S50-223. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this 2/ sP day of <;;:l..:a,hf/Ul/l.-v/ ,2003. ....- /} ! f=1- APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this .t/ .:--- day of --- '\/ a-n.?t.-&'Lp/ , 2003. V MAYO " 1111111111"1 ",\~ of MERit/III" ATTEST: ,~~, ~ 'l". :f (} OtwOR4l; /V,..~ ~ ~.C; <'.0-;:' S ~- ~ -~p~{1. ~ ~ CITY CLERK VI - - / ;- ~ :::: First Reading: (- 2/-0 3. \ ~ . vQu.s ..,? g Adopted after first readmg by SUSP~~l \;)i~~.:al10wed pursuant to Idaho Code 50- 902 Yes' X ~"'Ii CO~ i.'N. . ""t , .. .' ',',' . 1,/., '.." .v_ ,'.' Second Reading: '.," Third Reading: STATE OF IDAHO,) : ss. County of Ada ) On this '2\ day of 1t0y~ ,2003, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appe red . ~~Rf:IE rnd WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known to me to b~ the~.a?fr fi-:iJ& CJ:erk of the CITY 6m-6ri'<Mg~~h~fnd who executed the within instrumenl.f,ti'd1iffi~l{dgt:c tbme that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above writt~m,- ",0. "tic ~<:>oo (~>-~L~~Q(> o'IJ /'0 'tAJ?~~"~~$ tl I ~ ~\."",,\'l QC/J' "<f \ I> o : \ 0 J;l I I P '" I I C o \ , Q 0. \ " C} <!> , b_o C' /i} 9<1' &~..~ U.lj)J~..~O/i}/i} <)4> ., ~1ifoi tQ $.(> Q Rrf1ram.a'P-'O ~ hCULoil Snu',/tv NOTARYPUBLlCFORIDAHO RESIDING AT: DUb Lr;> JifLto MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: - 2..<;'-05 (SEAL) Z:\Work\M\Meridian\MeridianI 5360M\Ha\\JSu Creek Sub AZ02-022 PP02-0 19 CUP02-028\AZOrd,doc ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-02-022) - 4 a~ 3^O~9 lSn::>Ol N '(;) !; ~ j i' [ 1 j; .' ; !lil i3 i~ :::;; , '0 I::;; ; 'w ! ; i l , i: ! " I' ; , :. ; Ii j ~ ,00 iSG' J; M"v17.kt?oOOS .0L"6E9 M..L9.LEoOOS (') u-Z Oz LlJ = I-Z V 01 z- t~ ..- -(') to-: Ow a../D ro 0) ~ ro C/) ,LO'9617 M.. k 17.EEoOOS It! ...,~ t~ 8 0)0 rol!') C/)C\1 ~ (001 I~ : too 0) I!') ro C/) .99tL9k M.. k v.EEoOOS w ...... m ""'t~ co I!') 0) z ("') 0 0) u; co ...... ::> (/) 5 '" => '" ~ "U,J'.'. w '" {} bU roM t~ ~ 0) 0) ro C/) ~~ ~~ ~ o ...... ~...... Z ~ ...... 0, M' V o m fffl ~ ,09 'G'EE ("') M..9k,17EoOOS .0L"v66 k 3"G'17,SEoOON ,E k 'E179 3,,1717,kvoOON ~ OM I ~ ;:; foro 0)0) ro Z ~z ':-.. 0 (f) ":0[> .0 ~ Omit: z=>z wOlf! o::::c....... zw(<) <( w z zo::g -00 o=>w O:::(f)w 0<( > <( I ~ M(o j~ ~ o ("') gs...... z o -, U) >= m 8 ~ z~'" 0 <( f- '<t o~~ a:: 0: 0 w~;r: 20~ f- - u..o ffi ~ f-D >-~ffi !:: lJj::;; ()2 (J) g! g z >::: ~ (ti ~ ~ CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN To: The Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor of Ada County, and The State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho I, WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., City Clerk, ofthe City of Meridian, Ada County, State of Idaho, do hereby certify that the attached cop;:.of Ordinance No. 03- tJCfr, passed by the City Council of the City of Meridian, on the ";21 '9 day of J4.J1Ufltl'1, 2003, is a true and correct copy of the original of said document which is in the care, custodyand control of the City Clerk of the City of Meridian. \\\\\\l\f\\I~I~~,~ll"..'111 ,\\ _~ 0 i'JI,-DJh III ...." ,( '\ ..... I!V~ "... " ~ '\ .-"" -/ $' Q' of'PoiV[ -,1,- ~ ::: ~'-v rGo ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - i ~ - ~ STATE OF IDAHO, ) : ss. County of Ada, ) On ~his '2\ day of d~/VUAOfVY , in the year 2..003 , before me, SYtoJru~ ~ryu:!Wv iJ , a Notary Public, appeared WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known or identified to me to be the City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Idaho that executed the said instrument, and acknowledged to me that he executed the same on behalf of the City of Meridian. -oQQOOQ o-voON is /Joe;, ,l;'~~/(;'iA;t{{&.~$ ~~,~ .e- \:of"'O Q_.JI , [). Q I' , D 010 "' I I III o \ , m [). \ , m 0\ C/.lJ 0" .",'.. .b_:\l W' 0<> v v-, "",::: U.tl~,. e- l;>Q~~----";'" Q<> lJI;)-<.f!QF)Y. <) lil"'l!:ltlfill" Z:\ Work\M\Meridinn\Meridian [5360M\Havasu Creek Sub AZ02-Q22 PP02-Q J 9 CUP02-Q28\CertificntimOfClerkOrd.doc (SEAL) 2>\LCU\/U1l SrVLl ~ Notary Public for Idaho Commission Expires: O~ - "2'& -oS CERTIFICATION OF THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AZ-OI-014 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF THE REQUIREMENT OF TILING OF THE RUTLEDGE LATERAL FOR KENT MORTENSEN, 521 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE, MERIDIAN, IDAHO PINNACLE ENGINEERS, INC., APPLICANT C/C 01/07/03 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. MI-02-006 FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF THE REQUIREMENT OF TILING OF THE RUTLEDGE LATERAL The above entitled matter coming on regularly for public hearing before the City Council on January 7, 2003, at 7:00 o'clock p.m. at the Meridian City Hall located at 33 East Idaho, and Brad Hawkins-Clark Interim Director for the Planning and Zoning Department, Clint Boyle, and James Buck, appeared and testified, and no one appeared in opposition, and the City Council having received a report from Brad Hawkins-Clark Interim Director for the Planning and Zoning Department, and the City Council having received as part ofthe record of this matter the recommendation to City Council of the Planning and Zoning Commission, makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The subject property is located at 521 W. Broadway, Meridian, Idaho. 2. The owner of record is Kent Mortensen, 933 W. Chateau Avenue, Meridian, FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF THE REQUIREMENT OF TILING THE RUTLEDGE LATERAL FOR MI-02-012 " 1 Idaho. 