The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2000 11-21 ,; Meridian City Council Agenda November 21, 2000, at 7:30 P.M. City Council Chambers Roll-Call : X Tammy deWeerd X Cherie McCandless X Ron Anderson X Keith Bird X Mayor Robert Corrie CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve minutes of November 8, 2000, Special Meeting: Approve B. Approve minutes of November 8, 2000, Pre-Council Meeting: Approve C. Approve minutes of November 8, 2000, City Council Meeting: Approve D. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: PP 00-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5 building lots and 1 other lot on 8.29 acres for proposed Waltman Court Subdivision by John and Sandra Goade - Waltman Lane and SW 5th Street: Approve E. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: RZ 00-004 Request for rezone of .55 acres from I-L to L-Q for a proposed licensed child care facility for 48 children for Healthy Beginnings Daycare by Kasha and Wendell Lawrence - Linder Road and Pine Avenue at 737 North Linder Road: Approve F. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-046: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a licensed childcare facility for 48 children in an I-L zone and a proposed L-Q zone for Healthy Beginnings Daycare by Kasha and Wendell Lawrence - Linder Road and Pine Avenue at 737 North Linder Road: Approve G. Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-047: Request for a modification to the CUP of the front landscape setback in a C-G zone for Centennial Motors by Sam Fishel - west of Meridian Road on Franklin Road: Approve H. 2001 Beer License Renewal: Maverik Store by Hyde Stauffer - 1805 Cherry Lane: Approve Meridian City Council Agenda -November 21, 2000 Page 1 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommcxiation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings1 please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. .) REGULAR AGENDA 1. (Items moved from Consent Agenda) 2. Tabled from November 8, 2000: FP 00-018 Request for Final Plat approval for of 61 building lots and 3 other lots on 23.02 acres by Packard Estates Development for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No. 2 - south of Ustick between Locust Grove and Vintage Lane: Table until January 2, 2001 3. Continued Public Hearing from November 8, 2000: Proposed changes to the Landscape Ordinance by the City of Meridian: Attorney to Prepare Ordinance 4. Public Hearing: Proposed Sign Ordinance: Ordinance Attorney to Prepare 5. Public Hearing: The Lakes at Cherry Lane No.8 Land Swap: Attorney to Prepare Ordinance 6. FP 00-019 Request for Final Plat approval of 3 building lots on approximately 5 acres by Bill Cafarelli for Cafarelli Subdivision currently in an I-L zone - north side of Franklin Road and west of Linder Road: Approve with Conditions 7. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies: Approve 8. Department Reports: A. City Engineer - Gary Smith: 1. South Slough Sewer Trunk Extension - Engineering Agreement: Approve 2. Request to hook up to City Sewer by Warren and Jeanie Pemberton - 940 South Mustang Drive: Approve- Prepare Agreement 3. Request to hook up to City Sewer by Dianna Williamson - 2440 South Locust Grove Road: Table until December 5, 2000 Meridian City Council Agenda -November 21, 2000 Page 2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommcx:iation 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. 4. Addendum to Engineering Agreement for WWTP Trunk Sewer Extension: Approve B. Parks and Recreation Director: 1. Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation for Action Plan: Discussed - Prepare Plan Meridian City Council Agenda -November 21, 2000 Page 3 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. ~..- ~ f " Meridian City Council Agenda November 21, 2000, at 7:30 P.M. Roll-Call: City Council Chambers X Tammy deWeerd >C Cherie McCandless ^ Ron An~rson )(, Keith Bird Mayor Robert Corrie CONSENT AGENDA A. Approve minutes of November 8, 2000, Special Meeting: P/pj?YV I/UL Approve minutes of November 8, 2000, Pre-Council Meeting: A;:;? iG7~ Approve minutes of November 8, 2000, City Council Meeting: /"~)?YV v~ Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: PP 00-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5 building lots and 1 other lot on 8.29 acres for proposed Waltman Court Subdivision by John and Sandra Goade - Waltman Lane and SW 5th Street: Cl-ff!'O v~ Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: RZ 00-004 Request for rezone of .55 acres from I-L to L-Q for a proposed licensed childcare facility for 48 children for Healthy Beginnings Daycare by Kasha and Wendell Lawrence - Linder Road and Pine Avenue at 737 North Linder Road: a~v..€-- Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-046: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a licensed childcare facility for 48 children in an I-L zone and a proposed L-Q zone for Healthy Beginnings Daycare by Kasha and Wendell Lawrence - Linder Road and Pine Avenue at 737 North Linder Road: t7~~ Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-047: Request for a modi-fication to the CUP of the front landscape setback in a C-G zone for Centennial Motors by Sam Fishel - west of Meridian Road on Franklin Road: CV;~ vU 2001 Beer License Renewal: Maverik Store by Hyde Stauffer - 1805 Cherry Lane: bY1l1"P vV' Meridian City Council Agenda -November 21, 2000 Page 1 AU materials presented at public meetings shall beconle property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings, please contact the City ClerI(s Office at 88&4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. B. c. D. E. F. G. H. ( REGULAR AGENDA 1. 2. (Items moved from Consent Agenda) rvOrh, h3 Tabled from November 8, 2000: FP 00-018 Request for Final Plat approval for of 61 building lots and 3 other lots on 23.02 acres by Packard Estates Development for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No.2 - south of Ustick between Locust Grove and Vintage Lane: -h,6ee- ~ 'I .;r~, 2-1 Zoo I Continued Public Hearing from November 8, 2000: Proposed changes to the Landscape Ordinance by the City of Meridian: c~ (..-::J fY'LfJ tL--e. t7V~ Public Hearing: Proposed Sign Ordinance: ~(/ /.t:> P-V-/~ ~ Public Hearing: The Lakes at Cherry Lane No.8 Land Swap: ~1. fo ~f1~ ~ FP 00-019 Request for Final Plat approval of 3 building lots on approximately 5 acres by Bill Cafarelli for Cafarelli Subdivision currently in an I-L zone - north side of Franklin Road and west of Linder Road: tf'v,PproVlL vrif1.- ~d/h~ Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies: ~cv.v Department Reports: A. City Engineer - Gary Smith: 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 1. South Slough Sewer Trunk Extension - Engineering Ag reement: o/lTfO V'L- 2. Request to hook up to City Sewer by Warren and Jeanie Pemberton - 940 South Mustang Drive: t7-f17'O Vle.-- - ~fJ~ a~~ 3. Request to hook up to City Sewer by Dianna Williamson - 2440 South Locust Grove Road: -fa-~~M /2-!?.-.j/c) 4. Addendum to Engineering Agreement for WWTP Trunk Sewer Extension: ~t/--<--r B. Parks and Recreation Director: 1 . Parks and Recreation Commission Recommendation for Action Plan: dA7C&t..-SR:-~L - r-f'~ ~ Meridian City Council Agenda -November 21, 2000 Page 2 AIl materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Nleridian. 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 Pre-Council Meetina November 21. 2000 The City Pre-Council Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Robert D. Corrie at 6:45 p.m. on Tuesday, November 21,2000. Members Present: Robert Corrie, Keith Bird, Tammy deWeerd, Cherie McCandless, Ron Anderson. Others Present: Bill Nichols, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Steve Siddoway, Ken Borup, Dave Bowman, Tom Kuntz, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Will Berg. Corrie: I hereby open the Pre-Council Meeting of November 21, 2000, Tuesday. The time is 6:45 p.m. Mr. Clerk, roll-call, please. Let the record show that all the Council is present. Corrie: Council, what would you like to do on the Consent Agenda? Anderson: It's just like no presenting new updates. Corrie: Staff, any new updates on the Consent Agenda Items A through H? Stiles: I have none. Item H. 2001 Beer License Renewal: Maverik Store by Hyde Stauffer - 1805 Cherry Lane: Anderson: Is the beer license - is that signed by the Police Department? I didn't see anything on it. Bird: It's all taken care of. Corrie: It's by the State and also by the City. They paid their $50.00. (Inaudible discussion amongst Council members) Corrie: Captain Bowman, on the license for Maverik Store, has it all been signed - Police Department approved and all? Bowman: Yes, it has. Bird: There isn't anything we need to pull off the Consent Agenda, is there, that I can see or that I looked at. Everything looks fine to me. Item 8. Department Reports: A. City Engineer - Gary Smith: ( )-- - Meridian City Council Meetina November 21.2000 The regularly scheduled City Council Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Robert D. Corrie at on Tuesday, November 21, 2000. Members Present: Robert Corrie, Keith Bird, Tammy deWeerd, Cherie McCandless, Ron Anderson. Others Present: Bill Nichols, Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Dave Bowman, Steve Siddoway, Ken Borup, Tom Kuntz, Brad Hawkins-Clark, Will Berg. Corrie: I'll open the Regular City Council Meeting for November 21, 2000 at 7:30 p.m. We'll have the City Clerk call roll. I'd like to welcome everybody here this evening and particularly Troop 30, I believe, of Meridian. I'm glad to see you guys here and I hope we do a good job here for you tonight. Item A. Item B. Item C. Item D. Item E. Item F. Item G. Approve minutes of November 8, 2000, Special Meeting: Approve minutes of November 8, 2000, Pre-Council Meeting: Approve minutes of November 8, 2000, City Council Meeting: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: PP 00-014 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 5 building lots and 1 other lot on 8.29 acres for proposed Waltman Court Subdivision by John and Sandra Goade - Waltman Lane and SW 5th Street: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: RZ 00-004 Request for rezone of .55 acres from I-L to L-O for a proposed licensed childcare facility for 48 children for Healthy Beginnings Daycare by Kasha and Wendell Lawrence - Linder Road and Pine Avenue at 737 North Linder Road: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-046: Request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a licensed childcare facility for 48 children in an I-L zone and a proposed L-O zone for Healthy Beginnings Daycare by Kasha and Wendell Lawrence - Linder Road and Pine Avenue at 737 North Linder Road: Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law: CUP 00-047: Request for a modification to the CUP of the front landscape setback in a C-G zone for Centennial Motors by Sam Fishel - west of Meridian Road on Franklin Road: / . ( Meridian City Council MeeUng ": November 21 , 2000 Page 2 Item H. 2001 Beef License Renewal: Maverik Store by Hyde Stauffer- 1805 Cherry Lane: Corrie: Council, you have the Consent Agenda in front of you. Is there any questions on the Agenda Items? Anderson: I have none. Corrie: Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to approve the Consent Agenda A through H. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve the Consent Agenda, Items A, 8, C, 0, E, F, G, and H. Corrie: Do I hear a second? Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda A through H. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk. Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 2. Tabled from November 8, 2000: FP 00-018 Request for Final Plat approval for of 61 building lots and 3 other lots on 23.02 acres by Packard Estates Development for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No. 2 - south of Ustick between Locust Grove and Vintage Lane: Corrie: We move to the Regular Agenda - Item 2. This was tabled from November 8, 2000 - request for Final Plat approval for 61 building lots and 3 other lots on 23.02 acres by Packard Estates Development for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No. 2 - south of Ustick and between Locust Grove and Vintage Lane. Let's have staff comments first. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, we did receive a letter from the applicant requesting that this be deferred due to the short amount of time we have until the next meeting and the other commitments we have and the agenda that we have already for December 19th. I would ask that that be deferred to January 2nd. Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21, 2000 Page 3 Corrie: January 2nd? Stiles: Yes. Corrie: Any questions of Council? Bird: I have none. Corrie: That being the request from staff, I'll entertain a motion. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we table the request for Final Plat approval for 61 building lots and 3 other lots on 23.02 acres for Packard Estates Development for proposed Packard Acres Subdivision No. 2 - south of Ustick between Locust Grove and Vintage Lane to January 2, 2001. Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to table Item No.2, FP 00-018 until January 2, 2001. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 3. Continued Public Hearing from November 8, 2000: Proposed changes to the Landscape Ordinance by the City of Meridian: Corrie: Item No.3 is a continued public hearing from November 8, 2000. It is the proposed changes to the Landscape Ordinance by the City of Meridian. At this time, I'll reopen the continued public hearing and have staff comments first. Siddoway: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I would simply direct your attention to the memo dated November 17th, last Friday, that was distributed with the revised landscape ordinance that included all of the agreed to changes through the meetings with the Building Contractors' Association. The memo spelled out four areas that are still the issues to be resolved. The first is the width of the parkways - the parkway being defined as the area between a curb and a detached sidewalk. The original draft proposed five feet. The draft that you have tonight proposes that that remains that five feet. There has been some concern expressed by the Parks Department as whether that should be enlarged to ten feet. I did some research into it at the other jurisdictions and have that documented there. I'd be happy to answer any questions about it, but don't want to take your time going through it line by line. The second item that's still Meridian City Council Meeting (r November 21,2000 Page 4 1- ( outstanding is the width of the detached sidewalk. The BC has requested that if they detach a sidewalk along a local street in a residential area that they be allowed to reduce the width from five feet to four feet. That's not really being disputed. The only reason I bring it up here is it would require a change to our current ordinance, which requires five feet. The draft in front of you proposes to allow that four-foot detached sidewalks in residential zones and I should also note along local streets. The third item is the definition of open space. The BC would like to have the five percent open space requirement be modified to allow street buffer areas to count up for up to half of their open space required. I have done some research into the surrounding jurisdictions and what they require. This draft proposes five percent exclusive of the street buffers to be internal to the subdivisions. The fourth and final issue that's outstanding is regarding the landscape plan preparation. The issue is whether or not a landscape architect should be required to stamp the plans. In short, BC would like to see the wording modified to say "landscape architect, landscape designer or a qualified nurseryman." We have several letters in the record from landscape architects supporting the requirement for a stamp and giving reasons why. The motion from the Planning and Zoning Commission was that small projects should be allowed to be designed by a landscape architect, a designer or a nurseryman, but that the larger projects should require a stamp. That issue is still remaining. Those are the four main issues that I see. With that, I will stand for any questions. Corrie: Does Council have any questions for staff? Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Yas. Bird: Steve, what determines the small and the large project where you would cut off whether you had to have a licensed landscape architect or not? Siddoway: The Planning and Zoning Commission's motion was originally residential projects greater than five acres or containing more than one acre of landscaping and open space or commercial or industrial projects greater than one acre in size. During a previous City Council hearing, we had modified that residential acreage from five to fifty, so as it stands today, if you look in the Draft Ordinance, on page 9, 3.6, it notes the residential plats greater than 50 acres, multi-family projects greater than five acres or with more than one acre of landscaping and non-residential uses with a gross lot area greater than one acre. That's a modified version of what the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended. . Bird: Thank you, Steve. Corrie: Any other questions from Council to staff? r- Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 211 2000 Page 5 Siddoway: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Yes. Siddoway: I almost forgot. I also want to make sure that - there is in a memo dated today, that I hope you've seen the copy of - it's simply one line that's an additional sentence. One of the BC members contacted me today and made me aware of in addition to the ordinance that I had left out and it's just one sentence that goes into Section 15.2. Did you receive that? It would've just been delivered today. Anyway, that needs to be incorporated as well. That's all. Corrie: That's H. Siddoway: That's the H, yes. Corrie: Any other things? Siddoway: That is all. Thank you. Corrie: Council, any other questions for staff at this point? Bird: I have none. Corrie: We do have a continued public hearing on the proposed change to the Landscape Ordinance. Is there anyone from the public who would like to issue testimony? Corrie: Richard. McCaughy: Mr. Mayor, honorable members of the Council, my name is Richard McCaughy. I am with the Building Contractors Association of Southwestern Idaho. We have some members here that are probably going to testify on some very specific issues. First off, I would like to commend staff for really going the extra mile and working with this. I think a lot of rough edges have been kind of smoothed over. Some unnecessary language has been removed. I think the ordinance is much more clear now - much more easily understood for both you folks and we folks out on the field. There still are some points of contention mostly revolving around the four points that Steve did bring up. We do believe that kind of a joint analysis of these issues is that they are truly policy issues. As the draft is written, it has addressed the parkway width issue. It made sense that requiring a 1 Q-foot parkway width would probably result in no detached sidewalks whatsoever. That's just simply too much land to be used for that purpose. As long as you correctly restrict the types of trees that are allowed to be planted in there, it should not be a problem. The detached sidewalk width also - we are very happy with what's been changed in the ordinance to allow within along the Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 211 2000 Page 6 ( local streets in a residential subdivision to reduce those to four feet. The two points of contention which are really policy issues are the five percent open space requirement without allowing any of the landscape buffers to be counted toward that five percent. We had proposed a two for one. Each two feet of landscaped buffer to be counted as one square foot against the five percent requirement. That, I think is a policy decision. We are concerned, as I think Mr. Turnbull will explain if he chooses to testify, that the risk we run there is that the landscaping that most of the people in the community see, for most of the new development, are those buffer zones - not the internal open space. That tends to be seen by the residents and visitors to that residence in that subdivision. It's a legitimate concern that some folks may tend to minimize the amount of landscaping they do in those buffer zones. If we're trying to achieve a more beautiful city, that's the concern that we have. Also, the landscape plan preparation - the requirement for a licensed landscape architect, I think is frankly overkill. There are literally dozens of practitioners in this valley who have - whether they be nurserymen or just people in the landscape business, or unlicensed landscape architects who have got track records that substantiate their knowledge and their experience in the field. They know what trees grow here and what don't and how to plant them and how to irrigate them. I think, and as I read the basic requirements, all but the smallest developments under these requirements would require a licensed landscape architect. We have concerns with that. It's great. It's full employment for licensed landscape architects, but I'm not sure that's where we want to go on this. I do believe that some of the members will address the specific points on this, but again, I would like to thank Steve for a tremendous bit of work. We have had some very positive meetings and we've worked productively together and that's the way it ought to be. I think eventually, if this isn't it, which we hope we can put this to bed - this is a good effort and I think we're going to wind up with a landscape ordinance that we can all live with. I'll stand for questions. Corrie: Any questions? Thank you, Richard. McCaughy: Thank you. Corrie: Anyone else like to issue testimony? Beecham: Scott Beecham, 100 North 9th Street, Boise, Idaho. I'm here representing Q'Niell Enterprises. I apologize for distributing this letter at the last minute, but I will quickly in my testimony summarize what is included there. We have two points of clarification we'd like to make. The first is that applications are projects that go through the Conditional Use Permit process, we feel very strongly that they should not also be required to go through the alternative compliance portion of the Landscape Ordinance if there is a variation to those standards. We understand that there is a process in place through the PUD allowance that would allow us to request specific deviations to the Landscape Ordinance, but I would just like to, on the public record, make that point. The Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21 , 2000 Page 7 second point of clarification is that an already "approved project that has gone through the PUD process - phases of which have not been developed, should not be subject to this new landscape ordinance when it's adopted. I'm sure that's a question for legal counsel, but it's my understanding that they should not. Specific comments - first is the definition of common open space. We feel very strongly that we've made some good changes to that definition, but it should include required street buffers at a minimum standard of 50 percent, if not all of it, because as Richard pointed out, it is a very critical issue to the beautification of the city. Under 3.2, the applicability, there is a lot of discussion regarding this in our meetings with staff. The concept plans that are to be submitted with a Planning and Development application or a Conditional Use Permit, as well as a Preliminary Plat, need to be just that. They need to be concept, very non-specific to tree species and so forth. We had that discussion. The changes to Draft 4 here, we removed a lot of language, but I didn't see that that language was included. Landscape plan preparation - again, Richard touched on this. We have, in the past, typically used a landscape contractor in the valley who is not a licensed landscape architect, but I think by most people's standards, he does a very good job. On 3.7, landscape plan modifications, we feel that language is subjective - that staff should probably identify a list of specific modifications that can be made. There is actually some very subjective language throughout this that put a pressure on the Planning Director. It's a hard thing to keep track of over time, in our opinion. We think the more specific you can be on this, the better. On Section 7, 7.2, Location of Street Buffers - there is a statement in there that sidewalks should be excluded from that. Our feeling is that a buffer is a combination of obstructions as well as distance or separation and a detached meandering pathway, as well as an attached sidewalk should be included in that buffer measurement. Section 12, Micropath Landscaping - planter width of five feet - we feel that in a residential, whether it's a standard subdivision or a Planning and Development, there is an opportunity to have a reduced width there of ten feet. You can essentially utilize the side yard areas and increase setbacks of the adjacent properties. In many situations, we don't include fencing along micro paths. In some we do include it, but it is open fencing. We feel that if there is a requirement to plant a tree, and there is a tree in there, then yes, you should make sure you have that minimum five feet of planter width. As it's written, it requires a 15-foot area to be set aside for that micro-patch. Section 12, Fences - I think that you should also state this requirement in the Subdivision Ordinance that - 12.9, Open Fencing Regulations - it would be repetitive, but I think it would be helpful for those who have to review the code in advance of an application. Section 13, Residential Common Open Space - again, 13.3, we feel that the definition of that should be modified to include required street buffers. 13.4, Location, Size and Shape - there is a statement in there suggesting that open space be contiguous to adjacent communities and their open space. This is a worthy goal if what you're looking for is private parkland. If you're not, and staff has indicated that you're not, we feel the developer should be allowed to decide where that open space goes. That, again, leads up to staff's discretion. On our alternative compliance - and I have to apologize. My packet was missing a page Meridian City Council Meeting , November 21,2000 Page 8 ( and it was a start of this section, so this change may have been made and let me get Steve's reaction to this. On 15.3, this middle requirements required a submittal in advance of your other development applications. In many situations, you need design flexibility throughout the process. We would request that that language be changed and allow for an application for alternative compliance after the original submittal of a Preliminary Plat application or a Conditional Use Permit. On Timeline 15.7, a 15 working day turnaround is really quite a while. It's a three-week turnaround period. If you are trying to put together an application process in order to wait for that process to go through, we feel that's an excessive time. We'd like to see that reduced to possibly a two-week. On Section 16 - 16.1 - issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, we feel very strongly that in a PUD, you should not be required to complete landscape improvements. There was a modification to that section, but we feel even the required landscaping, when you're developing a community with 15 or 20 percent open space, it's a burden to the developer and the staging of that is somewhat problematic. 16.2, there is an allowance for an extension and my final comment is that while you can get an extension through bonding, it's very important to distinguish between the required improvements and private improvements. I would define private improvements as anything beyond the minimum requirements. We don't feel that we should be required to bond for anything above and beyond the minimum requirements. I would be happy to answer any questions. Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: On the 3.7, you indicated that the language was subjective. Do you have any proposed language that you would offer then? Beecham: I wish I had a comprehensive list that I could suggest. I don't think that this is a difficult task and should be a sticking point, but there are some very obvious changes that could occur - tree species, location, et cetera. I do apologize for not having a list put together. I believe that staff had done some preliminary work on this and he may - Steve may have some suggestions for that. Anderson: Thank you. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: Scott, I would have one question on 16.1 - your suggestion on "should not be required prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy." Then it would be very difficult to enforce it. If you don't have that requirement in there, Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21,2000 Page 9 ( how often do you want our staff to come back and check and make sure it's been done? These are specific checkpoints that we have some kind of control over. You say maybe not by the first one, but by the tenth one, and he's keeping track. It makes it very difficult to enforce. I think they wanted to kind of put it in an enforceable scenario. Beecham: Mr. Mayor, Council member De Weerd. It's a very good point. I think there are two issues. One is a standard subdivision where you do run into an enforcement issue and put the burden on staff to continually make inspections on the property. Under a Planning and Development through the CU process, you do have a larger hammer, and you can revoke a Conditional .Use Permit if landscaping is not installed per the approval. I'm not sure I answered your question or concern there, but under the second scenario, there certainly is another avenue for enforcement. Under the first scenario, I don't think it would be difficult to put a timeline to have those improvements done~ After that set period of time, whether it's six months or a year, if they are not done - De Weerd: Then what? You cut the families out? Beecham: Well, you don't cut the families out or kick the families out, but when you develop a property, the proformer (sic) really only works if you build it out and sell it out. So, nobody is going to stop midstream on developing a large community. Corrie: Anything else from the Council? Bird: I have none. Siddoway: Mr. Mayor, if it would please the Council, I can respond to these individual items now or I can wait and just respond at the end. Corrie: Let's wait and get them all in. They'll be last and then we'll - anyone else? Turnbull: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. My name is David Turnbull. My office is 12426 West Explorer Drive in Boise. I, like Richard would like to thank Steve for the effort he took to come out to the BCA and meet with us on a few occasions. We ran out of time a lot and so we had to meet multiple times, but I think we made a great deal of progress. There are probably a lot of things we could go through and pick apart for months and months to come. I don't know whether we'll ever get a perfect ordinance. I am a lot more comfortable with it now than I was a month ago. I would like to focus in on the issues that Steve has addressed in his cover letter to this red line version of the ordinance. It would be helpful if I could get any input or thinking back from the Council after my presentation. The first items are No. 1 and 2 which I kind of view as one in the same issue - that's the Planter Parkway Strips and the Detached Sidewalks. I Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21, 2000 Page 10 believe, and we've been for the past number of years, a proponent of detaching sidewalks. We've done it in our last several projects. We've done anywhere from a four-foot planter strip, which I think is probably too narrow - we've done five-foot. We've done six-foot. We have done them in Meridian city, where they've still required a five-foot sidewalk, which really puts an extra burden on in terms of extra right-of-way that we have to add to the project and also extra expense. The first point would be that the City should encourage detached sidewalks for the following reasons. Number one is safety. I think the obvious safety benefits are apparent. The second is - and I think I mentioned this to Steve. I was reminded of this on Halloween when I was in a neighborhood with my children doing trick-or-treating on a neighborhood that had attached sidewalks, and I almost plowed over a mailbox. The mailbox conflicts on attached sidewalks are a concern, and maybe as important of any of them is the aesthetic value that detached sidewalks provide. We believe a five-foot planter strip works with a Class Two tree. I think Steve has mentioned that in his brief. Then we get to the issue of a reduced width for the sidewalks. Four-foot sidewalks are justified on local streets for some of the reasons I've already addressed. The additional safety factor is introduced. I can see the justification for attached sidewalks being five feet. But when we have a detached sidewalk and we have the additional safety factor, then a four-foot standard, I think is appropriate. We have no more conflicts with mailboxes. Another reason to reduce the sidewalk width is to reduce impervious surface and I think I can demonstrate to you that a four-foot sidewalk is adequate for side-by-side pedestrian traffic. I do believe that five-foot sidewalks should be continued to be required for attached sidewalks, and of course, any detached sidewalks along collector or arterial roads, which is the ACHD standard. My final point on this is that without a five-foot minimum parkway and a four-foot wide sidewalk provision, we will see very few neighborhoods that will choose to implement a detached sidewalk scenario because it costs us extra to do a detached sidewalk. The extra - you're basically doing a two-concrete pour. You're doing the curb and -gutter. Actually, you do the sidewalk first, then you come back and do the curb and gutter. There's extra setup time for our contractors. Going to the four-foot sidewalk helps to offset that cost some. Also, the net loss of usable land, because of additional right-af-way requirements is a disincentive. If we can go with this standard, I think you'll see more and more detached sidewalks, which I think would be a great benefit to the City. Boise City - the proposed standard here would comply with what Boise City and Eagle City are allowing. The number three issue on Steve's list was the open space requirement. I understand the goals and objectives of the City. I believe they're laudable, but I think they present a few problems. One is affordable housing, not only because the additional cost of installation of landscaping, but also the ongoing maintenance. I think we've heard of instances in some of our work session meetings where developments are actually coming back to the City of Boise and petitioning for them to take over the landscape maintenance because the residents there cannot afford to maintain their own landscaping. It might be laudable to have additional landscaping, but if the owners can't afford to take Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21,2000 Page 11 care of it, and it goes to disrepair, then it's not going to be of benefit to any of us. I think we need to strike a balance there. I think a lack of recognition of any street buffer landscaping is a little bit short sided. I guess my point which Richard alluded to before was if there was no credit given for street buffer landscaping, what you will continue to see is the bear minimum. I think we should be encouraging more street buffer landscaping. To me, that's some of the most useful and some of the most beautiful landscaping that we can ask developers to provide for this city. I think it's very useful open space because that is quite frankly some of our best pedestrian space. Out on the major arterials, that provides some of our best connectivity between neighborhoods. I think we should be encouraging more street buffer landscaping as a way to beautify the city. The way to do that is to give some of the credit toward this five percent open space. I am not going to argue necessarily with the five percent open space requirement, but unless we allow some credit with street buffers, again, you'll just see the minimum. You'll see the bear minimum on street buffers, and I don't think that that's something that the City should necessarily encourage. Another point would be that there could be some possible inequities between different properties. For instance, a 40-acre parcel that sits on a corner of two arterials could be required to have as much as nine percent of its area dedicated to open space if you count the five percent plus the street arterial buffers, where as an 80-acre parcel that's on an interior midsection line could only be required to have its five percent plus an additional one percent. So it creates some inequity between different properties. The fourth item, and I'm trying to be as brief as I can here, was the preparation of plans by landscaping architects. I read Steve's comment regarding some input from the American (inaudible) Landscape Architects. It should come as no surprise to any of us that they would submit a letter asking you to require us to use their services. I would do the same thing if I were them. I must tell you that disqualifying - this would disqualify a number of professionals. Scott mentioned that a landscaper that they used - the Barbonus (sic) Brothers - Hans Barbonus, I think he would recognize as one of the finest landscapers in this valley. He's not a licensed landscape architect. I think there are good landscape architects. I think there are mediocre landscape architects. I can tell you that I have had as many probably poor experiences as I have had good ones using landscape architects. I think I made a point to Steve in one of our work sessions that landscaping is as much a work of art as it is a work of engineering. I would encourage you to allow some flexibility here to use qualified people that don't necessarily have the stamp that's being required by this ordinance. I don't want to get involved with the minutia, but there was something that just occurred to me on 11.2. I believe it's Section A that talks about landscape storm drainage facilities that would be acceptable under the open space requirement provided that they meet all of the other landscape requirements such as trees. The though just occurred to me that there might be some conflict there between this ordinance and an ACHD requirement whether they would allow trees within certain areas of landscape or drainage facilities. I don't know if that would be a conflict. I think it's something that ought to be checked out. The last point, which I think Scott dwelled on a Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21,2000 Page 12 ( \ little bit is the timing of the landscaping. I have a specific project right now. It's within the City of Boise, but if I were building it in Meridian, I would be in a little bit of a pickle here. I'm wondering if this doesn't apply more to commercial development where you're looking for Certificates of Occupancy, but I suppose it applies to both residential and commercial development. We are just paving out streets right now, and you really can't start your landscaping until your streets are paved out. After this time of the year, you're really shut out from landscaping for the next four, five or six months. There's got to be some flexibility there. Obviously, we are going to be building houses in these neighborhoods that could be occupied as soon as 60 to 120 days. So to say that we can't have Certificates of Occupancy until every last blade of grass is planted is an extreme hardship that I don't think we really could live with. I think the City needs to have a way of dealing with it, which I think can be accomplished through the bonding process and having time certain expiration dates. Landscaping is always the last thing that goes in, and if you want to do it right, it can take a long time to get it done. In the meantime, you need to be able to build your houses. You need to be able to have neighbors move in - or property buyers move in. Those are my only comments. I would be interested to hear any of the Council's comments, particularly regarding the parkway strips and sidewalk widths and the open space requirement. If you have any questions for me, I am open for questions. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess I do have one question. That is in regards to the open space. Are you bringing up an issue where those would exceed - if your street buffers exceeded the minimum, that you would want that counted or you want the. minimum counted? If you start counting the minimums, how do you even incentify (sic) giving more than a minimum? Beecham: I think in our discussion at our workshops - of course, our position to begin was that we wanted the minimum required on a one for one. We kind of came to a - this is just a discussion with Steve as to what would be acceptable and what wouldn't. We kind of all compromised and said maybe 50 percent of the minimum would be allowablew Then, if you go beyond that, I would think that even a one for one on anything beyond that might be an appropriate standard to accept for landscaping. Again, I think that our arterial streets and our collector streets, the more generous we can be with the landscaping, the better for the City. Those provide a pretty darned pleasant pedestrian atmosphere if you do them right with detached meandering sidewalks and that sort. So, I think there should be some kind of a middle ground that we can reach there. I would hope. De Weerd: I have nothing further. Corrie: Any further questions? Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21,2000 Page 13 Bird: I have none. R. Yorgenson: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Roman Yorgenson at 2304 North Cole Road in Boise. First I would like to thank the Mayor and Council and Planning and Zoning staff for their joint effort in coming up with a go<;>d landscape ordinance. I think it's a very good ordinance. I think there are still some things we are fine-tuning, but I think in general, they've made a lot of progress. There are four issues that I would like to cover, and I'll be brief. The first one has to do with the micro paths and the definition of the micro paths. It says that they would be generally less than 250 feet and we would like to hope that they would not be applied to pathways. Others will speak to that. I know that there are others here that are prepared to speak to that tonight. Secondly has to do with the landscape buffer. My concern also has to do with the cost issue and the maintenance issue. It's been our experience in some subdivisions the cost of maintaining these open areas gets to be rather - I won't want to say excessive - it gets to be burdensome to the homeowners. We would like to say these people can't afford to live in the subdivision if they can't afford the upkeep and the maintenance. One of the early subdivisions that we did in Meridian was called Meridian Park. It was on Meridian Road and we put in two large parks in the interior of the subdivision. We helped maintain those parks until all of the lots were built out. The homeowners were not really happy with the costs of maintaining those parks. We didn't think it was excessive. In fact, by today's standards, it was really quite reasonable. The first Homeowners Meeting, after it was turned over to the homeowners, they voted to turn down the maintenance of those parks and let them go back to weeds. They didn't want to pay the maintenance. I was mortified. We had spent tens of thousands of dollars to have them built and during the build out process of the subdivision, all the homes were being built and we didn't have all the homeowners paying dues. We were subsidizing it until all the homes were occupied. Now, for them to say, "Well, we don't want to pay for the maintenance," and it was the water and the fertilizer and the mowing. It wasn't excessive, certainly by today's standards. They were upset about having to pay and it wasn't increase. It was just the same fees I have been paying all along. When it got turned over to them, they decided that there were enough of them there and they decided they would just shut it down and not maintain it and let it go back to weeds. Well, the first year, we worked with them. We said, "Look. We'll work with you. Let's cut down the watering. We won't fertilize. We'll only mow it every other week." That's what they did. They had enough money in their budget that they cut down the watering. They cut down on the fertilizing and they mowed it every other week. It still grew. It looked okay. It wasn't green. Then the second year, more people came out because they were complaining about the appearance. More people came out and they over-voted. They voted to go back to the schedule that we had originally had. I am concerned. I'll give you one other example. We had a project in the foothills. We might say, 'Well, if we upscale our projects and have nicer projects, then the people can afford them and we won't have that problem." There was a problem Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21, 2000 Page 14 ( with a project in the foothills called Quail Ridge. We have a nine-story waterfall right at the entrance. The waterfall is $100,000 plus to put it in. There's a five- acre park right at the entrance. It's beautiful. We're a little biased, but we think it's beautiful. The first time it was turned over to the homeowners, the very first year, the homeowners voted to shut down the waterfall and fill it in because they didn't want to pay for the pumps to run the water. That's Quail Ridge. Fortunately, we owned enough lots that we were able to overturn the vote. My point is I'm concerned about what it costs for the Homeowners Association and it doesn't seem to matter if they're more of a budget project or a real high-end project. There are certain people that are very concerned about it. We're all concerned about what the cost is, but it doesn't seem to matter how much money we have or how expensive the homes are. The concerns are still there. Back to the question at hand, on the open space, certainly we would like to see the entrance and the buffer to be included and the open space count. But at the very least, half of it should be counted so that at least half of it has to be on the inside, but a good portion of it could be on the outside. Also, if it's not counted, then the incentive is to make it minimal. I hope that what are incentive is to make it really nice. I would hope that's where our incentive is. If our incentive is to make it nice, then let's put some incentive in it so that the developers will be encouraged and we'll have an incentive to make it nice. We'll still have open space on the inside - much more so than we've had in the past. My next question has to do with the landscape architects. It's our experience that certain landscape architects have more training, but not necessarily do they have a nicer looking subdivision. We've had good experience with both of those who are architects and those who aren't. We've had very good experience with both. I think that maybe we can have another qualification rather than the fact they have to have a stamp and we would encourage and hope that we could do that. The last has to do with the landscape timing. On our homes, we require in our covenants, that the landscaping go in within 30 days after the completion of the home. We think that's appropriate, but we had a clause excepting weather. In the four months or three months during the winter when we have frozen ground, we allow them then to have 30 days after the weather is permitable to go in and do the landscaping. We would hope that we could add to that a weather clause so that during the winter months that we wouldn't have to have a subdivision sit idle and have all of the roads in - all the improvements. The lighting could be in. The entrance could all be in, but we don't have all the sod in. It happens for reason of not cutting sod anymore so now the subdivision has to sit for four months. We would like to propose that we put a weather clause in there. We think that would be acceptable. It also could be covered with a bond situation. That's all that I have. Again, I want to thank each of you and your staff - Planning and Zoning staff. We think this is a win-win situation. We think it's good for the city of Meridian and we think it's good for the future residents of Meridian. We applaud you for your encouraging your developers to be involved in this. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. Corrie: Council? Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21, 2000 Page 15 ( Bird: I have none. Corrie: Thank you. Go ahead. D. Yorgenson: Hi. My name is Dave Yorgenson. My address is 2304 North Cole Road in Boise. Again, I'd like to stand before you and tell you a - Council, thank you. Many of the staff have spent significant amount of time and hours in adding and enhancing this landscape ordinance and wanted to express my appreciation to the time and effort they put into generating what I think is a fine - *** End of Side 1 *** D. Yorgenson: -- certainly as much improved from a month or a couple months prior. I'd also like to stand before you in echo of voice of agreement with much of the comments that have been made today. I think that you'll find that most of those who are landscape experts and others in the building and development community have experience that have added and enhanced the landscape ordinance that's before you now. The comments that I would like to add to these comments, and maybe more of a specification or clarity on one or two items, and that's specifically on micropaths. One of the developments that we've recently completed is Bristol Heights Subdivision just east of the Meridian City limits. We think that's a nice subdivision. We've been very pleased with the results. In fact, we've found that the number one amenity in that subdivision is landscaping - the pathways particularly as well as the frontage along Eagle Road and Chinden. I believe that without the significant amount of landscaping that we've done, the project would not have been as nice of a project. Again, I would like to echo those comments that have been made so far tonight. I would hope that there would be some kind of inclusion of an incentive clause - inclusion of the landscape buffers is part of the minimum acceptance of the landscaping. In addition to that, regarding the pathways, pathways, I think are nice. In my personal residence, I back up to a pathway. Almost every hour you can see somebody walking by. They're used that much. I think it's a really neat amenity for not only my family, but for others in our subdivision. However, one concern I have, and I'd like to point to the definition of the micropath in the ordinance. It talks about, and I'd be glad to read it to you if you like. It talks about the word "generally" that I would like to focus on. It's on Page 6. "A pathway providing a micropath is a pathway providing access by way of a short travel link between points of destination. The length of the micropath is generally less than 250 feet or two lot-depths." The word "generally" kind of scares me. Since this ordinance has been brought to discussion, I've met with more than one member of City's staff, and they've expressed that the word "generally" is a loose term and they admit that and acknowledge that. That is not the intent of this definition, but rather the intent is more or less down two side lot lines to connect two streets. So you have one home and the other one backs up to each other, so it's generally two lots. So it would be down the side lot line where you would have a Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21, 2000 . Page 16 ( fence for this micro path. I don't know if we ought to have the word "generallyH in there because if after the current staff are in place, they may still follow and believe that intent, but two years, five years - certainly ten years down the road, they may not be in the same position. Different interpretation may come into play. A subdivision like Bristol Heights may then have the requirement of - I'll get to that in a second here - a requirement of fencing to be built by a developer along the entire stretch of the pathway on both sides. Well, in Bristol Heights, that would have been approximately $2,000 - just less than $2,000 per lot just to build an acceptable fence for a subdivision like Bristol Heights. That's a cost that we cannot pass on to the homebuyer to the lot owner. Therefore, it's a distance then to even have a pathway system like you have in Bristol Heights. That points me to my other point regarding micropaths. I believe that Section 12.9 - in there, in the third sentence, it says specifically, "The developer is responsible for the construction of the fences adjacent to all micropaths." I'm not aware of any city in this valley that has that requirement - the developer responsible to build a fence along the micro path. I'd hope that the City Council could recognize that that again would -encourage the disincentive of pathways within the future developments in Meridian and maybe by striking that sentence, you can eliminate that disincentive. Those are my comments tonight and I stand for any questions if you have any for me. Bird: I have none. Corrie: Council. D. Yorgenson: Thank you. Corrie: Thank you. Anyone else? If there is no one else, Steve, would you like to address some of these? Siddoway: Sure, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I am going to take these in somewhat of a reverse order since the micropaths are fresh in your mind. It is our intent that the requirements of this ordinance be restricted to - or we are calling them micropaths, and not the extended pathways. It's not our intent to require the developer to install fences along the entire edge of a pathway that they may be providing. The issue comes up in the micropaths which are on side lot lines that either connect to an open space area or to a pathway. The intent is to have the developer put in the see-through fencing so that it's clear at the time the property is purchased that it comes with those restrictions for see-through fencing along those micropaths. The word "generally" -- we can take that out. Our intent here is we put that "generally 250 feet or two lot-depths" as an indication that it was those connectors, not the lengthy pathways that they may be providing. The concerns that have been raised about Certificates of Occupancy puzzle me, frankly, because I think we've addressed the concerns that have been raised and I'd be interested to hear we've truly haven't. On the last page, 35, Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy, we've added in italics that Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21, 2000 Page 17 private site improvements that are above and beyond the requirements placed on the application do not require completion prior to occupancy. For example, a clubhouse in a residential subdivision need not be completed prior to occupancy of the residences of the subdivision. The comment about weather and being able to bond, we have that in there in the next section. We limit it not to exceed 180 days due to weather or other circumstances that the landscaping or other required site amenities cannot be provided. I feel like we've got that in there. The landscaping that's required is not everything that's been approved on a Preliminary Plat, for example, for the entire subdivision. It's just whatever's in the phase of the Final Plat that they are doing. I would ask if we haven't addressed the concerns. The way I read it - the way I heard their concerns, I felt like our intent was to agree with those. I thought they were addressed in the ordinance. I'm going to leave the parkway width, the sidewalk width, the open space definition and the landscape plan preparation alone because I think those issues are fairly clear as far as what the debate is. I'll simply focus on the new points. 3.2, I'm going off of the letter from Scott Beecham. Applicability - I think that you'll see on 3.2 - it's a little bit difficult to see, but on the next to the last line, on the other end side "and species" has a double cross through, which is indicating that we intend when we move this to the application that those Conditional Use Permits and Preliminary Plats do not have to show species as he has requested. It is conceptual in nature. Landscape Plan Modifications, 3.7 - we agree this language is subjective. It says "no significant field changes to the plan are permitted." This was kind of discussed at some length in the meetings that we had together. It's originally said just flat no changes are required without you coming back to us and getting written permission. Their contention was, and I think rightfully so that some things can be changed without significantly altering the plan and you shift the tree a few feet one way or' another or you change a species to something similar. You shouldn't be wasting our time as staff trying to sign off on all of those little changes, so we tried to come up with a list. What changes should require a signoff? Well, anything that changes the number of parking spaces, or the number of trees, or the location of sidewalks, or some of the things that we came up with, but then we decided we couldn't really come up with a complete list. If we can, I'm happy to include it. It would be clearer for us as well. What the group decided was to simply insert the word "significant" or "material changes" so that if it's a material change to the plan, which is somewhat subjective, then they have to get written approval from the Planning and Zoning Department and those little ones, we're frankly just not going to worry about. I would point out that on alternative compliance, as requested that if we have added the language under - did you find it - 15.3 on page 33, that if a project is being submitted as a planned development, a separate application for alternative compliance is not required. If they are proposing some modifications to this through a planned development, then that suffices. Other big issues? I think I've addressed everything in my mind that was brought up. Corrie: I think the five percent buffering or five percent open space was one of the major ones. Meridian City Council Meeting (. November 21, 2000 Page 18 Siddoway: Oh, yes. The five percent open space is what we came up with originally as a committee - is what we felt was the minimum required to create some break up internally for these lots. The concern that was raised over excessive fees, the Meridian Park, which if I'm not mistaken, is now Waterbury, which is where I live, and with the example that I used in the presentation to Council has almost 15 percent, which we're frankly not asking for that much. We're asking for a third of the amount that's in that. That's exclusive of their street buffers. I think it's around 13 or 14 percent exclusive of the street buffers that they have. We feel that there does need to be internal open space. We agree that the street buffers are a benefit. The question is if they widened those beyond the minimum and are able to simply meet their entire requirement along those street buffers, is that what we want, or do we want to require open space actually internal to the subdivisions? And we have the provisions written into the ordinance that allow them to double count, or count if you will, the storm water detention areas that they are required to have as long as they meet the design criteria. David Turnbull brought up an issue of if ACHD requires trees to be or disallows trees through their design standards. If another government agency is imposing restrictions that are in conflict with their ordinance, then that is one of the scenarios under which they can file for alternative compliance at a staff level and not have to go through a variance through the Council to get approval, so there is an outlet there. I think that's it. Do you have other questions? Corrie: Council. Bird: I have none. Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: I had one. How'd you vote on your homeowners' decision on whether to maintain the parks or not? Siddoway: I wasn't there when it was apparently voted to turn down. I can tell you that it's - it's used and it's a great benefit to our - I applaud them for putting it in. It's a great place to live because of it. Frankly, I'm glad it's there. The other extremes with the waterfalls and things that they were giving examples of, I would just point out that we're not requiring that. Our minimum standards on these open space areas are graphs or some type of vegetative ground cover and one tree per 8,000 square feet. That's the minimum. The things they do above and beyond that are at their discretion. Corrie: Any other question? Rather than getting into the back and forth, I think he had a - did you ask him what it was? Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21, 2000 Page 19 ( Siddoway: Mr. Turnbull is wanting to clarify the issue on 16.2. Turnbull: Mr. Mayor, David Turnbull again. I think that when Roman testified regarding the time restrictions on landscaping being required for Certificate of Occupancies, I'm not sure - actually, I'm missing page 37. Maybe he was missing page 39. I think it is covered in part in Section 16.2. I think that's what Steve was speaking to. I believe what I was speaking to is we have an extension provision not to exceed 180 days. If you take a look at where we are now, the months of November, December, January, February, March - sometimes in April, it's too muddy to do things. You could take up six months right there where you're not really able to do anything. We did our first couple of phases of a major project, Harris Ranch and we were paved in November, but we were working on landscaping through the entire summer of 2000, so it took longer than that 180 days, so I think Steve's got the provision here that handles it. I just question whether 180 days would be long enough and I think it's everybody's goal to get it done as quickly as possible, but if you have a strict not to exceed 180 days, I know that there are instances where that is not going to able to be met. I think you would have an enforcement in administration problem that you might not want to have with that kind of a timeframe. I wanted to clarify Roman's comments. I think he has, in part, addressed it here. My comment before was I just think that that period needs to be extended some. Corrie: To what, David? Turnbull: If it were - what's nine months - 270 days? Typically, bondings or letters of credits are good for a year, so that's another alternative. Corrie: Thank you. Any other questions or discussions of Council? Anderson: I don't have any questions. Corrie: Well, if there are no questions and further discussion from the panel and the City staff, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Anderson: So moved. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No. 3 - proposed change in Landscape Ordinance for the City of Meridian. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: Council. Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21, 2000 Page 20 ( Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: After listening to both sides here, I think the private sector brought up some very good points that I think we don't need in this landscape - I happen to agree that some of the nicest landscaping has been done by some non-landscape architects. I don't see why that has to be in there at all. I don't know qualified landscape designer or a qualified nurseryman can't be there. On the five percent open space, I don't know why we have to stand out alone and why we can't give them at least 50 percent of the street buffer. On the extension, the 180 days, sometimes you'd be lucky and maybe be able to do it within 180 days, but I've seen winters when you probably couldn't do it, so I'd like to see that extended to 250. Your escrow or your letter of credit is good for 12 months anyway, so, that wouldn't hurt. That's my comment. Corrie: 250 or 270. Bird: Yes, 250 or 270. I really don't care. If we had a long winter, it would at least get them through. Sometimes the cold and freezing isn't as bad as the wet. It might be warm enough in the spring, but if it's wet, you can't get in there anyway. Corrie: Any other comments? Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: I guess just a few comments. I think there was probably some good points made by both sides on some of these issues. I guess from my standpoint, if I was to look at them one by one, the parkway width in our proposed ordinance talks about five feet. I'm pretty comfortable with that in limiting it to the Class 2 trees. I wouldn't really have any problem with the same allowances as ACHD uses and the separated sidewalks is allowing that to go to four feet in certain areas on local streets and then five feet on the major arterials and heavy traffic streets. Open space - I don't really want to reduce our standards, but I don't have any problem with 50 percent or a two for one deal on the outside landscaping in that particular case. I think our ordinance is pretty adequate in the area of giving them allowances to post the letter of credit. I guess I've lived here 40-some years and I haven't seen too many times where we've had six months in my life that you couldn't go out and plant shrubbery. That would be an extremely wet spring and fall, but I understand there may be large projects where time constraints may not allow you to complete all the landscaping in that time frame, though. I don't know if our ordinance needs to change the wording or if common sense there by staff and the developers could simply handle those kind Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21,2000 Page 21 ( of situations. I also think that some of the other issues that were brought up, as far as the micropaths, I wouldn't have any heartburn with taking the word "generally" out of there because those things are hard to interpret and it could be 250 feet. I think Steve was very clear on what the intent was. I know that we've had a number of problems in residential subdivisions now where we have allowed people to put six-foot high wooden fences and those have created prqblem areas in those subdivisions from vandalism to law enforcement problems and everything else. I think that's our intent in keeping those so that their open fence isn't viewable. The only way to guarantee that, it would actually be to have the developers help us in those situations. I think it's clear that the intent is not to enforce the developers to put a fence along the entire pathway versus a micro path. Those are some of my comments before we take a vote on it. Corrie: Any other comments? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I generally agree with what has been said to this point with the exception of the open space. I can understand giving credit for anything that exceeds the minimum to allow them creativity to have that entrance or that buffer over and above, but to give them credit for what is minimally required anyway, I don't see what you're really gaining. You're trying to gain a sense of an area which is usable by the residents and gives a break between the house after house. It would benefit if you had something that exceeded the minimum on the street buffers, but anything outside of that should be in the interior where the residents would benefit. Corrie: Anyone else? Let the record show I agree with Mrs. de Weerd on that last statement. I don't feel that we should lower that five percent interior. I can see the developer making a nice entryway and I think it's an advantage of the subdivision, but I don't agree that we should cut back on the five percent interior. Anyone else? Anderson: Comment on that. What I have seen normally on that five percent interior, a lot of that is the storm drainage, and they stick that in our lot somewhere in the back of the subdivision and to me, it really doesn't do anything to open up that subdivision or to decrease the long row of housing that we talk about. If there was some other way that we could disperse that five percent, I guess I would agree with what you're saying. Present practices to me show that it's really not working the way we would like it to - to accomplish that goal of spreading things out and making it look more open in the subdivisions. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21, 2000 Page 22 ( Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I agree with Ron and after going out and looking at some of the green spaces that were the drainage areas, I don't call them much green space. I think that if we are - there was some way that you could keep them from using that as five percent, but I don't know any way that you could. I think you're looking at a different situation. I would have to agree with Ron on that. Corrie: What guarantee are you going to have that they won't use that and does the total still not give you the right-af-way coming in? Bird: You're right. Corrie: You're leaving it in the hands of the developer and I'm not saying they're wrong, but they're going to find some developers that we're not too sure of how they build that you're not going to get that. The ones that spoke here tonight, I have no question that you'd get it, but I'm not too sure about some of the others that might come in. Bird: Well, if they don't have any buffer, then they're going to have to come up with a five percent interior. They're in a competitive business, and if they want to sell their lots and stuff, they're going to be competitive and do a lot of the same design. I realize that we have different developers, but I don't think that's something we legislate. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I'd guess I'd like clarification. So you have a concern that they'll just do their five percent as a drainage ditch, so you might as well give them a percentage on the minimum required of their street buffer, so that they have less of the drainage issue in the interior. Is that the motivation? I don't understand why giving them a two to one on your minimum street buffer has anything to do with what they would do interior wise. Anderson: I guess I'm not maybe clear on what the two for one is. The way I'm understanding that is we're still going to have the five percent minimum and that we would allow them 50 percent on the outside buffer to count towards that five percent. Am I not understanding that right? Bird: That's the way I understood it. We give them 50 percent. Say they got- De Weerd: So then you're asking for 2.5 percent interior open space if they do the minimum. Meridian City Council Meeting (' November 21,2000 Page 23 Bird: What's the minimum? De Weerd: Or up to - on the street buffer. Bird: What's the minimum on the street buffer? De Weerd: It depends on if it's an arterial or a local or- Bird: If they do - say it's a 40-acre and five percent is two acres. So an acre of it is in street buffer. We give a half-acre allowance and then they've got to do another acre and a half interior. That's the way I understand it. De Weerd: Is that what we're talking, Steve? Siddoway: Is that what I'm talking or is that? De Weerd: I know what you're saying. What was the intent of the recommendation from the BeA? Siddoway: Well, the compromise that we had tentatively come to was that up to 50 percent of the five percent could be met in the street buffer, which is different in my mind than counting up to half of the street buffer because that could be potentially more than half of the five percent, especially if they go the way the trend seems to be going, which is widening them out to 50 or 60 feet with large berms and they could get the entire five percent easily in just street buffers if there wasn't a cap put on it. Our intent was to have the - require a minimum street buffer and then to have at least five percent of the gross land area be internal. Does that answer your question? Anderson: I think it clarifies if for me because I was thinking it was the other way around. I was thinking that it could offset that, but it would only count for half as much land, being if it was on the buffer. Siddoway: I would also like to point out to Mr. Bird that I agree with you 100 percent. What you see out there today as storm water detention areas, quite frankly are awful and shouldn't be counted. That's the full intent of Section - I think it's 11, of the ordinance which sets forth the minimum design standards that those have to be designed to in order to count towards the required open space. If they're not - if they're just a gravel pit, they're not going to count. De Weerd: Some people might argue that they're usable. Siddoway: That's why it's spelled out the minimum design requirements. Corrie: Anyone else. Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 211 2000 Page 24 De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I just want to restate I think what every member that has got up to speak has said. P and Z staff has been phenomenal - especially Steve with this. I know it's really changed quite a bit since the first draft that we put out, and I think it's because of the participation that it's become a stronger document. I appreciate the input from every side. We did get a lot of different input with each section as it came about from people that had to work with these kinds of ordinances, so we kind of try to minimize the load that it would put on staff to interpret and that sort of thing. I appreciate Steve for what he did for our piece of work. Corrie: Anything else from the Council? Would you like to have the ordinance drafted in present form or changes that you want to see for the draft in the ordinance? It would be Draft No.5. Any changes? Bird: Draft No.4 was the one we - Corrie: That's the one we did, but - if you're going to make some changes for the final draft for the ordinance. Anderson: Is everyone on the Council pretty much in agreement on the requirement about a licensed architect or are we in disagreement there? De Weerd: You could give me that five percent. Anderson: Now that I understand it, you've got it. Corrie: You didn't ask me. Did you ask me? I'll tell you anyway. I think that the people make a good point tonight that you don't necessarily need an architect's standpoint on everything. We've got some good people out there that can do it without a stamp. I don't want to lower the standards too much, but I think we may be swatting at small flies with a hatchet. I agree on that one myself. Any comments. Bird: I agree 100 percent. I'm like Ron. Does everybody agree with that? McCandless: I certainly agree. De Weerd: Yes. Bird: How about the park pathway thing? We didn't have any problems with it, did we? Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21 , 2000 Page 25 ( De Weerd: The parkway width? Bird: The parkway width. De Weerd: No. That's fine. Anderson: What's fine? Going with ACHD? De Weerd: ACHD's. Yes. Bird: I agree there. Anderson: Of taking the word "generally" out of the definition on micropath? Bird: On micro path, yes. Corrie: That's a very subjective word. Bird: The time - does anybody - you make and bond or letter of credit for 12 months, so why would 250 or 270 days make a difference? I differ with you, Ron. I've seen - you're not only talking about landscaping. You've got asphalt and everything else to think about. Corrie: I agree with you. Probably 250 would be adequate to 52.70. You can't have a year when it gets really bad, but if they're bonding for a - Bird: Yes, they're bonding it for a year, anyway. Corrie: They're getting a temporary occupancy certificate anyway. I think it was probably a very minor - Bird: Then we agree on everything but the - Anderson: Just as long as we've got the letter of credit, it doesn't matter if- Bird: It's for a year anyway, Ron. Now, the open space. I guess that's the last disagreement. Anderson: Well, now that I understand the definition or what the intent was, I would agree that we ought to keep the five percent open space on the inside. Bird: You want five percent open space inside, period, and no counting on the buffer. Anderson: No. I completely misunderstood the intent of that. / Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21, 2000 Page 26 Bird: I can't. De Weerd: I would conceive to anything over the minimum counting, but not the minimum. Bird: I agree with you there. The minimum, no. Anything over, and I think that's all these gentlemen were asking for was anything over the minimum to be counted 50 percent. I have to - if they go above and beyond - I think sometimes your small inside open spaces can cause problems. If you've got fences built around them, they're unsafe. They're not kept up. They get shrubbery around and stuff. They can be hiding places. I think they're kind of like your pocket parks that we just discussed about getting rid of. I'm not - Anderson: Could you live with over the minimum? Bird: Fifty percent over the minimum? Yes, I could live with that. De Weerd: Yes, I would go for anything over the minimum should count toward the five percent. Bird: Mayor, you were against it. Let's hear your view. Corrie: It doesn't make any difference if it's three of you. I don't have any problem with it. I think it will happen whatever you agree to let it happen. Under those circumstances, I would still like to see a nice entryway in any subdivision and I just don't want to take away from the interior of some green space. I think a legacy of asphalt to our kids is terrible. If they can make it the entrances to these subdivisions - I've seen - the ones that talked today have some beautiful ones, but I've seen some that are really lousy, too. That's the only thing that I'm concerned about. I would probably go with that. Bird: We're going 50 percent over the minimum. Corrie: Over the minimum requirement of landscape. Bird: Yes. Corrie: Bill, yes. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. If I can paraphrase this and you tell me if I'm interpreting this correctly. I understand that the last discussion to mean that to the extent that the landscape buffer - street buffer exceeds the minimum, that part that exceeds the minimum counts toward the interior space up to 50 percent? { Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21, 2000 Page 27 ( Bird: Fifty percent. If they've got an acre above the minimum, they get to count a half-acre toward the five percent. Nichols: Okay. Siddoway: It was unclear if that was up to 50 percent or just 50 percent of the additional space. Bird: I think I just said 50. I didn't go any minimum when I originally said that, but that's fine. We'll go with the minimum requirement - 50 percent over the minimum requirement will count toward the five percent of the open space. Siddoway: Which is different that what Mr. Nichols just said. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. If we take Council person Bird's comment that if they're an acre over their minimum on their landscape buffering on their streets, that acre allows them a half-acre credit on their five percent interior space. That's the part that clarifies it. Now it's mine and Steve's job to put that in writing. Bird: Mr. Mayor, if that is in agreement with the Mayor and the Council, I would make a motion that we let Steve and Mr. Nichols draft No. 5 with these changes and bring it before the Council. Siddoway: And prepare an ordinance? Bird: Yes, prepare an ordinance with these changes and modifications. Corrie: Do I hear a second to that motion? De W eerd: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Roll-call vote, please on this one. Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 4. Public Hearing: Proposed Sign Ordinance: Corrie: Item No.4 is a public hearing on the proposed sign ordinance. At this time, I'll open the public hearing and have staff comments first. Hawkins-Clark: Good evening. Thank you for your patience. At your pleasure, I can spend the next three hours going through the 39 pages line by line. I may Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21,2000 Page 28 not go through all of these. I just wanted to hit the issue - the main key points on this proposed sign ordinance. Again, it's going to - currently, we have a zoning ordinance that does not really provide design standards or guidelines. The 1993 ordinance lists only eight types of prohibited privated (sic) and that's the extent of what we have currently. Some of the issues that the sign committee came up originally as to why are we doing this coming up with new standards - the increasing commercial growth - an increasing amount of our time and Planning and Zoning Commission time. On sign reviews, the draft ordinance, this ordinance does not address old town. The goal is to get other standards that will be more historically compatible there. Really, there is not an old town category in this draft. Then in terms of increasing the aesthetic harmony and getting some consistent standards and maintenance so we have that to back up on. What's the ordinance process been to date? There are about 12 people that worked on the Sign Committee comprised of small business representatives, commercial developers, residential property managers, sign company and a citizen representative. We started this just a little over a year ago and we did use some other cities there as a base to kind of work off of. The Planning and Zoning Commission did review this ordinance at a workshop and then last month, they had a public hearing. *** End of Side 2 *** Hawkins-Clark: -- the real estate signs. I won't necessarily go through all of these. I think you have in your packets background on the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended changes to the ordinance and you should have an ordinance draft that incorporates most of these. I think I'll just leave that right now and if you do have questions on these changes from your packet, we can address those later. There are a few recommended changes that have come up, both through discussions since the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing last month - with a couple of sign company representatives as well as just us looking at it internally. One correction there - the first one - there's a wrong date and the recommendation that you received from Legal Department - Item No.1, just correcting that, it's not January 17th memo. It's my October 17th memo. I guess the thinking with putting these up here was if you agree with them all, I could give these to the Legal Department in terms of incorporating them into the actual ordinance in your motion. The Section 4, Paragraph B on page 10, which deals with the abandoned signs definition was just an oversight on the Planning and Zoning Commission and my part for not bringing it up. Basically, we just wanted to have the same definition on Paragraphs A and B - "A" being abandoned non-conforming signs and "B" being abandoned conforming signs. That's what that second bullet point is. The third one, adding a new second sentence to define what "covered" means - there was a couple of people that wanted some clarification. We say on page 12 that pole support structures for signs shall be covered, but we don't necessarily say what does that mean. Does that mean you can wrap it or does that mean you can paint it and that suffices? I have a proposed sentence there just saying covering shall be designed to fully Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21,2000 Page 29 ( enclose the poles. Paint or wrap shall not be permitted types of covering. Basically we're looking at just some sort of wood or metal. Actually, a predominance of signs these days - you're seeing more of those covers just to kind of avoid the bare pole look. The fourth bold point there is also on page 12. This was something brought up by Tom Kuntz. To get some clarification on prohibited signs - just adding, instead of just saying signs within the public right- of-way as being prohibited, add to that title, "Signs within the public right-of-way and upon City owned property," which I think would match sort of the intent as far as not allowing miscellaneous signs to be put in the parks, for instance. Those would be prohibited unless they were posted by a City officer. The next bullet point there on the next page, 13, the off-premise sign to exempt the real estate signs at subdivision entrances. That's Section 5, Paragraph I. These are prohibited signs. We're just simply saying that in terms of an off-premise sign, the way that we have it proposed is real estate companies could put their directional signs at the entrances to subdivisions, which technically would be an off-premise sign, since it's advertising something that's not on that. We're just simply saying that that would be added to an off-premise sign exemption. Page 14. This is another item that Tom Kuntz raised in terms of getting some clarification on our real estate. There is one instance where the entrance to a subdivision in the City is not owned by the subdivision Homeowners Association, but rather is owned by the City. The goal with added this on here would be to simply give the City - instead of allowing real estate signs to put at all subdivision entrances, that the subdivision entrance lot would need to be owned by the Homeowners Association in order for them to put those directional signs on there. The last recommended correction from staff we had there was on page 21 regarding wall signs. The third line there - it says one additional wall sign. This is the number of allowed wall signs allowed per business, is what this refers to. The way we have it is that one additional wall sign shall be permitted on a' building wall that does not face a street. There was some concern raised that that's confusing. We aren't saying that we're only allowing wall signs on just one side of a four-sided building. You could still have one wall sign per exterior wall. It would need to be the reduced percentage. We're not saying only on walls that face a street. We're saying if they want to do one on the side of a building, then that's acceptable. A few other highlights, the table of contents is there. Just some examples here for the definition section. These are going to be added in. I'm sorry your copies don't include - our intent is to add some of these graphics into the first Section 1 so that the definitions aren't just text. They do have some renderings. 18 percent is the number that our committee came up with in terms of figuring out a ratio. That's an example of an awning sign there. Again, in this case, as far as Idaho Independent Bank - in terms of figuring this 18 percent, we're not saying that it's 18 percent of just this face of the awning. We're saying that when you're actually on East 1 st and you're looking at Idaho Independent Bank, even though it's an awning sign, it actually acts like a wall sign in terms of being seen as part of this whole wall. The wall area would actually be from the corner to the roofline and over and down. The 18 percent is calculated on that whole area. Here's an example - Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21, 2000 Page 30 J I Anderson: Clarify that for me. You said "the roof area," but Shari is pointing halfway up the building or you're pointing halfway up the building. That's not the roof area. Hawkins-Clark: No, it would be. I'm sorry. It's not - unlike some cities that take the roof interior ceiling - they base the wall sign on that. We're saying that it would be up to the roofline in this case. Anderson: So if you had a three-foot fagade, you would count that in there too? Hawkins-Clark: Yes, in terms of calculating the total wall area. Anderson: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: Canopy signs - just an example. These are again in more detail on the 7 tables at the back of the ordinance. 50 percent of the face is what we're proposing to allow for the background area of a sign on that. We would take per canopy, so this would be one side - one face would be this and they could take 50 percent of that area in terms of signage. Only one of our zones - we're saying the C-G - the commercial, you can actually do two separate signs on a face. Most of the other zones are just allowing a single sign on one face of a canopy. Anderson: Can I ask you a question there, too? On a canopy, we're seeing a lot of them now that are lit, but they're not a sign. Does that make any difference? If somebody wanted to take and light all four sides of this canopy, it's internally illuminated. It's not a sign. It doesn't say anything. Is that interpreted as a sign or- Hawkins-Clark: There's no logos and no text. Anderson: But it's all lit up. Hawkins-Clark: It's all lit. Anderson: They build it just like a sign. They just don't have any lettering on it. Hawkins-Clark: Ves. On the way that the sign is defined at the beginning of the ordinance now, I don't believe that we would interpret that to be a sign because it needs to point to a product or a service available on a site. That's the function of a sign and if you just have I lighted canopy - we do have our other lighting standards in the Zoning Ordinance that would have to be shielded as far as residential areas. Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21 , 2000 Page 31 Anderson: That's what I'd be concerned about. It could cast considerable am'ount of light into surrounding areas, but it may not be a sign. It may not meet the definition of a sign. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. We could look at that or we could look at the illumination component of our zoning ordinance, I guess - either way. In the back, these are just some of the calculations that we'll be using. Our example of a freestanding sign - if you notice, we don't actually use the word "monument sign" anywhere in the ordinance. We're just simply saying if it's free standing, it's free standing and it can be designed sort of as a low profile monument looking sign or it can be a pole sign. The copy area is actually calculated just on this dash line surrounding the text. The sign background area is this entire white area here on which copy can be placed. Actually, all of the calculations and the tables where it says they have a maximum background area of a sign, it is using that area there. This is an example of an architectural. This would - we're saying we're allowing 15 percent of the sign - of the background area can be in an architectural pertinence, so that's an example of one of those. Not seeing too many of the Mansard signs, but just to clarify what it are, a Mansard roof - we are again saying that the total wall area would be from the top of the roofline to grade. That is what the Mansard sign would be calculated on. It's calculated actually as a wall sign. This is incorrect - this wall area on this case - it would actually be to a roofline. An example of a projecting sign - which we'll probably see more of these in old town, but we're saying we are allowing these as part of a planned sign program. Otherwise, they are pretty much prohibited. They are really more designed for the central business district kind of setting. That's what we're looking at as far as the dimensions - a maximum of 1 0 feet extension from the wall and a minimum of 12 feet clearance. As far as animation, the sign code currently just allows animation only in our C-G and I-L zones and 20 percent of the total sign area is what we're saying is allowable as animation. Some of these - this is an example. Some of these you'll see where you have greater - the actual surface or the printing areas is greater than what the text is. We're saying that the 20 percent is calculated only on the animated portion, which would just be this one-foot height, I think is what's common. Some of the - the cabinet that the animation is within would not be part of the 20 percent necessarily. These last couple are just examples of signs that are the maximum size that the code is proposing. This is approximately about an 80 square foot multi-tenant sign, which is the maximum sign that we would allow in a limited office zone. This is an example of the maximum size that we would allow for just a single - if there's just a single tenant - just a single building, it's about a 45 square foot sign. That's an example there for our limited office zones. An example of a 15-foot 80 square foot sign, which is the maximum height and the maximum background area in two of our commercial zones and then the center sign in a limited office is - can go up to that 15-foot height. Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21, 2000 Page 32 (" Anderson: Would this sign be illegal under the new ordinance? Wouldn't it have to be enclosed? It's a freestanding sign. It would have to be wrapped and closed somehow? Hawkins-Clark: That's correct. I believe - I'm sorry. The picture doesn't really reflect it, but I believe that those are just simply painted galvanized steel posts there. It may have a slight rounded covering on it. I can't remember. The goal of that would not necessarily be to eliminate round poles covered with a round sort of cabinet that that would work. Just an example of a vehicle sign, which are at this point prohibited in the draft and they're defined as basically signs that are serving as - they're just - they're not being used actively in the course of a business. Our bikini-clad van, at least under this one, would be a prohibited sign. Here's an example of wall sign calculations and multi-tenant building where we would base the 18 percent on the storefront widths. So we would more or less take the - following these red lines in terms of taking storefront width across the top down to the grade and over. That would be the 18 percent. That would be the wall area and then 18 percent. Bear in mind that the 18 percent would go down to nine percent in most cases since they are combining a poll sign with a wall sign. That's the way it reads. Although, nine percent is still quite adequate, particularly in these multi-tenant situations. Here's an example of a wall sign at eight percent of the total wall area. We're saying that nine percent, if they have an associated poll sign - free standing sign and 18 percent, so you're looking at more than double that size would be actually allowed. With that, I'll leave it for questions. Anderson: How would large buildings like a J Bell or something like that qualify under a wall sign? Is it 18 percent of that big wall or is there a maximum? Hawkins-Clark: There is a maximum right now of, I believe, 100 square feet. Anderson: Is that in all zones, or just a couple of zones? Hawkins-Clark: It's just in a couple. Anderson: So there are some zones where you could go 18 percent of a wall if you had a 300-foot long wall? Hawkins-Clark: No, I'm sorry. The 100 are just in a couple - we do set maximums in all of them. 80, for instance, is the maximum for the - like the limited office buildings. Although, I believe, for instance, like the Idaho Center, if you're going down 1-84, that sign - I believe Golden West did that. If you're looking at the Idaho Center bill, I believe that's about a 10 percent - or I'm sorry - 20 percent of the total wall area there, which is really all about proportion. You would never know that it's 20 percent of that wall particularly at a distance. Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21,2000 Page 33 Anderson: If you have a wall sign then, does that reduce any free standing signs if you may want to put those up or are you still allowed to do the maximum square footage on them? Hawkins-Clark: On the free standing maximum? Anderson: Yes. If I had a wall sign that took up 18 percent of my walls, am I still allowed the maximum on a freestanding sign in addition to that? Hawkins-Clark: No. That would be - it you had both, it would cut in half the size of the wall is the way that the draft reads. Anderson: What do you consider a wall sign? Does it have to face a road or - for example, some of these businesses that are quite a distance from the freeway, if I had a tall building on Franklin Road, can I - or I guess back off the back of Franklin Road or on the south side of it - is that considered facing the interstate? Can I put a wall sign on that? Hawkins-Clark: We have a separate category for interstate signs and it's within 300 feet of the right-at-way of 1-84 - is actually what we have as that sort of overlay zone for signs. They would be allowed both if I hear you right - I mean both the sign on Franklin and a sign facing 1-84. Anderson: If you are within 300 feet of it? Hawkins-Clark: Right. Actually, yes, even if you weren't. Corrie: Any questions of staff on the signage? Bird: I have none. McCandless: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Yes, Mrs. McCandless. McCandless: On the existing signs that are there now, when the ordinance passes, are they going to have to change or would they to conform with the ordinance or would they be grandfathered or - how would that work? Hawkins-Clark: The way we've got it right now, if they are - if the building is abandoned in terms of the use for six months and the sign is non-conforming to this new code, then we could go in as a City and enforce compliance. Otherwise, if they remain - if it remains occupied and as long as it's not a hazard of any kind, then they would be able to keep existing signs. We've got that six-month abandon clause in there. Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21 t 2000 ' Page 34 De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I think also, Council member McCandless, if they can't come in for a major change, then we can also bring the sign up to code. Is that not right? I know the committee talked about that at one time. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: When you remodel a building, you have to bring it up to the current code even if it had been grandfathered. Once you start - and I think that is not only sign - it's building and everything else. ADA and everything else once you go into the structure to remodel, then you have to bring it up to current codes. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Page 17 is where we outline the point at which a legal non- conforming sign would lose its status. There are six - there are .seven items there that we've listed. I think probably the one that will be the most dispute is number one. If there's a change of the background area constituting 50 percent or more of the total existing sign background area, then that is ground for the City to be able to say you have to take your sign down and put up a conforming sign. I think some of the others are pretty straight forward as Councilman Bird was pointing out. We do have - No.5 - if there's a change in the use of the property that the sign is located on, then the sign does - the legal non-conforming status is lost. If there's alterations or enlargements to the site or the building in excess of 25 percent, then that would also be grounds. Of course, if the sign is replaced - if the sign is moved two or three - I think the committee was pretty - especially the developers that were on there felt that that would be at times difficult in terms of changing the face of your signs that are there that we would go in. Now that would - Damage is No.7, which is another one. The last paragraph of that, 8, says that upon occurrence of any of the above events, a non-conforming sign shall lose it's legal status. Thereafter, the sign owner shall remove th,e sign within 60 days. So they are given a period of time to comply. Anderson: On page 19 on center signs, it talks about existing developments which do not have a comprehensive sign program. Could you maybe explain what a sign program is and then how that would work on existing developments if someone wanted to come in - if they have got a big tenant panel or something and a new business comes in and they want to add to that, is that a change and how's that going to work? Hawkins-Clark: To get your first point, the planned sign program is pretty much any project that is more than a single building and a single tenant. Multi-tenant buildings like Elm Tree Plaza, which I gave an example of - projects where there Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21,2000 Page 35 ( are multiple principle buildings, like an office complex campus type thing. We're saying that in all of those situations, we want to see up front sort of a theme stated and they do have an application form that they'll be submitting with those so that we have - we're able to track that program basically throughout the life of the project. We do address existing development. Let me see. You'll need to find the paragraph. Anderson: The bottom paragraph talks about existing ones. Hawkins-Clark: Okay. Anderson: I guess the way I read that is if I was part of a tenant panel sign and that business changed hands and they came in to reapply for a new sign, we're then saying that that whole sign has to meet the new ordinance. If that sign is larger right now than our new ordinance would allow, that would mean they have to tear down that sign and put in a whole new tenant panel sign and meet the new square footage ordinances? Hawkins-Clark: Right. No. Actually, we're not saying that they have to meet the new sign ordinance. We're just saying they have to submit a sign program so that - well it says "existing developments which do not have a comprehensive sign program shall be required to adopt one. When the first tenant in the project requests a change of signed background area, so then all subsequent changes shall be required to conform to the adopted program." I could see the confusion and maybe we do need to clarify, but we're not necessarily saying that all the signs have to conform to the new code. We're just simply saying we want to have a program on file in the Planning and Zoning Department that when in the future, signs come in for that development, they meet the adopted program, which could involve color schemes. It could involve having some kind of unified theme architecturally on the signs - a font type. All of those things would be part of the program. Anderson: It almost sounds like staff is then going to kind of get into a design review process on some of these signs. Hawkins-Clark: In essence, that is what it says. Corrie: Any other questions of staff? Bird: I have none. Corrie: I believe this is a public hearing. Is there anyone from the public that would like to issue testimony? So far it's been one-sided. Hearing none. Council, any other questions of staff? Hearing none. )'11 entertain a motion to close the public hearing on Item No.4, the proposed sign ordinance. Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21, 2000 Page 36 ,/ ( Bird: So moved. Corrie: Do I hear a second? Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing on Item No.4, the proposed sign ordinance. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: Discussion on Council with the ordinance? Hearing none. 1'1) entertain a motion then on the proposed sign ordinance. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, if I may interrupt. Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. Brad had a list of items of clarification at the first. I had one thing I differed with a little bit and that was on the prohibition against the posting of design on City owned property. The conjunction should be "or" rather than "and" on that so that it covers either situation. On the first - Bird: Right there. Nichols: Yes. That portion right there should be "or" rather than "and." Corrie: Okay. Any other corrections? I guess that would be - the proper form is to have the attorney draw up the ordinance as changed. Is that correct? That being the case, I'll entertain a motion to have the attorney draw up the sign ordinance with the correction. Hawkins-Clark: Yes, Mayor, members of the Council. There is one point that was brought up here. Our animated signs being restricted to two zones would in fact disallow animation for most of our schools since most of them are not in C-G and I-L - which that had never really been discussed before. We have seen Meridian High School and the middle school. Library is L-O and that would as well. It may be something that before you give us - Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: Nobody is going to make a motion. I'm not going to sit here all night. I would move that we have the attorney and staff draw up the sign ordinance - the new sign ordinance with the changes and recommendations as stated. Also the animation signs with schools and stuff, I believe they need to work on that. I also Meridian City Council Meeting [' November 211 2000 Page 37 ( the question that Councilman Anderson brought up - if we were going to be - how did you put it? Anderson: Design and review on it. Bird: Design and review on all these signs, I think, need to be worked over so that we aren't doing design and review on every sign that comes in. With that, I'll close the motion. De Weerd: Along with the changes. Bird: I've already said that. Corrie: Who's going to do it? Bird: The design and review. Bird: I think that we can write it up so that we don't have to do a lot of design and review. I think you will once in a while but I believe that it can be written clearer between Brad and Bill. Corrie: I have a motion. Do I hear a second? McCandless: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have the attorney and staff draw up the ordinance as stated with the corrections and alterations. Any further discussion? Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: I guess I'd just like to comment a little bit. First of all, I appreciate the staff work that was done on the sign ordinance and it's been something that we've been needing for a long time. I was a little disappointed, not necessarily in the staff, but in just the response that we've got in general from participation on the Sign Ordinance Committee. I would have liked to have seen more input and I think that's part of my concern is that when I read through this, I guess I see some issues in there that had we had more input from other people, that we might have had some opposing opinions, but there are certain issues that I think are actually going to cause us more variance requests and more contention between people installing signs and business owners with some of the language that's in here. Like Keith, I think we did look at other Cities' sign ordinances and some of those cities - you've got to look at the whole picture. Some of them actually have a design review committee that does that and I don't think we're set up like some of those other cities. Therefore, we're leaving a lot of those things Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21, 2000 Page 38 ( up to the discretion of staff. Sometimes, that's not a really comfortable position because then you get lots of opportunities for not necessarily consistent adherence to your sign ordinances. I still have some concerns with the ordinance in certain areas. Corrie: Any other comments? De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I guess I think it would be important for Brad to get an overview of who has reviewed this and if you got any comment back. Hawkins-Clark: Commissioner De Weerd, it was sent. I don't have the list readily available. I believe to four sign companies, the Chamber of Commerce received a copy and made a couple of announcements in their newsletter that it was available for review. The standard notice of hearing, of course, in terms of newspaper publication, and then the Ada County Association of Realtors received the copy early on and all the way through they received copies. Idaho Transportation Department received direct mailing copies of the ordinance. De Weerd: Ada County received a copy too, right? Hawkins-Clark: The Planning Department, yes. De Weerd: And the Meridian Merchants' Association. Hawkins-Clark: Right - which was represented on the committee. De Weerd: So there was opportunity, but I would say that if you feel there are going to be some issues, then why rush it? Why not continue this and look at it next month if you think there are some issues of contention here? I don't think one month is going to be a big issue when we delayed the Landscape Ordinance for two to make sure that we got it - any kinks out of it that we felt would be bottlenecks or points that would cause variance requests and that sort of thing. So if you have those feelings - Anderson: I guess I have them, but I'm not saying that's the fault of the staff. I think the staff has done everything possible to solicit help. I'm more disappointed, I guess, just in the people that are going to be coming to us in the future for wanting applications for signs because I think that some of the language in here is going to cause problems in the future. Like I said, I think the part when we start getting into design review and that kind of stuff, it's going to cause us problems because we're not set up to do it. Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21 , 2000 ' Page 39 (' De Weerd: Well, at this point, this is better than what we have, which was nothing and they were doing even interpretation at that time. Anders.on: Well, I agree. It's better than what we have, yes. Corrie: Question been called for. Mr. Berg, if you'll do roll-call, please. Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, naye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mrs. de Weerd. De Weerd: I would just like to thank Brad and extend the thanks for the rest of the committee. I know there's been a lot of time into this one, too. These were two really time consuming ordinances, so I appreciate staff and everything they did. Item 5. Public Hearing: The Lakes at Cherry Lane No.8 Land Swap: Corrie: I can understand Ron's concern here, but we've gone through two public hearings now and everybody had a chance to talk. We could drag this thing out like Florida is doing right now. Not to be facetious, but we need to get along. I think we've got a fairly good ordinance here. If we've got some mistakes, we'll find out about it. Item No. 5 is a public hearing for the Lakes at Cherry Lane Land Swap. At this time, I will open the public hearing and staff comments. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor, I would like to excuse myself from this item, please. Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. It's not typically my job to present anything as a staff report, so please forgive me. The Council has already entertained an agreement to enter into a proposed change of land with Steiner Development Corporation and Mr. Bradbury is here and can describe the properties involved. The appraisals have been done of the respected parcels and the proposal from Steiner trades dollar for dollar and value for value on these parcels, but the statute requires that any time City land is exchanged or sold, that a public hearing has to be scheduled for public input on the issue. It's essentially some property which the City now owns that is next to the golf course, which is not usable by the golf course. It can be exchanged for a piece of property that would be available to the golf course and also the developer would supply the pipe for some tiling of the - I believe it's the eight mile lateral that goes through there with the work to be done by Nampa / Meridian as part of their work, but it's a dollar for dollar exchange. That's really all I have. Mr. Bradbury is here on behalf of Steiner Development. Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21,2000 Page 40 ( Corrie: Mr. Bradbury, I'm glad to see you're here in Meridian and not in Florida. had to get that in. I'm sorry. Bradbury: The fees they're likely to be charging, maybe I wish I was in Florida. Mr. Mayor and members of the Council, I'm Steve Bradbury. My office address is 225 North 9th in Boise. I represent Steiner Development - one of the two parties to the proposed exchange. As Mr. Nichols has explained, one of the duties of the Council is to hold a public hearing on the proposed exchange agreement. You'll recall that last month, in October, you adopted the exchange agreement that was presented to you. What I wanted to do just very briefly is to provide you with the background and answer any questions that you may have. You can see on the screen a map of the area of the exchange parcels and what I guess I will tell you - the way I will describe it is that the parcels to be exchanged from the City to Steiner Development are those two parcels - one that's marked in the orange and the other that's marked in the yellow. Then the property that would be exchanged from Steiner Development to the City is the one with the red dot on it. These are all, of course, in the vicinity of the proposed Lakes at Cherry Lane No.8 Subdivision, which I understand, by the way was recorded today. There was an appraisal - appraisals of the three parcels were prepared last summer, I believe it was. Your staff has copies of those appraisals and I don't know if you have actually seen them or not. What I did is I made copies of the last page - the summary page of the appraisals so that she'd get an idea of the dollar amounts that are involved. I'll hand those to the Mayor. The result of the appraisal was to find that the parcels to be exchanged to Steiner from the City - that worked in total. The two together were valued at $1 0,476. The parcel to be exchanged to Steiner from the City was valued at $2,835, so that leaves about a $7,600 difference. To make up the difference, Steiner Development offered to provide to the City 152 feet of 48-inch concrete pipe that would be delivered at a location designated by the City and unloaded. It could be used by the City then to bury the - a portion of the eight mile lateral in the vicinity of the golf course. Essentially, wherever the City found that it would do the most good. In order to come to determine whether or not that would be an equal value, Steiner Development got a bid from a supplier. I'll hand that to you as well. The way that was calculated, based upon the bid to deliver and unload the pipe, it was $51.35 per foot of pipe at 152 feet. It comes out to a little over $7,800. That then is about $200 more than the difference in value of the property so the City gets just a slight benefit in the values of the property and the pipe combined. As Mr. Nichols has indicated, the values then are equalized as is required under the statute. I might just point out why we're - part of the reason why we're going to all the trouble here. The properties that are to be exchanged to Steiner Development and that are presently owned by the City and used as a part of the golf course are really not particularly usable for. the golf course. The parcel that's marked with the yellow dot is in between the proposed lots that are owned by Steiner Development and the eight-mile lateral. It's just too narrow to be of any particular use to the golf course, at least as I understand it. The parcel that is Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 211 2000 Page 41 ( marked with the orange dot is about a 20-foot wide strip of land and if you - we don't have it on the drawing here, but the lots that are directly to the east of the proposed - of this Lakes at Cherry Lane 8 Subdivision, the backs of those lots all extend about 20 feet further out than do the lots in No.8. What you end up with is you end up with about a 20-foot jog. By swapping that land into Steiner Development, you straighten out the - *** End of Side 3 *** Bradbury: -- out of the equation then is the parcel that would be conveyed to the City and it's my understanding that that has been piped. Is that right? Do you know? It's my understanding that it has been or could be piped and then could be used as part of the - it's adjacent to and could be used as part of the golf course clubhouse area and incorporated into those uses. The idea here is that both parties have an opportunity to make a little bit better use of the lands that the other party happens to own. With that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have and of course, I'd urge the adoption of the ordinance, which I understand is before you tonight. Corrie: I guess my question would be to the attorney right now. Is Ward's participation been taken care of because they had an interest in this if something happened to the golf course. Is that taken care of? Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. The exchange is contingent upon receiving consent from Western Ada and I don't believe that we've actually requested that formal consent yet, but I don't anticipate that it's a problem because it simply squares up some lines and they actually have the interest in the golf course itself, and so it's adding to that particular property. But it would be something that we would do as part of this exchange. Corrie: Any questions for Steve? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Thank you, Steve. Is there anyone else "from the audience that would like to issue testimony on this? Hearing none. Any questions on the Council to anybody? I entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Bird: So moved. Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to close the public hearing. All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSTAINED Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21, 2000 Page 42 Corrie: Can we do the ordinance? Nichols: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council. I don't know if I've actually got the ordinance in front of you this evening. It's not on the - I didn't realize I was that prepared. Bird: We're ready to go. Can we pass it? Nichols: But it wasn't on the Agenda, was it? Corrie: That's the only thing. We - was it on the Agenda to do the ordinance? Nichols: I don't see it on the Agenda. I just see the public hearing. We could certainly schedule it for the fifth of December and have the first reading. Corrie: Okay. ('(I entertain a motion for that. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we continue this adoption of the ordinance for the land exchange until December 5, 2000 and at that time have the first reading. Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to continue the adoption of the ordinance for the meeting of December 5, 2000 for the first reading. Any further discussion? Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: I just had a question of Bill. I was reading through here really quick. Is there something in there that guarantees that the pipe has to be delivered and it has to be unloaded? What about damage? I used to work with that and it's not uncommon with that large of pipe that if that gets dropped too hard, it can damage it. Is there something in our agreement that guarantees it's got to be in good condition after it's unloaded? Nichols: Councilman Anderson, Mayor, members of the Council. It's my understanding that that - in order to be the appropriate value, it has to be good pipe. It can't be broken pipe. So yes. I would say that it's in there. Corrie: All those in favor of the motion say aye. Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21 , 2000 Page 43 ( MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE ABSTAINED. Item 6. FP 00-019 Request for Final Plat approval of 3 building lots on approximately 5 acres by Bill Cafarelli for Cafarelli Subdivision currently in an I-L zone - north side of Franklin Road and west of Linder Road: Corrie: The next item is the request for Final Plat approval - 00-019 for the Cafarelli Subdivision currently in an I-L zone - north side of Franklin Road and west of Linder Road. Staff comments. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, this is for a three-lot subdivision located in an industrial zone that's west of Linder Road on Franklin Road. We have submitted our comments dated November 20th. The applicant's representative has responded. Just for clarification, a couple of issues. They did submit a revised landscape plan today. However, that plan is not approved and I have specifically talked to the owner of the property as to what we need to do and we believe we can work out that issue prior to signature on the Final Plat. You probably have copies of that landscape plan and some of the issues were that the fencing is shown in the center of the eight-mile lateral and they also have extensive landscaping that's within that eight-mile lateral easement. All we were asking for was just the landscape corridor along Franklin Road and that each of the lots as they developed would be responsible for their own landscaping in accordance with the Landscape Ordinance. We will work with the applicant on that. They have submitted a revised plan of their covenants. I'm not sure if the attorney has had the opportunity to look at these covenants. Note on page 6 of what they've submitted, I still had a little question about they've got a minimum lot depth of 12.8 feet and I'm not really sure where that came from. The minimum building flanking street setback in that zone would be 30 feet, so as long as they can revise that to comply with our current ordinance, we have no objections to approval of the Final Plat and would recommend approval with staff conditions. Corrie: Is the representative, Mr. Cafarelli here? Do you have any difference in opinion? Cafarelli: No. We would agree with what Mrs. Stiles has said. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Council, any questions? Bird: I have none. Corrie: Thank you. With that in mind, I'll entertain a motion on the Final Plat approval. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21, 2000 Page 44 ( Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve the Final Plat approval of 3 building lots on approximately 5 acres by Bill Cafarelli for Cafarelli Subdivision currently in an I-L zone - north side of Franklin Road and west of Linder Road with staff comments and for the attorney to draw up the proper papers. Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the Final Plat with staff conditions and for the attorney to draw up the final papers on it. Any further discussion? Hearing none. Roll-call vote, Mr. Clerk. Roll-call: De Weerd, aye; Anderson, aye; McCandless, aye; Bird, aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 7. Water, Sewer and Trash Delinquencies: Corrie: Next item is the water, sewer and trash delinquency - delinquency for turnoff schedule for November 29, 2000. This is to inform you in writing if you choose to have the right to this predetermination hearing at 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, November 21, 2000 before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and to defend the claim made by the City that your water, sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel and this service will be discontinued on November 29, 2000 unless full payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his / her water, sewer and trash delinquency? Hearing none. You are hereby informed that you may appeal or how the decision of the City reviewed by the fourth judicial district court pursuant to Idaho State Code. Even though they will appeal, their water will be shut off. The amount of the turnoff list is $57,310.08. Council, I'll entertain a motion to approve the delinquency turnoff schedule. Anderson: So moved. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the delinquency turnoff schedule for November 29, 2000. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Item 8. Department Reports: Meridian City Council Meeting November 21, 2000 Page 45 I ( \ A. City Engineer - Gary Smith: 1. South Slough Sewer Trunk Extension - Engineering Agreement: Corrie: The next is Department Reports - City Engineer, Gary Smith. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council members. The first item I have is a proposed engineering agreement for engineering required to extend the South Slough Sewer Trunk from its present location on the east side of Chamberlain Estates Subdivision to the east side of Eagle Road. We solicited proposals from six engineering firms, and when we solicited proposals, we received six and based upon the qualifications and the similar work experience and their approach to this project, we selected JUB Engineers from Boise, Idaho. We subsequently met with JUS to negotiate the contract amount to do this work and you have attached to your memo a copy of their engineering agreement. JUS has provided us with excellent service in the past on other projects and in that regard, I have shown on the memo I requested Council action for entering into this contract agreement with JUS Engineers. Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve entering into an engineering agreement with JUB Engineers, Incorporated of Boise, Idaho for preparation of engineering plans and specifications to extend the south slough sewer trunk line from an existing (inaudible) to the east side of Eagle Road and to authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign this engineering agreement. Bird: I second it. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the City Engineer to enter into an engineering agreement with JUS Engineers. Is there any further discussion on the motion? Hearing none, all those in yavor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 2. Request to hook up to City Sewer by Warren and Jeanie Pemberton - 940 South Mustang Drive: Smith: Thank you Mayor and Council. The next item I have is a request for hookup to City Sewer by Warren and Jeanie Pemberton at 940 South Mustang Drive. This item was discussed in Pre-Council. Do you have any questions at this time after hearing what their situation is? Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21,2000 . Page 46 ( Corrie: Council? Bird: I have none. Corrie: The request is for hookup to City Sewer by Warren and Jeanie Pemberton at 940 South Mustang Drive. Anderson: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Anderson. Anderson: I would make a motion that we approve the request to hookup to City Sewer by Warren and Jeanie Pemberton at 940 South Mustang Drive and subject to the City's normal procedure on that. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to approve the request of the City Sewer by Warren and Jeanie Pemberton at 940 South Mustang Drive with the normal procedures of the City. Any further discussion? Bird: I have none. Corrie: All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 3. Request to hook up to City Sewer by Dianna Williamson - 2440 South Locust Grove Road: Corrie: No.3, Gary. Smith: Mr. Mayor, could I have a point of clarification on that last one? Then we will need to have Palmerton's' enter into an agreement with the City of Meridian similar to what we've experienced or what we've prepared in the past. In this case, since they're not contiguous to the City limits, it would have a provision that once they were, they would agree to annexation. Is that correct? Nichols: Mr. Smith, Mayor, members of the Council. The agreement requires that they apply for annexation and that's held in abeyance until such time that they're contiguous, I believe. Smith: Okay. Thank you. Just for Mr. And Mrs. Pemberton, ('II send an agreement to you for your review and signature that will outline the conditions of approval and that would be forthcoming within probably a week. Thank you. Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21,2000 Page 47 ( The next item that we have on the Agenda is the request to hookup to City Sewer by Diana Williamson at 2440 South Locust Grove Road. You may be familiar with this building. As I understand, it used to be an old school house on South Locust Grove. It is now a four-unit apartment building and they are not in the City presently. They do have an on-site well that is .providing them with, according to Mrs. Williamson, good quality water. Because of the expense involved, she has requested that they only connect to City Sewer at this time. She has agreed to proceed with the annexation process. The only other thing that she's requesting is to - because of the size of the assessment, because there are four units there, that they would - that she would be allowed to enter into a payment schedule to pay the amount off. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Yes, Mr. Bird. Bird: Is that payment schedule legal? Have we done that before? I have no problem helping people out, but - Corrie: I was going to say do you have the payment schedule that you have worked out with her? Smith: No, sir. We don't. I don't know what she's willing to pay. We have done some schedules in the past for a property that's had a rather large assessment against them. It hasn't carried it any long~r than 12 months, as I recall. Bird: It has been done then before, Gary? Smith: Okay. Corrie: The 12-month time limit. Smith: Maximum, yes. Corrie: Has she been informed of this or - Smith: Bruce Freckleton has had all the conversation with Mrs. Williams and I don't know whether she's been informed of a time period or not. Corrie: If the Council so desires, we can put that limit on there and see if she agrees to it, I suppose. Shari? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council, I guess I would have a question as to when did they get approved to have four units in that building and is it an existing legal use in the county? Our Comprehensive Plan calls for single-family residential there and I don't know when they would've remodeled it, but if it's an illegal use in the Meridian City Council Meeting November 21, 2000 Page 48 ( county, it's certainly not zoned for four units there. Why would we hook them up? Could we at least table any decision on that until I could check with the County and see if they're even legally in there? Corrie: I think we should. Bird: I do too. Corrie: I don't want to get any deeper with her or for her and if we don't really check it out, I think we would be amiss at this point. De Weerd: If we can't annex her in (inaudible). Corrie: There would be a lot of problems there. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we table the request for the hookup to the City Sewer by Diane Williamson at 2440 South Locust Grove Road until December 5, 2000 and instruct the staff to find out the legalities of the four-plex. Corrie: Do I hear a second? Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to table this to December 5, 2000 and have staff investigate the conditions that was brought up by the Planning and Zoning Director. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. 4. Addendum to Engineering Agreement for WWTP Trunk Sewer Extension: Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council members. The last item I have is the addendum to engineering agreement for the Waste Water Treatment Plant Trunk Sewer. This is a need for additional services by JUS Engineers that involves the relocation of our septic receiving facility that's going to have to be moved because of the expansion of the headworks. The additional amount to be included in the existing contract is $6,285.96. I don't know if you're familiar with the septic handling facility or not. It's just a dump basin that's located on the north side of the head works, which is where the main trunk lines come in from Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 211 2000 Page 49 ( the city and they'll be moved to the south side of the head works or south side of the plant. If you have any questions, ('II be happy to answer those. Bird: Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Mr. Bird. Bird: (move that we approve the addendum for the engineering agreement for the Waste Water Trunk Sewer Extension from the original $24,470 and add $6,285.96 bringing the agreement total to $30,755.96 and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. De Weerd: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to have the extension of the original contract for $24,470 by $6,285.96 bringing the agreement total to $30,755.96 and for the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. Corrie: The last item is the Parks and Recreation Director and we had that at 5:00 p.m. He's gone home. With that, that's the last of the Agenda items. So, there's nothing else to come before the Council. I will entertain a motion to adjourn. Bird: So moved. Corrie: Motion made and seconded to adjourn. De Weerd: Mr. Mayor. Before we vote, I would hope that we could get everything cleared up on the Finance Director next week during our workshop. Corrie: My recommendation is you get it done so I can get the advertisement and get it okayed. De Weerd: I will give my list to Mr. Berg for Workshop items. Corrie: Any other comments? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:16 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) Meridian City Council Meeting ( November 21 , 2000 Page 50 APPROVED: ( Pderidian City Pre-Council Meetin~ November 21, 2000 Page 2 2. Request to hook up to City Sewer by Warren and Jeanie Pemberton - 940 South Mustang Drive: Corrie: On Department Reports, Gary, I know that Warren and Jeanie Pemberton are here. Can we hear what it is and then we can - at the end, if they don't want to stay - I'd like to have you stay or it's going to be a very quiet meeting here, not that you're going to be really vocal- Gary, why don't you fill us in on what these two are. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council members. These folks live on the easterly side of Locust Grove Heights. Their property backs up to the recently installed sewer extension that was built by Voigt under the interstate to Overland Road. They have been having septic tank drain field problems. According to the correspondence, they're pumping the tank monthly - weekly. Unidentified: Ten months. Smith: Ten months between, okay. There is some concern about the ability to locate another drain field on the property. Apparently, this is problem according to the information they've been able to find. Previous owner - it's been a - it's had some history to it. It's had some problems for quite some time. Their request is to connect rather than go to the expense of digging up the drain field and replacing that is to connect to the sewer line that exists on property adjacent to their property. Wanda Buckert, I believe, is the property owner's name. That's the request. We have a little bit of concern of not just this property, but other property that would be adjacent to that sewer line connecting into the trunk, thereby eliminating any need for them to connect to a future sewer line or become a participant in a future sewer line installation within the subdivision in the public right-af-way. It kind of takes them out of the - it takes those property or this property. This one wouldn't be a deal killer as far as an LID, for example, if that ever happened in that subdivision for a sewer line, but it would effectively take the properties out of participation because they are already connected in another manner. Anderson: Are they contiguous to the City limits right now? Smith: They are not - not their property. The subdivision that they're within is contiguous to Woodbridge to the north, but the individual lot that we're talking about this evening is not. I would suspect as development takes place in that Magic View area, those properties will continue to be annexed - the large lots that are developing commercially. When that happens, assuming that Buckert's property is one of those that sells and is annexed, then this property would be adjacent to - contiguous to City limits. Hopefully, I've related the situation. Is that what exists out there? l { Meridian City Pre-Council Meetin~ - November 21 J 2000 Page 3 Pemberton: I think our issue would be that we have two-story. OUf basement is in the ground. I've already done a scuba-tank into my septic system. I didn't much care for that. From what it looks like Ferman had, I've got cesspool-type setup. I've talked to the neighbors, and he said he dug up a great big hole, and he filled it full of rock. I really don't have a clue what's going on with this system. To fix it, there was supposedly two places that he has this tied in. My only concern would be is that if we had a sewer system brought into our subdivision, whether or not ifd be deep enough for my basement. 1 know the one that's behind our property is - a deep line to where I could get out and hook up to it without building a pump station or a lift station or something like that to get it to our basement. ( ( \ Corrie: Council, any other questions or concerns about the Consent Agenda or the Department Reports? Any other information you need or want? Bird: I have everything. Anderson: I don't have any wants or desires. Corrie: I'll entertain a motion that we all adjourn. Bird: So moved. Corrie: OkaYA We'll be back at 7:30. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:54 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ( BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN IN THE MATIER OF THE REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR WALTMAN COURT SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT WALTMAN LANE AND SOUTHWEST 5TH STREET, MERIDIAN, IDAHO BY: JOHN AND SANDRA GOADE, APPLICANT C/C 11-08-00 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. PP.OO-014 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT The above entitled matter coming on regularly for public hearing before the City Council on August 15,2000, alld continued to September 5,2000, September 19, 2000, October 3, 2000, October 17, 2000, and then continued until November 8,2000, and at the August 15,2000 meeting Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, appeared and testified, and appearing and testifying on behalf of the Applicant were: Tony Hickey and Gary Benoit, and at the November 8,2000 meeting Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Adlninistrator, appeared and testified, and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT JOHN AND SANDRA GOADE FOR WALTMAN COURT SUBDIVISION / (PP-OO-OI4) - I (-- ( appearing and testifying on behalf of the Applicant was Tony Hiclcey, and testifying with comment~ or concerns was Ford Roghani, the City Council having received a report from Bruce Frecldeton, Engineering Technician III, and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, and the City Council having received as part of the record of this matter the recommendation to City Council of the Planning and Zoning Commission and the applicant having submitted the "Preliminary Plat for WALTMAN COURT SUBDIVISION, DATE: 3/20/2000, SHEET I OF I, DRAWN BY: JAP, DRAWING NO. 314-13-100-000, CAD DWG: goadeprel.dwg, J.J. Howard Engineering/Surveying, John and Sandra Goade-Developer, John and Sandra Goade and Ada County Highway Distict-Owners, for WALTMAN COURT SUBDIVISION," submitted for preliminary plat approval and which preliminary plat for approval application is herein received and adjudged by the City Council pursuant to Meridian City Code 9 12-3-3. Therefore the City Council malces the following findings: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That the proposed developlnent is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan by reason of the fact that it lies within the existing Urban Area as defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map, Infrastructure Planning Analysis Comprehensive Plan and Map, adopted December FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT JOHN AND SANDRA GOADE FOR WALTMAN COURT SUBDIVISION / (PP-OO-014) - 2 I~"-- r (/- - 21, 1993, and the property is presently zoned Limited Office District (L-O) and General Retail and Service Commercial District (C-G), and requires connection to the Municipal Water and Sewer System. [Meridian City Code S 11-7-2 C.] 2. The preliminary plat is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan City of Meridian adopted December 21, 1993, Ordinance No. 629. 3. It is determined that Urban Services can be made available to accommodate the proposed development if the plat complies with the requirements and conditions hereinafter set forth as conditions of preliminary plat approval. 