The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-11-12 ( CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 12,2003 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: -X- Tammy de Weerd ~ Bill Nary + Cherie McCandless ~ Keith Bird o Mayor Robert Corrie 2. Adoption of the Agenda: ar~ v e o...r a ~ .eeL 3. Consent Agenda: A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03- 015 Request for annexation and zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Saaeland Planned Development by Quasar Development, LLC - northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: h61e. fo 11-2~-(J3 B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03- 020 Request for revised Preliminary Plat approval of 41 building lots and 9 other lots on 1 0.64 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Saaeland Planned Development by Quasar Development, LLC - northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: ~6le Iv 11-2~--1fl3 C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03-036 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with a private neighborhood park in an R-8 zone for proposed Saaeland Planned Development by Quasar Development - northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: hb&- h 11-25"-673 D. Approve Liquor License Application for Corona Villaae - 21 East Fairview Avenue: apfJrPv<- Y' Water Main Easement for New Academy High School - Joint School District No. 2: ~%'!17? u.e..... Meridian City Council Agenda -November 12,2003 Page 1 of2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 6~ / 12. ( /F~ Approve Agreement for Hookup to City Sewer System Outside City Limits by Marvin Everett: ~ro~ /G"~ Water Line Crossing Agreement with Bureau of Reclamation and Tuscanv Development for Messina Village Subdivision: arrv-e .4:-- Department Reports: ft. Planning and Zoning Department - Anna Powell: /1. Update County: on Comprehensive Plan Adoption by Ada tkftY,:)v< C(t<-J~ S'"-/.;dl'VI'J~~ cfe,vdo/I~J 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) ,.-!1,t.? /1.12- Ordinance No. t/ .3 - /0 !? C1 Park Impact Fees Ordinance Amendments: ~pv.e...... Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: PP 03-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots on 4.15 acres in an L-O zone for Stokesberrv Subdivision No.2 by Properties West, Inc. - west of North Eagle Road and north of East Fairview Avenue: C~1?hUL pill ~ 11-2!7,-t/3 Public Hearing: VAR 03-018 Request for a Variance for a one-year Time Extension for recording of the Final Plat for Olsen Bush Subdivision No.2 by R2 Development, Inc. - west of North Eagle Road and north of East Franklin Road: ~lj-prfti-1 fo ~/!IVI-f ~/f4e({' mtfl/pvt:t.R- Public Hearing: CUP 03-046 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a branch bank facility with drive-thru lanes in an L-Q zone for Idaho Central Credit Union by Idaho Central Credit Union - east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Overland Road: afh;yney Iv ;rreptlAe -f(fl el-l' hreY~ Public Hearing: CUP 03-047 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to demolish existing home and rebuild one single family residential dwelling for caretakers quarters on lot 2, block 2 of Observation Point Subdivision in a R-4 zone by RF Construction - 500 East Victory Road: C~~}1:~ ;:J / h -fo 11- / g-t? 3 Public Hearing: AZ 03-024 Request for annexation and zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Glacier Sprinas Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - north of East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road: . ~ a'f1vrn-R.Y -/17 jJf7€/M.e I'/?I cl-f... t;r '-''1.iiJp-rpv/<-e. Public Hearing: PP 03-028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 building lots and 8 other lots on 17.5 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Glacier SprinQs Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - north of East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road: Cl:rrvinu.<c-(_ I' / IL. Meridian City Council Agenda -November 12, 2003 Page 2 of2 10 1(- 2 ~ --0 -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 hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. November 25, 2003 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCil MEETING APPLICANT December 2, 2003 3-A ( REQUEST Approve minutes of November 12,2003 City Council Regular Meeting: ITEM NO. AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: wr~ Contacted: Emailed: Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ( ( CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 12,2003 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: x X Tammy de Weerd X Cherie McCandless X o Mayor Robert Corrie Bill Nary Keith Bird 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Approve as Amended 3. Consent Agenda: A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03- 015 Request for annexation and zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Sa~eland Planned Development by Quasar Development, LLC - northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: Table to November 25, 2003 B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03- 020 Request for revised Preliminary Plat approval of 41 building lots and 9 other lots on 10.64 a cres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Sa~eland Planned Development by Quasar Development, LLC - northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: Table to November 25, 2003 C. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03-036 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with a private neighborhood park in an R-8 zone for proposed SaQeland Planned Development by Quasar Development - northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: Table to November 25, 2003 D. Approve Liquor License Application for Corona Villa~e - 2 1 East Fairview Avenue: Approve E. Water Main Easement for New Academy High School - Joint School District No.2: Approve Meridian City Council Agenda -November 12, 2003 Page I at' 3 A II n1aterials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of fvleridian. Anyone desiring accommodation lor disabilities related to documents ancl/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at1east 48 hours prior to the public meeting. (r - ( F. Approve Agreement for Hookup to City Sewer System Outside City Limits by Marvin Everett: Approve G. Water Line Crossing A greement with Bureau of Reclamation and Tuscanv Development for Messina Village Subdivision: Approve 4. Department Reports: A. Planning and Zoning Department - Anna Powell: 1. Update on Comprehensive Plan Adoption by Ada County: Approve Cluster Subdivision Development 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) -- none 6. Ordinance No. Amendments: 03-1 059 Approve Park Impact Fees Ordinance 7. Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: PP 03..026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots on 4.15 acres in an L-O zone for Stokesberrv Subdivision No.2 by Properties West, Inc. - west of North Eagle Road and north of East Fairview Avenue: Continue Public Hearing to November 25,2003 8. Public Hearing: V AR 03-018 Request for a Variance for a one-year Time Extension for recording of the Final Plat for Olsen Bush Subdivision No.2 by R2 Development, Inc. - west of North Eagle Road and north of East Franklin Road: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 9. Public Hearing: CUP 03-046 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a branch bank facility with drive-thru lanes in an L-O zone for Idaho Central Credit Union by Idaho Central Credit Union - east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Overland Road: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval 10. Public Hearing: CUP 03-047 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to demolish existing home and rebuild one single family residential dwelling for caretakers quarters on lot 2, block 2 of Observation Point Subdivision in a R-4 zone by RF Construction - 500 East Victory Road: Continue Public Hearing to November 18, 2003 11. Public Hearing: AZ 03-024 Request for annexation and zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Glacier SprinQs Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - north of East Victory Road and east of Meridian City Council Agenda -November 12, 2003 Page 2 of 3 A II 1l1aterials presented at pub] ic 111eetings shall becollle property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring aCCOll11110dation for disabilities related to dOCUlllents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public 1l1eeting. ( South Meridian Road: Attorney to Prepare Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval for R-4. 12. Public Hearing: PP 03-028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 building lots and 8 other lots on 17.5 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Glacier SprinQs Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - north of East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road: Continue Public Hearing to November 25, 2003 rvleridian City CO~lI1cil Agenda -Novenlber 12, 2003 Page 3 of 3 Alll11uterials presented at public 111eetings shall beconle property of the City of fVleridian. Anyone desiring accol11modation for disabilities related to dOClII11ents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ( ( Meridian City Council MeetinQ November 12, 2003 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 7:10 P.M., Tuesday, November 12, 2003, by Council President Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Tammy de Weerd, William Nary, Keith Bird, and Cherie McCandless. Members Absent: Mayor Robert Corrie. Others Present: Jill Holinka, Will Berg, Anna Powell, Brad Watson, Gary Smith, Kenny Bowers, Bill Musser, Doug Strong, Brad Hawkins-Clark, and Dean Willis. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: x X Tammy de Weerd X Cherie McCandless X o Robert Corrie Bill Nary Keith Bird De Weerd: I'd like to call this meeting to order and welcome you all here to the City Council Meeting. It's our Regular Agenda November 12th. It is 7:10 and we will start with roll call. Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: Thank you. I would like to welcome Troops 149 and 306 and soon to be a new number, but welcome you boys here today and h ope you earn your citizenship badge and look forward to having you join us here at the meeting. Okay. We will move to Item 2, adoption of the agenda. Are there any changes? Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Our Planning and Zoning Director has asked if we would move Item 10, I believe, up to -- in front of seven. Is that right, Anna? If that's agreeable with the other three Council people -- okay. Other than that, I would move that we adopt the agenda as noted. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as presented, with the exception of moving 1 0 before seven. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 3. Consent Agenda: Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 2 of 63 A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03- 015 Request for annexation and zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R- 8 zones for proposed SaQeland Planned Development by Quasar Development, LLC - northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03- 020 Request for revised Preliminary Plat approval of 41 building lots and 9 other lots on 10.64 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Saqeland Planned Development by Quasar Development, LLC - northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: c. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03- 036 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with a private neighborhood park in an R-8 zone for proposed Saqeland Planned Development by Quasar Development - northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: D. Approve Liquor License Application for Corona Villa~e - 21 East Fairview Avenue: E. Water Main Easement for New Academy High School - Joint School District No.2: F. Approve Agreement for Hookup to City Sewer System Outside City Limits by Marvin Everett: G. Water Line Crossing Agreement with Bureau of Reclamation and Tuscany Development for Messina Village Subdivision: De Weerd: Item Number 3. Consent Agenda. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Powell: Madam President? Bird: Yes. Powell: Before Mr. Bird wants to make a motion, the findings for Sageland, when you approved it, -- they are not ready. I'm sorry that I didn't get that to you before. Those are not ready. Bird: Item C? Powell: Items A, Band C are not ready. They were supposed to get a revised site plan that I approved and they have not done that yet. ( Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 3 of 63 Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: On the Consent Agenda, I move that we pass the Consent Agenda, with the exceptions of items A, B, and C, which is Sageland Planned Development. AZ 03-015, PP 03-020, and CUP 03-036, and approve the rest of the Consent Agenda and for the President of the Council to sign and the Clerk to the attest on all proper papers. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Would you move those until November 18th? Is that sufficient? Nary: We can do that after. Bird: We can do that afterwards, can't we? Powell: Madam President, 11m not clear what happens when it comes off the Consent Agenda. Does it just get put on later or do you need to table it to a date certain? Because I donlt how close, we are to having an approved plan. De Weerd: Mr. Berg? Berg: Madam President, Members of the Council, we have always been instructed if you take something off the agenda, to put it to a date certain, so that it doesn't fall away. This has been on the agenda and acknowledged on the agenda, so people that might be in the audience or out in the public that would want to know when the next time is going to be discussed, it would be good to h~ve it for a date. De Weerd: Thank you. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: So, can we -- can't we pass the -- what we have already got the motion for and, then, we can come back and continue these to a date certain? I agree. I think Bill has always had us go to a date certain. Anna needs to give us a date certain when it -- whafs the hold up on it? De Weerd: The plat. Powell: There were changes that they were supposed to make to accommodate landscape islands on the street. Bird: That hasn't been done yet? Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 4 of 63 Powell: No, it has not. De Weerd: Well, generally, it's all been done in the same that motion. We can make two separate motions, if you donlt want to include the date. Bird: Let's go ahead and pass on the -- with the exception of those three and, then, we will come back, because we are going to have to figure out a -- De Weerd: . Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda, with the exception of removing A, B, and C on AZ 03-015, PP 03-020, and CUP 03-036. Have the City Council President sign and the Clerk attest. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we take Items A, B, and C and continue them to the Consent Agenda of November 25, 2003. McCandless: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue Items A, B, and C to November 25th. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 4. Department Reports: A. Planning and Zoning Department - Anna Powell: 1. Update on Comprehensive Plan Adoption by Ada County: De Weerd: Okay. Department Reports. Item A. Planning and Zoning. Anna. Powell: Madam President, Members of the Council, last week in my department report I talked about some of the questions that Ada County had raised in regard to them adopting our Comp Plan as being applicable in their area of city impact. One of those questions was what does, quote, unquote, rural area development entail -- or rural area residential development. Excuse me. As I went through the Comp Plan and compared it to what is allowed in the county, there was a question as to what to do with RUT cluster subdivisions. I'm going to give you a little background on what the RUT cluster , -- Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 5 of 63 subdivisions are, so that you can instruct me on what you want to do with them. Basically, the idea and in the intent behind these was to provide a mechanism for development within the area of city impact that didnlt create a blockade to future urban development. Sometimes the five acre lots are very difficult to redevelop, so the idea was to allow them to do a small portion of lots and, then, save the remainder lot for redevelopment when urban services were available. Now, tonight in the Pre-Council you saw -- or you talked about a cluster subdivision, but that one was unusual, because the remainder lot, instead of just being open space or agricultural, they used it for a school, so it was actually -- the whole site was developed. Normally, you would have five one to one and a quarter acre lots and, then, you'd just have a field or a portion of a field or just an open spaced area. It was created as a means so that a struggling homeowner could divide off portions of their property, but that it would still facilitate development at urban densities when the cities came along. It does not allow an increase in development -- or in density, it's still one unit per five acres, so there is not -- you don't get double the density or anything like that for having the open space, it was just to preserve it. The Ada County code actually suddenly encourages these over five acre lots, because you don't have to do a redevelopment plan for the cluster subdivisions, but you do for the five acre subdivisions -- five acre lot subdivisions. You have to have quite a bit of frontage to do one of these. They do require 250 feet of frontage and most of that is preserved -- is requ ired to be preserved, as you see the standards coming along. Then, the applicant -- the density cannot exceed one unit per five acres. Their findings -- they do have to make additional findings that -- that the applicant is using that remainder lot or making it so that it could be used for agriculture in the future or some sort of use, rather than just a weed patch, basically. Now the standards -- as you see