3. Applicant is Pinnacle Engineers, Inc., 12552 West Executive Drive, Suite B, Boise, Idaho. 4. The proposed application requests a waiver ofthe requirement of tiling of the Rutledge Lateral by Pinnacle Engineers, Inc. for Kent Mortensen. 5. The applicant proposes to convert the approximate 1,300 sq. ft. house into an office with the detached garage becoming storage for the office. Additionally, the applicant will construct a new approximate 3,600 sq. ft. garage for the storage of fleet vehicles. The garage will have two overhead doors on the north wall and three overhead doors on the south wall. The design will allow for fleet vehicles to pull through the garage without having to back out. 6. The public interest does not appear to be served by piping this small section ofthe Rutledge Lateral, but in fact could serve as a problem area for adjacent properties if the ditch was piped. 7. The Applicant, Clint Boyle, submitted a letter dated November 25, 2002 which addresses several issues with the piping of the lateral. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Approval of this request for waiver of the requirement of tiling of the Rutledge Lateral is based on the information and testimony provided by the applicant. The existing chain link fence provides some protection from the Rutledge Lateral; that the commerciaIlnon- residential use of the site typically implies fewer children that would be exposed to the area; that if the area was tiled it could create safety issues for the adjoining properties; that it would not be practical to pipe such a small portion of the ditch; that ultimately the piping of the lateral could FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF THE REQUIREMENT OF TILING THE RUTLEDGE LATERAL FOR MI-02-012 _ 2 actually be a detriment to the public interest; and that the Nine Mile Creek, which is immediately south ofthe Rutledge Lateral, is not tiled. DECISION AND ORDER Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code ~ 12-3-5 and based upon the above and foregoing Findings of Fact which are herein adopted: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND THIS DOES ORDER 1. The applicant is hereby granted a wavier of the requirement of tiling of the Rutledge Lateral, based upon the infonnation and testimony provided by the applicant, and due to the existing chain link fence which provides some protection from the Rutledge Lateral; that the commercial/non-residential use of the site typically implies fewer children that would be exposed to the area; that if the area was tiled it could create safety issues for the adjoining properties; that it would not be practical to pipe such a small portion of the ditch; that ultimately the piping ofthe lateral could actually be a detriment to the public interest; and that the Nine Mile Creek, which is immediately south ofthe Rutledge Lateral, is not tiled. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 2( q;r day of "'Cr~CV1-vl , 2003. V ROLLCALL COUNCILMAN BIRD VOTED~ COUNCILWOMAN deWEERD VOTED~ COUNCILWOMAN McCANDLESS VOTED~ COUNCILMAN NARY VOTED~ FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF THE REQUIREMENT OF TILING THE RUTLEDGE LATERAL FORMI-02-012 - 3 MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED - Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney. Dated: ! -- ~/-- tJ 3 Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Mortensen Kent Ml-02-012\FlClsQrd MJ-02-012,doc FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF THE REQUIREMENT OF TILING THE RUTLEDGE LATERAL FOR MI-02-012 ~ , - 4 January 17,2003 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 21,2003 APPLICANT Parks Department ITEM NO. 3- H REQUEST Agreement for Services, The Land Group, Inc. - Settlers Park Restrooms: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTH ER: See Attached Memo / Agreement fY(rr()~ Contacted: Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. MeriClian earl(s g Recreation . . ? ., ~, ? ' ?, , "' , To: Keith Bird From: Elroy Huff Date: 1-16-03 RECEIVED JAN 1 6 2003 C~ty Of Meridian CIty Clerk Office Re: Settlers Park Restroom building J wanted to take this opportunity to review some items with you about Settlers park restroom. It was designed a year and a half ago. We decided not to include it in phase one of the park because the estimated costs at that time seemed too high. Well, as it turned out that bid came in lower than anticipated. We did not put it on as an addendum item, but removed it entirely. We did have a change order for the south parking lot expansion and had an addendum for more turf acreage to the west side of phase one. That worked out veT)' well, because that gave us a larger sports area to start out with when the park is open to the public. We have currently spent $1,075,265.00 on what has been developed, about 25 acres. That brings us to the pre~ent subject. Some of the costs associated with Land Group architects on the bathroom 1f.