4. The proposed development is a continuity of the proposed development within the City"s Capital Improvement Program and if the conditions which are requested by the Planning and Zoning Administrator and the Engineering Technician III and as proposed by the developer as stated on the preliminary plat there will be public financial capability of supporting services for the proposed development. 5. The development if built in accordance with the conditions and as proposed, will not create health, safety or environmental problems and there have been no specifics of any such concerns brought to the Council's attention. 6. It is found that the Recommendation To City Council of the Planning and Zoning Commission is reasonable and appropriate for the conditions of approval of the preliminary p~at as hereinafter set forth. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT JOHN AND SANDRA GOADE FOR WALTMAN COURT SUBDIVISION / (PP-OO-OI4) - 3 ( ( 7. The applicant has submitted for consideration of this approval dra"Wing of the preliminary plat herein designated as: "Preliminary Plat for WALTMAN COURT SUBDIVISION, DATE: 3/20/2000, SHEET 1 OF 1, DRAWN BY: JAP, DRAWING NO. 314-13-100-000, CAD DWG: goadeprel.dwg, J.J. Howard Engineering/Surveying, John and Sandra Goade-Developer, John and Sandra Goade and Ada County Highway District-Owners, for WALTMAN COURT SUBDIVISION. " DECISION AND ORDER Pursuant to the City Council's authority as provided in Meridian City Code S 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 Preliminary Plat of the applicant as evidenced by "Preliminary Plat for WALTMAN COURT SUBDIVISION, DATE: 3/20/2000, SHEET 1 OF 1, DRAWN BY: JAP, DRAWING NO. 314-13-100-000, CAD DWG: goadeprel.dwg, J.J. Howard Engineering/Surveying, John and Sandra Goade-Developer, John and Sandra Goade and Ada County Highway District-Owners, for WALTMAN COURT SUBDIVISION," is hereby conditionally approved; and 2. The conditions of approval are as follows to-wit: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT JOHN AND SANDRA GOADE FOR WALTMAN COURT SUBDIVISION / (PP-OO-OI4) - 4 ( /U ( Adopt the Planning and Zoning Administrator and Engineering Technician III Recommendations as follows: 2.1 A letter shall be submitted from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision and street names. Mal<e any corrections necessary to conform. 2.2 Coordinate fire hydrant placement with the City of Meridian Public Warks Department. 2.3 Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance 12- 5-2.1(. 2.4 All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 2.5 Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project shall be tiled per City Ordinance, except as provided for under site specific requirements. The ditches to be piped shall be shown on the site plans. Plans shall be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department. Ten Mile Creel< will not be required to be tiled. 2.6 Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance. Wells shall be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 2.7 Two-hundred-fifty watt, high-pressure sodiulTI streetlights shall be required at locations designated by the Public Warks Department. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense. Typicallocations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants. 2.8 On the final plat map indicate any FEMA Flood Plains affecting the area being platted, and detail plans for reducing or eliminating the boundary. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT JOHN AND SANDRA GOADE FOR WALTMAN COURT SUBDIVISION / (PP-OO-OI4) - 5 ( (' 2.9 Sanitary sewer service to this site shall be via extensions from an existing main in Troutner Business Park, and from the Ten Mile Trunl<. line. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public W orles Department. Sewer manholes are to be provided to leeep the sewer lines on the south and west sides of the centerline. 2.1 0 Water service to this site shall be via extensions from an existing main in Troutner Business Parle. Applicant shall be responsible to construct the water mains to and through the proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. No water service is shown being extended into the cul-de-sac of S.W. Fifth Place. A condition of the development agreement is that the applicant shall extend a water supply system to the proposed site. 2.11 Applicant has not indicated whether the pressurized irrigation system within the development is to be owned and maintained by an association or the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. The system being proposed as a private system, plans and specifications for the irrigation system shall be reviewed by the Public W orl<.s Department as part of the development plan review process. Submit a draft copy of the pressurized irrigation system 0 & M manual prior to plan approval. The City of Meridian requires pressurized irrigation systems shall be supplied by a year-round source of water. If a creek or well source is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the common areas prior to signature on the final plat by the Meridian City Engineer. If City water is proposed as a secondary source, developer shall be responsible to pay water assessments for the entire common open space. 2.12 Ten Mile Creele is designated as a multiple use pathway in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. A condition of the development agreement is that the right-of-way for Ten Mile Drain shall be addressed before the land is developed. Additionally, no easement for Ten Mile Creel, is sho\iVIl on the plan. Revise the plan to show the easement/right-of-way for the Ten Mile Drain. The right-af-way of Ten Mile Creel, shall be contained within a separate common lot, with a pedestrian easement FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT JOHN AND SANDRA GOADE FOR WALTMAN COURT SUBDIVISION / (PP-OO-014) - 6 recorded for access. A pedestrian walkway shall be installed as part of the development. Coordinate pathway and fencing details with the Parks Director. Detailed landscape plans for this common lot shall be submitted for review and approval with submittal of the Final Plat application. A letter of credit or cash surety shall be required for the improvements prior to City signature on the Final Plat. 2.13 Any entry signage for the subdivision shall be placed outside of a 40' x 40' clear sight triangle, measured from the intersection of Corporate Drive and S.W. Fifth Place. As part of the conditional use permits for the individual lots, include details of all proposed signage. Show any proposed entry signage location on the required landscape plan to be submitted with the final plat application. 2.14 As a condition of annexation and the associated development agreement, all uses shall be required to be developed under the conditional use permit process. Ada County Highway District constructed drainage ponds in the area of Lot 1, Block 2, without a conditional use permit. The design of the ponds is of concern, particularly when the area shall be highly visible when Corporate Drive is extended and aesthetics shall be reviewed. The drainage area constructed on Linder Road north of Franklin Road is a prime example of the indifference of the Ada County Highway District where beautification is concerned. ACHD shall provide plantings around drainage pond. The Applicant shall work with ACHD on putting in plantings around the drainage pond. 2.15 Access is not available along Ten Mile Creelc for the required multiple use pathway. Applicant shall schedule a time to allow inspection of the property by Staff. 2.16 Add or modify the following notes: 11. ...flood elevations determined. The balance of the property lies within Zone X. 14. All lots within this subdivision are to be developed under the conditional use process. 15. All lots within this subdivision are subject to the terms of a FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT JOHN AND SANDRA GOADE FOR WALTMAN COURT SUBDIVISION / (PP-OO-014) - 7 ( ( \ development agreement recorded as Instrument No. 99039306, records of Ada County, Idaho. 2.17 Corporate Drive shall experience significant traffic once transitional properties are developed and access is available to the Landing Subdivision, direct access to Corporate Drive shall be prohibited for all lots within Bloclc 3. 2.18 Show dedication of required right-of-way on Waltman Lane on the plat. 2.19 Provide a temporary turnaround at the west end of Corporate Drive and provide evidence of deposit of funds to Ada County Highway District for future bridge construction. Corporate Drive is intended to be connected to Greenhead in the Landing Subdivision in the future. 2.20 On sheet 2 of the preliminary engineering drawings submitted, they do not show the sewer main to be installed in Corporate Dr., nor is a profile provided for the line from its point of connection in Troutner Business Park to the terminus. Revise plans and resubmit to Public Warks Department. 2.21 Revise preliminary plat map to show the source, and all the distribution piping system for the pressurized irrigation system. 2.22 Ten copies of the revised plat that conforms to the requirements, at least one weelc before council meeting, shall be submitted. Additionally, one 8 V2 x II legible copy of the revised plat to be submitted. Adopt the Recommendations of the Ada County Highway Department as follows: 2.23 Dedicate Corporate Drive (lO-feet total) abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT JOHN AND SANDRA GOADE FOR WALTMAN COURT SUBDIVISION / (PP-OO-OI4) - 8 2.24 Dedicate SW 511 Street abutting the parcel (58-feet) by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. The owner shall not be compensated for this additional right-of-way because Waltman Lane is a local street and is to be brought to adopted standards by the developers of abutting properties. 2.25 Dedicate 29-feet of right-of-way (4-feet additional) from the centerline of Waltman Lane abutting the parcel by means of recordation of a final subdivision plat or execution of a warranty deed prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits), whichever occurs first. 2.26 Construct Corporate Drive as a 46-foot section with curb, gutter and 5- fqot wide concrete sidewall< abutting the parcel. Coordinate the design of Corporate Drive with District. The owner shall be compensated for 6...feet of pavement from available impact fee revenues in this benefit zone. 2.27 Construct Southwest 5th Street as a 40-foot street section with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk abutting the parcel. Coordinate the design of Southwest 5th Street with District. 2.28 Construct Southwest 5th Place as a 40-foot street section with curb, gutter and 5-foot wide concrete sidewall< abutting the parcel. Coordinate the design of Southwest 5th Place with District. 2.29 Construct the turnaround for Southwest 5th Place with a 55-foot radius. Coordinate the design of the turnaround with District. 2.30 Construct curb, gutter and five-foot concrete sidewalk on Waltman Lane abutting the parcel. Improvements to Waltman Lane shall be constructed to one half of a 40-foot street section. Coordinate the improvements to Waltman Lane with District. 2.31 Restrictions on the width, number and locations of driveways, shall be placed on future development of this parcel. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY PLAT JOHN AND SANDRA GOADE FOR WALTMAN COURT SUBDIVISION / (PP..OO-014) - 9 ( ( Further adopt the Recommendation of Planning and Zoning as follows: 2.32 That the Applicant shall obtain clarification from ACHD on bridge requirements. Adopt the Recommendations of the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District as follows: 2.33 The Tenmile Drain courses along the west boundary of the proposed project. Tenmile Drain is a contract drain with the Bureau of Reclamation. The District claims an easement of 100 feet, 50 feet from the center each way. The Bureau of Reclamation may have a difference assessment. No encroachments within the right-of-way are allowed without written permission from the District. All storm drainage shall be retained on site. By jlction of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 2/ ~ day of !JU!//e1n /;e-v ,2000. .. o ERT D. CORRIE '. ,Mayor, City of Meridian B Dated: msg/Z:\W ork\M\Meridian\Meridian 153 60M\Goade PPO 14\FfClsOrd.PP .wpd FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF ~RELIMINARY PLAT JOHN AND SANDRA GOADE FOR WALTMAN COURT SUBDIVISION / (PP-00-014) - 10 /- ( (- BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR REZONE OF APPROXIMATELY .55 ACRES FOR PROPOSED CHILD CARE FACILITY LOCATED AT 737 N. LINDER ROAD, MERIDIAN, IDAHO WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE, Applicant. C/C 11/08/00 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No: RZ-OQ-004 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION FOR REZONE The above entitled matter on the rezoning application of .55 acres having come on for public hearing on November 8,2000, at the hour of 7:30 o'clocl( p.m., and Council having received the report of Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, and appearing and testifying was the Applicant, I(asha Lawrence, and appearing with comments or concerns was Beclcy Carmack, and the Council having received the record of this matter made before the Planning and Zoning Commission, and having received their Recommendation to the City Council, and the City Council having duly considered the evidence and the record in this matter therefore mal(es the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order: FINDINGS OF FACT FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF REZONING OF .55 ACRES FROM I-L TO L-O BY: WENDELL & ICASHA LAWRENCE / (RZ-OO-004) - 1 ( ( 1. The notice of public hearing on the application for rezo11ing was published for two (2) consecutive weelcs prior to said public hearing scheduled for November 8,2000, before the City Council, the first publication appearing and written notice having been mailed to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred feet (300') of the external boundaries of the property under consideration more than fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing and with the notice of public hearing having been posted upon the property under consideration more than one weelc before said hearing; and that copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations as public service announcements; and the matter having been duly considered by the City Council at the November 8,2000, public hearing; and the applicant, affected property owners, and government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian, having been given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence. 2. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Idaho Code SS 67-6509 and 67-6511, and Meridian City Code SS 11-15-5 and 11-16-1. 3. The City Council talces judicial notice of its zoning, subdivisions and development ordinances codified at Meridian City Code Title 11 and Title 12, and all current .zoning maps thereof, and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF REZONING OF .55 ACRES FROM I-L TO L-O BY: WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE/ (RZ-OO-004).. 2 ( / \ Meridian adopted December 21,1993, Ordinance No. 629 - January 4,1994, and maps and the ordinance Establishing the Impact Area Boundary. 4. The property is approximately .55 acres in size. The property is generally located at 737 N. Linder Road, in Meridian, and is described as follows: A parcel of land situated in the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 11, T. 3N., R. 1 W., City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said Section, said point being an Aluminum Monument thence along the East line of said Section 500000'00" E a distance of 150.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence continuing along the said East line 500000'00" E a distance of 133.00 feet to a point; Thence leaving said East line and parallel with the North line of said Section N90000'OOll W a distance of 180.00 feet to a point; Thence parallel with said East line NOooOO'OQ" E a distance of 133.00 feet to a point; Thence leaving said line parallel with said East line and along a line parallel with the said North line N90000'OO" E a distance of 180.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 0.55 acres, 23940 square feet more or less and is subject to all easements and right-of-ways of record or implied. 5. The owners of record of the subject property are Steven & Linda Eisele, of Nampa, Idaho. 6. The Applicants are Wendell & I<asha Lawrence, Meridian, Idaho. 7 . The property is presently zoned as Light Industrial, and is a vacant office. 8. The Applicant requests the property be rezoned to Limited FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF REZONING OF .55 ACRES FROM I-L TO L-O BY: WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE / (RZ-OO-004) - 3 / \ Office. 9. The proposed site is surrounded by limited office zoning to the north, and residential to the east and west. The property to the south is zoned light industrial. The site is located at the SW corner of Linder Road and Pine Avenue. 10. The subject property is within city limits of the City of Meridian. 11. The entire parcel of the property is included within the Meridian Urban Service Planning Area as the Urban Service Planning Area as defined in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 12. The Applicant proposes to develop the subject property in the following manner: To develop a child care facility. 13. The Applicant's requested rezoning of the subject real property as Limited Office is consistent with the commercial designation on the Meridian Comprehensive Plan Generalized Land Use Map which designates the subject property as Existing Urban. 14. There are no significant or scenic features of major importance that affect the consideration of this application. IS. In review of the application for rezone it is provided at Meridian City Code S II-IS-IIfor the General Standards that the Commission and Council review this proposed zoning alnendment and pursuant to the criteria of said section finds that: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF REZONING OF .55 ACRES FROM I-L TO L-O BY: WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE / (RZ-OO-004) - 4 /--- t \ 15.1 The new zoning will be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan; 15.2 The area included in the zoning amendment is not intended to be rezoned in the future; 15.3 The proposed use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area, subject to the conditions of the conditional use process; 15.4 The proposed use will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses, subject to the conditions of the conditional use process; 15.5 The area will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed zoning amendment shall be able to provide adequately any of such services; 15.6 The use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; 15.7 The use will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; 15.8 The area will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; 15.9 The use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance; and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF REZONING OF .55 ACRES FROM I-L TO L-O BY: WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE / (RZ-OO-004) - 5 / ~ 15.10 The proposed zoning will be in the best interest of the City of Meridian. 15.2 Staff conditions provide as follows: 15.2.1All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural 'waterways, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the parcel shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans shall be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public W orl<.8 Department. 15.2.2Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall have to be removed from their dOlnestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 15.2.3 Off-street parlcing shall be provided in accordance with City of Meridian Ordinance 11-13 for use of property. 15.2.4Applicant shall provide an area for commercial can service or a dumpster enclosure. ACHD conditions provide as follows: 15.2.5The proposed driveway on Linder Road, located 63-feet north of the south property line, is approved with the application. Pave the driveway at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of Linder Road and install pavement tapers with 15-foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge. 15.2.6Provide a recorded cross access easement for the parcel to the south to use the parcel for access to the public streets prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits) . 15.2.7Provide a $2,700.00 deposit to the Public Rights-of-Way FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF REZONING OF .55 ACRES FROM I-L TO L-O BY: WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE/ (RZ-OO-004) - 6 Trust Fund at the District for the required street improvements of approximately 135-feet of 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk on Linder Road abutting the parcel. 15.2.80ther than the access point specifically approved with the application, direct lot or parcel access to Linder Road is prohibited. 15.2.9 A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined in the ACHD's letter of September 20,2000, shall be made in writing to the ACHD Planning and Development Supervisor, and identify each specific requirement. 15.2.10 15.2.11 15.2.12 15.2.13 Mer ACHD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action shall be made in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within six days of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00, and shall identify each specific requirement. Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance # 193, also known as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF REZONING OF .55 ACRES FROM I-L TO L-O BY: WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE / (RZ-OO..004) - 7 15.2.14 15.2.15 15.2.16 15.2.17 { \. Construction, use and property development shall be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACHD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE at least two full business days prior to brealdng ground within a ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any changes from the Ada County Highway District. Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. 16. The legal description of the property that is the subject of this application for fe-zone is as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF REZONING OF .55 ACRES FROM I-L TO L-Q BY: WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE / (RZ-OO-004) - 8 ( A parcel of land situated in the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section II, T. 3N., R. I W., City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the East 1/4 corner of said Section, said point being an Aluminum Monument thence along the East line of said Section SOooOO'OO" E a distance of 150.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence continuing along the said East line SOooOO'OO" E a distance of 133.00 feet to a point; Thence leaving said East line and parallel with the North line of said Section N90oQO'00tt W a distance of 180.00 feet to a point; Thence parallel with said East line NOooOO'OOtt E a distance of 133.00 feet to a point; Thence leaving said line parallel with said East line and along a line parallel with the said North line N90000'00" E a distance of 180.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 0.55 acres, 23940 square feet more or less and is subject to all easements and right-of-ways of record or implied. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW I. The Council may take judicial notice of government ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City al1d State. 2. The City of Meridian has exercised its authority and responsibility as provided by "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975", codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code by the adoption of Comprehensive Plan City of Meridian adopted December 21,1993, Ord. No. 629, January 4,1994. 3. The requested zoning of Limited Office District, (L-O) is defined in the Zoning Ordinance at 11-7-2 G as follows: (L-O) Limited Office District: The purpose of the L-O District is to FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF REZONING OF .55 ACRES FROM I-L TO L-O BY: WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE/ (RZ-OO-004) - 9 ,." permit the establishment of groupings of professional, research, executive, administrative, accounting, clerical, stenographic, public service and similar uses. Research uses shall not involve heavy testing operations of any kind or product manufacturing of such a nature to create noise, vibration or emissions of a nature offensive to the overall purpose of this District. The L-O District is designed to act as a buffer between other more intense nonresidential uses and high density residential uses, and is thus a transitional use. Connection to the Municipal water and sewer system of the City is a requirement in this District. 4. Idaho Code 9 67-6511 provides and requires that the City shall establish by ordinance one or more zones or zoning districts in accordance with the adopted Comprehensive Plan and the ordinance establishing zoning districts can be amended with particular consideration given to the effects of any proposed zone change upon the delivery of services by any political subdivision providing public services, including school districts, within the City's planning jurisdiction and that it is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. 5. Idaho Code 9 67-6511A provides: Each governing board may, by ordinance adopted or amended in accordance with the notice and hearing provisions provided under section 67-6509, Idaho Code, require or perluit as a condition of rezoning that an owner or developer make a written commitment concerning the use or development of the subject parcel. The governing board shall adopt ordinance provisions governing the creation, form, recording, modification, enforcement and termination of conditional commitments. 6. The City of Meridian by the adoption of Meridian City Code 9 11-15-12 has exercised its authority to require or permit as a condition of rezoning FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF REZONING OF .55 ACRES FROM I-L TO L-O BY: WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE / (RZ-OO-004) .. 10 ( ( that an owner or developer mal<e a written cOlnmitment concerning the use or development of the subject property. 7. 9 11-6-1 ZONING DISTRICT MAP provides in part as follows: The districts established in this Ordinance as shown on the Official Zoning Map, together with all explanatory matter thereon, are hereby adopted as part of this Ordinance. Where uncertainty exists with respect to the boundaries of any of the zoning districts as shown on the Official Zoning Map, the following shall apply: 7.1 Where district boundaries are indicated as approximately following the centerline of street lines, highway right-of-way lines, streams, lakes or other bodies of water, the centerline shall be construed to be such boundary; 7.2 Where district boundaries are so indicated that they approximately follow the lot lines, such lot lines shall be construed to be said boundaries; 7.3 Where district boundaries are so indicated that they are approximately parallel to the centerlines or street lines of streets, or the centerlines or right-of-way lines of highways, such district boundaries shall be construed as being parallel thereto and at such distance therefrom as indicated on the Official Zoning Map. If no distance is given, such dimensions shall be determined by the use of the scale shown on the Official Zoning Map; and 7.4 Where the boundary of a district follows a railroad line, such boundary shall be deemed to be located in the middle of the main tracl<s of said railroad line. 8. 9 II-IS-IIof the Meridian City Code GENERAL STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO ZONING AMENDMENTS provides in part as follows: The Commission and Council shall review the particular facts and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF REZONING OF .55 ACRES FROM I-L TO L-O BY: WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE / (RZ-OO-004) - II ( ( circumstances of each proposed zoning amendment in terms of the following standards and shall find adequate evidence answering the following questions about the proposed zoning amendment: 8.1 The new zoning will be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. 8.2 The area is not intended to be rezoned in the future. 8.3 The area is intended to be developed in the fashion that is allowed under the new zoning. 8.4 There has been no change in the area or adjacent areas which would dictate the area should be rezoned. 8..5 The proposed uses will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area; 8.6 The proposed uses will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; 8.7 The area will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed zoning amendment shall be able to provide adequately any of such services; 8.8 The use will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; 8.9 The proposed uses will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smolce, fumes, glare or odors; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF REZONING OF .55 ACRES FROM I-L TO L-O BY: WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE/ (RZ-OO-004) .. 12 C' ( 8.1 0 The area will have vehicular approaches to the property which shall be so designed as not to create an interference with traffic on surrounding public streets; 8.11 The use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance; and 8.12 The proposed zoning amendment is in the best interest of the City of Meridian. DECISION AND ORDER NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW WHICH ARE HEREIN ADOPTED, the City Council does hereby Order and this does Order: 1. The Applicant's request for rezone of approximately .55 acres for construction and development of a child care facility is granted, subject to the terms and conditions of this Order hereinafter stated; and 2. The following special terms and conditions of use and development relate to this application to-wit: 2.1 All irrigation ditches, laterals or canals, exclusive of natural watenvays, intersecting, crossing or lying adjacent and contiguous to the parcel shall be tiled per City Ordinance 12-4-13. Plans shall be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, or lateral users association, with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public W orl(s Department. 2.2 Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project shall have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance Section 9-1-4 and 9-4-8. Wells FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF REZONING OF .55 ACRES FROM I-L TO L-O BY: WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE / (RZ-OO-004) - 13 { may be used for non-domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 2.3 Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with City of Meridian Ordinance 11-13 for use of property. 2.4 Applicant shall provide an area for commercial can service or a dumpster enclosure. ACHD conditions provide as follows: 2.5 The proposed driveway on Linder Road, located 63-feet north of the south property line, is approved with the application. Pave the driveway at least 30-feet into the site beyond the edge of pavement of Linder Road and install pavement tapers with IS-foot radii abutting the existing roadway edge. 2.6 Provide a recorded cross access easement for the parcel to the south to use the parcel for access to the public streets prior to issuance of a building permit (or other required permits) . 2.7 Provide a $2,700.00 deposit to the Public Rights-af-Way Trust Fund at the District for the required street improvements of approximately 135-feet of 5-foot wide concrete sidewalk on Linder Road abutting the parcel. 2.8 Other than the access point specifically approved with the application, direct lot or parcel access to Linder Road is prohibited. 2.9 A request for modification, variance or waiver of any requirement or policy outlined in the ACHD's letter of September 20,2000, shall be made in writing to the ACHD Planning and Development Supervisor, and identify each specific requirement. 2.10 Mter ACHD Commission action, any request for reconsideration of the Commission's action shall be made FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF REZONING OF .55 ACRES FROM I-L TO L-O BY: WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE / (RZ-OO-004) - 14 in writing to the Planning and Development Supervisor within six days of the action and shall include a minimum fee of $110.00, and shall identify each specific requirement. 2.11 Payment of applicable road impact fees are required prior to building construction in accordance with Ordinance # 193, also l<nown as Ada County Highway District Road Impact Fee Ordinance. 2.12 All design and construction shall be in accordance with the Ada County Highway District Policy Manual, ISPWC Standards and approved supplements, Construction Services procedures and all applicable ACHD Ordinances unless specifically waived herein. An engineer registered in the State of Idaho shall prepare and certify all improvement plans. 2.13 The applicant shall submit revised plans for staff approval, prior to issuance of building permit (or other required permits), which incorporates any required design changes. 2.14 Construction, use and property development shall ,be in conformance with all applicable requirements of the Ada County Highway District prior to District approval for occupancy. 2.15 It is the responsibility of the applicant to verify all existing utilities within the right-of-way. Existing utilities damaged by the applicant shall be repaired by the applicant at no cost to ACHD. The applicant shall be required to call DIGLINE at least two full business days prior to brealdng ground within a ACHD right-of-way. The applicant shall contact ACHD Traffic Operations in the event any ACHD conduits (spare or filled) are compromised during any phase of construction. 2.16 No change in the terms and conditions of this approval shall be valid unless they are in writing and signed by the applicant or the applicant's authorized representative and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF REZONING OF .55 ACRES FROM I-L TO L-O BY: WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE / (RZ-OO-004) - 15 (" an authorized representative of the Ada County Highway District. The burden shall be upon the applicant to obtain written confirmation of any changes from the Ada County Highway District. 2.1 7 Any change by the applicant in the planned use of the property which is the subject of this application, shall require the applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, ordinances, plans, or other regulatory and legal restrictions in force at the time the applicant or its successors in interest advises the Highway District of its intent to change the planned use of the subject property unless a waiver/variance of said requirements or other legal relief is granted pursuant to the law in effect at the time the change in use is sought. 3. The City Attorney shall prepare for consideration by the City Council the appropriate ordinance for the re-designation of the zoning for the real property which is the subject of the application to (L-O) Limited Office District (Meridian City Code S 11-7-2 G) which ordinance shall be considered for passage. 4. Subsequent to the passage of the Ordinance, provided for in Section 2 of this Order, the engineering staff of the Public Worl(s Department shall prepare the appropriate mapping changes of the official Zoning Maps as provided in Meridian City Code S 11-21-1 in accordance with the provisions of the rezoning ordinance. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF REZONING OF .55 ACRES FROM I-L TO L-O BY: WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE / (RZ-OO-004) - 16 ( J' NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION Please ta](e notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code S 67-6521. An affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the rezoning may, within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order, seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN RON ANDERSON VOTED-#-<'- COUNCILMAN lCEITH BIRD VOTED$V COUNCIL PERSON TAMMY deWEERD VOTED~'L/ COUNCIL PERSON CHERIE McCANDLESS VOTED~G ~ MAYOR ROBERT CORRIE (TIE BREAICER) DATED: 1/-2(-00 VOTED MOTION: APPROVE~ ~ DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF REZONING OF .55 ACRES FROM I-L TO L-O BY: WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE / (RZ-OO-004) - 17 (/-- Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Warks Department and the City Attorney. By: Dated: msglZ:\W ork\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Lawrence Day Care\RZ004 & CUP046\FfsCIsOrderREZ FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER OF APPROVAL OF REZONING OF .55 ACRES FROM I-L TO L-O BY: WENDELL &I<ASHA LAWRENCE/ (RZ-OO-004) - 18 EAL ~,J ~,.,~ & ff ~ ." ~i:~ ,Cl5 f> ~ ~ ~V1/1Si ; .$ ~~ . ~ ..~'" ~f ~"I Cbu ",,f\l. ,f '" \V ," ;'11"1 . ),. rr;;:V t ,\' ~~. ~~, \~ /} ;, f ~~' i'.j '{ t ~ ~ \. \ \ \ \. /'- ( BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL C/C 11-08-00 IN THE MATTER OF THE ) APPLICATION OF WENDELL & ) I<ASHA LAWRENCE, FORA ) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ) FORA48 CHILD CARE FACILITY ) IN AN L-O ZONE, LOCATED AT ) 737 N. LINDER ROAD, ) MERIDIAN, IDAHO ) ) Case No. CUP-OO-046 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS The above entitled conditional use permit application having come before the City Council for public hearing on November 8, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Recommendation to City Council issued by the Planning and Zoning Commission who conducted a public hearing and having heard and tal,en oral and written testimony, and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, appeared and testified, and the Applicant, I<asha Lawrence, appeared and testified, and having duly considered the, matter and the Planning and Z011ing Commission Inade the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Recommendation to City Council, and the City Council having received the staff report and the record Inade before the Planning and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE / CUP-OO-046 Page I of 14 ( ( Zoning Commission, and being fully advised in the premises, the Council finds and concludes as follows: STATEMENT OF LEGAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION: CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Idaho Code S 67-6512 provides in part that: (A) As part of a zoning ordinance the City Council may provide for the processing of applications for special or conditional use pennits; and (B) That a special use permit may be granted to an applicant if the proposed use is otherwise prohibited by the terms of the zoning ordinance, but may be allowed with conditions under specific provisions of the zoning ordinance, subject to the ability of political subdivisions, including school districts, to provide services for the proposed use, and when it is not in conflict with the plan; and (C) That upon the granting of a special use permit, conditions may be attached to a special use permit, including, but not limited to, those: 1 ) Minimizing adverse impact on other development; 2) Controlling the sequence and timing of development; 3) Controlling the duration of development; 4) Assuring that development is maintained properly; 5) Designating the exact location and nature of development; requiring the provision for on-site or off-site public facilities or services; requiring more restrictive standards than those generally required in FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE / CUP-OO-046 Page 2 of 14 ( an ordinance; requiring mitigation of effects of the proposed development upon service delivery by any political subdivision, including school districts, providing services within the planning jurisdiction. 2. The City of Meridian has exercised its authority to provide for the processing of applications for Conditional Use Pennits by the enactment of Meridian City Code S 11-17-2. 3. Idaho Code S 67-6504 provides that the City Council may exercise all of the powers required and authorized by Chapter 65 of Title 67 Idaho Code which Act is known as the "Local Land Use Planning Act of 1975." 4. The City of Meridian has enacted the Comprehensive Plan City of Meridian adopted December 21,1993, Ordinance No. 629, January 4,1994. 5. Prior to granting a conditional use pennit in a Limited Office (L-O) zone, a public hearing shall be conducted with notice to be published and provided to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred feet (300') of the external boundaries of the land under consideration for the conditional use permit all in accordance with the provisions of Meridian City Code S 11-17-5, which provides as follows: "Prior to' approving a Conditional Use Pennit, the applicant and the Commission and Council shall follow notice and hearing procedures provided in Chapter 15 of this Title. Provided, however, that conditional use applications for land in Old Town and in industrial and commercial districts shall only be required to have one public hearing which shall be held before the Planning and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE / CUP-OO-046 Page 3 of 14 ,( Zoning Commission; and after the recommendation of the Commission is made, the application shall go before the City Council without a public hearing and the Council may approve, deny, or modify the recommendation of the Commission. " STATEMENT OF FACTS RELATIVE TO LEGAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A notice of a public hearing on the conditional use permit was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for November 8,2000, before. the City Council, the first publication appearing and vvritten notice having been mailed to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred feet (300') of the external boundaries of the property under consideration more than fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing and with the notice of public hearing having been posted upon the property under consideration more than one weelc before said hearing and the copies of all notices were made available to newspaper, radio and television stations as public service announcements; and the matter having been duly considered by the City Council at the said November 8,2000, public hearing; and the Applicant, affected property owners, and government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian, having been given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE / CUP-OO-046 Page 4 of 14 ( 2. There has been compliance vvith all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Idaho Code ~~67-6509 and 67-6512; and Meridian City Code ss 11-15-5 and 11-17 -5 as evidenced by the Mfidavit of Mailing, and the Mfidavit of Publication and Proof of Posting filed vvith the staff report. 3. Council takes judicial notice of its Zoning, Subdivision and Development Ordinances codified at Meridian City Code Title II and Title 12 and all current zoning maps thereof and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian adopted December 21, 1993 Ordinance #629 - January 4, 1994 and Maps and the Ordinance establishing the Impact Area Boundary Ordinance and Map. 4. The property is located at 737 N. Linder Road, Meridian, Idaho. 5. The owner of record of the subject property is Steven & Linda Eisele of Nampa. 6. Applicant is Wendell & I<asha Lawrence of Meridian. 7. The subject property is currently zoned Limited Office. The zoning district of LO is defined vvithin the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance, Section 11-7-2. 8. The proposed application requests a conditional use permit for a child care facility. The request originally sought permission for a 78-child facility but the approval is for a 48-child facility. The L-O zoning designation vvithin the City of FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE / CUP-OO-046 Page 5 of 14 ( ( Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance requires a conditional use pennit be obtained for most uses including those requested by the Applicant. (Meridian City Zoning and Development Ordinance, Section 11-8-1). 9. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission recognizes that the proposed application is in compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 10. The use proposed within the subject application will in fact, constitute a conditional use as determined by City Ordinance. 11. The requested conditional use is described in the VICINITY MAP, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and consisting of one page, for a 48 child care facility, in Light Industrial, located at 737N. Linder Road, Meridian, Idaho, and which property is described as: A parcel of land situated in the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section II, T. 3N., Ra lWa, City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows: Conunel).cing at the East 1/4 comer of said Section, said point being an Aluminum Monument thence along the East line of said Section SOooOO'OQ" E a distance 'of 150.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNINGa Thence continuing along the said East line 500000'00" E a distance of 133aOO feet to a point; Thence leaving said East line and parallel with the North line of said Section N90000'OO" W a distance of 180.00 feet to a point; Thence parallel with said East line NOOoOO'OO" E a distance of 133.00 feet to a point; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE / CUP-OO-046 Page 6 of 14 Thence leaving said line parallel with said East line and along a line parallel with the said North line N9QoQQ'00" E a distance of 180.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 0.55 acres, 23940 square feet more or less and is subject to all easements and right-of-ways of record or implied. 12. Giving due consideration to the comments received from the governmental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction, as herein provided for in the conditions of approval, public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the conditions of development, as set forth in the Decision and Order number 2, are found to mitigate the effects of the proposed use and development upon services delivered by political subdivisions providing services to the subject real property within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian. 13. The use proposed within the subject application will in fact, constitute a conditional use as determined by Council action and City Ordinance. 