the minimum lot size is one to one and a quarter acres. You can have a reduced property size when there is a community sewage disposal system. Now, I already understand that the Council is not in favor of those, so we don't need to talk about those tonight. I really just wanted to talk about the cluster subdivisions on individual well and septic. Itls clear that through Resolution 401, that the community sewage disposal systems are not wanted. The remainder lot -- one of the standards is that the remainder lot -- that there is a note that it will stay in a dedicated open space until the property is annexed to a city or until it obtains the zoning ordinance map amendment to an urban use, basically. They also have to preserve two means of future access to the remainder lots, so that -- so that that lot can be redeveloped. They can't just put a 30-foot access and expect that it have a hundred homes on it or something like that. They do have to have two access points, each of which has to be 125 feet and that allows for standard size lots, plus the street and, then, they have to have potable water and adequate sewage facilities. Now, since that code was originally written, as you heard earlier tonight, the requirements for septic systems did get quite a bit more onerous, so it was no longer easy to get a septic permit on one to one and a quarter acres. I was able a talk to Mr. Reno a little bit beforehand and there would be allowances for having some of that drain field for those individual lots go onto that remainder lot, because it's -- because in most cases it's just being used for agricultural purposes. There would be an opportunity there to have an easement for the drain fields on that property. One of the requirements for the RUT cluster subdivisions is that the houses be double plumbed, so that all the plumbing is there for when the sewer line goes by, they can go ahead and connect without having to replumb the house or without a whole lot of additional cost to the homeowner. When those are originally built, they do Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 6 of 63 have to be double plumbed. That's cluster subdivisions in nutshell. I did ask Mr. Reno to stay if you had questions about the septic and wells. The questions that I need answered tonight, so that I can do a letter for your signature to forward on to the board of county commissioners is do you want to allow these cluster subdivisions on individual septics and wells. It's unclear right if we just put it in a letter form, then, Ada County will be understanding what we want and w hen we are doing a Comprehensive Plan text amendment, we might to want make it a little more clear. Then, right now we require a redevelopment plan for anything that goes on in the area of city impact. I don't know if one -- part of the incentive of doing the cluster subdivision is to leave a large enough lot that the redevelopment plan isn't as necessary as it would be on a five-acre plat. That concludes staff's presentation or report. De Weerd: Thank you, Anna. Any questions? Comments? Feedback? Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Yes. I think you got it right. I don't think this is one Councilman that don't want the cluster deals out there and I certainly don't -- and I do want the redevelopment -- the development plan on the stuff. Powell: So, you would prefer to see the five-acre lots, rather than the one-acre and, then, the remainder lots? Bird: Yes but I don't want to see separate septic and wells. Powell: But the five-acre lots would be serviced by individual septic and wells. Bird: Yes. Five acres can, but the others ones, no. Powell: Okay. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I don't know, I think I guess I'm more on the opposite side. I guess I like the smaller cluster with the larger remainder, is more likely to redevelop into something else, more in line with the Comprehensive Plan of what we would like to see for long term growth than those five acre lots. I think once you divide it into five acres pieces and put a house on it, until that septic fails, nothing is going to change, and it's not going to be anything else but five houses for 15 years. I guess I'm -- although I'm not wanting that type of development, I recognize that that's the intent of the compromise is to have something else that's not contiguous and can do something. I just think that we are more likely to get something else long term with those one acre parcel types of clusters with the remainder with a redevelopment plan. I just think that's -- long term it's going to be a better thing. Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 7 of 63 De Weerd: I guess I agree with that and in terms -- it would be quite a mess if we had the five acre parcels and they all started wanting to subdivide individually that we could really set ourselves up for quite a mess. I guess I would be curious with Mr. Reno in terms of septic systems with a five acre versus the one-acre. What is more palatable for Central District Health, to have the cluster one acre -- come ahead and -- to have the cluster development, so you have all the septic in one place or to have it spread out over the five acre lots? Reno: Mike Reno with Central District Health. Madam President, it just depends on how many lots are going to be developed. Right now, we donlt require a nutrient pathogen study if it's four lots or less, because we didn't -- when we first came up with that requirement through our board of health, we didn't want to hinder the farmer who wanted to split off a couple acres for his kid. But -- and Idaho Code designates a subdivision as five lots or more. If it was a five lot or more and they were going to cluster those drain fields into one area, the nutrient pathogen study is going to determine whether that's feasible or not. It's a requirement that the nitrates be within one milligram per liter background by the time it reaches that property boundary and a lot of times if you were to do that, proposing just one acre lots, we are seeing that it's not feasible to keep the -- that