=---- have already been paid in some of the original design fees. Their request for services on this project is $12,750.00. In addition, you and I discussed the restroom. We talked about how large it really needed to be and if we needed a concession room attached to it. I have discussed the concession room with our park sta.ff, employees and Park Commission members. r have had some really good feedback about what our future needs may be there in respect to sports leagues, baseball tournaments, soccer leagues, soccer tournaments, adventure land playground, concerts, arts in the park, or any other large scale community activity that may be held at the park. J asked the Land Group to give me an estimated cost for construction of the restroom and concession building. Their cost was $294,777.53. I did ask them to estimate on the high side. We decided to get an estimate from a contractor that does a lot of this kind of work, for comparison. His estimated cost was $178,620.00. The park staff feels that the size of the restroom is a given due to the amount of people it will be servicing. Staff also feels that the concession room also needs to be included in the building and will be a valuable asset in years to come. I have put the request from the Land Group for Settlers restroom on the consent agenda for Council meeting next Tuesday night. You will receive the infonnation in your council packet. . If you have any comments, please call me. Thank you CD Page 1 ~,-~ (I' ~ THE LAND GROUP, INC. January 16,2003 EXHIBIT B City of Meridian Parks Department Elroy Huff 11 West Bower Meridian, Idaho 83642 -DE" ."c " Jt 'ijJ ~'"1,:f Re: Fee Proposal Settler's Park - Restroom Building IVl1'D ~J....~[ JAN 162003 '''I" ;;~t;y OfMeridi Gliy Cler]'" Or-t=: an - -~ 1l1Ce Dear Elroy, The following reviews the type and scope of services provided and the fees required for completion. Our contractual agreement is contemplated to be executed between the City of Meridian and The Land Group Inc. This proposal is based on the conceptual Restroom Building as shown on the attached drawing (see Exhibit "A"), and construction budget (approximately $294,777.53, see attached cost estimate), as developed by the City of Meridian. SCOPE OF SERVICES A. DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PHASE 1. The Land Group will prepare a Design Development Plan for the proposed restroom building. The Land Group will use the previous design development building design as developed by the City of Meridian as a "base" for the Construction Documents. The Land Group will work with the Meridian Park Department to detennine the project programming and design development. This design development plan shall include all program elements such as restroom/storage/concession structure with overhead shelter, pedestrian pathways, stonn water retention, site utilities, pressurized irrigation system, and landscape. 2. The Land Group will present a design development to the parks department for review and conunent. This phase is very important to communicate and combine all input from the owner's program elements and design criteria. Any comments or recommendations will be considered and will lead to the final drawing which will be utilized as a base sheet for construction documentation. The Land Group's basic service consists of items as described in the AIA Document B141, Paragraph 2.3. ' B. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTATION Upon approval of the design developments plans, The Land Group will develop working drawings and technical sections of specifications to construct the restroom building and surrounding area. In developing working drawings and specifications, The Land Group shall coordinate its services with those of other consultants necessary to provide construction documents which help to iT \L..;., rp. LilJJdswpr Arcb/trflllrr . Sit, Plnl/llillg . Cir'i/ Ellgillrrr/lIg . Golf COII!"!r Irrigatioll c:~ Ellgilleer/llg . Grnpbir COlllllllllJiCiltioll 128 South Engle Rond . Engle, Idnho 83616 . P 208.939.4041 F 208,939.4445 . www.thelnndgroup.cc ;, L I, maintain a construction budget in accordance with the preliminary design estimate of pro bable construction cost. The Land Group's basic service consists of items as described in the AlA Document B 141, Paragraph 2.4. CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTATION SCHEDULE: The Land Group will provide the following services for all phases of the park project; 1. SITE LA YOUT Including final location, sizing and layout of restroom building, pedestrian circulation and landscape. 2. SITE DETAll.,S The Land Group will provide complete site detailing for all related construction items. 3. GRADING PLAN The Land Group will provide fmish grading and surface drainage of exterior hardscape and softscape elements on the site. We will direct surface drainage to designated sub-surface catch basins, surface retention basins or approved off-site drainage facilities. The Land Group will provide Civil Engineering of site improvements and grading. The Land Group will provide all off- site improvements. 4. GRADING DETAILS Provide and coordinate details required for fmal grading and drainage. 5. RESTROOM BUll.DIN'G The design team will provide a design for a restroom facility for the site. The restroom concession building with stalls per gender, ADA requirements, maintenance/storage/mechanical room, concessions area (prepared foods only), and small overhead extension for picnic shelter. All phases of work will be provided, including design development, construction drawings, specifications and construction administration. 6. SITE UTILITIES The design team engineers will provide site utilities such as power, lighting, telephone, sanitary sewer and potable water. 6.LANDSCAPE PLAN Provide landscape design including specific plant material, layout, plant sizes and details. 7. IRRIGATION PLAN Provide irrigation design for all landscape areas including details from mainline point-of- connection. Irrigation design to include head layout, lateral lines & zoning, valve placement, mainline and control wire routing, controllers, along with all necessary schedules and legends. 