14. The use proposed within the subject application will be subject to the conditions as set forth in the Decision and Order under number 2, and will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmonious and appropriate in appearance or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the intended essential character of the same area. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE / CUP-OO-046 Page 7 of 14 ( - ( 15. The use proposed within the subject application will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. 16. The use proposed within the subject application will be served adequately by central public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer. 17. The applicant has agreed to pay any additional sewer, water or trash fees or charges, if any associated with the use. 18. The use proposed within the subject application will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smolce, fumes, glare or odors. 19. Sufficient parl<ing for the proposed use of the property will be provided. 20. The use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of natural or scenic features of major importance relating to the property. DECISION AND ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, the City Council does hereby ORDER and this does Order that: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE / CUP-OO-046 Page 8 of 14 { / \ 1. That the Applicant of the property, is granted a conditional use permit for a 48 child care facility in L-O Limited Office, located at 737 N. Linder Road, Meridian, Idaho, and described in the VICINITY MAP, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and consisting of one page, for a 48 child care facility in Limited Office, located at 737N. Linder Road, Meridian, Idaho, and which property is described as: A parcel of land situated in the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 11, T. 3N., R. 1 W., City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho and more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the East 1/4 comer of said Section, said point being an Aluminum Monument thence along the East line of said Section 500000'00" E a distance :of 150.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence continuing along the said East line 500000'00" E a distance of 133.00 feet to a point; Thence leaving said East line and parallel with the North line of said Section N90000'OO" W a distance of 180.00 feet to a point; Thence parallel with said East line NOOOQO'OO" E a distance of 133.00 feet to a point; Thence leaving said line parallel with said East line and along a line parallel with the said North line N9000Q'OO" E a distance of 180.00 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Said parcel contains 0.55 acres, 23940 square feet more or less and is subject to all easements and right-of-ways of record or implied. 2. The conditional use permit granted herein is subject to the following terms and conditions: Adopt the Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning and Engineering Staff as follows: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE / CUP-OO..046 Page 9 of 14 ( ( 2.1 Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with Section 11-13-5 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance. 2.2 Paving and striping shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Sections 11-13-4.D. and 11-13-4.E. of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance and in accordance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. 2.3 A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parldng areas. All site drainage shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 2.4 Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as to not direct illumination on any nearby residential areas and in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-13-4.C. 2.5 Provide a minimum of one (1) three-inch (3") caliper tree per 1,500 sq. ft. of asphalt area on the site in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11- 13-4.B.3.c. 2.6 All trash and/or garbage collection areas shall be enclosed on at least three (3) sides in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-12-1 .C. Coordinate trash enclosure locations and construction requirements with Sanitary Service Company (SSC) and provide a letter of approval from SSC to the Planning & Zoning Department prior to applying for building permits. 2.7 All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 11-14 of the City Zoning and Development Ordinance. 2.8 All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 2.9 In accordance with City Ordinance 11-13-4.B.2., underground year-round pressurized irrigation shall be provided to all landscape areas on site. Sllbmit hook-up and design details based on the proposed landscaping. Applicant shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE / CUP-OO-046 Page 10 of 14 the primary source. If City water is proposed as a secondary source, developer shall be responsible to pay water assessments for the landscaped areas. 2.10 Sanitary sewer and water to this facility shall be via existing service lines. Applicant shall be required to enter into a Re-Assessment Agreement with the City of Meridian. 2.11 Parking: Daycare centers are required under the Off-Street Parking Ordinance to provide one (I) space for every ten (10) children, plus one (I) space per staff member. At 48 children, a minimum of 9 parldng stalls shall be required (assuming 5 for children and 4 for staff - but the staff and parking number could increase depending on the ages of children at the center). There are currently only three (3) stalls shown on the Site Plan, leaving a deficit of six (6) stalls; Applicant must have at least nine (9) parking stalls. 2.12 The child care center shall not adversely impact surrounding residential properties due to children's noise, traffic and other activities. 2.13 Applicant shall provide a solid screening of the adjacent properties to the south and west to protect children from adverse impacts and to provide a visual and sound buffer between properties. 2.14 Applicant shall keep all outside play areas free of noxious weeds. 2.15 A Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) for the childcare center shall be required prior to operation. 2.16 Applicant shall secure and maintain a child care license from the Idaho State Department of Health and Welfare-Child Care Licensing Division. Provide copy of license to the City of Meridian at the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Operator's License shall be on-site for City inspection at all times. 2.17 Applicant shall ensure that immunization of all children is verified prior to acceptance into program. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS WENDELL & ICASHA LAWRENCE / CUP-OO-046 Page 11 of 14 ( ( 2.18 Applicant is to schedule an appointment vvith the Meridian Fire Department for inspection prior to operating. Operation of daycare vvithout proper approvals shall result in revocation of conditional use permit. 2.19 Violation of any of the above conditions shall be cause to revoke a certificate of occupancy for a group child care home. The conditional use permit shall be subject to review upon ten (10) days notice to the applicant. Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Fire Department as follows: 2.20 All codes and water supply shall be met. Adopt the Recommendations of Sanitary Services as follows: 2.21 Applicant shall contact Sanitary Services regarding the waste volume and the possibility of a dumpster. Adopt the Recommendations of the Central District Health Department as follows: 2.22 Upon written approval from the appropriate entities the central sewage and central water shall be approved. 2.23 Applicant shall submit the child care center plans for plan review. Adopt the Recommendations of the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District as follows: 2.24 The District's Rutledge Lateral courses along the east side of the Applicant's property, and any encroachment vvithin the easement shall be unacceptable vvithout approval through a signed license agreement. 3. That the City Attorney draft an Order Granting Conditional Use Permit in accordance vvith this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerl( and FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE / CUP..OO-046 Page 12 of 14 ( then a conformed copy shall be served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Works Department and City Attorney and any affected party requested notice. NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION Please talce notice that this is a final action of the governing body of the City of Meridian, pursuant to Idaho Code S 67-6521 an affected person being a person who has an interest in real property which may be adversely affected by the issuance or denial of the conditional use permit may within twenty-eight (28) days after the date of this decision and order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the of ;.kv/!/h ~ , 2000. 2 i Sf; day ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN ANDERSON VOTED~ COUNCILMAN BIRD VOTED* COUNCILMAN deWEERD VOTED--?- VOTED~ COUNCILMAN McCANDLESS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE / CUP-OO-046 Page 13 of 14 ( ---- MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE (TIE BREAI<ER) VOTED DATED: ;1- 21-00 MOTION: APPROVED: ~ DISAPPROVED: Copy seIVed upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public Warks Department and City Attorney. \\\,\,\\\tU1U-"FI111, ~,,,\~ Of M~, 1111/;- ~",.~ r~ t' u- ~~01tq); ~ Dated: 1/-2/--tJlJ; ~o . "\ SEAL ~ ~~ ~~. '~R j ~"A t~'JIo ~ ;: ~ ~ 1 10,"t- - ~~ msgjZ:\Work\M\Meri~an\Meridian I 5360M\Lawrence Day Care\RZ004 &CUP046\CUPFfCIsOrdDec .........~ ~?otMrl- ~~ ,~' /)1 ~ ,"\. "II~' - ... \\"\\ '1111 ,\' . IN~$hi11~'\' By: City OerIe ..... ~ FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS WENDELL & I<ASHA LAWRENCE / CUP-OO-046 Page 14 of 14 / " 0 - C'l 1O -....J / S- u3 / n o o (J'l 1O -....J OJ (/) Q.. ~ to ~ o a. ~ o CD "- o "'" "- o o a CD U1 -...J ~ ..::.. > ~ v Z z > n r f"I1 f"I1 Z 9 z f"T'1 rrt :::0 (/) Z (') ~ r ::::0 o I -t (/) ::0 fT1 {/) f"Tl ::::0 < rr1 o SKETCH TO AfSOMPANY REZONE LF-~AL DESCRIPTION PINE AVENUE $ SECTION 11, T.3N., R.IW., B.M. .... o o o LD ~ w .... o o o o o o o Ul r--------------------------------------------------------------------- I N90000'00''E 180.00' 10 '0 n n 444 N. LINDER ROAD HEALTHY BEGINNINGS CHILD CARE ~ w - to 0 ! _0 .55 ACRES 0 '0 0 ! 0 23940 SQUARE FEET ! 0 io 10 :0 :0 Iz IUl I t ~------------------------------------------------------------------- N90000'00''W 180.00' o 20 40 80 I I I I SCALE: 1" = 40 J bh,.IJ/' ~" 00 o~ nO ~~ ~ ~ o Z p...-f ~ w ( ( BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A 48 CHILD CARE FACILITY IN L-O ZONE LOCATED AT 737 N. LINDER ROAD, MERIDIAN, IDAHO WENDELL AND I<ASHA LAWRENCE, APPLICANT. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CUP-OO-046 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT This matter coming before the City Council on the 21 st day of November, 2000, under the provisions of Meridian City Code S 11-1 7 -4 for final action on conditional use permit applicat~on and the Council having received and approving the Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission the Council talces the following action: I. That the Applicant is granted a conditional use pennit for construction of a 48 child care facility, in an L-O zone at 737 N. Linder Road, Meridian, Idaho, subject to the following conditions of use and development: Adopt the Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning and Engineering Staff as follows: 2.tl Off-street parl<ing shall be provided in accordance with Section 11- 13-5 of the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance. 2.2 Paving and striping shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Sections 11-13-4.D. and 11-13-4.E. of the City of Meridian Zoning ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY WENDELL AND I<ASHA LAWRENCE, ZONED L-O / (CUP-OO-046) - 1 ( and Development Ordinance and in accordance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. 2.3 A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer (Ord. 557, 10-1-91) for all off-street parking areas. All site drainage shall be contained and disposed of on-site. 2.4 Outside lighting shall be designed and placed so as to not direct illumination on any nearby residential areas and in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-13-4.C. 2.5 Provide a minimum of one (1) three-inch (3") caliper tree per 1,500 sq. ft. of asphalt area on the site in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-13-4.B.3.c. 2w6 All trash and/or garbage collection areas shall be enclosed on at least three (3) sides in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-12-1 wC. Coordinate trash enclosure locations and construction requirements with Sanitary Service Company (SSe) and provide a letter of approval from SSC to the Planning & Zoning Department prior to applying for building pennits. 2.7 All signage shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in Section 11-14 of the City Zoning and Development Ordinance. 2.8 All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 2.9 In accordance with City Ordinance 11-13-4.B.2., underground year- round pressurized irrigation shall be provided to all landscape areas on site. Submit hoole-up and design details based on the proposed landscaping. Applicant shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source. If City water is proposed as a secondary source, developer shall be responsible to pay water assessments for the landscaped areas. 2.10 Sanitary sewer and water to this facility shall be via existing service lines. Applicant shall be required to enter into aRe-Assessment Agreement with the City of Meridian. ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY WENDELL AND I<ASHALAWRENCE, ZONED L-O/ (CUP-OO-046) - 2 (- \ 2.11 Parldng: Daycare centers are required under the Off-Street Parldng Ordinance to provide one (1) space for every ten (10) children, plus one (1) space per staff member. At 48 children, a minimum of 9 parldng stalls shall be required (assuming 5 for children and 4 for staff - but the staff and parking number could increase depending on the ages of children at the center). There are currently only three (3) stalls shown on the Site Plan, leaving a deficit of six (6) stalls; Applicant must have at least nine (9) parldng stalls. 2.12 The child care center shall not adversely impact surrounding residential properties due to children's noise, traffic and other activities. 2.13 Applicant shall provide a solid screening of the adjacent properties to the south and west to protect children from adverse impacts and to provide a visual and sound buffer between properties. 2.14 Applicant shalll<eep all outside play areas free of noxious weeds. 2.15 A Certificate of Occupancy (C. 0.) for the childcare center shall be required prior to operation. 2.16 Applicant shall secure and maintain a child care license from the Idaho State Department of Health and Welfare-Child Care Licensing Division. Provide copy of license to the City of Meridian at the time of Certificate of Zoning Compliance application. Operator's License shall be on-site for City inspection at all times. 2.17 Applicant shall ensure that immunization of all children is verified prior to acceptance into program. 2.18 Applicant is to schedule an appointment with the Meridian Fire Department for inspection prior to operating. Operation of daycare without proper approvals shall result in revocation of conditional use permit. 2.19 Violation of any of the above conditions shall be cause to revoke a certificate of occupancy for a group child care home. The conditional use permit shall be subject to review upon ten (10) days notice to the applicant. ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY WENDELL AND I<ASHA LAWRENCE, ZONED L-O / (CUP-OO-046) - 3 ( ( Adopt the Recommendations of the Meridian Fire Department as follows: 2.20 All codes and water supply shall be met. Adopt the Recommendations of Sanitary Services as follows: 2.21 Applicant shall contact Sanitary Services regarding the waste volume and the possibility of a dumpster. Adopt the Recommendations of the Central District Health Department as follows: 2.22 Upon written approval from the appropriate entities the central sewage and central water shall be approved. 2.23 Applicant shall submit the child care center plans for plan review. Adopt the Recommendations of the Nalupa & Meridian Irrigation District as follows: 2.24 The District's Rutledge Lateral courses along the east side of the Applicant's property, and any encroachment within the easement shall be unacceptable without approval through a signed license agreement. 3. The above conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application for a conditional use pennit. 4. Notice to Permit Holder, this conditional use pennit is not transferable without complying with the provisions of Meridian City Code S 11-17 -8, a copy of which is attached to this permit. ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY WENDELL AND I(ASHA LAWRENCE, ZONED L-O / (CUP-OO-046) - 4 By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the t10re 11'L ~ :2/5:;P day of , 2000. D. Corrie, Mayor City of Meridian Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, Public W orlcs Departmen and City Attorney. By. City Cleric Dated: 11- :?/-tJ 0 ORDER GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY WENDELL AND I<ASHA LAWRENCE, ZONED L-Q / (CUP-OO-046) - 5 ( ( BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE ) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL ) USE PERMIT FOR REDUCTION ) IN FRONT LANDSCAPE ) SETBACI( IN A C-G ZONE FOR ) A USED CAR DEALERSHIP, ) LOCATED WEST OF ) MERIDIAN ROAD ON ) FRANI<LIN ROAD, MERIDIAN, ) IDAHO ) ) SAM FISHEL, ) APPLI CANT. ) ) ac 11/08/00 Case No. CUP-OO-047 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT The above entitled request to Inodify an existing conditional use pem1it having come before the City Council on November 8,2000, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, appeared and testified, and the Applicant, Sam Fishel, appeared and testified, and the City Council having duly considered the evidence and the record i11 this matter and the Recommendations to City Council issued by the Planning and Zoning Commission who conducted a public hearing and the Council having heard and taken oral and written testimony, and having duly considered the matter, the City Council hereby mal(es the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision and Order to-wit: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY SAM FI~HEL/ ZONED C..G / (CUP-OO-047) - 1 .....~.t. ~ t FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A notice of a public hearing on the request to modify al1 existing conditional use permit was published for two (2) consecutive weelcs prior to the said public hearing scheduled for November 8, 2000, before the City Council, the first publication appearing and written notice having been Inailed to property ovvners or purchasers of record within three hundred feet (300') of the external boundaries of the property under consideration more than fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing and with the 110tice of public hearing having been posted upon the property under consideration more than one weel( before said hearing and the copies of all notices were Inade available to newspaper, radio and television stations as public service announcements; and the matter having been duly considered by the City Council at the November 8, 2000, public hearing; and the applicant, affected property ovvners, and government subdivisions providing services within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian, having been given full opportunity to express comments and submit evidence. 2. There has been compliance with all notice and hearing requirements set forth in Idaho Code s67-6509, 6512, and Meridian City Code ss 11-15-5 and 11-17-5 as evidenced by the Mfidavit of Mailing, and the Mfidavit of Publication and Proof of Posting filed with the staff report. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY SAM FISHELl ZONED C-G / (CUP-OO-047) - 2 1.~- ( ( 3. This proposed development request is in a C-G zone by reason of the provisions of the Meridian City Code g 11-17-4, a public hearing was required before the City Council on this application. 4. The property is located west of Meridian Road on Franklin Road, Meridian, Idaho. 5. The owner of record of the subject property is George S. Fishel and Larree G. Fishel of Meridian. 6. Applicant is owner of record. 7. The subject property is currently zoned C-G. The zoning district of C-G is defined within the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance, Section 11-7-2. 8. The proposed application requests modification of an existing conditional use permit for reduction in landscape setback. The C-G zoning designation within the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance requires a conditional use permit be obtained for most uses including those requested by the Applicant. (Meridian City Zoning and Developm~nt Ordinance, Section 11-8-1). 9. The Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission recognizes that the proposed application is in compliance with the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 10. The use proposed within the subject application will in fact, constitute a conditional use as detennined by City Ordinance. II. The Meridian City Council takes judicial notice of its Zoning, FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY SAM FISHELl ZONED C-G / (CUP-OO-047) - 3 ;' {' ( Subdivision and Development Ordinances codified at Titles 11 and 12, Meridian City Code and all current z011ing maps thereof and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, and Maps and the Ordinance establishing the Impact Area Boundary. 12. Giving due consideration to the comment received from the goverrunental subdivisions providing services in the City of Meridian planning jurisdiction public facilities and services required by the proposed development will not impose expense upon the public if the following conditions of development are imposed and the following is also found to be required to mitigate the effects of the proposed use and development upon services delivered by political subdivisions providing services to the subject real property within the planning jurisdiction of the City of Meridian: Adopt th~e Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning and Engineering staff as follows: 12.1 Applicant's conditional use shall be approved based upon the submitted application and proposed site/landscape plan, and the front landscape setback shall be reduced to 20 feet. 13. The proposed uses within the subject application will be harmonious with and in accordance with the Meridian COlnprehensive Plan and the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance because: 13.1 The subject property is designated on the "Generalized Land Use Map" as "Existing Urban". 14. The uses proposed within the subject application subject to the conditions herein ordered will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY SAM FISHEL / ZONED C-G I (CUP-OO-047) - 4 ( ( harmonious an~ appropriate in appearance or intended character of the general vicinity and that such uses will not change the intended essential character of the same area. 15. The uses proposed within the subject application will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses. 16. The uses proposed within the subject application will be served adequately by central public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, and sewer. 17. The uses proposed within the subject application will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smol<e, fumes, glare or odors. 18. The development will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of natural or scenic feature of major importance relating to the property. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The City of Meridian shall exercise the powers conferred upon it by the "Local Land Use PlanningAct of 1975" hereinafter referred to for convenience as the "Act" codified at Chapter 65, Title 67, Idaho Code (I.C. 367-6503). 2. The Meridian City Council may exercise all the powers required and authorized under the "Act" except the power to adopt ordi11ances by the establishment of a Planning and Zoning Commission by ordinance pursuant to Idaho Code Section 67- FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY SAM FISHELl ZONED C-G I (CUP-OO-047) - 5 (.. ( 6504 which the City Council of the City of Meridian has established by the passage of the "City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance" at Titles XI and XlI, Chapter I, Meridian City Code. 3. As part of a zoning ordinance the City Council can, subject to hearing and notice provision required, provide for the process of special and/or conditional use pennits which a proposed use is otherwise prohibited by the terms of the ordinance but allowed with conditions under the specific provisions of the ordinance which the City of Meridian has done in the adoption of its zoning ordinances. 4. The City Council has the duty and responsibility to review the facts and circumstances of each application for special use pennit to detennine prior to granting the same that the evidential showing supports the finding that the following standards are met and that the proposed development: (Meridian City Code 3 11-1 7 -3 ) a. Will, in fact, constitute a conditional use as determined by City policy; b. Will be harmonious with and in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and this Ordinance; c. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained to be harmorrious and appropriate in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will not change the essential character of the same area; d. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or future neighboring uses; e. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services such as highways, streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water, sewer or that the person responsible for the establishment of proposed conditional use shall be able to provide adequately any such services; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY SAM FISHELl ZONED C-G I (CUP-OO-047) - 6 ( f. Will not create excessive additional requirements at public cost for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community; g. Will not involve uses, actIVItIes, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare by reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare or odors; h. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of a natural or scenic feature of major importance. 5. Prior to granting a conditional use permit in a General Retail and Service Commercial (C-G), a public hearing shall be conducted with notice to be published and provided to property owners or purchasers of record within three hundred feet (300') of the external boundaries of the land under consideration for the conditional use pennit all in accordance with the provisions of Meridian City Code 9 11-17-5 City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance, which provides as follows: "Prior to approving a Conditional Use Permit, the applicant and the Commission and Council shall follow notice and hearing procedures provided in Chapter 15 of this Title. Provided, however, that conditional use applications for land in Old Town and in industrial and commercial districts shall only be required to have one public hearing which shall be held before the Planning and Zoning Commission; and after the recommendation of the Commission is made, the application shall go before the City Council without a public hearing and the Council may approve, deny, or modify the recommendation of the Commission." 6. Following the public hearing and within 45 days after the conclusion of the public hearing the Commission shall, transmit its recommendations to the Meridian City Council with supportive reasons. The Commission shall recommend that the application be approved, approved with conditions or denied. The COlnmission shall ensure that any FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY SAM FISHELl ZONED C-G I (CUP-OO-047) - 7 (- ( approval or approval with conditions of an application shall be in accordance with Meridian Comprehensive Plan, City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance, and Idaho State law. (Meridian City Code S 11-17 -6) 7. When the City Council approves a conditional use pennit it may impose conditions of that approval that reasonably: A. Minimize adverse impact on other developmen~; B. Control the sequence and timing of developlnent; C. Control the duration of development; D. Assure that the development is maintained property; E. Designate the exact location and nature of the development; F. Require the provision for on-site public facilities or services; and G. Require more restrictive standards than those generally required, in this Ordinance. 8. The City of Meridian has, by ordinance, established the Impact Area and the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Meridian, which was adopted December 21, 1993, Ord. 629, January 4, 1994 and Maps. DECISION AND ORDER MODIFYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS NOW, THEREFORE, BASED UPON THE ABOVE AND FOREGOING FINDINGS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY SNv1 FISHELl ZONED C-G I (CUP-OO-047) - 8 (- OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, the City Council does hereby ORDER and this does Order that: 1. That the existing conditional ~use permit for the above named applicant for a reduction in front landscape setback for a used car dealership in a C-G zone located west of Meridian Road on Franklin Road, Meridian, Idaho, is granted subject to the following conditions of use and development: Adopt the Recommendations of the Planning and Zoning and Engineering staff as follows: 1.1 Applicant's modified conditional use shall be approved based upon the submitted application and proposed site/landscape plan, and the front landscape setbacl( shall be reduced to 20 feet. 2. The above conditions are concluded to be reasonable and the applicant shall meet such requirements as a condition of approval of the application for a conditional use permit. 3. That the City Attorney draft an Order Modifying Conditional Use Permit in accordance with this Decision, which shall be signed by the Mayor and City Clerk and then a copy served by the Clerk upon the applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department, the Public Works Departme11t and any affected party requesting notice. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY SAM FISHELl ZONED C-G / (CUP-OO-047) - 9 ( ( NOTICE OF FINAL ACTION Please take notice that this is a final actiol1 of the governing body of the City of Meridia11, pursuant to Idaho Code S 67-6521 an affected perso11 being a perso11 who has an i11terest i11 real property wllicl1 l11ay be adversely affected by the issual1ce or de11ial of the C011ditiol1al use perl1ut lnay withil1 twe11ty-eight (28) days after the date of t11is decision al1d order seek a judicial review as provided by Chapter 52, Title 67, Idaho Code. By action of the City COUI1Cil at its regular Ineeti11g held 011 t11e of !/()verh-~, 2000. 21SP day ROLL CALL: COUNCILMAN RON ANDERSON VOTED ~1.- COUNCILPERSON ICEITH BIRD VOTED~ COUNCILMAN TAMMY deWEERD VOTED~ COUNCILMAN CHERIE McCANDLESS VOTED ----!/f-Ct...- ---- MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE (TIE BREAICER) VOTED DATED: 11-2/-00 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY SAM FISHEL / ZONED C-G / (CUP-OO-047) - 10 ( MOTION: APPROVED: ~--- DISAPPROVED: Bydl~~~-$- City Clerk ' Dated: msg/Z:\ W ork\M\Meri dian \Meridian 15360 M\Centennial Motors V AR\CUPFindings04 7 .vvpd , FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY SAM FISHELl ZONED C-G / (CUP-OO-047) - II ( (' RECEIVED NOV 2 0 2000 CITY OF MERIDIAN BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE ) REQUEST FOR CONDITIONAL ) USE PERMIT FOR A ) REDUCTION IN FRONT ) LANDSCAPE SETBACIC IN A C- ) G ZONE FOR A USED CAR ) DEALERSHIP, LOCATED WEST ) OF MERIDIAN ROAD ON ) FRANI<LIN ROAD, MERIDIAN, ) IDAHO ) ) SAM FISHEL, ) APPLICANT. ) ) Case No. CUP-OO-047 ORDER GRANTING MODIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT This matter coming before the City Council on the 21 ST day of November, 2000, under the provisions of Meridian City Code 3 11-17-4 for final action on a request to modify a conditional use permit and the Council having received and approving the Recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission the Council talees the following action: 1. That the existing conditional use permit for the Applicant for a reduction in front landscape setbacl( for a used car dealership in a C-G zone located west of Meridian Road on Pranldin Road, Meridian, Idaho, is granted subject to the following conditions of use and development: ORDER GRANTING MODIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY SAM FISHELl ZONED C-G / (CUP-OO-047) - 1 ( ( Adopt the Recol1ul1el1datio11s of the Planni11g a11d Zoru11g and Engi11eeri11g staff as follo,iVs: 1.1 Applica11t'S 1TIodified conditional use shall be approved based upon tIle Sub111itted application a11d proposed site/landscape plan. 2. The above c011ditions are c011cluded to be reaso11able a11d the applical1t shall l11eet SUdl require1ne11ts as a conditi011 of approval of the application for a conditional use pennit. 3. Notice to PenTut Holder, this COllditiol1al use penlut is 110t trallsferable without cOlnplying with the provisiollS of Meridian City Code S 11-17-8, a copy of wllich is attached to tllis per11ut. By actioll of the City Council at its regular 111eeting held on the 2r5f? day of Nf)l/e~~ , 2000. Copy served upon Applicant, tIle Planl1il1g and ZOlung Departlnent, Public Works Departl11ent al1d City Attonley. B Dated: //-~/-tJtJ n1sg/Z:\ W ork\M\lV1eridian\IV1eridian 153 60M\Centennial Motors V AR\CUPOrder04 7.\\'Pd ORDER GRANTING MODIFICATION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BY SAM FISHELl ZONED C-G I (CUP-OO-047) - 2 ( ( BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF BILL CAFARELI:I, CASCADE BUILDERS, FOR APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT FOR CAFARELLI SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FRANI<LIN ROAD AND WEST OF LINDER ROAD, MERIDIAN, IDAHO C/C 11-21-00 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. FP-OO-019 ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF FINAL PLAT This matter coming before the City Council for Final Plat approval pursuant to Meridian City Code 3 12-3-7 on November 21,2000, and the Council finding that the Administrative Review is complete which has included certain comments and conditions from Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, which are herein found fair and reasonable, and that Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, commented at the hearing, and the Council having considered the requirements of the preliminary plat the Council takes the following action: ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF -- PAGE 1 OF 3 FINAL PLAT F.OR CAFARELLI SUBDIVISION BY: BILL CAFARELLI, CASCADE BUILDERS (FP-OO-019) r l IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The Pinal Plat of "CAFARELLI SUBDIVlSION" as evidenced in Plat bearing the File name: "CAFARELLI SUBDIVlSION, A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN 'THE EAST 1/2 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION II, T.3N., R.lW., BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, B. &A. ENGINEERS, INC., 5505 W. FRANI<LIN ROAD, BOISE, IDAHO, SHEET 1 OF 2, DWG.NO.: SDSoo 000323, HANDWRITTEN DATE OF: 10-18-00" Bill Cafarelli, Cascade Builders, Developer is Conditionally Approved subject to those conditions of Staff comments from Shari Stiles, Planning and Zoning Administrator, and Bruce Precldeton, Engineering Technician III, dated November 20, 2000, listing 14 General COlnments and 10 Site Specific comments, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A", and consisting of five pages, and by this reference incorporated herein, and with the additional requirements as follows, to-wit: 1.1 Meridian Fire Chief, I(enny Bowers, requires that all codes, fire water flows, and fire hydrants be met. 1.2 Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District notes that the District's Eightmile Lateral and the Von Lateral courses through the proposed project. Any encroachments within the easements without written approval shall be unacceptable. ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF _00 PAGE 2 OF 3 FINAL PLAT FOR CAFARELLI SUBDIVISION BY: BILL CAFARELLI, CASCADE BUILDERS (FpooOOoo019) 2. The final plat upon which there is contained the Certification and signature of the City Clerk and the City Engineer verifying that the plat Ineets the City's requirements shall be signed only at such time as: a. The Plat dimensions are approved by the City Engineer; and b. The City Engineer has verified that all off-site improvements are completed and/or the appropriate letter of credit or cash has been issued guaranteeing the completion of off-site and required 011-site improvements. By action of the City Council at its regular meeting held on the 2{ s-~ay Notre fn- ~ , 2000. of Copy served upon Applicant, the Planning and Zoning Department and the Public W orlcs Department. ByJ~fi~r~ City Clerk /I Dated: /1 r- 2( -tJO SE.1~j.L ...,.... ,,,- msg\Z:\ W ork\M\Meridian \Meridian 15360M\Cafarelli Sub FPO 19\Order FP ~ 7 fS 2 ~ " <:':r-"" ,.~ ~ ~ .... .-<;, ... '" % "Yo ~~.}lr 1b\ . Y.~ /"... .-:-:J '--.~ ~~,~ ". , \ ,Y " ,./// Caul", r,'..,! ".....' /,- ": J I . ; \.:;. " '. · \ \ ....' .1} ! l~ ~-~ ;':', ~ ~ '. : . \ ~ '\ ORDER OF CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF -- PAGE 3 OF 3 FINAL PLAT FOR CAFARELLI SUBDIVISION BY: BILL CAFARELLI, CASCADE BUILDERS (FP-OO-019) (- - -/ -. - -- HUB OF mEASURE v.m.RE (; EIVED A Good Place to Live NOV Z 0 2000 lEGAI~ DEPARTMENT (208) 288-2499 a F::a; 28S-~1 CITY OF ~ MERIDIAN PUBLICWDR!<S 33 EAST IDAHO ctTY CLERK OFROtPINGDEPARiMENT . (208) 887-7211. F:3X 887-1297 :MERIDIAN:t IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 . F.AX (208) 887-4813 PIANNING AND ZONIl\JG Gty Ge1k Office Fox (208) 88S-421 Ii DEl'MrfMr.N].. (208) 884-5533 . PAX 888-68S4 MAYOR Robe<< D. Couie CIIY' OOtJNC1L MEMBERS Rot1 At1~)D Keith Bird T~deWee%d aJerie 'Mf.()q.dtZ$ MEMORANDUM: November 20, 2000 To: Mayor & City Co l1l1C;iI Broce Frecldeton, Senior Engineering Technician ~ Shari Stiles~ Planning & Zoning Administrator ~ CAFARELLI Il\IDUSTRlAL SUBDMS~ON Request for Final Plat - 3 Lots on 5.4 Acres by Bill Cafarelli, Cascade Builders. From: Re: We have reviewed this submittal and offer the following comments, as conditions ~f the applicanl. These conditions sholl be considered in full, unless expressly modified or deleted by motion of the Meridian City Council: APPLICA nON SUMMARY: The Final Plat application proposes to Create three separate industrial lots in an I-L zone.. The parcel is a portion of what was annexed in 1980 as the 4'Linder Road Industrial Park" _ A building occupied by Interstate Batteries has been constructed on proposed Lot 3 of the plat. LOCATION: The property is generally located on the north side ofFrankJin Road, with the property's westerly boundary approximately one-quarter mile west of Linder Road.. It is designated as Existing Urban in the Comprehensive Plan_ SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: North - The Eight Mile Lateral and a landlocked vacant parcel of land. South - Franklin Road and. residential property on the south side of Franklin Road_ Ea!t - Industrial parcel formerly occupied by Gull Pest ControL West - Agricultural ground with a single-family residence, which is in the City of Meridian and zoned I-L. FP .c0.019 Exhibit "A" 1 of 5 C:I::6nm IDdust:riBI Sub..fP.doc; (~ (/ Mayor and City C~uncil November 20, 2000 Page 2 CURRENT OWNERS OF RECORD: Thomas M. BevanJ Jr.~ is the current property owner and has submitted his consent for both applications. SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS: 1. Sanitary sewer service to Lots 2 and 3 of this development will be via extensions from existing mains installed in Franklin Road. Service to Lot 1 is not available at this time.. Lot 1 will be served from a branch of the future Black Cat Trunk. Sanitary restrictions will remain in force on Lot .1 and sball be stated on the mce of the plat. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department.. 2.. Water service to this site will be via an extension from the existing main installed in Franklin Road. Applicant will be respo~ible to construct the water mains to and through this proposed development. Subdivision designer to coordinate main sizing and routing with the Public Works Department. 3.. Underground year-round pressurized irrigation must be provided to all landscape areas on site. Please submit hook-up and design details based on the proposed landscaping. Due to the size of landscaped are~ primary water supply connection to the City's mains will not be allowed.. Applicant shall be required to utilize any existing surface or well water for the primary source.. If City water is proposed as a secondary source, developer shall be responsible to pay water assessments for the entire landscaped area. 4. Applicant has not indicated whether the pressurized irrigation system within this development is to be owned and nm.i"tjlin~ by an association or the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District. If the system is being proposed as a private system, plans and specifications for the irrigation system shall be reviewed by the Public Works Department as part of the development plan review process. A draft copy of the pressurized irrigation system O&M manual must be submitted prior to plan approval The City of Meridian requires that pressurized irrigation systems be supplied by a year..round source of water. If a creek or wen somce is not available, a single-point connection to the culinary water system shall be required. If a single-point connection is utilized, the developer shall be responsible for the payment of assessments for the landscaped area along Franklin Road prior to signature on the final plat.. If City water is proposed as a secondary source, developer shall be responstbIe to pay water assessments for the entire landscaped area. s. The Comprehensive Plan desigJ'1S1tes Franklin Road as an entIyway corridor. As such, staff recommends the Franklin landscape buffer be a nmmmnn of 35 feet in width beyond the required right-of-'WRY and constnlcted by the developer as a condition of the plat.. This requirement does not include interior lot landscaping. Interior landscaping on each lot 'will be dealt with on a site-by-site review basis as part of the Certificate of Zoning Compliance and building permit process.. The 20-foot-wide landscape area shown on the fl'-CG019 Exhibit "A" 2 of 5 CmmIi Immsaial5W.fr.dac (r<-- _ rr- Mayor and City Council November 20, 2000 Page 3 proposed Lot 3 was required when minimum requirements were detailed for construction of the Interstate Batteries building. 6. The landscape buffer along Franklin Road shall be placed within a permanent landscape easement beyond the future right-of-way and designated as such on the plat. Staff recommends that the landscape buffer area be bermed and that no stannwater retention area be allowed within the landscaped. setback unless design details are submitted that clearly show the area will" comply with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. If these areas are indeed retention ponds, standing water within the ponds could be a common occurrence and create nuisance conditions. Depressed areas for stonnwater detention do not create an aesthetically pleasing appearance desired along entryway corridors.. 7. The landscape plans submitted with the final plat application for the Franklin Road landscape buffer are not approved.. The proper setback from right-of-way and approved driv~ locations are not shown on the pIan. Please submit detailed landscape plans for the Franklin Road landscape setback only showing size, species, elevations and surface treatment proposed for Franklin Road. The submitted landscape plan dated 9-2000 also shows building footprints for proposed Lots 1 and 2~ and they are specifically not approved as part of this application.. Building permit applications for future construction will need to comply with applicable ordinance requirements .in effect at the time of issuance of the building permit. Upon review and approval of a revised landscape plan for Franklin Road, a letter of credit. or cash smet.y will be required for the improvements prior to City signature on the Final Plat.. 8.. The landscape plan submitted also shows stormwater detention on proposed Lot 1, which is not approved. All stormwater shall be retained and disposed of On each individual.lot. 9. No waiver of the tiling requirement has been requested for the Eight Mile Lateral. If the Eight Mile Lateral is not piped, pennanent, non-combustible fencing shall be required along the easement of the Eight Mile Lateral Submit detailed fencing plans for review and approval with submittal of the Final Plat. All required fencing is to be in place prior to issuance of building permits. 10.. The proposed restrictive covenants submitted with the preliminary plat need to be reviewed by the City Attorney and approved by the Meridian City Council. The dimensioD8l standards shown on page 6 appear to be incorrect and do not meet City Ordinance requirements. The minimum front setback requirement in an I-L zone is 35 feet. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: 1.. Any existing irrigation/drainage ditches crossing the property to be included in this project shall be tiled per City Ordinance. The ditches to be piped should be shown on the site plans. Plans will need to 'be approved by the appropriate irrigation/drainage district, FP-C0-019 Exhibit "A" 3 of 5 CGinIi~ Sub.fIJI,doc - -;:' l Mayor and City Council November 20, 2000 Page 4 with written confirmation of said approval submitted to the Public Works Department.. No variances have been requested for tiling of any ditches crossing this project. 2. Any existing domestic wells and/or septic systems within this project will have to be removed from their domestic service per City Ordinance. Wells may be used for non- domestic purposes such as landscape irrigation. 3. Off-street parking shall be provided in accordance with City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance (Ord. 11-13). 