8. SPECIFICATIONS The Land Group will provide project specifications for biding instruction and clarification to working drawings for contractor / designer / owner clarification. 10. COORDINATION MEETINGS The Land Group will attend coordination meeting with the design team, public agencies and Owners. The Land Group will meet with the design team consultants to coordinate with site utilities, structures, layout and phases of work C. BIDDING OR NEGOTIATION PHASE The Land Group, following the Owner's approval of the Construction Documents and probable cost of construction, shall assist the Owner in obtaining bids or negotiated proposals and assist in awarding and preparing contracts for construction. D. CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION PHASE The Land Group and design team will provide construction administration to insure that all work performed by the contractor is completed per the drawings and specifications. The Design Team will review shop drawings, submittals and site observations (including Final walk through) to meet the contractors. The Land Group's basic service consists of items as described in the AIA Document B 141, Paragraph 2.6. FEES AND TERMS Total Fee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. $12,750.00 Cost Breakdown 20% Design Development. . . . ., . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . .,. ., $2,550.00 55% Construction Documents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $7,012.00 5% Bidding............................................................ $638.00 20% Construction Administration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. $2,550.00 Fees for Professional Services shall be billed monthly for progress payment based upon percentage of work completed. E. SERVICES NOT INCLUDED 1. Corporation Shelter 2. Maintenance Building 3. Picnic Shelters 4. Site Surveying 5. Geotechnical investigation report and geotechnical field observations. 6. Construction Management 7. Construction Quality Control Testing 8. Rezoning process 9. Conditional Use Permit 10. Soil Testing 11. Design revisions after approval to proceed with construction documents. If design revisions are requested, The Land Group will perform the revisions after receiving written authorization. 12. Fun~time construction observations services, testing and construction staking. 13. Tree Survey/A.rborist Report 14. Water features 15. Traffic StudylReport 16. Play Structures F. ADDITIONAL SERVICES When specifically requested, work not described above shall be performed as additional services as per AIA document B141-1987 Article 3. This work may include, but is not limited to: L Making revisions in drawings, specifications or other documents, or preparing change order documents, when such revisions are due to causes beyond the control of our firm. 2. Design revisions after securing Owner approvals to proceed. If design revisions are requested, The Land Group will perform the additional services after receiving written authorization. 3. Providing additional site observations. 4. Preparation of record drawings or transferring as-built blueprint infonnation to the original drawings. 5. Providing any other services not specifically included in this proposal. G. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Reimbursable Expenses shall be as per AIA document B 141-1987 Article 10, sections 10.2 through 10.2.1.6. 1. Cost of models, special renderings, promotional photography, special process printing, special equipment, special printed reports or publications, maps and documents. 2. Photographic services, film and processing. 3. Cost of copies of drawings, reports and visual images; xerography and photographic reproduction of drawings and other documents furnished or prepared in connection with the work of this contract. 4. Cost of commercial carrier and public transportation, lodging, car rental and parking, subsistence and out-of-pocket expenses. Private automobile travel at $0.31 per mile. 5. Cost of postage and shipping expenses other than frrst class mail. 6. Long distance telephone telegraph charges. 7. Electronic data processing. 8. Fees for additional special consultants retained with the approval of Client. 9. Full color printing Full size glossy prints .................................... $120.00 each Y2 scale prints ........................................... $75.00 each l1x17 prints ..................... $35.00 first print, $2.50 each additional 8 Y2 xII ..................... $20.00 frrst print, $1.50 each additional print 10. Mounting and laminating Full size boards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $75.00 each Add fnune . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $45.00 each 11. Courier delivery cost 12. Bidding packages for blueprint sets and project manuals. H. ASSUMPTIONS The assumptions listed below were fundamental in determining the appropriate fee for the scope of work proposed in this section. Significant deviations from these assumptions could materially impact the actual fee incurred under the above scope. The assumptions include: L Prior to the actual beginning of work, The City of Meridian and The Land Group will jointly defme the extent of the Scope of Work and standards to be utilized for the duration of the project. 2. Completion of individual tasks will take place in an orderly fashion. Submittals required by the Owners will respect a time table jointly established with The Land Group prior to the beginning of work. I. STANDARD OF CAREl CONSTRUCTION CHANGES The Land Group, Inc. will follow the professional standards of care expected of a landscape architect licensed and practicing in the State ofIdaho. The owner acknowledges that in the perfonnance of services, as defined in this agreement, the landscape architect and his consultants are expected to meet the standard of care as defmed by the State ofIdaho. The owner acknowledges that this standard of care does not imply or represent that the contract documents produced by the landscape architect and his consultants will be 100% free from inconsistencies, conflicts, or discrepancies and does not guarantee that 100% of the elements of the project are included. The owner understands that since the landscape architect and his consultants can not produce 100% accurate documents, that construction changes will occur and the changes may cost an additional 4-6% above the original contract price between the owner and the contractor. These changes are in addition to any changes required due to unseen or hidden conditions, changes in the codes or regulations and any owner directed changes. The owner will establish a construction contingency to fund construction changes. All costs or credits associated with construction changes will be handled by a modification to the original contract between the owner and the contractor. J. COMPENSATION FOR SCOPE OF SERVICES Compensation for additional services shall be on a time and expense basis in accordance with the following: PRlNCIPAL LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT Crvn... ENGIl'ffiER PROJECT MANAGER/DESIGNER CIVIL ENGINEER E.I.T. PRODUCTION :MANAGER/CADD CLERICAL $85.00 per hour $80.00 per hour $65.00 per hour $60.00 per hour $55.00 per hour $30.00 per hour Fees for Professional Services shall be billed monthly for progress payment based upon percentage of work completed. Reimbursable Costs shall be billed with fee invoices. Thank you for the opportunity to work with you on this project. Should you have any questions or need additional infonnation, please call. If this proposal meets with your approval, please sign below and return one copy for our files. City: By: Title: Date: merparkrestroom.pro SETTLER'S PARK RESTROOM BUILDING - 1.16.03 3245 N. Meridian Road PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE ITEMS QUAN1TY UNITS 1 EA 1 EA 1 EA 1 EA 7,500 SF 50 CY 25 CY 12 CY 50 CY 1,350 SF 150 LF 6,150 SF 1 EA 1 EA 100 LF 2,000 SF 1 EA MOBILIZATION PERFOMANCE BOND & INSURANCE SURVEYING 1 STAKING *GERNERAL CONDITIONS REQUIREMENTS SITE CLEARING 1 DEMOLITION EARTHWORK REMOVE 1 STOCKPILE TOPSOIUSUBSOILS ROUGH GRADE BpLK EXCVT 1 HAUL OFF LANDSCAPE TOPSOIL AND PLACEMENT BUILDING PAD - 3/4" CRUSHED GRAVEL FOOTING EXCVT.I BACKFILL FINISH GRADE RESTROOM 1 CONCESSION BUILDING SEWER SERVICE CONNECTION 3" WATER LINE CONCRETE FLA TWORK ELECTRICAL UPGRADE/RELOCATION SUB-TOTAL 5% CONTINGENCIES TOTAL *No permit for sewer and water hookup fee required *Contractors required for building permit fee RRbl(Ig1.16,03,x1s , " SUB-TOTAL UNIT CDS $3,000,00 $15,000,00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.05 $3,000.00 $15,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $375.00 $3.50 $4.00 $4.00 $12.00 $0.20 $12.00 $0,15 $245,000.00 $950.00 $20.00 $2.50 $2,500.00 $175.00 $100.00 $48.00 $600.00 $270.00 $1,800.00 $922.50 $245,000.00 $950.00 $2,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,500.00 111610310:46 Al.l January 17,2003 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT REQUEST Discussion of Tully Skate Park: Pre-Council Meeting January 21 , 2003 ITEM NO. 7 AGENCY CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Contacted: COMMENTS ~rs()tS5fOL Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. January 17,2003 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING January 21,2003 APPLICANT Public Works Department ITEM NO. 3 - , REQUEST Award of Bid / Contract for Well No. 25 Waterline Road Crossing, Irminger Construction AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTH ER: See Attached Memo / Agreement vV aJ(~ Contacted: Date: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shalf become property of the City of Meridian. R1r:1C~ Rl"" ~Jij u-"'- JAN 1 6 2003 To: Brad Watson From: Lenard Grady ;fa,fJ CC: Gary Smith Date: 1/16/2003 City Of Meridian ' City Clerk Office Re: Proposed Agenda Items for January 21, 2003 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests the following items be placed on the January 21 City Council agenda, under Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: Well 25 Waterline Road Crossing. Three bids were received for the above project as shown below: o Irminger Construction $8,226.00 ill Star Construction $9,963.57 . Bitterroot Construction $10,730.00 This line will provide water for the upcoming test well and ultimately be the distribution line for the well when it is completed. Recommended Council Action: The Public Works Department recommends that City Council approves the contract with Irminger Construction for the GIS Well 25 Waterline for $8,226.00 and authorize the Mayor to sign it Thank you for your consideration. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding any of these items. From the desk of... unard Grady Staff Engineer Meridian Public Works Department 660 E. Watertower, Suite 200 Meridian, Idaho 83642 o Page 1 (208) 898-5500 Fax: (208) 887-1297 gradyl@Ci.meridian.id.us STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN OWNER AND CONTRACTOR ON THE BASIS OF A STIPULATED PRICE THIS AGREEMENT is dated the \ S day of ~A to I in the year 2003 by and between City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho (hereinafter called OWNER) and Irminger Construction, Inc. (hereinafter called CONTRACTOR). OWNER and CONTRACTOR, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: Article] WORK. The CONTRACTOR will complete all Work as specified or indicated in the Agreement. The WORK is generally described as follows: The Project includes all labor, materials, and permit fees required to construct the supply line to Well 25 as shown in Figure 1. The Project for which the Work under the Agreement is described as follows: Construction of Wen 25 Supply Line. All replacement materials and workmanship will meet the City of Meridian Standard Specifications and Drawings. The Contractor should become familiar with the specifications. Detailed Description of Work The work is described in Figure I. Article 2 ENGINEER The City of Meridian Public Works Department will be the ENGINEER. The City of Meridian Public Works Department is to act as OWNER's representative, assume all duties and responsibilities and have the rights and authority assigned to ENGINEER in the Contract Documents in connection with completion of the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. Article 3 CONTRACT TIME. The Work will be completed within forty five (45) calender days from the date when the Contract Time commences to run. Time is of the essence. Article 4 CONTRACT PRICE. OWNER will pay CONTRACTOR for completion of the Work in current funds as follows: $8,226.00 Article 5 PA YMENT PROCEDURES. The CONTRACTOR will submit an Application for Payment upon completion of the Work. Applications for Payment must be submitted to the Public Works Department. Payments. The OWNER will make progress payments on account of the Contract Price on the basis of CONTRACTOR's Application for Payment as recommended by the Public Works Department, on or about the IS'h day of each month during construction for Applications submitted to the Public Works Department prior to the 1st day of that month. All progress payments will be on the basis of the progress of the work measured by the schedule of values established in Article 4. The OWNER may retain up to 5% of the amount of the payment until final completion III 312003 Page lof4 and acceptance of all Work covered by this Agreement. Upon completion and acceptance ofthe Work, payment will be made in full, including retained percentages, less authorized deductions, within thirty (30) days. Article 6 INTEREST. All moneys not paid when due will bear interest at 12% per annum or the maximum rate allowed by law at the place of Project, whichever is less. Article 7 CONTRACTOR'S REPRESENTATIONS. In order to induce the OWNER to enter into the Agreement, the CONTRACTOR makes the following representations: 7.1 The CONTRACTOR has familiarized itselfwith the nature and extent of the Work, site, locality, and all local conditions and Laws and Regulations that in any manner may affect cost, progress, performance or furnishing of the Work. 7.2 The CONTRACTOR has studied carefully all drawings of physical conditions. 7.3 The CONTRACTOR has given Public Works Department written notice of all conflicts, errors or discrepancies that he has discovered and the written resolution thereof by ENGINEER is acceptable to CONTRACTOR. Article 8 CONTRACT DOCUMENTS. The Contract Documents, which comprise the entire agreement between the OWNER and the CONTRACTOR concerning the Work, consist of the following: 8.1 This Agreement. 8.2 Exhibits to this Agreemenl- N/A. 8.3 Information For Bidders. 8.4 Drawings. 8.5 CONTRACTOR's Quote. 8.6 1999 Idaho Standards for Public Works Construction, including Division 100, except as superseded by the Information For Bidders, contained herein. 8.7 Revisions to the Standard Specifications and Special Provisions. 8.8 Documentation submitted by CONTRACTOR prior to Notice of Award. 8.9 The documents listed in paragraph 8.2 above are attached to this Agreement (except as expressly noted otherwise above). 8.1 0 City of Meridian Standard Specifications & Drawings - 2002 8. 11 EJCD General Conditions There are no Contract Documents other than those listed above in this Article 8. The Contract Documents may only be amended, modified or supplemented by written Change Order. 1/1 3/2003 Page 2 of 4 Article 9 MISCELLANEOUS. 9.1 No assignment by a party hereto of any rights under or interest in the Contract Documents will be binding on another party hereto without the written consent of the party sought to be bound; and specifically but without limitation moneys that may become due and moneys that are due may not be assigned without such consent (except to the extent that the effect of this restriction may be limited by law), and unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under the Contract Documents. 9.2 OWNER and CONTRACTOR each binds itself, its partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives to the other party hereto, its partners, successors, assigns and legal representatives in respect of all covenants and obligations contained in the Contract Documents. Article 10 OTHER PROVISIONS. None IN WITNESS WHEREOF, OWNER and CONTRACTOR have signed this Agreement in triplicate. One counterpart each has been delivered to OWNER, CONTRACTOR and ENGINEER. All portions of the Contract Documents have been signed or identified by OWNER and CONTRACTOR or by ENGINEER on their behalf. The Agreement will be effective on ,20_ Contractor :l. ~ \V\ \ "-l G t. e. CJJ 'Nos\:. ::i..N C _ By (~(:\~ Nam" ~ ~""'Cdt.