4. Paving and striping shall be in accordance with the standards set forth in the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Orliin::lnr.e (Ord. 11-13-4) and in accordance with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requiLements. 5. A drainage plan designed by a State of Idaho licensed architect or engineer is required and shall be submitted to the City Engineer for aU off-street parking areas. All site drainage shall be contained and disposed of on-site.. 6. Outside liehtine shall be designed and placed so as not to direct illumination on any nearby residential areas and in accordance with City Ordinance Section 11-13-4.C.. and 12-5-2.. M. 7 a All signage shall be in accordance Vfith the standards set forth in the City of Meridian Zoning and Development Ordinance (Ord. 11-14). No temporary signage, flags, banners or fb~hing signs will be permitted.. 8a Provide five-foot-wide sidewalks in accordance with City Ordinance (Ord.. 12-5-2..K).. 9.. All construction shall conform to the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 10.. Submit letter from the Ada County Street Name Committee, approving the subdivision . and street names.. Make any co~ns necessary to confornL 11. Coordinate fire hydrant placement 'With the City of Meridian Public Works Department. 12.. Assessment fees for Vlater and sewer service are determined dwlng the building plan review process. Applicant shall be required to enter into a Re-.Asse~~nt Agreement with the City of Meridian for an commercial uses-a An assessment agreement is a vehicle that protects the City of Meridian and the Developer in the event that estimated assessments are not in line with actual usages.. The agreement provides for reimbursement to the developer for any over payment of assessments, or payment to the City of Meridian of any shortm.1l in assessments. The overpaymentlshortfull is determined after adequate historical usage. w.ro.o19 Exhibit "A" 4 of 5 ~ IMuIcriaJ Suh.FP.dac I 'U'.... _010 010 U . ~..::... ,- jP, '........ _' ~ WI- I le;,,"c, J. ....' J.:-11 t / \ ...:..w0 ~w."'" .....,.":::,,...... ~r j W i.-~..~ r ~~....~ ...'~~- ,.I.....~ I t l~. 1 J ........... _ ~ '""'-.... ( Mayor and City C0\UlC11 November 20, 2000 Page 5 13. Two-hundrcd-fifty and lOO-watt, high-presS\Jre sodium streetlights will be required at locations designated by the Public Works Dep~nt. All streetlights shall be installed at subdivider's expense.. Typical locations are at street intersections and/or fire hydrants- 14. Staff requests a written response to these comments prior to action being taken by City COWlcil. A written response was requested as part of the preliminaty plat comments of June 2000; however, evidence of any response was not found in the :file.. Submit three copies of revised Final Plat Map to the Public Works Department for revlew and approval. FP-CO-arg Exhibit "A" 5 of 5 c.&n:4ti ~ 8ub.FP.4oc ** TOTAL PAGE. 11 ** ( ( RECEIVED NOV 2 1 2000 CITY OF MERIDIAN DELINQUENCY FOR TURN OFF SCHEDULED FOR 11/29/00 MAYOR: This is to inform you in writing, if you choose to, you have the right to a predetermination hearing at 7:30 P.M. Tuesday, November 21,2000, before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and to defend the claim made by this City that your water, sewer and trash bill is delinquent. You may retain counsel. This service will be discontinued on November 29, 2000, unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present who wishes to contest his or her water, sewer and trash delinquency? (No response.) MAYOR: 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 appeal, their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn-off list is $57,310.08. ( CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 1 Standard Payment Customers Nov 21,2000 08:23am Current Period: 11/30/2000 Delinquent Minimum of $ 20.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Report Criteria: Terminated customers not included Customer. Cust No = {<} 9900000 Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/30/2000 08/31/2000 07/31/2000 Date Amount Msg 4.1204.2 KNIGHT, TIMOTHY 100.24 68.36 31.88 09/14/2000 63.76 - 34.3240.2 ABBOTT,REBECCA 237.19 115.38 121.81 10/17/2000 124.27 - 4.0868.2 ABLE, MICHAEL 120.41 82.68 37.73 09/13/2000 36.50 - 1.3990.1 ADA COUNTY OPERATIONS 1 00.16 71.02 29.14 09/20/2000 21.48 - none 5.0774.1 ADAK FAMIL Y LIMITED PARTNEF 190.87 87.37 103.50 10/17/2000 122.11 - none 21.1000.1 ADAMS, SEAN & SHIRLEY 194.79 105.10 89.69 10/16/2000 69.85 - none 51 . 1156. 1 ADVANCED HEATING 860.39 327.46 532.93 10/19/2000 105.74 - 31.3408.1 AGUIRRE, JEANNA 84.37 52.76 31.61 10/16/2000 35.00 - none 35.0190.2 AHEARN, THOMAS 113.77 73.28 40.49 10/16/2000 38.03 - 32.0538.2 AINGER, DAVID 144.91 80.10 64.81 10/12/2000 75.88 - 34.0596.1 ALLEN, EDWARD & LINDA 110.47 64.11 46.36 10/0212000 54.97 - none 74.2452.1 ALLEN, RICHARD L. 149.54 91.85 57.69 10/18/2000 67.53 - none 31.3422.1 ALLEN, TIM 140.38 84.19 56.19 10/17/2000 75.00 - none 34.2730.1 ALVEREZ, ROSALlO 113.09 64.11 48.98 10/16/2000 38.98 - none 74.0060.1 ALVES. VALERIE 167.92 107.33 60.59 10/17/2000 69.20 - none 72.0222.1 ANDERSON,BRAD 128.63 88.16 40.47 10/16/2000 41.70 - none 22. 1482.1 ANDERSON, LYLE D. 225.41 146.53 78.88 10/18/2000 93.64 - none 21.0194.1 ANDERSON, SHAUN & SHAUNA 177.38 83.35 94.03 10/16/2000 106.33 - none 2.2320.1 ANDREWS, CONAN 287.57 113.37 67.30 52.54 54.36 10/17/2000 117.30 - none 21.2070.1 ANKENMAN, MICHAEL A 136.85 92.41 44.44 10/18/2000 43.21 - none 68.0070.1 ARES, TONY 129.40 86.65 39.10 3.65 10/17/2000 35.00 - none 2.2110.1 ARMAS, SAMUEL 272.33 194.22 78.11 10/16/2000 91.00 - none 42.1988.2 ARMSTRONG, GARY & LAURA 145.75 88.04 57.71 10/04/2000 51.56 - 19.1677.1 ASHFORD GREENS CLUB HOUS 78.07 52.76 25.31 10/10/2000 24.08 - 51.3370.1 ATWOOD, CINDI 104.42 60.42 38.98 5.02 09/19/2000 100.00 - none 21.2736.1 BAILEY, MICHELLE 133.88 85.42 48.46 10/13/2000 65.00 - none 51.0694.1 BAILEY, PEGGY 98.17 66.57 31.60 10/16/2000 32.83 - none 20.1256.1 BAILEY, PEGGY SUE 144.92 87.20 57.72 10/16/2000 50.00 - none 3.0326.1 BAIN, RAND 194.69 124.00 70.69 1 0/20/2000 95.45 - none 33.2424.1 BAINE. JAMES 117.63 55.22 62.41 11/15/2000 55.98 - none 74.2676.1 BAIRD, KAREN LEE 161 .84 89.39 72.45 09/27/2000 84.12 - none 69.0590.1 BAPTISTE, MONTGOMERY 255.35 134.51 120.84 10/16/2000 141.75 - none 32.0744.1 BARNARD, WILLIAM 151.24 81.37 69.87 10/17/2000 71.10 - none 4.1424.1 BARNEKOFF, SHIRL Y 142.13 81.17 60.96 09/13/2000 126.84 - none 46.0106.1 BARNES, DAVID 99.08 67.64 31 .44 10/17/2000 31.44 - none 50.1912.2 BARNHART, RICK 104.42 72.84 31.58 10/16/2000 40.68 - 22.1740.2 BARNHART,RYAN 113.12 59.19 48.98 4.95 10/18/2000 30.00 - 43.2448.2 BARON. KONA & MICHELLE 111.31 76.97 34.34 10/16/2000 38.03 - 74.2822.1 BARR, KENNETH 351 .77 215.19 1 36.58 09/11/2000 240.11 - none 1.2110.1 BARROETABENA, PHYLLIS 154.39 96.26 58.13 10/16/2000 55.67 - none 31.3060.1 BASTIAN, DAVID 148.32 92.01 56.31 10/16/2000 80.00 - none 4.2096.3 BATES, LANCE 129.76 97.88 31.88 2.0360.1 BEACH, DEVIN 115.00 78.20 36.80 10/11/2000 36.83 - none 31.3042.1 BEAN, ALAN & JENNY 214.30 133.33 80.97 10/17/2000 115.41 - none 31.3400.2 BEAN, DONOVAN 159.22 57.52 42.37 53.44 5.89 10/17/2000 41 .00 - 1.0030.1 BEAUDOIN, JOHN R 79.07 52.76 26.31 10/16/2000 30.00 - none 34.0942.1 BECK, JIM 130.99 83.12 47.87 10/17/2000 49.10 - none 32.0950.1 BECKER, NICHOLAS 197.64 94.70 102.94 10/19/2000 97.86 - none 31.3410.1 BEEHIVE SHEL TER HOME 345.91 201.62 144.29 10/18/2000 152.90 - none 32.0932.1 BEEHIVE SHEL TER HOME 354.76 204.65 150. 11 10/18/2000 228.83 - none 74.2762.1 BEEHIVE SHEL TER HOME 824.97 429.69 395.28 10/18/2000 460.47 - none *.. in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent d ( CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 2 Standard Payment Customers Nav 21,2000 08:24am Current Period: 11/30/2000 Delinquent Minimum of $ 20.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/30/2000 08/31/2000 07/31/2000 Date Amount Msg 74.2514.1 BEEHIVE SHEL TER HOME 621.11 311.34 309.77 10/18/2000 429.08 - none 42.1076.1 BEEHIVE SHEL TER HOME 476.70 258.60 218.10 10/18/2000 186.12 - none 46.0448.1 BEERY, LON 156.73 85.74 64.02 6.97 1 0/20/2000 72.63 - none 22.1560.1 BEESE, JEFFREY 136.33 82.17 54.16 10/17/2000 54.4 7 - none 31.1004.1 BEHNER,ROBERT 196.27 120.86 75.41 10/19/2000 85.00 - none 22.2264.1 BELDEN, DANNY & JANELLE 185.79 129.03 56.76 09/21/2000 100.90 - none 2.5690.2 BELL, DERRICK 356.99 166.47 85.42 105.10 09/20/2000 86.81 - 33.2316.1 BELL, LILLY 118.30 79.99 38.31 10/18/2000 39.54 ~ none 33.1828.1 BELL, RONALD & JULIE 115.39 65.34 50.05 10/17/2000 46.36 - none 46.0834.2 BENNETT, GREG 1 01 .63 70.82 30.81 46.0836.1 BENNETT, GREG 128.75 82.56 29.14 17.05 09/20/2000 40.00 - none 22.0928.1 BERNER, ALBERT W. 212.30 125.90 86.40 10/16/2000 99.93 - none 1.2870.1 BIDDICK, SCOTT 160.51 94.19 66.32 10/17/2000 60.17 - none 1.1210.1 BILBAO, CARRIE 91.60 55.22 36.38 09/14/2000 65.38 - none 22.2344.1 BINGOECHEA, RAQUEL 79.30 52.76 26.54 09/19/2000 24.08 - none 74.2724.1 BISHOP, CALVIN 255.53 166.16 89.31 .06 10/17/2000 110.00 - none 22.1342.2 BISIG, JOSEPH W 140.02 84.63 55.39 10/10/2000 59.08 - 3.0308.1 BITTNER, MICHAEL 122.06 78.04 44.02 10/17/2000 57.80 - none 33.2600.1 BLACKHURST, SCOTT 80.53 55.22 25.31 10/17/2000 36.54 - none 2.4200.1 BLAKELY, CLAUDE JAMES 83.90 57.52 26.38 09/27/2000 27.61 - none 4.2200.1 BLAYE, LUCREZIA 160.04 81.73 78.31 10/19/2000 70.00 - none 1.2780.1 BLEVINS, LAURIE 144.49 84.74 59.75 10/16/2000 64.67 - none 21.3290.2 BOBKO, RAYMOND 385.85 199.37 186.48 10/11/2000 344.83 - 42.0408.1 BOBKO, RAYMOND 192.26 119.51 72.75 10/19/2000 86.28 - none 22.2068.1 BOISE BEST BUILDERS 113.20 68.36 31.88 6.48 6.48 31.0512.1 BOKMAN, HELEN 179.02 111.86 67.16 09/18/2000 72.08 - none 52.0246.1 BOLO'S PUS & EATERY 925.17 400.46 215.74 308.97 10/17/2000 215.74 - none 21.2976.1 BONNER, COLIN & MARTA 194.48 118.79 75.69 10/13/2000 100.00 - none 46.0468.1 BORCHARDT, KEVIN & TINA 92.28 68.08 24.20 10/19/2000 46.66 - none 74.3950.1 BaRCHART, MICHAEL 623.29 412.30 210.99 10/17/2000 220.83 - none 21.2124.3 BOUDREAU, YVETTE 103.93 72.05 31.88 19.6640.1 BOUNSAND,SOUVANNA 142.58 95.82 46.76 10/16/2000 49.22 - none 34.1880.1 SOUR, SHANNON 211.67 118.56 80.27 12.84 1 0/20/2000 100.00 - none 72.0218.1 BOVEE,RONALD 120.83 81.73 39.10 09/29/2000 40.33 - none 22.1756.1 BOWEN, ERIC 117.13 93.72 23.41 09/19/2000 6.48- 3.0294.1 BOWENS, ALFRED & SANDRA 127.37 63.95 63.42 10/16/2000 32.67 - none 51.4310.1 BOWER INVESTMENTS, LLP 95.61 68.36 27.25 08/21/2000 55.35 - 21.3068.1 BOYDSTUN. PATRICK & JUDY 135.07 77.64 57.43 09/13/2000 164.06 - none 74.3256.2 BRADY, MARK 83.90 57.52 26.38 09/26/2000 26.38 - 74.3588.1 BRAINARD, ERIC 87.59 59.98 27.61 10/17/2000 34.99 - none 74.0040.2 BRANDT, RUDY & KAREN 93.69 68.36 25.33 74.0038.2 BRANDT, RUDY& KAREN 137.97 112.64 25.33 21 .1054.1 BRAUNSTEIN. BERNARD & KARt 159.04 94.31 64.73 10/18/2000 75.00 - none 34.0420.1 BRENEMAN, JEFFERY 200.19 98.04 102.15 10/19/2000 82.31 - none 5.0264.1 BRENNAN,TERRENCE 320.79 185.78 135.01 10/17/2000 140.00 - none 22.1330.2 BRIAN MAHANEY 276.32 164.48 111 .84 10/16/2000 115.53 - 32.0926.1 BRIGGS, NADINE 226.70 123.20 103.50 10/19/2000 89.97 - none 31.2306.1 BRIGHT, LEANN 189.03 99.62 89.41 10/17/2000 83.10 - none 2.1300.1 BRINEGAR, E.E. 131.57 79.71 51.86 10/13/2000 37.41 - none 2.3712.2 BRINEGAR, E.E. 87.59 57.52 30.07 10/02/2000 26.38 - 4.1674.1 BRINKERHOFF. JOHN 272.50 141 .22 94.06 37.22 11/02/2000 100.00 - none 19.4456.1 BROOKS FULLER HOMES 157.50 129.89 27.61 10/18/2000 40.07 - none 74.3010.1 BROTZMAN, HENRY 145.04 98.28 46.76 10/17/2000 50.45 - none 69.0574.1 BROWN, JAMES & SHERRY 140.36 86.81 53.55 10/11/2000 100.00 - none 51.0334.1 BROWN, MATTHEW & JULIE 1 09.04 73.00 34.20 1.84 10/04/2000 100.00 - none **'" in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent (" ( CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 3 Standard Payment Customers Nov 21,2000 08:25am Current Period: 11/30/2000 Delinquent Minimum of $ 20.00 compared to Delinquent Balance last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/30/2000 08/31/2000 07/31/2000 Date Amount Msg 74.3810.1 BROWN, ROBERT 111 .54 80.10 31.44 10/19/2000 51.28 - none 33.2416.1 BROWN, TODD & PAMELA 1 58.50 107.61 50.89 10/13/2000 52.12 - none 19.7174.1 BRUCE, ROBERT 86.68 55.22 31 .46 10/06/2000 46.38 - 42.1178.1 BRUEGEMAN, NEIL 150.80 103.76 47.04 09/11/2000 47.04 - none 22.081 0.1 BRUNELLa, JOHN L 146.11 91.29 54.82 10/18/2000 60.00 - none 34.2736.1 BRUTSMAN. RONALD 114.06 85.86 28.20 08/29/2000 100.00 - none 31.3306.1 BRYANT, JAMIE 208.06 69.31 138.75 10/17/2000 202.87 - none 2.0496.1 BUCHANAN, DANIEL & KAREN 139.57 108.27 31.30 10/19/2000 67.45 - none 34.1844.1 BUFFAT,STEPHEN 257.54 148.93 108.61 10/17/2000 107.22 - none 33.1852.1 BUNDY, DOYLE 87.10 57.96 29.14 10/16/2000 26.68 - none 19.5494.4 BURCHFIELD, DARRELL 112.54 80.66 31.88 32.1546.4 BURCHFIELD, DARRELL 1 05. 16 72.05 33.11 10/17/2000 31 .88 - 19.6498.3 BURCHFIELD, DARREll 118.37 79.27 39.10 10/16/2000 37.87 - 31.3364.1 BURGESS, ALLEN 112.51 69.98 42.53 09/28/2000 44.99 - none 19.6510.2 BURKETT, MARK, BRYAN & CAS. 103.44 77.76 25.68 10/13/2000 50.00 - 2.2722.1 BURKMAN, JULIA 316.71 197.45 119.26 10/19/2000 95.73 - none 2.5120.1 BURNETT, CAREY 124.81 71.21 53.60 09/06/2000 108.43 - none 2.4890.2 BURNS, EMMETT 254.96 1 06.49 66.32 82.15 09/21/2000 95.68 - 5.0678.1 BURT, MARK A 169.12 91.33 77.79 10/19/2000 80.00 - none 42.2460.1 BURTON, JACK 142.61 78.87 63.74 10/18/2000 79.57 - none 21.3004.1 BUTLER, KEITH 106.13 83.63 22.50 11/0212000 45.84 - none 32.1452.1 BYRNE, JASON 88.33 57.96 30.37 10/17/2000 26.68 - none 51.2648.1 C-4 CONSTRUCTION 114.24 67.52 33.76 12.96 69.0570.1 CADY, WilLIAM 124.91 75.02 49.89 09/13/2000 81.87 - none 32.1570.1 CALDWELL, PATRICK 112.73 75.74 36.80 .19 10/18/2000 35.00 - none 31 .1 274.1 CALLISON, JAMES & BARBARA 103.58 62.44 41.14 09/1212000 54.67 - none 19.7158.2 CAMPBELL, BENJAMIN 76.84 52.76 24.08 09/28/2000 24.08 - 21.1746.2 CAMPBELL, EDWARD 220.06 136.35 83.71 10/17/2000 93.55 - 22.1050.1 CANON. BILL & BETSY 256.37 1 36.01 120.36 10/19/2000 240.00 - none 3.0048.2 CARLO, CHRISTA 86.68 52.76 33.92 10/16/2000 38.84 - 32.0884.1 CARLSON, DEBORAH J. 153.55 99.39 54.16 10/10/2000 52.93 - none 2.4590.1 CARNAHAN, JOHN 116.52 75.06 41 .46 10/19/2000 30.23 - none 34.1808.2 CARPENTER,DOUGLAS 134.36 82.96 51 .40 10/18/2000 61.24 - 2.4340.1 CARRIER, RICHARD 148.79 100.78 48.01 10/19/2000 51.70 - none 3.4001.1 CASCADE BUILDERS 457.12 31.06 97.20 328.86 50.2108.1 CASELLA. GARY 76.84 52.76 24.08 10/13/2000 26.54 - none 22.1736.2 CASH,RONAlD 79.30 52.76 26.54 09/13/2000 25.31 - 20.1282.2 CAUAGUN, C. & VERONICA 107.30 73.12 34.18 74.2868.1 CAVANAGH. THOMAS M 101.96 69.15 32.81 09/2212000 31.58 - none 33.2620.1 CECIL, ODETTE 114.26 78.99 35.27 09/20/2000 24.12 - none 42.2582.1 CHAPMAN, LORRI 148.92 93.47 53.58 1.87 11/0212000 80.00 - none 21.2658.1 CHAPPELL, ANTHONY 199.46 1 09.46 90.00 11/01/2000 75.00 - none 34.1080.2 CHASTAINE, LEIF 107.62 73.28 34.34 10/17/2000 33.11 - 32.0986.1 CHATTERTON, KELLY 239.20 97.04 142.16 10/17/2000 163.84 - none 21.0218.1 CHEN, LIL1 & YIZE 232.24 128.07 104.17 09/12/2000 104,17 - none 2.6100.1 CHENEY, STEVEN 142.89 86.53 56.34 .02 10/19/2000 57.15 - none 74.2532.2 CHIL TON, BRYAN 124.04 102.64 21.40 11/20/2000 50.00 - 31.3262.1 CHRISTENSEN, ROBERT 90.79 64.11 26.68 10/11/2000 27.91 - none 2.3466.2 CHRISTIANSEN, SUE ANN 107.59 65.06 42.53 09/13/2000 83.83 - 32.1278.1 CHURCH, LARRY 285.45 206.51 78.94 10/17/2000 75.00 - none 33.4344.1 CIRELLI, MARK 142.06 85.58 56.48 10/17/2000 63.86 - none 3.0690.1 CITY RADIATOR & MUFFLER 219.77 147.54 72.23 09/27/2000 72.23 - none 31.1054.1 CLARK, DAVID 174.07 108.56 65.51 10/17/2000 79.04 - none 31.0790.3 CLARK, DONN 151 .88 109.79 42.09 10/10/2000 100.00 - 21.3178.1 CLARK. THOMAS 140.90 83.63 57.27 10/16/2000 62.19 - none *** in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent ( ~_.~ ! CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 4 Standard Payment Customers Nov 21,2000 08:26am Current Period: 11/30/2000 Delinquent Minimum of $ 20.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/30/2000 08/3112000 07/31/2000 Date Amount Msg 2.2800.3 CLEMENT. MICHAEL 128.53 78.20 50.33 10/17/2000 62.79 - 1.2020.1 CLEMENTS, ROBERT 126.67 69.03 57.64 10/17/2000 50.00 - none 5.0344.1 CLIFF, DWIGHT 149.09 77.20 71.89 10/20/2000 65.74 - none 34.0536.1 COATES, JOSEPH & DARLENE 147.05 82.40 64.65 10/17/2000 62.19 - none 21.1766.1 COFFMAN, RICK K. 180.64 110.07 70.57 10/16/2000 86.56 - none 19.6566.1 COGGINS. SCOTT 88.38 68.08 20.30 10/17/2000 35.00 - none 74.3360.1 COLE, DEBRA 96.62 66.41 30.21 10/11/2000 31.44 - none 74.3650.2 COLSON, CHRIS 105.16 68.36 36.80 09/19/2000 71.14 - 51.4170.2 COLSON, HOWARD 90.53 62.76 27.77 10/20/2000 152.34 - 74.3304.2 COMPARATO, BRYAN 104.00 72.56 31.44 09/13/2000 64.11 - 21.0022.1 CONRAD, STEVEN 192.98 107.28 85.70 10/17/2000 41.84 - none 2.1920.1 CONRADI, JEFFREY 140.99 78.20 62.79 09/21/2000 106.81 - none 32.0852.1 COOK, EVERT 135.49 79.15 56.34 09/29/2000 58.80 - none 69.2252.1 COOK, PETER 168.78 88.27 80.50 .01 10/11/2000 82.96 - none 5.0518.1 COOK, ROBERT 194.53 101.29 93.24 10/17/2000 90.78 - none 74.3816.1 CORDELL, TODD 118.68 85.58 33.10 10/19/2000 35.00 - none 2.1180.1 CORNISH, LAURA 110.89 74.23 36.66 10/18/2000 50.19 - none 31.3420.1 COUCH, JULIA 118.18 65.34 52.84 10/18/2000 60.00 - none 22.0960.2 CRANER. DON 222.01 105.26 116.75 09/19/2000 216.28 - 1.2820.1 CRIDLAND, DONALD 155.69 96.77 58.92 10/17/2000 76.30 - none 42.4070.1 CROSS, ARBY 118.34 66.13 52.21 09/29/2000 49.75 - none 74.2336.1 CROWELL, GARY 153.13 84.35 68.78 10/13/2000 68.78 - none 74.2834.1 CROWLEY, BILLY 190.58 128.64 61.94 10/18/2000 68.09 - none 21.1918.1 CULVER, JAMES 146.46 89.78 56.68 10/17/2000 60.00 - none 50.1368.1 CULVER, WARN V. 90.79 68.54 22.25 06/20/2000 200.00 - none 74.0378.1 DAILEY, CHARLES 118.27 74.23 44.04 10/12/2000 82.17 - none 31.0830.2 DAIL Y, ROBERT 95.02 57.68 37.34 10/17/2000 70.00 - 74.3536.1 DAIL Y, ROBERT 113.45 78.04 35.41 09/28/2000 37.87 - none 50.0284.3 DALE, MARK 112.87 80.66 32.21 09/20/2000 50.00 - 2.0080.1 DALlCE PLUMBING 121 .86 76.57 45.29 10/19/2000 43.90 - none 42.0346.2 DARRON STOUT 140.41 79.15 61.26 09/28/2000 64.95 - 22.1420.1 DAVENPORT,DUANE 148.44 66.41 82.03 10/17/2000 78.81 - none 50.2168.1 DAVIDSON, DANIAL 85.87 59.19 26.68 09/18/2000 61.12 - none 2.0908.2 DAVIS, MARGARET 88.33 57.96 30.37 10/10/2000 26.68 - 21.1820.1 DAVIS, MARK 137.87 80.94 56.93 10/18/2000 60.00 - none 34.1056.2 DAVIS, MIKE & MARY 101.47 69.59 31.88 10/12/2000 43.19 - 32.0540.1 DAVLIN, RICHARD L. 138.79 87.09 51.70 10/17/2000 54.16 - none 33.0282.1 DAY, ETHEL 78.07 52.76 25.31 09/19/2000 56.77 - none 42.1826.1 DE LA PENA, LUCILO 1 09.34 74.07 35.27 09/22/2000 37.73 - none 21.3070.1 DECK, KIMBERL Y 176.97 99.67 77.30 10/17/2000 65.00 - none 3.0318.1 DECKER, KIMERY 166.76 94.31 72.45 10/17/2000 58.92 - none 31.3584.2 DEITRICK, VIVIAN 100.24 68.36 31.88 09/15/2000 79.06 - 72.0132.1 DEL BRADLEY STINE 185.84 139.03 46.81 11/13/2000 50.00 - none 34.2762.1 DENNEY,ROBERT 134.51 88.32 46.19 10/04/2000 46.00 - none 69.0704.1 DENNING, RICHARD & LORA 306.26 210.27 95.99 10/17/2000 124.28 - none 2.1610.1 DESILET, DENICE 140.32 90.38 49.94 10/23/2000 84.00 - none 46.4990.2 DEV DIVERSIFIED 994.78 910.06 84.72 09/25/2000 40.96 - 46.4956.1 DEVELOPERS DIVERSIFIED 298.00 225.30 72.70 09/25/2000 93.31 - 46.4850. 1 DEVELOPERS DIVERSIFIED RE.A 518.24 342.48 157.63 18.13 31.0812.1 DICK. JERALD & AUDRIA 173.39 93.24 80.15 10/19/2000 103.67 - none 2.1960.1 DICKSON, DONALD M 158.86 81.61 77.25 10/18/2000 88.32 - none 51.3930.3 DMK INVESTMENTS L.L.C. 190.41 82.05 52.95 55.41 09/21/2000 60.33 - 22.2236.1 DOAN, DENNIS 110.57 75.30 35.27 10/02/2000 32.81 - none 3.0700.1 DOBARAN. JOHN & ARVELLA 422.15 232.92 189.23 10/17/2000 150.93 - none 34.1690.1 DOCKWEILER, THOMAS & TERR 167.89 96.65 71.24 10/16/2000 76.16 - none *** in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent r CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 5 Standard Payment Customers Nov 21,2000 08:26am Current Period: 11/30/2000 Delinquent Minimum of $ 20.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/30/2000 08/31/2000 07/31/2000 Date Amount Msg 4.1554.1 DOLL, THOMAS 193.75 112.25 81.50 09/29/2000 98.72 - none 33.2594.2 DONALDSON, NEAL 115.39 75.18 40.21 10/19/2000 31.44 - 3.0830.1 DONLON, KATHRYN 111 .38 75.02 36.36 10/17/2000 43.90 - none 33.3636.1 DONNER, KIMBERL Y 94.06 65.06 29.00 09/28/2000 24.08 - none 74.1062.1 DOTY, PAULINE & RON 85.13 57.19 27.94 10/16/2000 42.43 - none 4.2282.1 DRURY, PATRICK 224.96 120.81 104.15 10/17/2000 84.47 - none 51.0698.2 DUEROCK, WALTER 246.08 53.99 24.08 25.31 142.70 04/10/2000 23.25 - 2.6970.1 DULHANTY, TAMARA 142.06 84.35 57.71 09/19/2000 71.40 - none 2.0210.1 DUNN, DONALD 123.58 81.05 42.53 10/02/2000 42.53 - none 34.2802.1 DUNSTAN, BRETT & MICHELLE 129.02 77.76 51.26 09/19/2000 118.51 - none 42.3106.1 DUNSTAN, JOAN 1 29.43 74.11 55.32 10/19/2000 62.00 ~ none 34.0746.2 DUVALL, KENNETH 169.12 95.42 73.70 10/23/2000 82.13 - 74.3330.3 DUVALL, KENNETH 115.84 79.04 36.80 21.2916.1 EAMES,ROBERT 117.11 57.52 59.59 10/16/2000 50.94 - none 5.0172.1 EARNHART,KATHLEEN 211.07 125.90 85.17 10/17/2000 91.48 - none 50.4602.1 EBORN, RICHARD 133.29 84.19 49.10 09/21/2000 1 02.80 ~ none 74.3370.1 ECHIPARE, DOMINADOR 138.21 92.96 45.25 10/19/2000 36.41 - none 48.1633.1 EDDY'S BAKERY 898.34 36.00 272.63 271.09 318.62 21.1106.1 EDGERTON, BRIAN 240.17 144.07 96.10 10/18/2000 93.64 - none 31.3034.1 EDWARDS, MARILYN 79.30 55.22 24.08 09/20/2000 67.84 - none 22.1502.2 EDWARDS, ROBERT 253.99 166.76 87.23 09/15/2000 163.39 - 22.1490.1 EDWARDS, STAN 94.97 59.98 34.99 09/22/2000 46.06 - none 50.1404.1 EHRHART, MILT 440. 1 0 284.75 155.35 10/02/2000 719.06 - none 50.1400.1 EHRHART, MIL TON 74.01 41.14 32.87 10/02/2000 61.16 - none 74.2368.1 ELDRED, FLOYD 139.18 89.67 49.51 10/13/2000 60.00 - none 50.2302.1 ELICKER, TODD 1 00.36 10.00 33.31 29.14 27.91 08/10/2000 27.91 - none 72.0101.1 ELK RUN HOMEOWNERS ASSO( 757.12 365.70 354.72 36.70 09/19/2000 146.08 - none 34.0592.1 ELLIS, TODD & DANA 202.97 146.19 56.78 11/03/2000 50.00 - none 69.0524.1 ELORDI, PAT & BEKKI 213.14 125.23 87.91 10/17/2000 100.21 - none 50.2088.1 ELWOOD, RICHARD 140.86 92.57 48.29 09/18/2000 53.21 - none 74.2700.1 EMBURY, MABEL 112.19 69.49 42.70 09/19/2000 42.70 - none 15.0005.1 EMERALD HOMES 86.35 86.35 04/24/2000 24.99 - 15.0067.1 EMERALD HOMES 102.21 102.21 04/24/2000 6.48- 15.0039.1 EMERALD HOMES 100.15 100.15 04/24/2000 2.68 - 31.3062.2 EMERSON, DON 121.12 76.13 44.99 10/18/2000 91 .73 - 2.0180.1 ENGLISH, RONDA 113.22 113.22 10/18/1999 32.69 - none 50.1238.1 ERHART, MILT 129.34 81.61 47.73 10/16/2000 42.81 - none 50.1234.2 ERHART. MILTON 76.84 52.76 24.08 10/16/2000 31 .46 - 50.1240.2 ERHART, MILTON 11 0.08 74.51 35.57 10/16/2000 35.57 - 74.0844.1 ESI 165.56 135.27 26.74 3.55 31.0436.2 EVANS, KIM 207.05 126.34 80.71 10/19/2000 71 .54 - 74.3614.1 FACKRELL, THOMAS 94.16 62.72 31.44 10/17/2000 38.82 - none 21.1172.3 FALK, RICHARD 226.93 88.04 138.89 09/05/2000 31.88 - 51 .1295.1 FAMCO 132.84 76.14 56.70 10/17/2000 48.60 - 51 . 1 294.1 FAMCO 782.65 545.61 237.04 10/17/2000 338.19 - 31.0156.2 FARNWORTH, WARREN 79.30 52.76 26.54 09/18/2000 79.29 - 19.6502.1 FARNWORTH, WARREN 123.89 67.92 42.81 13.16 09/21/2000 50.00 - none 1.3670.1 FARRAND, SHELLlE 119.92 74.51 45.41 09/26/2000 56.48 - none 1.3660.1 FARRAND, SHELUE 84.22 52.76 31 .46 09/26/2000 37.61 - none 34.1806.1 FAULKNER, FREDA 158.09 71.49 85.72 .88 10/18/2000 54.00 - none 42.2368.1 FAYLOR, M. JAMES 142.94 88.27 54.67 10/02/2000 63.28 - none 33.3678.1 FAYLOR, MILFORD 113.77 76.97 36.80 10/18/2000 36.80 - none 31.3614.1 FICKES, MAURICE 232.94 183.04 49.90 10/10/2000 96.05 - none 21.1866.1 FIELD, KEVIN & GWENDA 139.68 109.35 30.33 10/13/2000 121.00 - none 33.3576.1 FIRST THINGS FIRST 522.31 328.99 193.32 10/17/2000 158.88 - none *u in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent ( r ( CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 6 Standard Payment Customers Nov 21,2000 08:27am Current Period: 11/30/2000 Delinquent Minimum of $ 20.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/30/2000 08/31/2000 07/31/2000 Date Amount Msg 34.2726.1 FIRST THINGS FIRST 491.39 313.60 1 77.79 10/17/2000 158.11 - none 74.1056.1 FISHER, BEA J. 76.84 52.76 24.08 10/16/2000 30.23 - none 74.0406.1 FISHER, CASEY l 107.20 65.62 41.58 09/28/2000 56.34 - none 19.4476.2 FISHER, DAVID 90.55 63.87 26.68 10/02/2000 21.56 - 22.1614.1 FISHER, DONALD H 78.73 57.52 21.21 10/16/2000 50.00 - none 50.1012.1 FISHER, JOHNNY 92.44 63.16 29.28 10/23/2000 62.49 - none 2.0740.1 FISK, PATRICK 142.06 97.88 44.18 10/18/2000 47.87 - none 72.0274.1 FITZGERALD, JUANITA 210.32 120.07 90.25 10/19/2000 61.96 - none 5.0800.1 FITZSIMMONS, TOM 147.37 83.79 63.58 10/17/2000 82.01 - none 1 . 1160. 1 FLATEN, DONALD J. 81.76 55.22 26.54 09/20/2000 56.77 - none 51.4210.2 FLATTEN, ROBERT 116.73 74.51 42.22 09/29/2000 87.79 - 34.2084.1 FlORCZV III, ALEXANDER S. 137.11 87.37 49.38 .36 10/13/2000 50.00 - none 34.0860.1 Fl YNN, BENJAMIN J 144.49 73.67 70.82 10/13/2000 64.67 - none 65.0616.1 FOGG, STACEY 96.12 68.36 27.76 10/11/2000 36.00 - none 21.1776.1 FOREMAN, EARL 125.07 81.33 43.74 10/19/2000 43.74 - none 34.0552.1 FOSTER, BRADLEY D. 173.78 97.76 76.02 10/19/2000 69.87 - none 22. 1182.1 FOWZER, SUSAN 182.30 95.65 86.65 10/17/2000 71.89 - none 2.5840.1 FRANK,GARY 196.63 128.40 67.97 .26 10/19/2000 50.00 - none 68.0142.1 , FRAZEE, ANGIE 201.22 135.68 65.54 10/16/2000 64.10 - none 51.3078.3 FREEMAN, NICOLE 95.22 64.58 30.64 09/18/2000 65.00 - 74.3050.1 FREISEN, ROB 76.84 52.76 24.08 10/13/2000 24.08 - none 31.3050.1 FRENCH,DEBRA 85.45 53.99 31 .46 10/16/2000 33.92 - none 50.3754.1 FRENCH, LAWRENCE 325.26 72.44 57.29 68.36 127.17 08/28/2000 50.00 - none 22.1450.1 FRENCH, ROBERT & DEBORAH 154.04 85.42 68.62 10/16/2000 68.62 - none 72.0210.1 FRITZMEIER, RANDY 194.22 103.43 90.79 10/23/2000 175.00 - none 33.4258.1 FROSTROM, STEVE & TERRI 176.30 122.81 53.49 10/19/2000 63.33 - none 22.0342.1 FRY, JOHN & SHERRIE 187.28 113.32 73.96 09/22/2000 173.75 - none 34.1176.1 FRY, LARRY 163.78 92.68 71.10 09/14/2000 131.13 - none 32.1542.1 FUHRMAN, JOSHUA 138'.31 73.67 64.64 10/18/2000 87.00 - none 1.3520.1 FUHRMAN,KENT 387.73 72.44 129.86 144.62 40.81 09/05/2000 170.00 - none 4.1592.1 FURNER, JEFFREY 182.72 97.16 85.56 09/13/2000 96.63 - none 32.0676.1 GAINOR, THOMAS & DIA 242.38 83.40 51.70 67.69 39.59 10/24/2000 50.00 - none 31.2250.1 GARCIA, ANOTONIO 271.43 169.01 102.42 09/29/2000 125.95 - none 42.1138.2 GARDNER,BRENDON 1 28.21 81.73 46.48 10/17/2000 64.93 - 22.0476.1 GARDNER, LAWRENCE 194.64 117.29 77.35 10/17/2000 86.00 - none 50. 1198.1 GARDOSKI, WILLIAM 94.06 56.45 37.61 10/17/2000 68.36 - none 69.0390.1 GARDUNO, DENNIS 129.66 82.17 39.40 8.09 10/18/2000 35.00 - none 21.3048.2 GARLICK, LEWIS 468.97 229.28 195.90 43.79 11/03/2000 200.00 - 33.2302.1 GARRARD, DALE 78.07 52.76 25.31 10/17/2000 32.69 - none 46.0188.2 GATES, JOHN 108.85 73.28 35.57 09/20/2000 87.13 - 34.1900.1 GATES, SANFORD E. 81.76 52.76 29.00 10/12/2000 36.38 - none 2.0950.1 GAYTHIWAITE, RITCHIE & SUSAJ 171 .58 92.96 78.62 10/18/2000 78.62 - none 22.1596.2 GIAUQUE, PAUL 123.61 80.66 42.95 2.2480.1 GILBERT, CARL 197.05 121.42 75.63 10/17/2000 73.17 - none 32.0732.1 GLASER, DELMAR 167.18 105.66 61.52 10/18/2000 72.59 - none 4.1414.1 GLOVER,STEVE 186.83 1 08.51 78.32 10/16/2000 59.87 - none 22.0310.1 GODSIL, MICHAEL & KORRENA 114.65 71.33 43.32 09/29/2000 51.12 - none 21.2106.2 GOEHRING, DAVID C 101.4 7 69.59 31.88 09/19/2000 68.68 - 46.0622.1 GONZALES, JOHN 83.90 57.52 26.38 09/11/2000 27.61 - 3.0344.1 GOODNER, L DEAN & REBECCA 1 36.54 94.31 42.23 09/28/2000 44.86 - none 21.2790.1 GORRINGE, BENNY 143.81 98.28 45.53 10/18/2000 54.30 - none 74.2574.2 GOSLIN, CRAIG 173.81 107.21 66.60 10/19/2000 77.67 - 21.0996.1 GOURLEY, KRISTEN 118.75 84.35 34.40 1 0/30/2000 100.00 - none 14.5004.1 GRANDVIEW HOMES 76.84 52.76 24.08 10/18/2000 24.08 - 32.1368.1 GRATTON, THOMAS 155.56 89.66 65.90 09/11/2000 103.51 - none *** in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent ~ . ( ( CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 7 Standard Payment Customers Nov 21,2000 08:27am Current Period: 11/30/2000 Delinquent Minimum of $ 20,00 compared to Delinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/30/2000 08/3112000 07/31/2000 Date Amount Msg 34.2126.1 GRIGG, DANA K 119.72 75.18 44.54 10/17/2000 90.00 - none 46.0190.1 GRIST. JIMMIE 170.93 114.72 56.21 09/11/2000 117.40 - none 15.0055.2 GRIZZLE. BILL 151.12 1 00.23 50.89 10/17/2000 47.20 - 21.2712.2 GROSS, ROBERT 84.94 84.94 20.2034.1 GROSSMAN. MICHAEL M. 151 .58 91.57 60.01 09/22/2000 137.24 - none 69.0578.1 GROVES, DARRELL & NANCY 183.17 110.58 72.59 10/12/2000 89.81 - none 50.2378.1 GUTHMILLER. BRIAN A 206.45 139.09 67.36 09/25/2000 85.58 - none 74.0074.1 HACKING, DALE 94.06 57.68 36.38 10/17/2000 56.06 - none 2.2250.1 HADLEY, TRUDIE 110.47 67.80 42.67 10/17/2000 20.18 - none 4.2144.1 HALDEN. DARYL 339.90 173.30 166.60 1 0/23/2000 102.64 - none 74.2582.1 HALE. RICK 103.74 73.67 30.07 10/19/2000 31.30 - none 4.1594.1 HALL, BRIAN 268.74 192.03 76.71 11/14/2000 25.00 - none 22.0924.1 HALL, KEVIN 147.65 124.39 23.26 10/17/2000 63.00 - none 50.1512.1 HALL, LEO 121.70 73.20 48.50 10/17/2000 95.24 - none 19.6596.1 HAM, RUSSELL M. 141.90 86.65 55.25 09/20/2000 99.11 - none 33.2338.1 HAMIL TON, TRACEY 182.66 108.84 54.58 19.24 11/14/2000 85.00 - none 33.1842.1 HAMMONS, KENNETH & MARIBE 126.46 86.25 40.21 10/11/2000 57.43 - none 42.3732.1 HANDLEY. JEREMY 144.66 91.06 53.60 10/16/2000 55.00 - none 74.2662.1 HANSEN. DAVID 177.89 1 09. 11 68.78 10/19/2000 97.07 - none 42.2356.1 HARP, GREGORY 320.18 177.73 142.45 10/17/2000 203.95 - none 51.0518.3 HARRELL. BRIAN 694.81 91.71 62.63 86.00 454.4 7 08/04/2000 100.00 - 42.1820.1 HARRINGTON-BLACK. JODY 92.13 63.95 28.18 10/18/2000 47.00 - none 33.2274.1 HARRIS. GABRIEL & MELANIE 114.16 60.42 53.74 10/17/2000 85.88 - none 5.0506,1 HART. RANDY 312.74 183.43 129.31 09/28/2000 147.76 - none 74.3528.1 HART. SHAWN 189.03 73.12 34.18 34.18 47.55 10/17/2000 20.00 - none 2.5900.1 HARVEY, LISA M. 114.13 69.03 40.21 4.89 10/16/2000 35.00 - none 31.3036.1 HASSIS, BENJAMIN & PAM 131.41 82.17 49.24 10/16/2000 53.40 - none 21.1904.1 HATCHER. LAVONNE 90.05 62.44 27.61 10/16/2000 26.38 - none 42.2366.1 HAWK, FRANCIS 161.87 93.35 68.52 10/19/2000 85.74 - none 19.7394.1 HAWKINS. BETTY 94.97 66.13 28.84 10/16/2000 28.84 - none 21.0480.1 HAYES, LOREN 95.39 63.95 31 .44 10/16/2000 33.90 - none 4.1212.1 HAYLETT, MIKE 83.90 57.52 26.38 09/11/2000 52. 73 ~ none 31.3288.1 HAZELWORTH, MARY 93.25 60.42 32.83 10/16/2000 52.51 - none 1.0750.2 HEATH, GORDON OR MATT 178.61 112.87 65.74 09/19/2000 103.19 - 20.1308.1 HEATON CONSTRUCTION 96.01 68.36 27.65 09/14/2000 6.48 - 20.1624.1 HEATON, JUDITH A. 201 .91 91.45 11 0.46 10/02/2000 142.44 - none 34.1702.1 HEDRICK. WENDY 153.10 81.05 72.05 10/04/2000 46.22 - none 69.0388.1 HEEB,ROBERT 85.87 59.19 26.68 09/15/2000 27.91 - none 33.4246.1 HELFERICH, ROGER 98.04 69.31 28.73 10/17/2000 30.00 - none 31.0618.2 HENDERSON, BRENDA 208.25 76.69 83.40 48.16 10/16/2000 50.00 - 42.3118.1 HENDERSON, CHRIS 122.03 67.36 54.67 10/17/2000 62.05 - none 32.1756.1 HENNING. MARTIN & JEANNIE 222.82 102.52 120.30 09/13/2000 230.76 - none 34.1542.1 HENRY. BRAD 91.27 68.08 23.19 10/17/2000 30.00 - none 34.0358.1 HERRERA,MARY 133.84 70.26 63.58 10/11/2000 55.88 - none 22.1522.1 HESS. JACK 91.03 56.45 34.58 09/12/2000 50.00 - none 3.0036.2 HESTER. CHRISTINE 210.62 89.11 121.51 10/17/2000 50.1 7 - 74.0384.1 HESTER. LL YOD & SHERRY 121.05 74.39 46.66 10/19/2000 57.73 - none 69.0754.1 HETTENBACH,KENNETH 114.65 64.90 49.75 10/0212000 75.58 - none 31.0248.1 HEUGHINS, RUSSELL S. 121.31 74.51 46.80 09/20/2000 61.14 - none 31.3454.2 HICKMAN, JOHN & JENNIFER 115.91 92.96 22.95 11/03/2000 20.00 - 4.0566.1 HIGH DESERT CONSTRUCTION 68.59 68.59 19.0262.1 HINEMAN. DENNIS 115.81 75.46 40.35 09/29/2000 37.89 - none 50.3710.1 HODOR. LARRY 249.06 225.66 23.40 10/11/2000 150.00 - none 1.4080.1 HOFF FOREST PRODUCTS 2.973.84 1.232.19 1.741.65 11/17/2000 763.55 - none 5.0722.1 HOLLEY. DAVID 226.02 130.02 96.00 10/19/2000 93.54 - none -If.. in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent { / \ CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 8 Standard Payment Customers Nov 21 ,2000 08:28am Current Period: 11/30/2000 Delinquent Minimum of $ 20.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/30/2000 08/31/2000 07/31/2000 Date Amount Msg 32.1456.1 HOLLINGSHEAD, BRETT 122.93 79.03 43.90 10/19/2000 43.90 - none 33.4346.1 HOLLOWAY, RON & PAIGE 190.86 110.57 80.29 10/17/2000 100.00 - none 1.4440.1 HOLSTEIN, WILLIAM 88.69 31.96 56.73 09/19/2000 31.05 - none 20.1552.1 HOOK, ARTHUR L. 218.00 129.70 88.30 09/11/2000 100.60 - none 21.0536.1 HOOK, JAMES & CRYSTAL 137.24 89.39 47.85 10/03/2000 51_54 - none 74.1198.1 HOPE ARMS APARTMENTS 358.68 290.03 68.65 11/06/2000 148.09 - none 74.1202.1 HOPE ARMS APARTMENTS 247.98 161 _ 04 82.98 3.96 11/06/2000 82.98 - none 74.1218.1 HOPE ARMS APARTMENTS 183.68 135.04 48_64 11/06/2000 67.52 - none 74.1146.1 HOPE ARMS APARTMENTS 3,734.16 1,409.54 687_52 687.52 949.58 11/06/2000 687.52 - none 74.1162.1 HOPE ARMS APARTMENTS 217_83 183.07 34.76 11/06/2000 90.92 - none 74.1174.1 HOPE ARMS APARTMENTS 244.51 223.44 21.07 11/06/2000 115.41 - none 74.1222.1 HOPE ARMS APARTMENTS 606.24 515.40 90.84 11/06/2000 464.34 - none 31.3458.1 HOPKINS, DARRYL 105.16 69.59 35.57 10/17/2000 32.94 - none 51.0470.1 HORTON,ROBERT 207.29 168.50 38.79 1 0/18/2000 53.00 - none 74.3966.1 HOSAC, JAMES 106.88 71.61 35.27 09/19/2000 111 .13 - none 50.1922.2 HOUSING OPP MGMNT SER 126.93 71.05 55.88 09/12/2000 51 .00 - 1.0470.3 HOWELL, GAYLEEN 100.24 68.36 31.88 10/16/2000 33.11 - 50.0226.1 HOWELL, JAMES 267.87 179.49 88.38 09/20/2000 188.74 - none 33.2652.1 HOWELL, KATHLEEN 124.42 77_92 46.50 10/17/2000 40.35 - none 21_1144.1 HOWELL, TRAVIS 178.94 93.91 85.03 11/20/2000 62.33 - none 15.0068.1 HOYT DEVELOPMENT 100.24 68.36 31.88 09/12/2000 17.26 - 15.0071.1 HOYT DEVELOPMENT 93.17 68.36 18.33 6.48 42.0294.1 HUBER,BRET 137.21 73.79 63.42 10/16/2000 100.32 - none 34.2782.1 HULSE, TIM 119.11 79.71 39.40 10/0212000 39.40 - none 19.5482.2 HUMBER, FREDERICK 119.11 79.71 39.40 09/20/2000 43.09 - 7 _ 11 00 _ 1 HUMPHREYS, EVALlNE 119.53 85.58 33.95 09/27/2000 74.36 - 51.0714.1 HUMPHREYS, JOHN M. 123.58 61.37 62.21 09/15/2000 101.05 - none 31.3402.1 HUNT, HEATH 79.28 55.22 24.06 10/17/2000 40.00 - none 69.0084.1 HUNTER, DAVID 79.30 55.22 24.08 09/15/2000 25.31 - none 3.0306.2 HUNTLEY, JASON 121 .22 76.25 44.97 09/11/2000 82.56 - 21.2128.1 HURST, JERRY & DANETTE 188.12 121.26 66.86 09/18/2000 69.32 - none 34.1946.3 HUTCHINSON, DAVE 145.72 72.44 73.28 09/18/2000 126. 17 - 33.3694.1 HUTTEBALL, CURTIS 76.84 52.76 24.08 10/16/2000 24.08 - none 21.0470.1 HYVONEN, CLARK 119.93 62.88 27.91 29.14 09/08/2000 99.28 - none 49.1148.1 IDAHO HEATING AND AIR 146.49 107.61 38.88 42.2524.1 IMPOMENI, PETER 155.58 106.05 49.53 1 0/24/2000 25.10 - none 33.2754.1 INGOE, BRADLEY 126.07 83.12 42.95 09/19/2000 61.31 - none 65.3112.1 JACOBS, MARIE 81.76 56.45 25.31 09/18/2000 64.31 - none 68.0046.1 JACOBSEN, JASON & LIANNA 95.18 62.72 30.21 2.25 10/0212000 30.00 - none 50_0098_1 JACOBSEN, MARJORIE M. 73.64 50.76 22.88 09/19/2000 22.88 - none 33.0366.1 JAMES COURT APTS 993.81 317.94 363.15 312.72 09/08/2000 39.00 - none 33_0374.1 JAMES COURT APTS 468.34 283.37 93.10 91.87 09/08/2000 91.87 - none 33.0376.1 JAMES COURT APTS 151.59 76.41 38.82 36.36 09/08/2000 37.59 - none 33.0380.1 JAMES COURT APTS 270.08 135.04 67.52 67.52 09/08/2000 67.52 - none 33.0382.1 JAMES COURT APTS 179.77 86.81 46.48 46.48 09/08/2000 50.17 - none 33.0388.1 JAMES COURT APTS 249.43 67.52 102.64 79.27 09/08/2000 44.83 - none 33.0394.1 JAMES COURT APTS 281 .15 146.11 67.52 67.52 09/08/2000 41.60 - none 33.0362.1 JAMES COURT APTS 271.31 135.04 68.75 67.52 09/08/2000 41.60 - none 33.0400.1 JAMES COURT APTS 300.83 135.04 81.05 84.74 09/08/2000 41.60 - none 33.0386.1 JAMES COURT APTS 271.31 136.27 67.52 67.52 09/08/2000 67.52 - none 33.0408.1 JAMES COURT APTS 847.09 307.31 250.21 289.57 09/08/2000 52.00 - none 33.0396.1 JAMES COURT APTS 232.10 116.05 66.02 50.03 09/08/2000 21.57 - none 33_0358.1 JAMES COURT APTS 2,672.82 1,267.80 696.36 708_66 09/08/2000 496.00 - none 33.0390.1 JAMES COURT APTS 650.41 216.35 198.58 235.48 09/08/2000 20.80 - none 33.0370.1 JAMES COURT LN 278.69 139.96 71.21 67.52 09/08/2000 41 .60 - none H* in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent ( CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 9 Standard Payment Customers Nov 21,2000 08:28am Current Period: 11/30/2000 Delinquent Minimum of $ 20.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/30/2000 08/31/2000 07/31/2000 Date Amount Msg 21 . 1712. 1 JAMES, MELANIE 111.96 63.95 44.97 3.04 09/14/2000 120.00 - none 21.1912.1 JENKINS, DWIGHT 113.35 71.77 41.58 1 0/04/2000 48.96 - none 42.1916.2 JENKINS, EDWARD 175.27 101.57 73.70 10/16/2000 72.4 7 - 32.1622.1 JENKINS, LELAND 1 01 .05 68.08 32.97 09/27/2000 39.12 - none 19.1630.2 JENKINS, LEROY 100.24 68.36 31.88 10/16/2000 41.88 - 3.0012.1 JENNI, TERRY 150.26 82.96 50.33 16.97 09/20/2000 60.00 - none 72.0272.1 JENSEN,BRAD 687.98 444.66 243.32 10/17/2000 293.75 - none 69.0678.1 JENSON, WILLIAM 167.05 81.33 85.72 10/17/2000 67.54 - none 21.2830.1 JESSEE, KEVIN 94.16 63.95 30.21 10/19/2000 30.21 - none 35.1200.1 JOHN FLAHERTY CONSTRUCTIC 116.56 68.36 31.88 16.32 08/08/2000 6.48- 34.0390.2 JOHNSON, PETER 167.57 1 00.1 8 67.39 10/25/2000 123.96 - 51.3088.3 JONES, DAVID 94.00 62.12 31.88 22.0330.1 JONES, ELDON & LORI 285.06 172.41 112.65 1 0/20/2000 144.63 - none 65.0656.2 JONES, RICHARD & PATTI 132.22 78.20 54.02 09/11/2000 34.34 - 31.2312.1 JONES,SUSAN 87.10 57.96 29.14 09/28/2000 48.82 - none 68.0148.1 JORDAN, LOUIS & SONIA 89.66 61.21 28.45 10/10/2000 28.00 - none 69.0568.1 JUDGE, ROGER & SANDRA 125.65 75.46 50.19 10/16/2000 83.42 - none 20.1932.1 JUSTICE, PAT 235.57 145.46 90.11 10/13/2000 63.48 - none 46.5010.1 KAISER ADVANCED TECHNOLOI 1,080.02 1,029.49 31.09 19.44 5.0270.2 KEEN,RYAN 256.29 167.83 88.46 10/18/2000 69.85 - 34.3190.1 KELLEY, SCOTT 94.42 66.13 28.29 10/16/2000 27.00 - none 69.0780.1 KELLEY, WESLEY & GERRI 111 .70 69.03 42.67 09/26/2000 66.04 - none 1.0870.1 KELLOGG, J.R. 82.99 52.76 30.23 09/08/2000 79.62 - none 22.1356.1 KERBS, MARVIN L. 275.58 152.97 122.61 10/03/2000 139.83 - none 34.0712.1 KERBY, DAVID & CONNIE 187.60 117.17 70.43 10/17/2000 86.42 - none 21.3298.1 KIESECKER, DARRIN 220.50 155.77 64.73 09/28/2000 50.00 - none 42.2530.1 KILER, KELL Y & TAMMY 173.26 112.53 60.73 10/16/2000 70.57 - none 4.1614.1 KINCAID, GEORGE & LAURA 315.29 203.17 112.12 10/18/2000 96.13 - none 3.0298.1 KING, DAVID R 147.05 77.48 69.57 09/08/2000 131.51 - none 74.3800.1 KING, KEVIN 136.75 92.29 44.46 10/13/2000 45.69 - none 50.1242.1 KINNEY, KEVIN B. 116.40 78.50 37.90 09/26/2000 39.13 - none 3.0024.1 KINNEY, KIMIKO 143.14 92.80 50.34 10/19/2000 50.00 - none 42.0600.1 KISSLER, JAMES 689.53 465.42 224.11 09/19/2000 37.57 - 2.0966.1 KLAR, ROBERT & LILLIE 115.66 76.41 39.25 11/07/2000 39.25 - none 42.2712.2 KNAPP, JR., JERRY 144.20 1 00.18 44.02 10/18/2000 50. 17 - 21.1002.1 KNOWLES, BEVERLEE 115.88 64.90 50.98 09/15/2000 60.82 - none 74.0342.3 KNOWLTON, KIMBERL Y 123.30 75.27 48.03 10/17/2000 45.41 - 69.0498.1 KOELLING, CRAIG 192.62 109.07 79.83 3.72 09/14/2000 183.00 - none 21.0466.2 KORBER, GERALD 79.30 55.22 24.08 10/17/2000 24.00 - 21.0462.2 KORBER. GERALD 218.77 139.59 79.18 10/18/2000 82.87 - 22.0200.3 KROPP, FRED 125.75 84.19 41.56 10/0212000 41 .56 - 51.0766.1 KURDY, PATRICK 219.77 147.54 72.23 10/18/2000 82.23 - none 31.0628.1 KYSAR, ANITA 171.61 104.87 66.74 10/16/2000 80.43 - none 4.1776.1 LANSING, BUD 213.50 127.52 85.98 10/19/2000 163.67 - none 1.0890.1 LANTZ, STAN 90.37 62.60 27.77 09/20/2000 64.15 - none 34.0784.1 LARA, RAFAEL 256.83 150.38 1 06.45 10/16/2000 104.00 - none 42.3000.1 LARAWAY, L. CHRISTOPHER 95.39 65.18 30.21 10/17/2000 30.21 - none 32.1178.3 LARISON, ROBERT 150.67 88.04 62.63 09/05/2000 99.53 - 21.3018.1 LARSON, GORDON 140.1 2 95.82 44.30 10/18/2000 46.76 - none 33.0108.1 LARSON, TIMOTHY 55.99 55.99 05/19/2000 25.00 - none 31.0866.1 LARSON-POOLE, VICKEE K. 132.22 84.35 47.87 10/05/2000 58.23 - none 3.0272.2 LAUFENBERG, JAMES R 1 08.4 7 68.36 31.88 8.23 2.4990.1 LAUFENBERG, JIM & TAMMIE 204.40 116.88 56.06 31 .46 05/17/2000 56.43 - none 46 _ 0816.1 LEATHAM, JARED 113.77 76.97 36.80 09/20/2000 75.28 - none 50.3818.1 LEE, JEROD 1 06.39 69.59 36.80 09/18/2000 74.83 - none *** in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent (f-- CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 10 Standard Payment Customers Nov 21,2000 08:29am Current Period: 11/30/2000 Delinquent Minimum of $ 20.00 compared to Delinquent Balance last Pmt last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/30/2000 08/31/2000 07/31/2000 Date Amount Msg 42.4046.1 LEMA. ADAM M. 133.92 6.48 33.61 51.30 42.53 08/18/2000 36.38 - none 42.2736.1 lENAGHEN, CHRIS 94.49 68.87 25.62 11/03/2000 35.00 ~ none 31.3354.1 lEONARDSON, ELIZABETH 76.84 52.76 24.08 10/18/2000 25.18 - none 42.2278.1 LEQUERICA, CINDY 179.06 99.23 79.83 10/19/2000 97.05 - none 21.1480.2 LESTER,BETTE 207.38 127.13 80.25 10/17/2000 97.63 - 69.1336.2 LEVASSEUR, EDWARD 181.10 101.41 79.69 09/14/2000 212.27 - 34.2852.1 LEVELL, SUZANNE 256.03 114.26 128.63 13.14 10/17/2000 100.00 - none 31.3382.1 LEVITT, MONTE 118.90 63.67 55.23 10/18/2000 62.21 - none 34.1074.1 lEWIS, LANNY 91.76 66.45 25.31 10/19/2000 25.31 - none 72.0208.1 lEWIS, PHILLIP 139.67 76.25 63.42 09/05/2000 208.02 - none 34.1754.1 LIEBERMAN, DAVID 186.34 120.02 66.32 10/17/2000 84.77 - none 33.3658.1 LINDSAY-CROTEAU, LAURA 76.84 52.76 24.08 10/17/2000 24.08 - none 20.1638.1 LINK, THOMAS 214.79 137.81 76.98 10/16/2000 80.67 - none 2.0458.1 lLOYD, JOHN & DEENA 92.44 63.16 29.28 10/17/2000 28.80 - none 32.0602.1 LOLLEY. JUDITH 207.64 96.09 111 .55 10/16/2000 92.99 - none 4.1562.2 lONGSTREET,GARRET 165.76 83.12 82.64 10/18/2000 50.00 - 2.4270.1 LORD. LARRY R. 137.43 71.37 66.06 10/19/2000 45.59 - none 40.0364.1 LOTHROP, ROBERT 105.71 74.11 31.60 10/19/2000 35.29 - none 42.0706.1 LOTUS GARDEN RESTAURANT 954.03 894.03 60.00 11/0212000 117.23 - 21.0474.1 LOUIE, JONATHAN & NANCY 242.57 136.24 103.87 2.46 10/13/2000 58.11 - none 21.3134.1 LOVE. JAMES & ELIZABETH 282.28 160.61 121.67 10/17/2000 76.16 - none 2.0464.1 LOVE. JEANETTE & JOHN 167.08 98.16 68.92 09/26/2000 64.00 - none 20.0132.1 LOVELAND, JAMES 165.28 115.10 50.18 08/21/2000 19.95 - 21.2636.1 LUCERO. ROBERT & TRACY 179.03 98.39 80.64 10/17/2000 94.17 - none 34.2138.1 LYCAN, JOHN 128. 11 73.00 55.11 09/19/2000 56.34 - none 50.1990.1 LYONS, HAZEL 76.84 52.76 24.08 10/04/2000 27.77 - none 74.3072.1 LYTLE. CHAD & ST ACEY 98.66 66.13 32.53 09/21/2000 86.13 - none 74.2840.1 MACHO. CRAIG & TAMMY 151.13 112.37 38.76 10/13/2000 75.00 - none 34.1684.1 MADINGER, WILLIAM 155.20 88.99 66.21 10/17/2000 60.00 - none 2.4480.1 MADRID, JOSEPH F 123.74 61.37 62.37 09/21/2000 124.33 - none 19.0100.2 MAISANO, ARLEEN 76.84 52.76 24.08 10/18/2000 24.08 - 5.0268.1 MANOS. PETER 470.83 158.83 124.39 174.82 12.79 11/16/2000 87.97 - none 46.0792.1 MARCHAL, BART 81.76 56.45 25.31 10/0212000 24.08 - none 42.2332.1 MARIN. JOSE 121.43 96.49 24.94 10/06/2000 100.00 - none 34.1472.1 MARKHAM, RON 90.62 60.42 30.20 09/20/2000 88.98 - none 19.1640.2 MARLER. KENNETH 113.45 74.35 39.10 09/13/2000 36.64 - 69.1380.2 MARONCIK, STEVE 173.96 108.39 65.57 10/17/2000 120.00 - 35.0056.1 MARSHALL MURRIN 86.84 52.76 34.08 09/21/2000 72.24 - 33.1850.1 MARSHALL, GARY & BOBETTE 110.57 74.07 36.50 10/17/2000 33.00 - none 42.1950.1 MARTIN, DANIEL K. 154.43 91.01 63.42 10/13/2000 88.02 - none 50.2176.1 MARTIN. JASON 86.57 66.57 20.00 10/04/2000 49.51 - none 21.0998.1 MARTIN. ROBERT & SHARON 176.15 89.50 86.65 10/0212000 81.73 - none 4.0580.2 MASON, JAMES E 1 09.84 72.81 31.88 5.15 34.1244.1 MATHESON. DAVID 108.85 73.28 35.57 10/18/2000 35.57 - none 1.2050.1 MCBRIDE, D.B. 190.49 5322 137.27 11/16/2000 169.00 - none 33.2266.1 MCBRIDE, KEVIN 251 .39 160.00 83.85 7.54 09/11/2000 80.00 - none 42.2072.1 MCCLINTICK, TODD & LEISA 194.66 117.01 77.65 10/16/2000 85.03 - none 31.0194.1 MCCLURE, DENNIS D. 88.33 60.42 27.91 09/28/2000 27.91 - none 74.3106.1 MCCOllUM. ROBERT 76.84 52.76 24.08 09/29/2000 24.08 - none 21.3120.1 MCCORMICK, ROBERT 161.90 127.13 34.77 10/23/2000 50.00 - none 74.3208.1 MCCULLOUGH, JIM 97.85 65.18 32.67 10/17/2000 59.73 - none 1.0170.2 MCCURDY,NATHAN 1 08.66 64.90 43.76 10/16/2000 32.53 - 4.1698.1 MCDONALD, TONY & TRUDY 235.64 1 04.1 5 131.49 10/17/2000 127.96 - none 1.0080.1 MCFADDEN, CLEORA 105.45 66.45 39.00 10/19/2000 43.76 - none 68.0098.1 MCGilVERY. BELINDA 213.41 82.01 40.47 47.85 43.08 09/01/2000 60.00 - none *** in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent (,n_ ( CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account Ust- council Page: 11 Standard Payment Customers Nav 21,2000 08:30am Current Period: 11/30/2000 Delinquent Minimum of $ 20.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/30/2000 08/31/2000 07/31/2000 Date Amount Msg 31 .3242.1 MCGOWAN, DAVID E. 141 .64 86.53 55.11 10/17/2000 69.87 - none 21.0062.1 MCKAY, CINDY 179.38 93.24 86.14 09/15/2000 141 .22 - none 31.0822.1 MCKAY, JOHN 127.72 80.94 46.78 10/10/2000 75.23 - none 74.1082.1 MCKEAN, HAROLD & LOIS 96,62 66.08 30.54 09/15/2000 29,31 - none 34.1972.1 MCKEE, LESLIE 220.74 122.62 98.12 1 0/30/2000 106.89 - none 2.6270.2 MCKINLEY, JUNE 138.37 83.12 55.25 10/16/2000 25.40 - 2.4870.3 MCKINLEY, JUNE 122.38 90.50 31.88 74.1104.6 MCKINLEY, JUNE 125.06 83.12 41.94 31.2192.1 MCMILLAN, VICKI 308.14 189.74 118.40 10/19/2000 107.17 - none 34.0448.1 MCMURDIE, PAUL 213.82 122.76 91.06 09/19/2000 88.60 - none 50.2444.1 MCNITT, STEVE & TRACY 126.56 81 .45 45.11 10/17/2000 66.02 - none 33.2402.1 MCPHERSON, JO ANN 124.13 84.75 39.38 09/19/2000 83.68 - none 42.1796.1 MCQUILKIN, CURTIS 109.34 74.07 35.27 10/11/2000 35.27 - none 4. 1386.1 MCQUIRK, LANCE 214.35 171.31 43.04 11/01/2000 42.00 - none 50.3726.1 MEATTE, NICKlE 125.26 79.71 45.55 10/17/2000 57.85 - none 69.0062.2 MEEKER, LARRY 199.61 127.69 71.92 10/16/2000 87.91 - 1.2730.1 MELLEN, ANGELA 139.34 85.30 54.04 10/19/2000 78.64 - none 21.1132.1 MEL TON, GARY 225.28 106.21 119.07 1 0/20/2000 107.84 - none 33.2538.1 MENDOZA, GEORGE & ELlZABE- 99.14 60.14 39.00 09/20/2000 74.11 - none 32.0948.1 MERIDIAN FOURSQUARE CHURl 195.92 130.88 65.04 10/10/2000 65.04 - none 48.4200.1 MERIDIAN JOINT SCHOOL DISTF 1,192.04 761.48 430.56 09/20/2000 106.11- 7.5001.1 MERIDIAN SCHOOL DIST-PEREG 91 0.44 392.04 518.40 10/16/2000 565.38 - 52.1090.1 MERIDIAN SPEEDWAY 6,980.09 4,659.06 1,229.86 1,091.17 09/25/2000 1,711.33 - none 52.1100.1 MERIDIAN SPEEDWAY 1,610.51 877.35 432.86 300.30 09/25/2000 725.50 - none 21.0094.1 METIVIER, JAMES 11 0.04 78.99 31.05 10/19/2000 40.00 - none 34.0700.2 METZ, ANTHONY 76.84 52.76 24.08 10/0212000 29.00 - 19.7124.1 MEYERS, TROY & JIMI 99.57 66.13 33.44 09/15/2000 71 .00 - 4.0888.1 MICHAEL CAMPBELL CONSTRU( 195. 