((, Attest: ~__ ......~ Owner CITY OF MERIDIAN By: Name: Robert D. Corrie, Mayor Attest: William G. Berg, Jr. City Clerk 1/13/2003 Page 3 of 4 i. r ,-<-,_ eM., _ c.,~ __,..~..u~,,~ "._~__'~L_._._'__~_'__'::_"':::.::..:',c r"";" ...T.....--.~r~----::..~~; i , '^l I I ;f-::....,;....:~:..._~'.-- 'I 'I :1 'I i ,I ,I 'j " 'j , " it q :1 'I !I I i !! )i :1 :1 ,I :1 II I' iI 'I L 'I : ~ q 'I II I i '! ~ ! .'- . -,,- ...-. .'-'...._~ I. I !' f, I, I' Ii i Figure 1 - Description of Work / " / i I i . - , , - --------1~_,_...,.._______n___ _... .. ._._ __ .. _ _ __ _ , / " .'--' ---INSTALL 72 LF i 12") pve WATER MAIN - .M_.'__~ _~~~.__L_._~__ ~~ - ::...~c - _.':;.:.::-~~~~r77A .~"; -.:.;;.:.;.::;. ,rNSTALL ---,-,---. 1 12" Tee (Mj x FI 1 1 - 12" Valve (ML,x FI) ~ ---==_.:---=-= .---:-::;---~--=-===--=:::::;.~_===:J..li..7?::.:::::--" -- Ii I: jc ) . i /,! ~~:~F~:-;--7~'r-'/-- - [ ...--C.1S ~:'1! t.r i~ ! ~, " ,<:jf t. ,.'--:-::.=-~~._. ',~~'_>~~~~-r!,/~_-c ~___~_'.,_',-'.::_--,-,-_ ~,,"_-""~_"~= _~r?__ -G":;~;1t4r~~;?~:; -- /--~ - T "')'f '.. -Vi-&i---n~ ~-~ A{)--"'--~l'---- .~'.. '-~..~'\-- \ (.. (' - -:--:---\ . '7,. '. ~,/ \ " " ....__ _. ..' ' /~~'<:;.,<" \~"" . "\ fiPif/;;,r., =oL.... \ '--,..-.. -"~ ''i.,flS! 6:~", r\~" ,~~ '- r,.~j''':~-:'~-:~. - -~ . '--~-'::=:---5r=:::;;;: ~i;-=:=;- -::;.: ~.,.;;;~~ '--~~.-==:.. :~~t.:,:we~:t~:~ ; _..~_...r_n._._.._____.._"',_ ~~~.,~ ~V'~L ==,__ __ ______ :....,~___ ~ ~~ ". ->~~:;~.:- _ '~~<Z" \.' <\~~I--' ~-~-~ --=-:_==:::~=-' 11',. / ':~-'-;-=~~'~~',,-~:, -~~ ".,'--c;->:'~"", .-..' I ',", \ \\, 5 .00 \ '......'-........_'/ '_' ';;'.'.'>, ...... "- ':. " ',\ ,....~? I \ '-.. '\\~. \, ~\ ~ \\'~.. \' \ INSTAtL; BLOWOFF .. , \ ---__.^__~._n_'_ ,,<. . \~ llp~.Qefai!( ~,'12(W) :-___~_~--_ \.... \. I ' . -\ ., \ '. I! I I 1: r j, I I i I I ! i I I , I j 1 I , ! I I I I I ! , j i ! , i !: I: I: I I j Ii ! I: I I I j t '-rn I . I t, 'P1~~.~;' :;: r; T j~!OI!:::.. f..~ 1 :,r, -;;..;.:'~) ;;~l(~~ ! 1 ': '. ~ .......'-."- (1 \;,') "....-tl .. i\ ~," .. ~ L'_,.!....- f !,~ [i/"UC')-'- \ \ I: i '",q\,/:.-: i/<'.~,I/['~'~- ~ \ \ I: ,.~._~!- ~~.Ir~;'''..<~~,..". , "'-'<''0'" , \ ' ~~:.:- f{ i\ fii ,~ f~ ;. - --I 'q i I i j i ; I, I ._.'. ....... ..J..___.....L_"."......n...'~. "'- -"-' -- ......-.., ,....:::;;=:.:==:.....~.:_::.:c:;:==~-..._-- .....uy-::-:~,._,..'._ __~~:~......::':~-:,;~~~-~:..~:-..'::':_,:.:! I' '."-_(j~J: !~' -. "''')r1i~~~~1iP. 'I 1 ,.' .~- -.t""'\. " I:. N ft/;{Jf1 ." ~ i! I , III \11\ . ~I i1 :.e Jl ., , "'''''-~'' ,'- /< ij:. Jv'd,-:-~?:T :1~U~" ~'~,ub No. , e~... ~ 11 ; ",_, '.'_...'..,'~..--.____~_c._.~'<__L ."~~c~,>'-<J:.........-.~,-,,~........,....."'......" ~,,"","................~~~--..,,.,....,......:'~j. \/'\1 r.: ! '> '~ "- ~~~ l_ '> t::> L.(~\-1- F- U\ i\J " ;".,' i ..._..................L..., ADA COUNTY RECORDER J. DAVID NAVARRO BOISE IDAHO 01/24/U3 12:02 PM DEPUTY Bonnie Oberbillig RECORDED-REQUEST OF Meridian City AMOUNT .on 7 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 103012600 CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. tJJ-997 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 02-968 FINDING THAT CERTAIN LAND TO BE KNOWN AS BALTIC PLACE SUBDIVISION THE LOCATION OF WHICH LIES CONTIGUOUS OR ADJACENT TO THE CITY LIMITS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO; AND FINDING THAT THE OWNER HAS MADE A REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION IN WRITING TO THE COUNCIL; AND THAT SAID LAND BE ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AND ZONING DESIGNATED HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (R-40) AND GENERAL RETAIL AND SERVICE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (C-G); AND DECLARING THAT SAID LAND, BY PROPER LEGAL DESCRIPTION AS DESCRIBED BELOW, BE A PART OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO; REPEALING ALL ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, ORDERS OR PARTS THEREOF IN CONFLICT HEREWITH; AND DIRECTING THE CITY ENGINEER TO ADD SAID PROPERTY TO THE OFFICIAL MAPS OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO; AND DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN TO FILE A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDINANCE AND MAP OF THE AREAS TO BE ANNEXED WITH ADA COUNTY RECORDER, AUDITOR, TREASURER AND ASSESSOR, AND THE STATE TAX COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, PURSUANT TO IDAHO CODE SECTION 50-223 AND SECTION 63-2215. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, COUNTY OF ADA, STATE OF IDAHO: SECTION 1. FINDINGS: That the following described land is contiguous and adjacent to the City of Meridian, Idaho, and that the City of Meridian has received a written request for annexation to the City of Meridian, Idaho, by the owner of said Property to-wit: L.c. DEVELOPMENT, FRANKLIN ROAD SUBDIVISION REZONE TO R-40 A parcel of land located in the NW1I4 of the NE1/4 of Section 18, T.3N., R.IE., RM., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the corner common to Sections 7,8, 17 and the said Section 18, from which the 'l4 corner common to said Sections 7 and 18 bears South 89046'13" West, 2654.29 feet; thence South 89046'13" West, 1327.12 feet to the East 1/16 corner common to said Sections 7 and 18; ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-OI-008) - 1 thence along the West boundary of Medimont Subdivision No.1, as same is recorded in Book 75 of Plats at Page 7794, records of Ada County, Idaho South 00029'15" West, 293.00 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence continuing along said West boundary and the West boundary of Medimont Subdivision No.2 as same is recorded in Book 79 of Plats at Page 8453, records of Ada County, Idaho, South 00029' IS" West, 1039.09 feet to the southwest corner of said Medimont Subdivision No.2; Thence generally along the bank of the Hunter Lateral North 51029'39" West, 132.92 feet; thence North 63025'13" West, 205.41 feet; thence North 61005'52" West, 203.20 feet; thence departing said bank North 00038'34" West, 670.68 feet; thence North 89021 '26" East, 129.06 feet; thence North 45029' 15" East, 35.51 feet; thence North 00029' 15" East, 71.99 feet; thence South 89030'45" East, 327.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 9.41 acres, more or less. L.C. DEVELOPMENT, FRANKLIN ROAD SUBDIVISION REZONE TO C-G A parcel ofland located in the NW1/4 of the NEl/4 of Section 18, T.3N., R.lE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the corner common to Sections 7, 8, 17 and the said Section 18, from which the 'l4 corner common to said Sections 7 and 18 bears South 89046' 13" West, 2654.29 feet; thence South 89046' 13" West, 1327.12 feet to the East 1/16 corner common to said Sections 7 and 18 and the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence along the West boundary of Medimont Subdivision No.1, as same as same is recorded in Book 75 of Plats at Page 7794, records of Ada County, Idaho, South 00029'15" West, 293.00; ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-OI-008) - 2 thence North 89030'45" West, 327.00 feet; thence South 00029'15" West, 71.99 feet; thence South 45029'15" West, 35.51 feet; thence South 89021 '26"West, 129.06 feet; thence North 00038'34" West, 386.60 feet to a point on the North boundary of said Section 18; thence North 89046'13" East, 488.80 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 3.58 acres, more or less. SECTION 2: That the above~described real property be, and the same is hereby annexed and made a part of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. SECTION 3: That the real property herein by this ordinance mmexed to the City of Meridiml hereinabove described shall be zoned High Density Residential District (R-40) and General Retail and Service Commercial District (C-G). SECTION 4: That the City Engineer is hereby directed to alter all use and area maps as well as the official zoning maps, comprehensive plan and all official maps depicting the boundaries of the City of Meridian in accordance with this ordinance. SECTION 5: The zoning designation set forth in Section 3 ofthis ordinance is subject to the terms and conditions of that certain Development Agreement by and between the City of Meridian and the owner of the land described in Section 1 dated the q6 day of &d r:r , Z/J tJ 2-, and that the uses are to be developed under the plmmed unit development (/ process and conditional use permit process. ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-OI-008) ~ 3 SECTION 6: All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereofin conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. SECTION 7: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. SECTION 8: The Clerk of the City of Meridian shall, within ten (10) days following the effective date of this ordinance, duly file a certified copy of this ordinance and a map prepared in a draftsman manner plainly and clearly designating the boundaries of the City of Meridian, including the lands herein annexed, with the following officials oftlle County of Ada, State ofldaho, w- wit: the Recorder, Auditor, Treasurer and Assessor and shall also file simultaneously a certified copy of this ordinance and map with the State Tax Commission of the State of Idaho, all in compliance with Idaho Code 963-2215 and 950-223. Sr Z( - day of PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this J t{n-t.?t{;1,y, 1- ' 2003. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this .Jd./VI.U(;Vl.-l/f ,2003. (/ US-j? day of ~) MAYO ATTEST: JldL-:-k~1' ,;L~ .. SEAL & _ CITY CLERK ,-? ~ c.Q "c~ 0 g First Reading: / - J-.( -0 :> \ '1'<> ~r 1$1 . ~ ....$" Adopted after first reading by suspen~i~tDS~h~.J\plb<fl!\ttnowed pursuant to Idaho Code 50-902 Yes: )C No: IlllrL.~)'.' . ',\\\\\ ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-OI-008) - 4 Second Reading: ,--. Third Reading: STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss. County of Ada. ) On this 2 \ ~ day of -::J2,n\A~ , 2003; before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared R_ODD&T-f)~OOR-1H~ and WILLIAM G. .~ \ (J./Y.Yl-i(I..;U;f_ dE GJ~c BERG, JR., known to me to ~e ~he ~nc! G!ty cClerk, respectively, onhe eIT of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the withikihit~iiliitIi~ ~ha"'abmlowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. (SEAL) ~t>tlOOtlt1 oOON S.A;~, ~~~~.---~~~Q. Q~'?'?O 'fA.J?~~,?1t. 1iiJ.41/ ~ .r- ,'.y'O of/;) I "" \ tl m I I 0 '" I I ]lI '" 1 I tJ " 1 t tI Q. , I Q 0' c"Q <) .~'" .0,....- ~ ~' O~1:1 G U.~ ....~- UJj)..l., v <)~-{'..<(~---...n <I>~ ot/...cOFp-';r.<' ""......." Jh()J1UJIh,w'~ NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO RESIDING AT: A.clo,- Cotv;a~;!, Jcli2IW MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: .Lj -Zg-05 Z:\ W ork\M\Meridian\Meridian 153 60M\Batic PlaceAZO 1-008 PPO [-009 CUPO 1-0 15\AZOrd.doc ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-OI-008) - 5