18 129.71 65.4 7 10/17/2000 71.62 - none 74.1032.1 MICHAELSON, BRADL Y C. 99.82 68.08 31.74 10/16/2000 34.20 - none 2.2631.1 MIDTOWN SQUARE HOME ASSC 1,469.34 748.44 720.90 10/13/2000 511.92 - none 21.2716.1 MILAM, DEAN 132.22 83.12 49.10 09/14/2000 47.87 - none 42.1164.1 MILLER, AMBER K 86.36 57.52 28.84 09/27/2000 26.46 - none 1.2690.1 MILLER, DAREN 93.74 59.98 33.76 09/19/2000 71.21 - none 20.2010.1 MILLER, GARY & CHARLENE 204.68 121.42 68.25 15.01 09/06/2000 141.42 - none 74.3696.1 MILLER, GREGORY & ERICA 207.58 167.99 33.11 6.48 08/15/2000 6.48- 34.1964.2 MILLER, RICKEY 134.49 84.63 49.86 10/16/2000 56.00 - 21.2820.1 MOGEL, BRYAN 1 23.26 57.52 65.74 10/17/2000 26.38 - none 34.0904.2 MOLENAAR, DIANA 409.54 87.76 53.88 267.90 09/15/2000 174.42- 33.2542.1 MONROE, TIMOTHY & CARLA 132.13 69.31 62.82 10/0212000 40.00 - none 4.0538.1 MONSON. THOMAS 88.82 59.98 28.84 09/29/2000 27.06 - none 2.3742.1 MONTGOMERY, DENNIS 152.71 88.99 63.72 10/16/2000 63.72 - none 3.0874.1 MONTGOMERY, PAT 112.61 71.33 41.28 10/16/2000 59.89 - none 74.2832.1 MOONEY, KEVIN 136.01 86.93 49.08 10/17/2000 52.77 - none 69.0666.1 MOORE, K. DWAYNE & LINDA 135.56 74.74 60.82 10/17/2000 85.42 - none 46.0222.1 MOORE, KEVIN & LISA 136.93 78.20 45.41 13.32 09/20/2000 32.00 - none 32.0816.1 MOORE, RICK T. 208.09 108.28 99.81 10/17/2000 99.81 - none 4.1634.1 MOORE, RUSSELL C 145.72 99.50 46.22 10/17/2000 41.30 - none 4.2226.1 MOOREHOUSE, SEAN & DENISE 184.30 106.77 77.53 09/18/2000 80.78 - none 21.3098.1 MORAN. RICHARD 175.76 107.28 68.48 10/16/2000 85.70 - none 51.3104.1 MOREDA, ANTHONY 92.88 51.72 25.48 15.68 07/27/2000 108.71 - none 74.2496.1 MORRIS, ROCKY 161.42 99.23 62.19 10/17/2000 75.00 - none 2.5630.1 MORRISON, DWAYNE 247.87 144.23 103.64 10/16/2000 141.77 - none 34.1026.1 MORRISON, DWAYNE 200.29 11 0.46 89.83 10/17/2000 131.65 - "Hnone 32.0654.1 MORRISON, MICHAEL & BENICIA 247.07 155.19 91.88 10/13/2000 86.00 - none 42.1978.1 MORSE, DAVID & SHELLEY 86.68 55.22 31 .46 10/17/2000 46.22 - none ........ in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent CITY OF MERIDIAN Cust No Name 1.4501.1 MORTENSEN CONSTRUCTION 74.2666.1 MOSER, CAROLYN 34.0500.1 MOURITSEN, LAYNE 34.1686.1 MURPHY, JACK 4.1804.1 MURPHY, WILLIAM 21.1 068.1 MURRAY, JOHN 51.0482.1 MURRAY, SONORA MURRAY 3.0808.1 NASADOS, JAMES 14.5037.2 NASH, TIERA 2.2150.1 NEAGLE, LOUIE J 20.1692.2 NEEDS, STEVEN 65.0450.1 NELSON, MARILYN 69.0600.1 NELSON, MARK & GLENDA 50.2150.1 NELSON, RYAN & JILL 74.2442.1 NESMITH, JOHN 51.4110.2 NESMITH, STEVE 69.2268.1 NEW LIFE CHRISTIAN CENTER 2.1990.1 NEWBERRY, RICHARD 20.1944.1 NEWBOLD, GARY C. 33.3710.1 NEWKIRK, DAVID 1.3200.1 NEWKIRK, MARYANN 50.0034.1 NEWMAN, TIM 34.1966.1 NEYDEN, ROBERT 31.0880.1 NICK, DENNIS 22.1290.1 NIGH, MICHAEL 21.0498.1 NOLAND, SHAWN 32.1758.1 NORRIS, GLENA 50.1460.1 NORTHVIEW BUSINESS CENTEF 65.3158.2 NOWLIN, ROBERT 42.0700.1 OAKBROOK PLAZA 35.0228.1 OASIS CONSTRUCTION 2.1530.1 OBENCHAIN, JAIME 20.1396.1 OGLESBEE. DAVID & MARITA 72.0174.1 O'LEARY, LORI 21.2166.3 O'NEIL, MICHAEL 50.1918.1 OSTERHOUT, JUSTIN 2.2724.1 OSTHED, LEIF 46.0798.1 OVERSETH, TEENA 51.3430.1 OVERTON, DAVID C 13.2094.2 OVERY, ROBBY 32.0818.1 OWSLEY, LINDA LOU 33.2320.2 OZUNA, MARIO 22.0454.1 P. JANSSON, JANIE 74.2968.1 PACKARD, MICHAEL & SUZANNE 31.3504.1 PADDOCK, LINDA 21.2230.1 PAGE, LINDA 31.3280.1 PALMER, PAT 32.0638.2 PALMER, PAT 69.0300.1 PARK, JON & TESSIA 4.1792.1 PARKER, DAVID & DIANA 19.6616.1 PAUL, BRIAN 65.0270.1 PAYNE, FREDRICK 4.1240.1 PEARSON, RONALD 72.0128.2 PENA, ROSE 7.5000.1 PEREGRINE ELEM. SCHOOL *** in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent c Delinquent Account List- council Standard Payment Customers Current Period: 11/30/2000 Delinquent Minimum of $ 20.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Balance 335.62 186.01 236.12 177.31 145.17 178.54 159.32 138.05 114.68 129.44 164.85 89.56 203.66 99.82 156.08 122.38 244.70 108.01 120.24 87.91 111 .44 86.68 132.29 174.01 182.16 96.94 167.86 245.42 94.48 90.40 90.63 148.74 176.80 149.41 108.53 127.31 168.28 102.67 192.07 247.56 93.86 111.31 168.96 120.83 205.99 93.74 245.05 160.92 129.86 191 .36 117.30 101.05 132.48 137.63 1,935.71 Non-Delinq 145.97 116.61 90.22 82.68 98.83 86.25 92.80 74.35 83.86 111.13 60.42 118.91 66.85 96.21 89.27 1 38.48 67.80 74.35 58.91 79.98 52.76 86.09 106.88 153.40 62.88 73.67 1 25. 1 0 60.42 58.08 68.36 94.75 113.48 83.51 74.35 91.29 83.79 58.91 70.26 62.88 64.39 73.28 97.72 82.96 89.66 63.67 162.85 102.52 89.39 110.30 83.12 69.31 82.01 81 .45 1,527.26 09/30/2000 11.62 40.04 119.51 87.09 62.49 79.71 73.07 45.25 40.33 45.58 53.72 29.14 84.75 32.97 59.87 33.11 106.22 40.21 45.89 29.00 31 .46 33.92 46.20 67. 13 28.76 34.06 94.19 69.68 34.06 24.61 15.79 53.07 63.32 65.90 34.18 36.02 84.49 43.76 56.20 31.60 29.4 7 38.03 71.24 37.87 116.33 30.07 82.20 58.40 40.47 81.06 34.18 31.74 50.4 7 56.18 408.45 08/31/2000 183.06 50.64 7.71 6.48 .92 65.61 132.88 ( 07/31/2000 Last Pmt Date 140.94 10/17/2000 10/12/2000 10/18/2000 10/17/2000 09/21/2000 10/18/2000 10/16/2000 09/14/2000 10/19/2000 09/15/2000 10/20/2000 09/19/2000 09/18/2000 10/17/2000 10/18/2000 10/17/2000 09/12/2000 10/17/2000 10/18/2000 09/25/2000 1 0/20/2000 09/19/2000 09/26/2000 09/19/2000 11/06/2000 10/17/2000 10/16/2000 06/20/2000 10/12/2000 10/18/2000 ' 10/17/2000 10/20/2000 09/08/2000 10/13/2000 09/27/2000 10/17/2000 11/06/2000 20.20 10/18/2000 09/19/2000 09/21/2000 10/16/2000 10/17/2000 10/17/2000 10/18/2000 1 0/18/2000 10/11/2000 10/10/2000 10/19/2000 11/01/2000 09/21/2000 09/13/2000 10/16/2000 Page: 12 Nov 21,2000 08:30am Last Pmt Amount Msg 324.00 - 80.00 - none 143.95 - none 115.54 - none 122.20 - none 23.62 - none 85.00 - none 39.10 - none 116.23 - 99.77 - none 42.68 - 58.28 - none 211.29 - none 71.10 - none 57.41 - none 33.11 - 200.14 - none 40.21 - none 45.00 - none 35.15 - none 35.15 - none 76.45 - none 77.11 - none 101.53 - none 75.00 - none 41.44 - none 83.12 - none 69.68 - none 29.14 - 46.00 - none 80.00 - none 61.38 - none 35.41 - 40.00 - none 85.72 - none 49.91 - none 25.00 - none 50.00 - none 34.34 - 102.80 - none 40.33 - none 96.34 - none 32.53 - none 88.35 - none 108.00 - 45.39 - none 98.28 - none 34.18 - none none 85.86 - none 67.25 - 810.70 - ( 1" ~- - (~ CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 13 Standard Payment Customers Nov 21,2000 08:31 am Current Period: 11/30/2000 Delinquent Minimum of $ 20.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/30/2000 08/31/2000 07/31/2000 Date Amount Msg 34.0896.1 PERIN, LOA L. 203.14 87.76 115.38 09/18/2000 204.93 - none 51.0746.3 PERKINS, CHARLES 100.24 68.36 31.88 4.0576.1 PETER SORENSON 110.08 75.74 34.34 09/18/2000 31.88 - 21.3160.1 PETERSEN, DOUGLAS & JENNIF 227.41 126.96 1 00.45 10/17/2000 59.55 - none 42.2562.1 PETERSON, PAUL & KARISSA 148.77 78.99 50.03 19.75 10/11/2000 50.00 - none 21.3006.1 PETERSON, RANDY & KARLENE 131 .48 82.68 48.80 10/16/2000 56.18 - none 42.3006.1 PHILLIPS, DANA 88.82 58.75 30.07 10/17/2000 26.38 - none 32.1636.1 PHILLIPS, ERNEST 107.62 72.05 35.57 10/17/2000 34.34 - none 74.3000.1 PHILLIPS, RICHARD 122.15 84.07 38.08 10/19/2000 40.00 - none 34.1560.1 PHILP, HAROLD 195.76 119.74 76.02 09/15/2000 160.65 - none 31.0776.1 PIEPMEYER, THOMAS 128.50 60.14 68.36 10/17/2000 90.50 - none 19.7400.1 PINNACLE HOMES 113.45 73.12 40.33 10/1 0/2000 42.79 - none 21 .2678.1 PITMAN, DONALD 191.07 115.33 75.74 09/21/2000 123.03 - none 32.0900.1 PITMAN, DOUGLAS 177.92 113.64 64.28 10/19/2000 97.49 - none 19.6644.1 PLACE, WILLIAM 91.70 62.72 28.98 10/16/2000 31.44 - none 4.1412.1 PLUMLEY, RODNEY & M. NAOMI 161 .00 96.21 64.79 10/16/2000 107.84 - none 2.3340.1 POE, RICHARD 195.51 104.98 88.32 2.21 10/18/2000 74.00 - none 2.1740.1 POE, ROBERT 165.54 110.81 54.73 09/28/2000 54.75 - none 3.0852.1 POFFENBERGER, EUGENE & EL 105.23 65.18 40.05 09/27/2000 45.64 - none 22.0868.1 POLLARD, RONALD 284.07 176.61 107.46 10/16/2000 100.00 - none 21.1942.1 POOL, JAMES H. 204.92 116.06 88.86 10/17/2000 102.39 - none 21.2604.1 PORTER, RODNEY 184.79 107.56 77.23 10/18/2000 85.84 - none 34.3254.2 POULSEN, BRIAN 142.45 77.64 64.81 10/18/2000 106.11 - 21.3062.1 POWELL, GREG & CATHERINE 306.27 147.60 158.67 09/27/2000 130.38 - none 4.1786.1 POWELL, JON 168.55 89.78 78.77 10/13/2000 80.00 - none 50.2402.1 POWELL, RANDY 144.18 99.95 44.23 10/17/2000 57.00 - none 51.0854.2 POYSER, MORGAN 145.05 93.42 51.63 51.0774.2 PREECE, ROBERT 418.45 280.61 137.84 09/29/2000 136.61 - 4.2320.1 PRIGGE, ROBERT & JOAN 249.49 142.44 .1 07.05 10/19/2000 114.43 - none 74.2456.1 PRINCE, MALCOM & TINA 21 7.64 129.87 87.77 10/17/2000 98.84 - none 74.3418.2 PRINDLE, SHELLY 121.23 73.20 48.03 10/18/2000 49. 1 0 - 21.1828.2 PRINTZ, DENIA 153.58 92.85 60.73 10/16/2000 71.80 - 21.0214.1 PRYOR, WILLIAM 632.20 380.27 251.93 10/17/2000 237.17 - none 4.1952.1 PRYOR, WILLIAM & LOUISE 522.89 311 .64 211.25 10/17/2000 211.25 - none 21.2068.1 PUGMIRE, JEFFRY & PAMELA 135.62 101.46 34.16 10/17/2000 75.00 - none 14.5034.2 PUTMAN,CHERYL 100.24 68.36 31.88 09/18/2000 31 .88 - 34.1172.1 QUARNBERG, CARL & DOROTH' 204.99 127.85 77.14 10/18/2000 75.00 ~ none 46.0322.1 QUATTLEBAUM, JAMES & BARB, 139.73 93.92 45.81 10/0212000 65.49 - none 7.0886.1 QUINN, JILL 88.65 58.75 29.90 09/21/2000 66.62 - none 21.1476.2 QUINTANA, LOUIS 76.84 52.76 24.08 08/29/2000 48.16 - 21.1658.1 R & M HOMES 102.06 63.95 38.11 10/16/2000 36.00 - none 19.0220.1 RADY, STEVE 11 0.08 74.51 35.57 10/17/2000 35.57 - none 68.0318.1 RAIL, JOHN 85.45 61.37 24.08 09/27/2000 25.31 - none 19.6586.1 RALPHS, ROD 85.45 61.37 24.08 10/06/2000 36.54 - none 34.1668.1 RAMIREZ, JONATHAN 180.19 102.80 77.39 1 0/03/2000 72.47 - none 2.1450.1 RANSLEY, MICHAEL E 157.02 133.72 23.30 11/09/2000 80.76 - none 2.5670.1 RANSOM, JAMES R. 118.27 75.46 42.81 1 0/23/2000 41.93 - none 46.0864.1 RASMUSSEN, RONALD 123.03 76.53 46.50 10/18/2000 37.73 - none 5.0194.1 RATZBURG,CHARLES 172.10 101.97 70.13 10/0212000 76.28 - none 50.1380.1 RAYMOND,CHACE 94.64 63.36 31.28 10/17/2000 31.28 - none 14.4466.1 RCI 2,663.53 2,642.36 14.69 6.48 42.1884.1 RECORD,CLAYTON3RD 119.61 53.53 66.08 09/15/2000 90.00 - none 50.2390.2 REED, LORETTA 227.80 131 .26 96.54 10/17/2000 154.35 - 2.2160.1 REEVES, GARY 121.96 75.46 46.50 10/18/2000 45.27 - none 42.2730.1 REPACI, LYNETTE 142.44 1 07.45 34.99 10/11/2000 80.00 - none *** in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent t \ CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 14 Standard Payment Customers Nov 21,2000 08:31am Current Period: 11/30/2000 Delinquent Minimum of $ 20.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/30/2000 08/31/2000 07/31/2000 Date Amount Msg 4.0542.2 RES, SHAWN 145.04 94.59 50.45 09/1212000 94.75 - 20.1394.2 REZENDES, TROY 161.38 114.04 47.34 08/11/2000 55.95 - 1.3958.1 RH VALLA 108.11 86.51 21.60 32.1694.1 RICE, E. DONALD 208.51 111.02 97.49 10/18/2000 103.64 - none 20.1786.1 RICE, JOSEPH 142.94 90.73 52.21 09/14/2000 68.20 - none 34.1694.1 RIDGEWAY, STEPHAN 198.67 119.63 79.04 1 0/17/2000 97.49 - none 22.0880.1 RIETH, KEVIN F. 242.67 130.42 111.95 .30 1 0/20/2000 126.00 - none 1.2770.1 RIGENHAGEN, HAROLD E 81.76 52.76 29.00 10/17/2000 30.23 - none 34.0786.1 RILEY, MARK 206.4 7 132.21 74.26 10/17/2000 105.01 - none 48.4201.1 RIVER VALLEY ELEMENTARY SC 788.22 267.90 520.32 10/04/2000 77.82 - 42.1844.1 RIVERA, REGENA 233.09 195.33 37.76 10/11/2000 70.00 - none 15.0064.1 ROBERTS, CHAD 101.47 69.59 31.88 09/15/2000 33.11 - 21.0492.1 ROBERTS, CHARLES 87.55 63.67 23.88 10/17/2000 35.00 - none 51.3300.1 ROBERTS, DAVID 126.20 63.83 62.37 09/20/2000 176.89 - none 69.0684.1 ROBERTS, KENNETH & RHONDJ 109. 1 0 82.56 26.54 10/24/2000 67.79 - none 34.0956.3 ROBICHAUD, ROBERT 150.41 85.46 64.95 10/19/2000 48.96 - 34.1034.1 ROBINSON, KENNETH 197.86 119.91 77.95 09/07/2000 82.87 - none 50.2106.1 ROBINSON. RICHARD & PRISCIL 191.22 119.12 72.10 10/19/2000 83.08 - none 65.0454.1 ROHM, RODNEY 76.84 52.76 24.08 10/17/2000 24.08 - none 42.2390.1 ROMANO, TODD 190.45 116.61 73.84 09/08/2000 124.27 - none 21.2006.1 ROSE, MARK & TAMARA 130.60 88.60 42.00 10/18/2000 45.69 - none 34.1738.1 ROSKELL Y, KEITH 348.37 187.45 160.92 10/18/2000 154.77 - none 4.1694.2 ROSSI, SHANNON 138.37 79.43 58.94 09/18/2000 222.43 - 47.0060.2 RUBOSKY,ROSANN 100.23 68.36 31.87 09/19/2000 65.00 - 22.0914.1 RUCKER, JEAN 177.34 116.89 60.45 10/19/2000 22.18 - none 22.2168.1 RULE, ROBERT & CAREY 95.29 65.06 30.23 09/14/2000 24.08 - 65.0318.1 RUPPERT, RONNIE 87.59 58.75 28.84 09/28/2000 30.07 - none 1 .1130.2 RUSSELL, ANDREW 150.46 102.48 47.98 09/18/2000 95.96 - 22.1546.2 RYAN MEISTER 111 .38 70.10 41.28 10/1212000 63.42 - 2.3180.1 RYAN, WALTER 158.35 74.90 83.45 10/17/2000 100.00 - none 19.7156.1 SALAZAR, DANIEL 107.75 69.98 37.77 09/21/2000 90.23 - 1.3270.2 SAMS, DOUG 456.56 296.79 159.77 09/11/2000 163.46 - 69.0776.1 SANDMEYER, ERIC & DAWN 229.20 139.93 89.27 10/18/2000 118.63 - none 34.1078.2 SAVELBERG, DOYLE 96.59 70.14 26.45 10/19/2000 50.00 - 46.0226.2 SAVELlCH, ROBERT 103.93 72.05 31.88 10/0212000 7.20 - 32.1728.1 SCHAMBER, JEFFREY 98.26 68.75 29.51 10/1212000 15.00 - none 32.0978.1 SCHEIDELER, COLETTE 165.40 90.89 74.51 10/16/2000 88.04 - none 74.0382.1 SCHILD HAUER, YOLANDA 114.74 /76.85 37.89 1 0/20/2000 57.73 - none 2.2270.3 SCHIMPF, FRED 118.69 76.97 41.72 09/26/2000 44.18 - 2.0600.1 SCHLEKEWAY, ALOYS 219.44 135.42 84.02 09/1212000 81.56 - none 2.0590.1 SCHLEKEWAY, BUSTER 84.64 57.96 26.68 09/12/2000 26.68 - none 2.0580.1 SCHLEKEWAY, BUSTER 120.34 78.48 41.86 09/12/2000 45.55 - none 34.2122.1 SCHMIDT, GLEN 149.83 76.41 73.42 10/18/2000 83.26 - none 32.0522.1 SCHMIDT, TYSON 168.53 107.22 61.31 09/20/2000 110.00 - none 42.3050.1 SCHOLZ, LESLIE 133.30 82.96 50.17 .17 09/26/2000 50.00 - none 34.2144.1 SCHRANK. THOMAS A 333.00 225.64 1 07.36 10/0212000 216.98 - none 31 .3018.2 SCHUSTER, FORREST & DEBBIE 151,90 80.66 71.24 65.3108.1 SCOTT, DANNY 111.75 68.87 32.67 10.21 10/13/2000 30.00 - none 1.2260.1 SCOTT, DAVID 1 08.08 32.86 33.92 41.30 09/21/2000 93.83 - none 42.2724.2 SCUDDER, LES 139.73 63.83 75.90 1 0/16/2000 90.50 - 1.1915.1 SEABURY 316.18 230.32 46.98 38.88 08/24/2000 52.78 - 69.2262.1 SEDILLO, JOE 369.64 220.49 149.1 5 10/18/2000 183.59 - none 50.3880.1 SEMMLER. CHAD 85.45 60.14 25.31 1 0/03/2000 27.77 - none 74.2890.1 SHAFFER, ROBERT 188.01 74.51 103.60 9.90 09/21/2000 116.65 - none 69.1590.1 SHANNON, JEAN 1,096.79 553.09 266.26 277.44 09/19/2000 200.00 - none 1rU in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent ( ( \ CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 15 Standard Payment Customers Nav 21,2000 08:31 am Current Period: 11/30/2000 Delinquent Minimum of $ 20.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/30/2000 08/31/2000 07/31/2000 Date Amount Msg 51.3108.1 SHARIAT PANAHI, ARASH 79.40 46.52 32.88 09/21/2000 46.16 - none 34.1022.1 SHAW, DANIEL 207.22 97.04 110.18 10/13/2000 102.80 - none 42.2526.1 SHEL TROWN, ROGER 155.40 73.51 81.89 09/21/2000 143.78 - none 74.3960.1 SHERARD, BILL 153.65 95.82 57.83 10/17/2000 76.28 - none 74.2758.1 SHIELDS, JOHNNY 151.01 49.16 46.62 55.23 09/19/2000 88.03 - none 21.1832.1 SHOEMAKER, PHILLIP 123.68 72.56 51.12 10/13/2000 57.27 - none 20.1748.2 SHRADER, MICHAEL 110.99 74.35 36.64 10/18/2000 37.87 - 3.0292.1 SHURTZ, ROD 169.09 95.26 73.54 .29 10/02/2000 84.61 ~ none 1 .1480.2 SIENKNECHT, DEBORAH 1 86.87 106.12 80.75 10/12/2000 75.00 ~ 21.0208.1 SILSBY, TERRY 254.93 134.23 120.70 09/06/2000 269.69 - none 2.2500.1 SILVA, JOSEPH 260.76 167.10 93.55 .11 10/16/2000 86.17 - none 22.1504.1 SIMPSON, RANDY 126.14 72.56 53.58 10/13/2000 63.42 - none 31.3028.2 SIMS, JERRY & MICHELLE 126.07 79.43 46.64 10/17/2000 55.45 - 31.3236.2 SINCLAIR, KEN 1 01 .86 64.11 37.75 10/16/2000 56.20 - 34.0660.1 SINCLAIR, MELVIN 144.13 91.06 53.07 09/29/2000 63.07 - none 21 .2836.2 SINGLETON, RODNEY 131.71 81.57 50.14 09/20/2000 101.00- 34.0436.1 SKEL TON, RANDY 120. 12 75.58 44.54 10/17/2000 70.00 - none 2.1200.1 SMART, B & K STEWART 154.78 89.55 65.23 10/16/2000 80.15 - none 2.0400.1 SMITH, LARRY R 174.88 111.97 62.91 10/16/2000 73.98 - none 50.0012.1 SMITH, PAUL H. 133.44 1 09.12 24.32 09/27/2000 163.53 - none 22.1212.1 SMITH, PHILLIP E. 170.00 80.89 89.11 09/12/2000 102.64 - none 50.0152.2 SMITH, RON 86.36 58.75 27.61 10/19/2000 27.61 - 74.3480.1 SMITH, RONALD 104.74 66.85 37.89 10/02/2000 45.27 - none 21.2168.2 SMITH, RORY 164.30 117.68 46.62 10/17/2000 51.54 - 34.0726.2 SOMSEN, GAYLENE 123.61 75.74 47.87 10/17/2000 65.09 - 42.2468.1 SONEPHATHOUM, S & V 163.81 109.07 54.74 10/13/2000 100.00 - none 2.5790.1 SOULE, LINDA 131.69 74.90 56.79 10/13/2000 70.00 - none 2.0900.2 SOUZA, JR., WILLIAM 78.07 53.99 24.08 10/16/2000 24.08 - 31.0548.1 SPARKS,ROBERT 116.28 68.87 33.90 13.51 09/18/2000 50.00 - none 2.3430.1 SPEARS, BRYCE J. 162.78 109.23 53.55 11/20/2000 70.00 - none 69.1190.1 SPENCER, DARRELL 229.56 113.27 116.29 09/14/2000 279.40 - none 20.2999.1 SPRINKLER - BRENDA ESTATES 50.22 21.06 12.96 16.20 34.3316.1 STADLER, STEPHEN & HEATHEF 153.52 93.63 59.89 10/18/2000 107.86 '- none 34.1166.1 STAFFORD, FRITZ 191 .64 158.43 33.21 09/27/2000 204.26 - none 3.0844.1 STAMMERJOHN, JIMMY 97.59 57.52 40.07 09/21/2000 76.29 - none 21.0502.1 STANPHILL, CYNTHIA 158.09 79.94 78.15 10/17/2000 90.00 - none 2.1160.1 STATES, DION 128.66 63.99 64.67 10/19/2000 37.61 - none 32.0992.1 STEARNS, HOWARD & SUSAN 130.96 78.59 52.37 09/27/2000 47.45 - none 19.0274.2 STEINER. LOUIS 144.20 92.80 51 .40 10/18/2000 63.70 - 22.1048.1 STEINER, THURSTON 341.72 144.46 109.21 88.05 1 0/26/2000 57.00 - none 51.3280.1 STENSON, VIRGINIA 305.59 305.59 none 31.0496.1 STERTZ, SUSAN 128.14 83.68 44.46 1 0/23/2000 54.46 - none 74.3328.1 STEVENSON, KENT 76.84 52.76 24.08 10/12/2000 24.08 - none 2.5400.1 STEVENSON, MICHAEL 128.11 76.69 51.42 09/18/2000 120.06 - none 74.2844.1 STEWART, DANIEL 147.50 1 00.74 46.76 10/13/2000 50.45 - none 34.1778.1 STEWART, RICK D. 173.23 101.85 71.38 09/13/2000 167.36 - none 5.0416.1 STIEF, PATTY 206.28 128.91 77.37 10/19/2000 66.29 - none 42.3056.2 STINAR, ILENE 1 07.59 68.75 38.84 10/19/2000 28.84 - 31.3414.1 STINGER, KAREN 61.03 4.26 24.08 32.69 09/19/2000 36.38 - none 34.1800.1 STONER, JERRY 1 86.94 148.31 38.63 10/17/2000 70.00 - none 34.1666.2 STOREY, CHARLES 181.00 92.68 88.32 09/19/2000 92.01 - 21.2690.1 STRICKLAND, CURTIS 177.98 128.4 7 49.51 10/12/2000 80.00 - none 31.0878.2 STRICKLIN, PHILIP 118.27 74.23 44.04 10/17/2000 56.34 - 21.2118.1 STRINGER, LARRY & EVANGELIr 186.08 126.46 59.62 10/02/2000 57.16 - none 21.1058.1 STUBBLEFIELD, MARK 227.22 139.59 87.63 10/19/2000 48.86 - none *** in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent { \. CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 16 Standard Payment Customers Nov 21,2000 08:32am Current Period: 11/30/2000 Delinquent Minimum of $ 20.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/30/2000 08/31/2000 07/31/2000 Date Amount Msg 69.0912.1 SULLIVAN, PATRICK 153.68 1 01 .58 52.10 09/13/2000 53.33 - none 31.3468.2 SUTTON III, DONALD 132.80 93.40 39.40 10/19/2000 38.17 - 69.1278.1 T C MILLER 158.14 86.82 71.32 10/19/2000 92.61 - none 51.0906.1 TAGGART, RETA 108.82 71.21 37.61 09/11/2000 63.44 - none 21.1738.1 TATE, MICHAEL A. 179.48 1 08.12 71.36 10/16/2000 88.58 - none 42.2616.1 TAYLOR, CHARLES 122.48 79.55 42.93 10/16/2000 40.47 - none 20.1964.1 TECO INVESTMENTS 83.90 57.52 26.38 10/17/2000 26.38 - none 2.0766.1 TEIXEIRA, WALTER 168.31 101.85 66.46 09/13/2000 132.92 - none 34.0688.1 TEMPLIN, CLARISA 118.16 14.77 31.15 24.08 48.16 06/22/2000 96.29 - none 5.0720.1 TENNEY, CHRISTOPHER 330. 1 0 125.41 204.69 09/08/2000 166.56 - none 2.1190.1 TERRELL. A 121.31 85.74 35.57 10/19/2000 46.80 - none 34.0432.1 TERRIQUEZ, FRANCISCO MAGAI 234.82 148.65 86.17 1 0/04/2000 83.71 - none 2.1930.1 TERRY, TIMOTHY 144.78 144.78 10/01/1999 82.59 - none 74.1114.1 THATCHER, TIMOTHY 169.82 103.24 66.58 10/20/2000 51.00 - none 1.3490.1 THIEMANN. ERIC 122.12 87.92 34.20 10/19/2000 31.74 - none 42.1074.1 THOMANN. MARK 173.48 1 09.51 63.97 10/19/2000 109.50 - none 32.1558.2 THOMPSON,GARY 159.74 83.40 39.40 36.94 09/19/2000 40.63 - 22.1032.1 THOMPSON, REN 114.67 84.07 30.60 10/04/2000 60.00 - none 50.2110.2 THOMPSON.RHONDA 118.85 85.74 33.11 10/19/2000 34.34 - 22.1098.1 THORMAHLEN, SHANNON 154.43 91.17 63.26 11/01/2000 20.00 - none 1.1950.1 THORNE. TORY 355.04 243.07 111.91 .06 09/19/2000 233.60 - none 1 .1940. 1 THORNE. TORY L 268.02 174.58 93.44 09/19/2000 179.50 - none 21.2768.2 THURBER, RICHARD 170.79 94.03 76.76 10/19/2000 40.00 - 21.2732.3 THURBER. RONALD 554.02 111 .25 141.19 301.58 09/21/2000 27.76 - 69.0226.1 TIMA. KAREN 163.81 98.28 65.53 10/19/2000 49.35 - none 35.5017.1 TIMBERLINE CUSTOMS HOMES 94.03 6.48 31.15 24.08 32.32 07/07/2000 39.92 - 4.0936.1 TIMM. SEAN 125.33 82.68 42.65 10/11/2000 40.19 - none 46.0210.1 TODD. JEFF 102.77 70.10 32.67 10/16/2000 30.18 - none 2.2200.3 TODD, RICK 76.84 52.76 24.08 10/19/2000 24.08 - 74.2520.1 TOLAND, DAVID 112.39 70.10 35.13 7.16 09/20/2000 100.00 - none 40.0250.1 TOMICH. LONNY 97.67 66.85 30.82 10/17/2000 37.00 - none 42.2608.1 TONEY. RICHARD & ROBIN 114.96 81.17 33.79 10/17/2000 50.00 - none 50.4022.2 TORGESON. MATTHEW 299.03 156.64 123.99 18.40 11/17/2000 50.00 - 42.1216.1 TOROK. ZSOL T 1 06.66 57.52 36.38 12,76 09/21/2000 50.00 - none 51.3214.1 TORRES, THOMAS 91.60 52.76 38.84 09/19/2000 38.84 - none 2.2230.2 TUDEHOPE.HEATHER 85.45 52.76 32.69 09/18/2000 80.12 - 50.3824.1 TURNBOUGH. JAKE 126.07 79.43 46.64 09/18/2000 79.42 - none 2.0330.1 TURNER, DAVID & JEANINE 1 26.07 80.66 45.41 09/26/2000 18.45 - none 42.2348.3 TUTTLE, TAMMY 163.85 77.20 86.65 10/13/2000 82.96 - 21.1174.1 TWADDLE. DAVID 166.37 108.40 57.97 10/16/2000 69.04 - none 51.0302.4 TWOMEY, MATTHEW 127.46 86.97 40.49 10/19/2000 81 .08 - 34.2104.1 TYLER. HEIDI 132.38 73.28 59.10 10/17/2000 37.55 - none 2.6640.1 UGARRIZA, JOHN 119.08 67.80 51.28 10/17/2000 51.28 - none 31.3406.1 ULlN, MARY H. 94.40 39.29 55.11 10/16/2000 61.26 - none 52.0263.1 UNDER THE ONION 210.11 16.32 1 93.79 10/19/2000 214.73 - none 74.2876.1 USSERY. TRACY 191.16 121.54 59.62 10.00 10/18/2000 65.77 - none 32.1680.1 VALDEZ, MAXIMIANO 125.23 62.88 62.35 09/29/2000 26.68 - none 51.2996.1 V ALLA. CAROLYN 394.06 10.00 31.15 266.08 86.83 07/11/2000 24.08 - none 51.4010.1 VAN HOUTEN, ROBERT 207.52 120.28 87.24 10/19/2000 110.00 - none 22.1052.1 VANHORN, KEVIN & SANDRA 260.78 136.29 124.49 1 0/20/2000 115.00 - none 1.1820.2 VANHOUTEN, MICHELLE 86.84 52.76 34.08 10/16/2000 24.08 - 21.1032.1 VELADA, FEDERICO 172.49 110.02 62.47 1 0/20/2000 68.62 - none 1.0780.2 VELMA R BUCK LIFE ESTATE 194.71 50.76 125.13 18.82 10/10/2000 100.00 - 33.2578.1 VERKUYLEN.AD 101.05 69.31 31.74 08/11/2000 67.17 - none 22.1380.1 VET. ADMIN 154.1 0 104.32 49.78 09/15/2000 370.57 - none *** in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent (~ ( t CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 17 Standard Payment Customers Nov 21,2000 08:32am Current Period: 11/30/2000 Delinquent Minimum of $ 20.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/30/2000 08/31/2000 07/31/2000 Date Amount Msg 4.2350.1 VIDEOLAND # 168 156.46 67.52 33.76 33.76 21.42 1 0/24/2000 12.34 - none 19.0352.2 VILLARREAL, REYES 87.59 61.21 26.38 09/08/2000 26.38 - 2.4550.1 VINCENT, TOMMY 141.22 77.64 63.58 1 0/19/2000 32.83 - none 7.1052.1 VINEGARD, JAMES 83.90 57.52 26.38 09/15/2000 52.76 - none 4.1955.1 VINEYARDS HOMEOWNERS AS~ 291 .88 131 .50 160.38 11/0212000 134.46 - none 4.1899.1 VINEYARDS HOMEOWNERS AS~ 936.64 397.18 539.46 11/02/2000 599.40 - none 4.1977.1 VINEYARDS HOMEOWNERS AS~ 419.86 184.96 234.90 11/02/2000 194.40 - none 4.2189.1 VINEYARDS HOMEOWNERS AS~ 384.22 163.90 220.32 11/0212000 187.92 - none 46.0262.1 VNUK, JOHN J 109.34 72.84 35.27 1.23 09/20/2000 80.54 - none 31.3556.1 VOGT, STELLA 225.38 140.77 84.61 09/05/2000 73.54 - none 4.0864.1 WADE, TIMOTHY 102.77 70.10 32.67 09/13/2000 28.98 - none 21.2164.3 WAGONER, GLEN & MARY 169.12 137.24 31.88 33.4518.1 WALBRIDGE, RAYMOND 185.68 19.09 166.59 05/01 /2000 151.93 - none 34.0002.1 WALGREENS 388.30 336.46 25.92 25.92 21.0004.1 WALKER FAMILY TRUST 125.75 82.96 42.79 1 0/17/2000 51.73 - none 1.2310.2 WALKER, BETTE 230.78 155.03 75.75 10/18/2000 100.06 - 20.1392.1 WALKER, DAVID 130.28 87.21 43.07 10/17/2000 44.30 - none 31.0608.1 WALKER, MICHAEL 146.59 91.06 55.53 10/16/2000 65.37 - none 33.3682.1 WALLACE, CRYSTAL 89.56 59.19 30.37 09/11/2000 35.29 - none 32.1306.2 WALSH, DAVID & CARA 114.68 76.81 37.87 10/17/2000 37.87 - 1.3340.1 WALSH, RON 165.69 165.69 10/15/1999 191.33 - ***none 4.2132.1 WALSTON, DOUGLAS 245.68 93.19 89.11 63.38 11/07/2000 70.00 - none 22.1734.1 WALTERS, J. SCOTT 98.59 65.62 32.97 09/15/2000 78.40 - none 2.6040.1 WANMAN, BRYAN 88.59 67.52 21.07 11/20/2000 37.45 - none 20.0190.1 WARD, LINDA K 129.46 94.70 34.76 10/18/2000 50.00 - none 33.3648.2 WARDLE, JOHN 215.24 170.12 45.12 10/11/2000 87.00 - 2.0484.1 WARE, RANDY 234.28 113.03 121.25 09/18/2000 105.26 - none 32.0662.1 WARE, RANDY & BETH 159.40 102.24 57.16 10/16/2000 70.00 - none 22.1594.1 WASDEN. NICHOLAS 122.03 64.90 57.13 10/19/2000 75.58 - none 74.0114.1 WASE. KARl L. 114.59 84.63 29.96 10/16/2000 50.00 - none 34.2858.1 WASKOW, JUDY 151.06 85.02 66.04 09/19/2000 83.26 - none 21.2714.1 WATERMAN, LORI 166.92 109.23 57.69 10/19/2000 73.68 - none 31.3388.1 WATSON, COREY S 143.71 87.09 56.62 10/13/2000 75.07 - none 74.3052.1 WATSON, JASON 161.42 107.56 53.86 09/2212000 71.08 - none 74.3642.1 WATSON, MICHAEL 103.74 57.52 46.22 10/17/2000 59.50 - none 31.2230.1 WATTERS, TAMI 100.05 67.52 32.53 1 0/19/2000 69.59 - none 19.0224.3 WAYNE SWANSON HOMES 161 .40 86.69 41.74 32.97 09/21/2000 35.43 - 3.0100.1 WEATHERMON, TINA 113.03 75.30 37.73 10/17/2000 36.50 - none 69.0098.2 WECKER, ELDON 102.28 71.77 30.51 10/13/2000 34.20 - 33.4266.1 WEEK, NORMAN 165.86 111 .58 54.28 10/17/2000 25.00 - none 22.1238.1 WEISS. DAVID M. 220.95 137.80 83.15 10/19/2000 110.00 - none 22.1466.1 WELCH, RODNEY 283.79 97.16 106.63 80.00 10/17/2000 8.02 - none 21.1968.3 WELDIN, TAMMY R 1 08.53 74.35 34.18 2.3150.3 WELKER, ROGER 233.24 138.63 94.61 10/19/2000 154.88 - 50.1904.2 WELLS, GILBERT 95.99 68.36 27.63 3.9869.1 WENDELL & KASHA LAWRENCE 427.96 217.36 210.60 1 0/30/2000 383.94 - 31.3332.1 WENTZ, DANIEL R 139.11 83.56 55.55 10/20/2000 54.16 - none 51.3098.3 WERRY, GREYSON 98.92 67.04 31.88 43.0054.1 WESTROCK HOMES 1 07.94 44.18 31.88 31.88 08/24/2000 28.60 - 46.0326.2 WHEELER, ETHAN 123.61 81.89 33.11 8.61 10/02/2000 31 .88 - 22.1216.1 WHElLER. ROBERT 165.63 125.66 39.97 11/13/2000 50.00 - none 50.3890.1 WHIPPLE, JEFF 87.31 65.06 22.25 10/16/2000 25.00 - none 2.1370.1 WHITE, DEBRA LYNN 177.65 84.35 93.30 10/16/2000 40.00 - none 4.1950.1 WHITE, EDWARD 248.33 142.95 105.38 10/18/2000 88.16 - none 69.1084.1 WHITE, H.BOYCE 250.40 148.43 101.97 1 0/16/2000 108.12 - none .** in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent ( /ye { " CITY OF MERIDIAN Delinquent Account List- council Page: 18 Standard Payment Customers Nav 21,2000 08:33am Current Period: 11/30/2000 Delinquent Minimum of $ 20.00 compared to Delinquent Balance Last Pmt Last Pmt Cust No Name Balance Non-Delinq 09/30/2000 08/31/2000 07/31/2000 Date Amount Msg 4.0922.1 WHITING, BRENT & LYNETTE 155.69 94.31 61.38 10/17/2000 38.01 - none 74.0064.2 WHITSITT, JOSEPH 105.16 68.36 36.80 10/18/2000 45.41 - 5.0792.1 WICK, DON 289.98 164.87 125. 11 10/16/2000 101.58 - none 52.0262.1 WILD SHAMROCK LLP 883.43 624.36 259.07 10/19/2000 214.73 - none 2.2040.1 WILLIAMS, FRED 1 27.30 78.20 49.10 10/16/2000 58.94 - none 20.1660.3 WILLIAMS, MIKE 113.77 81.89 31.88 1.3360.1 WILLIAMS, PAUL 195.11 65.56 77.69 51.86 09/20/2000 35.49 - none 22.1354.1 WILLIAMS, TERRI 323.25 204.84 118.41 10/19/2000 122.10 - none 35.1160.2 WILLIAMS, TERRY 101.47 69.59 31.88 09/27/2000 34.34 - 2.1550.2 WILLS, BENJAMIN 100.24 68.36 31.88 21.1092.1 WILSON, CHARLES & HILDA 137.11 71.21 65.90 09/29/2000 65.70 - none 2.4310.1 WILSON, DENNIS K 105.13 62.60 42.53 10/17/2000 43.76 - none 21.2722.1 WILSON, JIMMY & TANA 92.51 59.98 32.53 10/18/2000 47.29 - none 50.0210.2 WILSON, MITCHELL 168.42 105.82 53.23 9.37 09/21/2000 100.00 - 7.0880.2 WINKLER, GREG 76.84 52.76 24.08 10/12/2000 24.08 - 1 .201 O. 1 WISDOM, RICK S 146. 14 87.48 58.66 10/16/2000 79.57 - none 4.0896.1 WITHERELL, ROBERT 76.84 52.76 24.08 09/13/2000 48.16 - none 33.2358.2 WOLIN, DALE & LOIS 121 .15 80.66 40.49 10/17/2000 56.64 - 4.2244.1 WOOD, JOHN 273.77 142.28 131.49 10/02/2000 120.42 - none 2.5020.1 WOOD, KENNETH 203.20 123.88 79.32 09/19/2000 158.64 - none 31.3344.1 WOODRUFF, NOEL R 209.91 110.42 99.49 10/18/2000 88.09 - none 22.2188.2 WOOTEN, TOMAS & DENA 95.91 55.22 29.00 11.69 08/30/2000 50.00 - 32.1632.1 WRIGHT, MICHAEL & SUSAN 111.31 73.28 38.03 10/13/2000 35.57 - none 3.0340.2 WUPPER, ROBERT & JENNIFER 135.91 74.51 61 .40 1 0/13/2000 33.11 - 35.0049.2 YEAGE,JOEL 105.16 70.82 34.34 10/13/2000 36.80 - 74.3348.2 YEATTS, PAMELA 88.20 59.98 28.22 10/18/2000 37.00 - 74.0372.1 YEL TON, LAURA 125.00 80.66 42.95 1.39 10/12/2000 60.00 - none 22.0814.1 YELVERTON, MARC 168.20 110.41 57.79 09/15/2000 64.51 - none 22.1332.1 YOUNG, BARRY R. 249.49 146.13 103.36 09/19/2000 116.89 - none 31.3248.2 YOUNG, DENNIS 150.25 75.46 65.11 9.68 10/16/2000 130.06 - 74.0408.1 YOUNG, LARRY 105.97 66.85 39.12 09/19/2000 41.58 - none 42.2742.1 YOUNG, THOMAS 197.12 125.62 71.50 09/08/2000 155.30 - none 34.2766.1 YOUNG, TOM 102.70 70.82 31.88 10/17/2000 20.80 - none 50.4008.1 YOUNGBLOOD, JON 142.66 110.34 32.32 10/19/2000 50.00 - none 51.3320.1 ZIMMER, TIMOTHY P 121.12 69.98 51.14 10/18/2000 51.14 - none Grand Totals: 192,049.44 112,449.71 66,246.79 9,295.44 4,057.50 Report Criteria: Terminated customers not included Customer. Cust No = {<} 9900000 *** in Msg column indicates no Notice is to be sent (~. ':;;8' -> -~ ~ .;: ,0< -:oz ~~:~,I -'-': U. N ' ::i u. 9 -:,0 0 ~ ,~::2 ~1 I- 0 }~ -- =:t 0:: ;; ~ <( U) W -::',-- ...J >- <( ...J =:t <( :t::f: l- t) t) en <( u: ...J t) Z =:t o t) o l- I- Z W ~ I~~~ 9t/~: i:~ ...J ~ :tt: en u: ;'~:JI i[~yj III ~~- .: ('i..I :.~- .".~... ;~ ~'5:~' u. u. o I- =:t ~ en ...J <( =:t l- t) <( ~,~--~,,:;-~ ~-~ IIi' ...J f"-.. <( N t) :J:t: cn u: I flrlif~ >- ~-ro ...J -.:t <0 <( f"-.. 0:) U =1t: en u: , -':-':~ '",-" ',~-< _<_:~_oF:I,: '--'-- ---'<~ ....;~~~ :--'- _~f.a c;C: ..l.;~i~ ~s ...J t) Z =:t o t) o l- I- Z W ~ u. u. o I- =:t J: en ...J <( =:t l- t) <( i ii '~,!~~~ >- C"? f"-.. ...J <0 <0 <( T""" t) =1t: en u: > .,. .~~ I~! 1'1 :i! '~i'~! .~~ :~~ (i:;;,... ;;~ C"? T""" N C"? f"-.. ~ f"-.. 0 C"? <0 f"-.. ~ <0 ~ 0:) <0 0 ~ N ~ T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" T""" N N N ;!:~I! ~!;t~I~:~' ~~ ,~~:~,: t.> si o ~ f"-.. v 0:) ~ 0 0:) v ~ ~ m ~ N v 0:) m 0 0:) ~ <0 <0 <0 N ~ ~ <0 J:: 0 ~ N I- 0:: 0:: :5 0:: Z >- (0 w 0 0:: W W >- Ct: .J: 1;) :5 ~ aJ :E w aJ III 0:: <( ~ ~ 0) I- :E aJ :E :2: <( => J: T"" N T"" en w ...J 0 W W ::J 0:: U ...J W W >- :::> I- ~ I- > U Z OJ ~ ii:: ?i z Z ...J C> a.. : oil u 0 w <( w <( ~ => => => ::> w 0 ~ 0 z 0 ..., u. :2: :E ..., ..., ..., <( (J) I- ~ ...J U Z =:t o () o l- I- Z W ~ / <C::~2: -< _<0 ,-: l() ~~I~~ 11 <( ~S~ :~{~i; _ -~ W :-;:: _~ >- ~/ >:' >- f"-.. C"? ...J v LO ~ :J:t: := ~ : en u::: ( I ~ Z o 2 ~ <( I ~ a:: o U.- u.. u.. o z a: ::J ~ o z Cf) w r-- <( ~ if) (- MERIDIAN PARKS & RECREATION Memorandum To: Mayor Corrie and City Conncil From: Tom Krmtz 4 ~ Date: 11-17-00 Re: Discussion issues for COlUlcil/Parks Connnission Meeting The Parks and Recreation Commission and staff appreciate the opportunity to meet with the COilllcil and Mayor on November 21 S\ to discuss issues critical to developing our park system. Our Park Plan consultant, Jerry Dragoo, has identified six key planning issues that require direction from the Mayor and City COllilcil. The Parks and Recreation Commission met in November to address these issues and their reconunendations are attached to this memo. Also attached is a more detailed explanation of each planning issue. 11/17/00 ( (r-. The Parks and Recreation Commission Ileld a meeting with Jerry Dragoo on November 11, 2000 to address critical to tlte completion of our Comprehensive Action Plan. The following is a brief outline of the recommendations that the Commission is proposing to ti,e City Council and Mayor. Issue #1 Desired Tvpe of Park System The question is what type of park system would be appropriate for Meridian. The Commission made a motion to recommend that Council adopt diagram #2 which provides for 7 community parks, each approximately 25 acres in size and a connecting pathway system. A larger community park plan as opposed to a neighborhood park system is economically more feasible to implement and maintain. The Commission also felt that we should rely on developers to provide adequate open space including internal pathways that could connect community parks. The Commission supports the 5% open space requirement contained in the new landscape ordinance. Issue #2 Providin2 Indoor Recreation 80ace There are basically two types of indoor centers; the first is a community center, which offers community meeting spaces and space for large community events with a minor emphasis on recreation. The second is a recreation center, which emphasizes recreation activities. The Commission supports a combination conunrmity/recreation center. If our recreation programs are to grow, we need a facility to hold them in. The City's Christmas party being held in Nampa also illustrates the need for such a facility in Meridian. Issue #3 Providin1! Specialized Recreation Facilities Should the City consider developing specialized facilities? The Commission supports Meridian building a skate park, and in the future, an adventure playground, an inline hockey rink and a water playground. Issue #4 Proiect Priorities The Commission recommends that the City acquire land while it is still available. One Commissioner stated "if we don't buy it today, it won't be here tomorrow... we have to be aggressive, we don't have a choice". The Commission's priorities are developing community park sites, acquisition of parkland, development of sports fields, trails and an indoor recreation center. Issue #5 Proiect Fundin1! There are essentially two ways to fund park and facility developments; the first option is on a pay-as-you-go basis using current City resources including impact fees. The second is to develop a major funding package using a combination of City resources and a bond. The Commission's recommendation is to go to the voters with a bond ranging in size from 15 to 20 million. 11/17/00 ( / ( Issue #6 Trails The Commission recommends Meridian develop a trails emphasizing off street trails along ditch banks, canals, and through neighborhoods. Trails that connect city parks are a key element. 11/17/00 ( ( PLANNING ISSUE NO.1 DESIRED TYPE OF A PARK SYSTEM Backaround: Because the city is new in terms of a park system, you now have the choice as to what type of parks you would like to see in Meridian. There are two basic approaches to developing a park system. The first approach is to create a park system based on location and function. It centers on the concept that while a specific park may only serve one primary function, the overall system of parks and facilities meets all of the community's needs as a combined unit. The second option is to develop parks on an individual basis with decisions driven by local neighborhood input, pressure from special interest groups and reactions to community issues. While the second option may meet with local neighborhood approval, most often many of the community-wide needs are not met and conflicts occur between user groups and adjacent homeowners. As a result, we recommend some type of a park system that looks at all of the community needs as a whole and addresses the most appropriate location for them. We define the types of parks suitable for the community and then develop design standards that address such issues as location, street access requirements, minimum size of park, recommended facilities, parking requirements, setbacks for certain kinds of activities, etc. So the question for Meridian, is what type of park system would be most appropriate? While subject to change we see the following types of park in Meridian. Neighborhood Parks Neighborhood parks are a combination playground and park designed primarily for non-supervised, non-organized recreation activities. They are generally sn1all in size (about 5 acres) and serve an area of approximately one half-n1ile radius. Typically, facilities found in a neighborhood park include a children's playground, picnic areas, trails, open grass areas for passive use, outdoor basketball courts and multi-use practice fields for soccer, Little League baseball, etc. Community Parks A community park is planned primarily to provide active and structured recreation opportunities. In general, community park facilities are designed for organized activities and sports, although individual and family activities are also encouraged. Community parks serve a much larger area and offer more facilities. As a result, they require more in terms of support facilities such as parking, restrooms, covered play areas, etc. Community parks usually have sport fields or similar facilities as the central focus of the park. Their service area is roughly a 1-2 mile radius. Optimum size is between 20 to 30 acres. Linear Parks Linear parks are developed landscaped areas and other lands that follow linear corridors such as abandoned railroad right-of-ways, canals, powerlines and other elongated features. This type of park usually contains trails, landscaped areas, viewpoints and seating areas. Special Use Areas Special use areas are miscellaneous public recreation areas or land occupied by a specialized facility. Some of the uses that fall into this classification include special purpose areas, a sports field complex, community gardens, and single purpose sites occupied by major recreation facilities such as swimming pools, recreation centers, etc. Natural Open This category includes land with significant aesthetic and scenic quality, such as riparian ( (~ Space areas vistas, wetlands, creek corridors, etc. These site are usually developed and enhanced for nature oriented recreational opportunities. Farm land is not included in this category. The core of a park system is the neighborhood and community parks and is what we want to discuss here. Most often we design the park system based on a service area for each type of park. For instance, we assume the service area of a neighborhood park to be one half mile and that for a community park at 1 -2 miles. We recently did a neighborhood park service area analysis for Meridian based on the above standard and discovered that approximately 16 additional neighborhood parks would be needed to serve the entire "Area of Impact". At a minimum of $ 500,000 to acquire and develop these parks, we are talking about $8 million to just develop neighborhood parks. Added to this could be about six community parks @ $1 million each bringing the total to about $14 million and this excludes the other types of parks. Granted, these parks would be built over a long period of time. Issue: Is the service area for a neighborhood park of one half mile and that for a community park at 1-2 miles a reasonable goal? Could the community afford that level of service? other Options: 1. Place the priority in the larger community parks and not build neighborhood parks: This is an efficient park system to build and maintain but means that few parks will be close to residents. This option results in substantially less park sites and does not provide much open space in the community. 2. Place the priority in the larger community parks but also build a series of small mini-parks of approximately 1 acre or less: This is a compromise to option #1 but mini-parks only serve small children and when the subdivision grows up the parks become unused. They do provide a minimal amount of open space. Maintenance costs will be substantially higher than for option #1 . 3. Build 2-3 very large multi-use parks only: This is the most efficient park system to build and maintain but creates very little open space and places significant traffic on adjoining streets. ( /I 4. Build oversized neighborhood parks and not build community parks: If the city were to emphasize oversized neighborhood parks by increasing them to about 7- 1 0 acres and assume a one mile service radius, it would mean the need for 8-1 0 parks. Since community parks are not provided in this option, the emphasis of the neighborhood park would also be on sport fields and other community-wide facilities. Tulley Park fits this classification. While this would also be an efficient system to develop, the disadvantage is that these parks could not be located in the middle of a neighborhood because of the traffic and noise they generate. (<n. /~- ( PLANNING ISSUE NO.2 PROVIDING INDOOR RECREATION SPACE Backt!round: Space for indoor recreation is becoming more COlnmon in communities where winter weather precludes many recreation activities. In some states such as Washington and Colorado, indoor recreation centers have becolne quite popular. The nearby YMCA provides indoor recreation opportunities as a partner with the City of Boise, although it is still a YMCA. There are basically two types of indoor centers. The first type is a community center that offer mostly community meeting spaces and places for large community events. This type of center usually has a minor emphasis on recreation. The second type is a recreation center which emphasizes active and passive recreation activities. In recent years, a balance between the two has become the most popular because the facility will reach a larger segment of the population and as a result, tend to generate more operating revenue. A third type of community center is also possible and is called a neighborhood center. Generally, these are slnall in size and designed to serve a small portion of the community. Often a swimming pool is part of a recreation center. The aquatic element can take on lnany forms. Some of the options are: 1) a standard multi-use pool that is typically 25 yards long and 6 lanes wide, 2) a competitive pool which can be as large as 50 meters long x 75' wide, 3) a leisure pool which may have a zero depth entry and include water slides and moving water, or 4) a water playground which features water slides, spray features, fountains, etc. Sometilnes an aquatic complex may be a combination of the above. Some of the features typically found in COlnlTIUnity/recreation centers are: 1-2 gymnasiums meeting rooms weight training room exercise/aerobics room racquetball courts senior center spaces youth activity spaces running track reception/multi-purpose room kitchen administrative offices lease space for non-profit groups steam rooms spa The average c0111munity/recreation/aquatic center will vary considerably in terms of size and cost of construction. SOlne rules ofthulnb are as follows: Option Size Features Construction Operating cost deficit Community Center 20 - 40,000 Meeting Iconference $3 million 900/0 sq.ft rooms Recreation Center 30 - 50,000 Gym, exercise areas, $4 million 50% sq. ft. classrooms Standard multi-use 15,000 sq. ft. 25 yard, 6 lane pool $2.5 million 60010 swimming pool Leisure Pool 35,000 sq. ft. Standard pool, zero entry $5-7 million 200/0 pool, water slide Water Playground (indoor) 15,000 sq. ft. Zero depth entry pool, $1.5 million 00/0 water features, water slide ( f '~, Issue: Should an indoor recreation center be recommended in the plan, and if so, what should be its emphasis and what Inajor features should it contain? Options: 1. Construct a community center that minimizes recreation activity but stresses meeting space and places for large indoor community events. 2. Construct a recreation center as described above. 3. Develop a neighborhood center( s) 4. Develop only an aquatic facility (what options? PLANNING ISSUE NO.3 PROVIDING SPECIALIZED RECREATION FACILITIES Back2round: Many communities develop unique one-of-a-kind recreation facilities that provide a special recreation experience or create a unique setting in the community. Sometimes tlley are sited independently or they may be included within a larger park facility. Most often, after the park system is established, expansion to specialized facilities is the logical next step. While Meridian has not yet established its park system, it may be tilne to consider some of these unique features, or at least reserve space for them. Issues: Should the City consider developing specialized facilities at this time or concentrate on the basic park system? If so, what types of facilities should be considered? Options: . Do not develop specialized facilities at this time. . Encourage private providers to fund specialized facilities on City property. . City funds and develops specialized facilities (see list of possible options): 1. Adventure Playground 10. Environmental Education Area 2. Splash Pool or other water playground 11. Recreation Center 3. Formal Gardens (rose, etcoo) 12. Indoor swimming pool 4. Botanical Gardens (Arboretum) 13. Area for weddings, etc. 5. Group Picnic Areas 14. Dog Park 6. Cultural Arts Center 15. Historical Buildings/Areas 7. Climbing Wall (outdoor) 16. Skateboard Park 8. Model Carl Airplane Area 17. Inline Hockey Rink 9. Swimming beach? IT' I, PLANNING ISSUE NO.4 PROJECT PRIORITIES Backt!round: One of the end products of the Action Plan is the development of a capital improvement program (CIP). The CIP establishes priorities and allocates resources to implement the listed projects. Because the City is growing so rapidly, we expect that one of the high priorities will be to acquire land while it is still available. However, there is always the argument that projects should also be built to demonstrate tax money at work. We also know there is interest to build an indoor facility in Meridian. Since it will more than likely cost in the neighborhood of $20 million to develop all of the facilities recommended in the Plan, the City must budget its resources and fund over time. The issue then becomes one of how much can the City afford at one time and what are the projects of highest priority? Issue: What projects should have the highest priority? If given one dollar ($1.00), how would you distribute it among the following items. Remember it must add up to one dollar. Also list reasons for each choice. Item Amount Reason(s) 1. Preservation of Open Space $ 2. Acquisition of Park Land $ 3. Development of small N. Park sites $ 4. Development of large C. Park sites 5. Development of Trails $ 6. Development of Indoor Recreation Center $ 7. Development of Indoor Pool $ 8. Beautification Proj ects $ 9. Development of Sports Fields $ 10. Other $ $ 1 .00 (- r- ! ISSUE NO.5 PROJECT FUNDING Baclu!round: As discussed in Issue No.4, the cost of building the park and recreation system in Meridian could easily reach $20 million. The issue here is how much of that cost can the City fund out of its annual operating budget and how Inuch should come from outside sources (grants, G.O. bonds, etc.) One of the major funding sources the City has in place is park impact fees which pays for the acquisition and development of parks and facilities. In theory, these fees are designed to pay for the future park system, but in reality, the amount is not enough. In addition, the money comes in as small parts over a long period of tiIne. While the money comes in as subdivisions are developed, the acquisition of park land needs to occur before that time. As a result, there is always a struggle to find Inoney to acquire park land while it is still available. Some communities will pass bond measures to fund land acquisition and use impact fees for park developtnent. There are essentially two ways in which park and facility development can be funded: The first option is to operate on a pay-as-you-go basis using current City resources and grants. This is a slow but methodical approach but means that the City will always be behind on meeting current park and facility needs. It also means that acquiring park land will always be a challenge because land acquisition is following land development. The second option is to develop a Inajor funding package using a combination of city resources plus a general obligation bond. While this is the most desirable option, it will require voter support and approval of a bond measure. Issue: How should the City approach the funding of park and recreation facilities? Options: 1. Operate on a pay-as-you-go basis utilizing grants, General Fund Inoney and Impact Fees. 2. Develop a large funding package using the above sources plus a general obligation bond to fund land acquisition and major facility development. ,.< ISSUE NO.6 TRAILS Back2:round: We are finding that participation in trail-related activities is now the No.1 recreation activity in most communities. A recent survey we completed in Nampa reveale.d that for current recreation activities walkingfor pleasure was the No.1 activity and Bicycling was No.4. When asked what they would like to do if more facilities were available, walkingfor pleasure ranked No.1. We can assume that a similar response would occur if we conducted a survey in Meridian. As a result, we believe that more trails are needed in your community. The City of Meridian has a start on trail development, but additional effort will be necessary to create a trail system that links the community together. In comlnunities where extensive off-street trails exist, they are often the most heavily used recreation facility. The Riverfront Trail System in Boise is agood example. However, development of trails does not come without cost. Typical trail development can run $100,000 per mile or more and then there is the Inaintenance and patrol costs. Issue: 1. How extensive of a trails system should the City develop, and what types of trails should be constructed? 2. How and who should maintain theln? 3. Is the City willing to patrol and manage them? Options: TRAIL SYSTEM OPTIONS 1. Create independent trail segtnents that connect a neighborhood with the local school or other local destination points. 2. Develop long trail segments that link existing trails together, creating a community-wide trail network. 3. Emphasize on-street bicycle lanes. TRAIL TYPE OPTIONS 4. Emphasize off-street paved trails. 5. Construct some unpaved trails for mountain biking, hiking, and walking. 6. Develop a combination of trail types including on-street bike lanes, off-street paved trails and unpaved trails to create a cOlnprehensive trail and pathway system 7. Develop some trails for one type of trail activity, i.e. mountain bikes, horseback riders or walkers only. CITY OF MERI DIAN {, PROPOSED PARK DESIGN STANDARDS Mini-Parks Definition: Mini-Parks or Tot lots are small one-lot parks designed to provide a small playground and open space area within a subdivision. Because of their size (less than one acre) they are limited to the facilities they can offer. They are designed primarily for small children. 1. General land Use Guidelines: a. The need for City owned mini-parks should be carefully assessed prior to purchase and development. As a general policy, city-owned mini-parks will be discouraged. b. The development of mini-parks may be encouraged as part of multi-family developments or where private homeowners associations assume maintenance responsibility. c. Mini-parks sh'ould be developed in neighborhoods where a park is not nearby or easily accessible or where no options exist for larger park sites. 2. Site Selection Criteria: a. Mini-Parks should be no smaller than 20,000 square feet. b. The site should be central as possible to the area it serves. c. The site should be mostly flat and usable. d. If possible, walking distance should not exceed one-quarter mile, and not require crossing of busy streets. 3. Design and Development Standards: a. Appropriate faci I ities i ncl ude: · Children's playground · Open grass play area · Site amenities (picnic tables, benches, bike racks, drinking fountains, trash receptacles, etc.) b. The site should be visible from and have significant frontage on adjoining streets. (.- Neighborhood Parks Definition: Neighborhood parks are a combination playground and park designed primarily for non- supervised, non-organized recreation activities. They are generally small in size and serve an area of approximately one half-mile radius. Typically, facilities found in a neighborhood park include a children's playground, picnic areas, trails, open grass areas for passive use, outdoor basketball courts, and multi-use practice fields for soccer, youth baseball, etc. Size ranges from 2 to 10 acres, with the optimum size being 5 acres. 1. General land Use Guidelines: a. Acquisition of land for neighborhood parks should occur in advance of their need. b. A neighborhood park should be developed when the area it will serve reaches about 500/0 developed (measured by either acreage developed, or population accommodated). c. When elementary school sites are chosen, consideration should be given to locating a neighborhoocJ park adjacent to a school site. 2. Site Selection Criteria: a. Under most conditions, neighborhood parks should be no smaller than three acres in size. b. The site should be reasonably central to the neighborhood it is intended to serve. c. If possible, walking or bicycling distance should not exceed one-half mile for the area it serves. Access routes should minimize physical barriers, and crossing of major roadways. d. The site should be visible from adjoining streets and have no less than 200 feet of street frontage. e. Access to the site should be via a local residential street. If located on a busy street, incorporate buffers and/or barriers necessary to reduce' 'hazards from passing vehicles. 3. Design and Development Standards: a. Appropriate facilities may include: · Unstructured open play areas and practice sports fields · Children's playground (tot and youth) · Basketball courts · Tennis courts · Picn ic areas · Shelter building (small) · Trai Is and/or pathways · Natural open space · Site amenities (picnic tables, benches, bike racks, drinking fountains, trash receptacles, etc.) · Benches ( b. Parking Requirements: Minimum of three spaces per acre of usable active park area to accommodate both handicap and standard parking. If on-street parking is available, this standard can be reduced by one car for every 25 feet of available street frontage. Design should encourage access by foot or bicycle. c. Active and noise producing facilities, such as tennis and basketball courts, should be located away from adjoining homes. d. Restrooms are not recommended ~~~-~~---~~~~--~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~--~~~~-~~~--~~~---~~~~~~~~~----~~~~-~~~~~--~~--~~~--~~~~~~~-----~~ Community Parks Definition: A community park is planned primarily to provide active and structured recreation opportunities. In general, community park facilities are designed for organized activities and sports, although individual and family activities are also encouraged. Community parks serve a much larger area and offer more facilities. As a result, they require more. in terms of support facilities such as parking, restrooms, covered play areas, etc. Community parks usually have sport fields or similar facilities as the central focus of the park. Their service area is roughly a 1-2 mile radius. Size ranges from 15 to 30 acres, with the optimum size being 25 acres 1. General land Use Guidelines: a. Because of their size, the acquisition of community parkland should occur far in advance of its need. b. A community park should be cqnstructed when the area it will serve reaches about 500/0 developed (measured by either acreage developed, or population accommodated). c. Wherever feasible, community parks should be developed adjacent to junior or high school sites. 2. Site Selection Criteria: a. Minimum size should be roughly 15 acres with optimum being 25 acres. b. At least two-thirds of the site should be available for active recreation use and adequate buffers of natural open space or low use used to separate active use areas from nearby homes. c. If possible, walking or bicycling distance should not exceed 1 - 2 miles for the area it serves. d. The site should be visible from adjoining streets and have a minimum of 200' of street frontage. e. Access should be via a collector or arterial street. f. To separate adjacent homes for the park, public streets, or trails should border the park property . ( ( 3. Design and Development Standards: a. Appropriate faci I ities i ncl ude: · Designated sport fields - softball, baseball, soccer, etc. · Tennis courts · Sand or grass volleyball courts · Open multi-use grass area . Children's playground . Restrooms . Picnic area . Picnic shelters (various sizes) . Group picnic facilities . Trails/pathway systems . Outdoor basketball courts · Site amenities (picnic tables, benches, bike racks, drinking fountains, trash receptacles, etc.) b. Parking requirements: dependent upon facilities provided. Require 50 spaces per ball field plus 5 spaces per acre of active use area. c. Permanent restrooms are appropriate for this type of park but should be located in areas that are highly visible and near public streets. Special Use Areas Definition: Special use areas are miscellaneous public recreation areas or land occupied by a specialized facility. Some of the uses that fall into this classification include single purpose sites, sport field complexes, or sites occupied by recreation buildings, swimming pools, etc. 1. General land Use Guidelines: a. Dependent upon the type of facilities proposed. 2. Site Selection Criteria: a. Prior to the addition of any special use area, the City should prepare a detailed feasibility and cost/benefit analysis for each proposed site being considered. b. Size and location of facility will be dependent upon the function of the facility being considered. 3. Design and Development Standards: a. Design criteria will depend upon the facilities and activities proposed. b. Parking requirements: dependent upon the activities offered. linear Parks (- Definition: linear parks are developed landscaped areas and other lands that follow linear corridors such as abandoned railroad right-af-ways, canals, power lines, and other elongated features. This type of park usually contains trails, landscaped areas, viewpoints, and seating areas. 1. General land Use Guidelines: a. Dependent upon location and level of development proposed. b. Most linear parks will contain trails. Trail standards will be d~termined by the purpose and type of trail anticipated. 2. Site Selection Criteria: a. Prior to the addition of any linear park, the City should conduct an impact analysis to determine how trails will affect adjacent property. b. Location and. features of the site wi II dictate the level and type of trai Is the site can accommodate. c. Design and Development Standards: a. Linear Parks are maintained open space areas. The level of landscaping will depend upon the setti ng and use. b. Parking will be restricted to parks and trailheads. Natural Open Space Definition: Natural open space is defined as undeveloped land primarily left in its natural environment with recreation uses as a secondary objective. It is usually owned or managed by a governmental agency and mayor may not have public access. This type of land often includes wetlands, environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife habitats, and stream, canal and drainage corridors. 1. General land Use Guidelines: a. An open space system may be small individual parcels or parcels combined to create a long continuous linear pattern such as along a canal or drainage way. These lands are suitable for m i n i mal wi Id life habitat, trai I corridors, or the preservation of envi ron mentally sensitive lands. For Meridian, these lands will not serve to create a sense of seclusion or separation of neighborhoods. b. Natural open space should be properly managed and maintained. c. Natural open space should be owned and managed by the City of Meridian. ( 2. Site Selection Criteria: a. Emphasis of acquisition within the proposed open space system should be for those areas offering unique features or trail opportunities. b. An analysis should be made to determine if unique qualities and conditions exist that warrant the acquisition and/or preservation of this type of land. c. Prohibiting urban development should not be a reason for acquiring natural open space. 3. Design and Development Standards: a. Natural open space areas should be primarily used for passive and trail related activities. Maintenance levels should reflect the character of natural open space. b. Encourage passive recreation uses that are compatible with the preservation of the natural areas. Where feasible, public access and use of these areas via trails should be permitted, but sensitive areas should be protected from degradation and overuse. c. Improvements should be kept to a minimum, with the natural environment, interpretive, and educational features emphasized. Such improvements should be limited to the following, although other uses or sites may permit more intensive development. · Pathways · Seating · Informational/Directional Signs · Viewing Areas d. Parking should be limited to parks and trailheads and at a size the area can accommodate. e. The location and construction of trails and other features should avoid canal or stream banks, significant plant populations, and other sensitive features, while maintaining an acceptable experience and adhering to the trail development guidelines. In addition, there may be certain sensitive areas where recreation activities, even low impact activities, should not be permitted. f. Non-native plant species should be removed and native indigenous species re-introduced in open space areas. Steps should be taken to eliminate non-native plant invasion. 4. Management Plan Policies a. If no specific management practice is currently developed, the policy should be the accepted standard of State and Federal agencies. b. Additions to the open space system should include a report documenting management recommendations specific to that site as well as impact on overall management resources. c. Policies should be developed for assessing responsibility for vegetation encroachment onto private property. In general, control of invasive plant materials should be-the responsibility of the adjacent property owner. If plants originate from private property and inhabit an open space area, or originate in the open space area, it will be the homeowner's responsibility to remedy the problem or shoulder the burden of cost. Trails (" Definition: Trails and pathways are designed to provide walking, bicycling and other non-motorized recreational opportunities. By providing linkages to other areas and facilities, they can provide non- vehicular options for travel throughout the community. Trails can be designed for single or multiple types of users. The trails and pathways emphasized here are those that are recreational and multiple use in nature. Bike routes with more emphasis on transportation are not included in this definition. Trails may be either unsurfaced or treated with a variety of hard surfacing materials including concrete or asphalt. Unsurfaced trails may be left in their natural condition or supplemented with gravel, bark chips, sand, or other material. Surfacing will be dependent upon the soil type, type of use, and amount of use. 1. General land Use Guidelines: a. The following rationale and guidelines, site selection criteria, and development standards apply to trai Is and pathways that are recreational in nature. Pol icies related to pathways that are transportation oriented are found in the City's Transportation Plan. b. Trails that follow along canals, stream corridors and drainage ways provide natural linkages from the urban development to recreational areas. Trails located parallel to these amenities provide connections with natural areas that are desired by citizens. In addition, trails in these locations minimize the loss of land for development at urban densities compared to situations where trails might need to bisect developable lands. c. Stream and canal corridors provide essential ecological functions that need protection from the impacts of development and human activity as these streams travel through urban areas. d. Trails should be planned, sized, designed, and located to minimize their impacts on stream or canal corridors and to minimize the impacts of unplanned access in and near these waterways. Where adequate land is available, multi-purpose trails running parallel to the waterway should generally be sited at least 25' from the top of bank. e. Developers should be encouraged to provide and build pathways and trail amenities within their proposed developments that link with the City's overall trail system. f. Trails easements, dedications, and development need to occur prior to or at the time of development. g. It is recommended that the Parks and Recreation Department be responsible for developing use and management policies and assume maintenance dutiese h. The City should be sensitive to private owners when trails are proposed adjacent to private property . 2. Site Selection Criteria: a. The primary purpose of recreation trails is to provide a recreation experiencee Transportation to other parts of the community should be a secondary objective. Wherever feasible, recreation pathways and trails should be located off-street. However, streets should be used in order to complete connection, whenever needed. b. Trails should be located and designed to provide a diversity of challenges. Wherever possible, trails should encourage accessibility, particularly within loop or destination opportun ities. ( ( c. Trails should be developed throughout the community to provide linkages to schools, parks, and other destination points. Each proposed trail should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine if it should be part of the City's trail system. 3. Design and Development Standards: a. Trail alignments should take into account soil conditions, slopes, surface drainage, and other physical limitations that could increase construction and/or maintenance costs. b. Trails should be planned, sized, and designed for multiple uses, except for dedicated nature trails, and/or areas that cannot be developed to the standard n..ecessary to minimize potential user confl iets. c. Centralized and effective staging areas should be provided for trail access. They should include parking, orientation and information, and any necessary specialized unloading features. Primary trailheads should have restrooms and trash receptacles; secondary trailheads might only have some parking and signage. I ,/ .( (< PLANNING ISSUE NO.4 PROJECT PRIORITIES Backt!:round: One of the end products of the Action Plan is the development of a capital improvement program (CIP). The CIP establishes priorities and allocates resources to implement the listed projects. Because the City is growing so rapidly, we expect that one of the high priorities will be to acquire land while it is still available. However, there is always the argument that projects should also be built to demonstrate tax money at work. We also know there is interest to build an indoor facility in Meridian. Since it will more than likely cost in the neighborhood of $20 million to develop all of the facilities recommended in the Plan, the City must budget its resources and fund over time. The issue then becomes one of how much can the City afford at one time and what are the projects of highest priority? Issue: What projects should have the highest priority? If given one dollar ($1.00), how would you distribute it among the following items. Remember it must add up to one dollar. Also list reasons for each choice. 1> Itenl Ainount Reason( s) 1. Preservation of Open Space $ 2. Acquisition of Park Land $ 3. Development of small N. Park sites $ 4. Development of large C. Park sites 5. Development of Trails $ 6. Development of Indoor Recreation Center $ 7. Development of Indoor Pool $ 8. Beautification Projects $ 9. Development of Sports Fields $ 10. Other $ $ 1 . 0 0 CITY OF MERI DIAN PROPOSED PARK DESIGN S1 ANDARDS Mini-Parks Definition: Mini-Parks or Tot lots are small one-lot parks designed to provide a small playground and open space area within a subdivision. Because of their size (less than one acre) they are limited to the facilities they can offer. They are designed primarily for small children. 1. General land Use Guidelines: a. The need for City owned mini-parks should be carefully assessed prior to purchase and development. As a general policy, city-owned mini-parks will be discouraged. b. The development of mini-parks may be encouraged as part of multi-family developments or where private homeowners associations assume maintenance responsibility. c. Mini-parks should be developed in neighborhoods where a park is not nearby or easily accessible or where no options exist for larger park sites. 2. Site Selection Criteria: a. Mini-Parks should be no smaller than 20,000 square feet. b. The site should be central as possible to the area it serves. c. The site should be mostly flat and usable. d. If possible, walking distance should not exceed one-quarter mile, and not require crossing of busy streets. 3. Design and Development Standards: a. Appropriate faci I ities incl ude: . Children's playground · Open grass play area · Site amenities (picnic tables, benches, bike racks, drinking fountains, trash receptacles, etc.) b. The site should be visible from and have significant frontage on adjoining streets. Nei~hborhood Parks Definition: Neighborhood parks are a combination playground and park designed primarily for non- supervised, non-organized recreation activities. They are generally small in size and serve an area of approximately one half-mile radius. Typically, facilities found in a neighborhood park include a children's playground, picnic areas, trails, open grass areas for passive use, outdoor basketball courts, and multi-use practice fields for soccer, youth baseball, etc. Size ranges from 2 to 1 0 acres, with the optimum size being 5 acres. 1. General land Use Guidelines: a. Acquisition of lahd for neighborhood parks should occur in advance of their need. b. A neighborhood park should be developed when the area it will serve reaches about 500/0 developed (measured by either acreage developed, or population accommodated). c. When elementary school sites are chosen, consideration should be given to locating a neighborhooQ park adjacent to a school site. 2. Site Selection Criteria: a. Under most conditions, neighborhood parks should be no smaller than three acres in size. b. The site should be reasonably central to the neighborhood it is intended to serve. c. If possible, walking or bicycling distance should not exceed one-half mile for the area it serves. Access routes should minimize physical barriers, and crossing of major roadways. d. The site should be visible from adjoining streets and have no less than 200 feet of street frontage. e. Access to the site should be via a local residential street. If located on a busy street, incorporate buffers and/or barriers necessary to reduce hazards from passing vehicles. 3. Design and Development Standards: a. Appropriate facilities may include: · Unstructured open play areas and practice sports fields · Children's playground (tot and youth) . Basketball courts . Tennis courts . Picnic areas . Shelter building (small) . Trai Is and/or pathways · Natural open space · Site amenities (picnic tables, benches, bike racks, drinking fountains, trash receptacles, etc.) · Benches ( [u ~, b. Parking Requirements: Minimum of three spaces per acre of usable active park area to accommodate both handicap and standard parking. If on-street parking is available, this standard can be reduced by one car for every 25 feet of available street frontage. Design should encourage access by foot or bicycle. c. Active and noise producing facilities, such as tennis and basketball courts, should be located away from adjoining homes. d. Restrooms are not recommended ~---~~~~-~~~~~~--~~~------~~~~~~--~---~----~---~-----~~~~~~~~~~--~~-~~~-~~~-~~--~~~~~~-~-~~~~-~~~-~~~-~~~~~---~~---~~~~--~~~~~-- Community Parks Definition: A community park is planned primarily to provide active and structured recreation opportunities. In general, community park facilities are designed for organized activities and sports, although individual and family activities are also encouraged. Community parks serve a much larger area and offer more facilities. As a result, they require more. in terms af support facilities such as parking, restroams, covered play areas, etc. Community parks usually have sport fields or similar Facilities as the central focus of the park. Their service area is roughly a 1-2 mile radius. Size ranges fram 15 to 30 acres, with the optimum size being 25 acres 1. General land Use Guidelines: a. Because of their size, the acquisition of community parkland should occur far in advance of its need. b. A community park should be cqnstructed when the area it will serve reaches about 500/0 developed (measured by either acreage developed, or population accommodated). c. Wherever feasible, community parks should be developed adjacent to junior or high school sites. 2. Site Selection Criteria: a. Minimum size should be roughly 15 acres with optimum being 25 acres. b. At least two-thirds of the site should be available for active recreation use and adequate buffers of natural open space or low use used to separate active use areas from nearby homes. c. If possible, walking or bicycling distance should not exceed 1 - 2 miles for the area it serves. d. The site should be visible from adjoining streets and have a minimum of 200' of street frontage. e. Access should be via a collector or arterial street. f. To separate adjacent homes for the park, public streets, or trails should border the park property . ( ( \ 3. Design and Development Standards: a. Appropri ate faci I ities i ncl ude: · Designated sport fields - softball, baseball, soccer, etc. . Tennis courts . Sand or grass volleyball courts . Open multi-use grass area . Children's playground . Restrooms . Picnic area . Picn ic shelters (various sizes) . Group picnic facilities . Trails/pathway systems . Outdoor basketball courts · Site amenities (picnic tables, benches, bike racks, drinking fountains, trash receptacles, etc.) b. Parking requlrements: dependent upon facilities provided. Require 50 spaces per ball field plus 5 spaces per acre of active use area. c. Permanent restrooms are appropriate for this type of park but should be located in areas that are high Iy visible and near publ ic streets. Special Use Areas Definition: Special use areas are miscellaneous public recreation areas or land occupied by a specialized facility. Some of the uses that fall into this classification include single purpose sites, sport field complexes, or sites occupied by recreation buildings, swimming pools, etc. 1. General land Use Guidelines: a. Dependent upon the type of facilities proposed. 2. Site Selection Criteria: a. Prior to the addition of any special use area, the City should prepare a detailed feasibility and cost/benefit analysis for each proposed site being considered. b. Size and location of facility will be dependent upon the function of the facility being considered. 3. Design and Development Standards: a. Design criteria wi II depend upon the faci I ities and activities proposed. b. Parking requirements: dependent upon the activities offered. .( Linear Parks Definition: linear parks are developed landscaped areas and other lands that follow linear corridors such as abandoned railroad right-of-ways, canals, power lines, and other elongated features. This type of park usually contains trails, landscaped areas, viewpoints, and seating areas. 1. General land Use Guidelines: a. Dependent upon location and level of development proposed. b. Most linear parks will contain trails. Trail standards will be d~termined by the purpose and type of trail anticipated. 2. Site Selection Criteria: a. Prior to the addition of any linear park, the City should conduct an impact analysis to determine how trails will affect adjacent property. b. location and)features of the site will dictate the level and type of trails the site can accom modate. c. Design and Development Standards: a. linear Parks are maintained open space areas. The level of landscaping will depend upon the setting and use. b. Parking will be restricted to parks and trailheads. Natural Open Space Definition: Natural open space is defined as undeveloped land primarily left in its natural environment with recreation uses as a secondary objective. It is usually owned or managed by a governmental agency and mayor may not have public access. This type of land often includes wetlands, environmentally sensitive areas, wildlife habitats, and stream, canal and drainage corridors. 1. General land Use Guidelines: a. An open space system may be small individual parcels or parcels combined to create a long continuous linear pattern such as along a canal or drainage way. These lands are suitable for minimal wildlife habitat, trail corridors, or the preservation of environmentally sensitive lands. For Meridian, these lands will not serve to create a sense of seclusion or separation of neighborhoods. b. Natural open space should be properly managed and maintained. c. Natural open space should be owned and managed by the City of Meridian. r .r ( 2. Site Selection Criteria: a. Emphasis of acquisition within the proposed open space system should be for those areas offeri ng un iq ue featu res or trai I opportu n ities. b. An analysis should be made to determine if unique qualities and conditions exist that warrant the acquisition and/or preservation of this type of land. c. Prohibiting urban development should not be a reason for acquiring natural open space. 3. Design and Development Standards: a. Natural open space areas should be primarily used for passive and trail related activities. Maintenance levels should reflect the character of natural open space. b. Encourage passive recreation uses that are compatible with the preservation of the natural areas. Where feasible, public access and use of these areas via trails should be permitted, but sensitive areas should be protected from degradation and overuse. c. Improvements should be kept to a minimum, with the natural environment, interpretive, and educational features emphasized. Such improvements should be limited to the following, although other uses or sites may permit more intensive development. . Pathways · Seati ng . Informational/Directional Signs · Viewing Areas d. Parking should be limited to parks and trailheads and at a size the area can accommodate. e. The location and construction of trails and other features should avoid canal or stream banks, significant plant populations, and other sensitive features, while maintaining an acceptable experience and adhering to the trail development guidelines. In addition, there may be certain sensitive areas where recreation activities, even low impact activities, should not be permitted. f. Non-native plant species should be removed and native indigenous species re-introduced in open space areas. Steps should be taken to eliminate non-native plant invasion. 4. Management Plan Policies a. If no specific management practice is currently developed, the policy should be the accepted standard of State and Federal agencies. b. Additions to the open space system should include a report documenting management recommendations specific to that site as well as impact on overall management resources. c. Policies should be developed for assessing responsibility for vegetation encroachment onto private property. In general, control of invasive plant materials should be the responsibility of the adjacent property owner. If plants originate from private property and inhabit an open space area, or originate in the open space area, it will be the homeowner's responsibility to remedy the problem or shoulder the burden of cost. { \ - ( Trails Definition: Trails and pathways are designed to provide walking, bicycling and other non-motorized recreational opportunities. By providing linkages to other areas and facilities, they can provide non- vehicular options for travel throughout the community. Trails can be designed for single or multiple types of users. The trails and pathways emphasized here are those that are recreational and multiple use in nature. Bike routes with more emphasis on transportation are not included in this definition. Trails may be either unsurfaced or treated with a variety of hard surfacing materials including concrete or asphalt. Unsurfaced trails may be left in their natural condition or supplemented with gravel, bark chips, sand, or other material. Surfacing will be dependent upon the soil type, type of use, and amount of use. 1. General land Use Guidelines: a. The following rationale and guidelines, site selection criteria, and development standards apply to trails and pathways that are recreational in nature. Policies related to pathways that are transportation oriented are found in the City's Transportation Plan. b. Trails that follow along canals, stream corridors and drainage ways provide natural linkages from the urban development to recreational areas. Trails located parallel to these amenities provide connections with natural areas that are desired by citizens. In addition, trails in these locations minimize the loss of land for development at urban densities compared to situations where trails might need to bisect developable lands. c. Stream and canal corridors provide essential ecological functions that need protection from the impacts of development and human activity as these streams travel through urban areas. d. Trails should be planned, sized, designed, and located to minimize their impacts on stream or canal corridors and to minimize the impacts of unplanned access in and near these waterways. Where adequate land is available, multi-purpose trails running parallel to the waterway should generally be sited at least 25' from the top of bank. e. Developers should be encouraged to provide and build pathways and trail amenities within their proposed developments that link with the City's overall trail system. f. Trails easements, dedications, and development need to occur prior to or at the time of development. g. It is recommended that the Parks and Recreation Department be responsible for developing use and management policies and assume maintenance duties. h. The City should be sensitive to private owners when trails are proposed adjacent to private property . 2. Site Selection Criteria: a. The primary purpose of recreation trails is to provide a recreation experience. Transportation to other parts of the community should be a secondary objective. Wherever feasible, recreation pathways and trails should be located off-street. However, streets should be used in order to complete connection, whenever needed. b. Trails should be located and designed to provide a diversity of challenges. Wherever possible, trails should encourage accessibility, particularly within loop or destination opportun ities. ( c. Trails should be developed throughout the community to provide linkages to schools, parks, and other destination points. Each proposed trail should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine if it should be part of the City's trail system. 3. Design and Development Standards: a. Trail alignments should take into account soil conditions, slopes, surface drainage, and other physical limitations that could increase construction and/or maintenance costs. b. Trails should be planned, sized, and designed for multiple uses, except for dedicated nature trails, and/or areas that cannot be developed to the standard n.ecessary to minimize potential user confl ids. c. Centralized and effective staging areas should be provided for trail access. They should include parking, orientation and information, and any necessary specialized unloading features. Primary trailheads should have restrooms and trash receptacles; secondary trailheads might only have some parking and signage. ( ;ECOROED - REQUEST OF \ \) ;1,OP\ COUNTY RECORDER .J. O,tl,VHJ N/\V/\HRO C~-I- ;-:: D i ~ .i: ~ n t, fIr' I :; F r- r- 0 ~ D U T V' ~- .". -' f~',' 1 ; I ,.' r: el..l - j ry< lOOn NO 30 Pf-i I: I 7 i 0 0 0 9 6 6 4 6 . \~.mtAN crrv CITY OF l\ffiRIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. E 15 AN ORDINANCE FINDING THAT CERTAIN LAND WITHIN ELLIOTT INDUSTRIAL PARK AS 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 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (I-L); 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 MA YORAND 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: Aportian afLot 7 of Pleasant Valley Subdivision in the North 1h of Section 8, T.3N., R.IE., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, as same is recorded in book 12 of Plats at Page 665, records of Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the comer common to Sections 5, 6, 7 and the said Section 8, from which the 1/4 comer common to said Sections 5 and 8 bears South 89059'16" East, 2652.60 feet; thence South 89059'16" East, 1284.09 feet; ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-OO-013) - 1 ( ( thence South 00019'14 West, 454.99 feet to the southeast comer of Econo Lube Subdivision, as same is recorded in Book 76 of Plats at Page 7954, records of Ada County, Idaho, said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. Thence South 89059' 19tr East, 205.80 feet to a point on the West boundary of Lot 6 of said Pleasant Valley Subdivision; thence along said West boundary and said West boundary extended South 00030'24n West, 21.03 feet; thence continuing South 00034'14n West, 1189.55 feet to a point on the South boundary of said Lot 7 thence along said South boundary North 67058'02n West, 195.96 feet thence North 650 14'38n West, 21.31 feet; thence departing said South boundary North 00022'03tr East, 1128.14 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 5.47 acres more or less. Also, this parcel ~ subject to all easements and rights-of-way of record or implied. 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 Light Industrial District (I-L). 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 between the City of Meridian and the owner of the land described in Section 1 dated the f3-f!; ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-OQ-013) - 2 (- day of ,,</o[/e~ , 2000, 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 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 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 of Idaho, all in compliance with Idaho Code ~63-2215 and ~50-223. ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-OQ-013) - 3 ( ( '" ~SEDBYTHECOUNCILOFTHECITYOF:MERIDIAN,IDAHO,tbis g - dayof ~~i1tIJ.t~ , 2000. ~ROVEDBYTHEMAYOROFTHECITYOF:MERIDIAN,IDAHO,this BE!::.. dayof ;J/{2!/e/1t 6eu , 2000. ~""t'mltf/',~ .....~'" ~ ME~/', ~~ ~ \J'l '-~ ~~ ATTEST: l.t:l Ci' ~~ ~ ~\ I ~ ~~ ~ h /f_ ~ ~ t. SEAL ~ ~ #-- /c;JVU;; / ..:. ~~ ~ s . V- So "cr ~ '-' CITY CLERK. . ~ ~ . r 19't · Ii ~~~ ~ rJ.",. __ ~ ~ ~~..,. ""'IlL~-" "!t'~"" #1111.f1nu'.n ~t'\\\ \ STATE OF IDAHO, ) : 58. County of Ada. ) On this '8~ day of ~veVY\bvY ,2000, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared ROBERT 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 WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. (SEAL) SJ~ ' . ' I c=. NOTAR~LI . IDAHO RESIDING AT: ~(A/V\ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: q~D 0 msg\Z:\ Work\ M\ Meridian \ Meridian 15360M\Elliot Indust Park Sub AZ013PP015CUP033\AZOrd.wpd ANNEXATION AND ZONING ORDINANCE (AZ-OO-013) - 4 I ; .~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~. ~ ~ ( \, I ( O:~ ~~ Q.. o ~ ~~ ~ C) Q ~ ~ sa ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ Ea z ~ o I- W W J: zUJ <C~ - I Cz -(!) 0:::- WUJ :E(!) u.~ O~ ~~ -u u_ ..J OJ :J a. r " ( ( Q:fn '. --0 J ">. .~ ~~ l, \J ) J "l ~ 1.."1 Q " '.., ~ () ~& Q -.. :. ,... 0 ~ It: \~ ~ ~ (:) 0 \) .~ b c::> ~ t::) ...... C"J ~ ~ 00 ~ I V) 0 ::- ~ ~ <=> 0 ~ tI"") z ~ J....... .~ -?-' l) 4: 0 UJ ,~ ~ ~ ~ I- 0 \~ W wO:: W ....Q.. :I: <( Z en c <C z "" - - ~. "" C I Lu ~ Z c: "( - (!) 0 ~ :r: '~ - Q.. ~ W en :E (!) LL Z c - 0::: <: 0 CI) - ~ CI) -t- ~ lJJ W ct .; :I: Q .--l- Q ~ - q: "- 2 U () ~ ~ - ~ ~ .....I { N .OJ ~ ~ -- ::> I I 0- j I I ~ 1 ~~ 8 ~ ~l ~j C)~ ..J .. ~ -...... ZQ: -J ~ -0. 1-lJ.J r-) WU) - J\ () ..- ~ w~ s: ~ 21~ ~\ if a... ,~ - t . i I I I I z Q ~ 1~ ~ , , , "'-. .":~.' Q ~ ~> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..~__ w.J ~. ~ ~ ('J ~ ~;"...'.~ ...0.. o. ' , (::). , ~~' > ~ .~'.~ 8 J- W W :I: ZOO <z -- o. _z c::C) wen :EC) u.~ 00::: >-~ ....J: - UU - ..J OJ :J c.. z < ~ 8 e ~ ~ ~ ::; -,.- ;,: ti ~ ~ I~B I- W W :I: ZOO <(~ - I Cz -C) ~- WOO ~C) LL~ O~ ~~ -U U_ ..J .CD :::> a. / \ J....- t) UJ ....., o W~ l- e:( C lJ.J ::c: o :t: Cl C.f) CI) LU Q: Q Q q: r' ? ~ ~ oJ2 ( Item Packet PicktJfJ ~ ~ 11'/;)-00 - ....; : [ . ~ :---. MA YOR Robert D. Corrie r CITY OF MERIDIAN HUB OF TREASURE VA.LLEY ( LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 288-2499 · Fax 288-2501 A Good Place to Live CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Ron Anderson Keith Bird Tammy deWeerd Cherie McCandless 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 (208) 888-4433 · Fax (208) 887-4813 City Clerk Office Fax (208) 888-4218 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 · Fax 887-1297 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 · Fax 888-6854 NOTICE OF SPECIAL JOINT WORKSHOP MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL & MERIDIAN PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Meridian and the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission will hold a Special Joint Workshop at City Hall, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho, on Tuesday, November 21st, 2000 at 5:00 P.M. The Meridian City Council and the Meridian Parks and Recreation Commission will be discussing strategic planning issues related directly to the parks and recreation. The public is welcome to attend. DATED this 17th day of November, 2000. ,,\ t\ n-t,ttn" 11/" ,\\ &6t- I111 :'t..\.\.\'\~ of IVK:./1{D 11// "-,....' :'. '4. ~ $ a o~~~ ~ ~ .::- ~ ~o ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ WilliAM G. BERG, JR~ - · ~ SEAL ~ ~ 7 & 2 ~ ' ""Q ~Q) ::: ~ i'A ~~5'r 1S\'~: . ~;~ ~/,::.y Co' U v 'f>~",....,/ ~I \ i\IT \. \\' "ll/ l\\\ Jl.l;t';lj'i~ll\" November 17, 2000 Department Report MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 21, 2000 APPLICANT City Engineer - Gary Smith ITEM NO. -i-A-2- REQUEST i-A-ZREQUEST Request for hook up to City Sewer by Warren and Jeanie Pemberton at 940 South Mustang Drive 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: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: COMMENTS See attached OTHER: Contacted: Date: Phone: Materials presented of public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Warren B. Pemberton Jeanie M. Pemberton 940 S. Mustang Dr. Meridian, Idaho 83642 November 9, 2000 Will Berg City Clerks Office 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83642 Dear Mr. Will Berg, IMCEWED NOV . 2000 CITY OF TMERIDLAIN This letter is to request that we be allowed to hook up to the city sewer that was placed behind our property last year. I believe the name of the line is the Five Mile Trunk Line. Our property is located on the east border of Locust Grove Heights subdivision. Although we are not currently within the city limits, we are exploring this option out of desperation. We have lived at this address since November of 1995. The septic tank was pumped in January of this year. At that time, the septic system had more problems than just being full. We repaired what we could in order to continue to use the system. This last Saturday, November 4+h, the tank was full again and in desperate need of pumping. At that time, we were told that the drain field is failing. We have talked to neighbors that have been here much longer than we have, as well as the previous owner. We've learned that there is a long history of problems, and several options have been exercised, leaving us no other direction to go with drain fields, short of removing the existing soil and starting over. There is no way that we could afford to do this at this time. Thank you for your consideration of our request. We would appreciate a response from you as soon as possible. Sincerely, Warren B. Pemberton 14 IL , Is - 0 ZZ -_;; 7 --- — - Jeanie M. Pemberton Blue Horizons Z08 888 5405 11/15/00 1Z:04P P.001 Warren B. Pemberton Nov 15 2000 Jeanie M. Pemberton City of Meridian 940 S. Mustang Dr. t;1, Meridian, Idaho 83642 November 9, 2000 Will Berg City Clerks Office 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83642 Dear Mr. Will Berg, This letter is to request that we be allowed to hook up to the city sewer that was placed behind our property last year. I believe the name of the line is the .Five Mile Trunk Line. Our property is located on the east border of Locust Grove Heights subdivision. Although we are not currently within the city limits, we are e%Tloring this option out of desperation. We have lived at this address since November of 1995. The septic tank was pumped in January of this year. At that time, the septic system had more problems than just being full. We repaired what we could in order to continue to use the system. This last Saturday, November 4th, the tank was full again and in desperate need of pumping. At that time, we were told that the drain held is failing. We have talked to neighbors that have been here much longer than we have, as well as the previous owner. We've teamed that there is a long history of problems, and several options have been exercised, leaving us no other direction to go with drain fields, short of removing the existing soil and starting over. 'There is no way that we could afford to do this at this time. Thank you for your consideration of our request. We would appreciate a response from you as soon as possible. Sincerely, Warren B. Pemberton 41" Jeanie M. Pemberton NOV 15 100 12:20 208 eee 3403 PAGE.01