nitrate bloom contained within one acre. You definitely need a little bit larger lot than one acre, probably closer to two acres is what we have been seeing. I anticipate if these things a re clustered in the R UT c luster, like she's discussing, they will probably be to a central drain field. That -- which would facilitate an easier connection to city sewer if it were to come by, because you already have them all going to one location and they could just be diverted over to where ever the connection for the city sewer is. De Weerd: So, then, would Central District Health's recommendation, if they got a cluster, that if they didn't meet the specifications within your requirements, that they would be bigger in size or fewer in numbers? Reno: That's correct. The nutrient pathogen study ends up dictating density. It only shows how many dwellings could be on that parcel that could be supported by that parcel. De Weerd: Okay. Reno: So, we have had developments that they have proposed two-acre lots and they have been required to have five-acre lots and some that have come in proposing five- acre lots and, yet, it would have allowed two-acre lots. It just depends on the strata that -- the type of ground they are going into, the depth of the water table, and the gradient of the site. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Reno? No? Thank you. Reno: Thank you. .- -. ( / \ Meridian City Council Meeting November 12. 2003 Page 8 of 63 Powell: Madam President, to follow up on your question, Ada County has a maximum lot size as well of 1.25, so if it came back that they needed two acres, it would pretty much kill the project, because they couldn't do two acres. They'd have to use the remainder lot for a portion of their drain field, which is a possibility. The nutrient levels that Mr. Reno was referring to, it has to meet that standard at the boundary of the subdivision, not each individual lot. De Weerd: So, some of the standards of Central District Health has more of an influence on the cluster developments and how many and what size. Powell: Very much so. Ada County has not gone back to rewrite this since Central District Health has changed their septic requirements. It used to be pretty routine to get a septic on an acre. Less than an acre was tricky, but the ground water had to be really high to have to have a larger site before under the old standard, so -- Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: And we have some very high groundwater in our impact area, even though it is going down, I believe, every year. That's the reason I would like to stay with the five, because you never know what's going to happen within that five acres and, you know if you subdivide the five acres into one-acre lots, it's not going to meet the requirements in a high water table. I'd just as soon stay at five and, hopefully, we get sewered out and wonlt have to worry about this. Powell: I need a -- I guess I need a motion, because I need to tell Ada county one way or the other what it is we want them to do. De Weerd: Council, I have heard two different opinions and I guess two people have spoke to one of those opinions, so do I have a motion? Nary: It's up to you. De Weerd: And if we have a tie, there is no one to break it. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: This probably won't get a second, but we will get it out there. I move that we instruct Anna to go with the five-acre RUT cluster subdivisions. McCandless: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Itls been moved and seconded to have the five-acre RUT cluster subdivisions. Any discussion? Okay. I guess all those in favor say aye. Those opposed nay. Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 9 of 63 MOTION TIED: TWO AYES, TWO NA YES De Weerd: I guess the reason I voted against it is because our groundwater is high in areas of our city, but it doesn't follow that in all areas. If Central District Health looks at their requirements, it will dictate what those sizes can be. I guess that's -- I would not like the mess that we would create with the five acre lots and I do think it will create a mess in wanting to subdivide. I guess that's the direction I -- Bird: Madam President, I don't disagree with that, but in the same token, we do have high water table and you're going to have some instances where it don't run. Why not let the people come back in like Mr. Jewett just did and go through with five -- if we have a basic five-acre lot. Then, come back and do a planned development or something get it different, if they have got the water table that will take care of it, I believe. De Weerd: Well, I hope not everyone does it like that last application we heard. Nary: Well, hopefully that -- De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Madam President, I mean if -- isn't, really, the issue here, if I understand it, is whether or not we would be in favor of this cluster with the resubdividing and the smaller one acre -- one to -- was it 1 .25 acre lots with a remainder lot, they can always do the five acre lots. Powell: Yes, sir. Nary: Okay. What Mr. Bird wants to do, they can do that, it's whether or not we would allow -- whether or not we would be in favor of them doing less than that. I guess the reason I like the less than is because we get the bigger picture, we get to see what you're going to do with it, but if you want to do, hopefully, better, then -- then, the last one we had at pre-Council -- but if you want to do that, you can still do it. You can still do what you want to do. It's not an either/or. It just allows for something else and at least the something else is more in line or guidance to what -- we get to see it, we get to see what the resubdividing is going to be. It has something that's going to have a relationship to our Comp Plan, so, to me, I guess it isn't an either/or, they always can do what you're wanting, it's whether or not we would allow them to consider something less than that. I guess I agree with President de Weerd, the one thing that would concern me about the five acres is we end up with -- on a 20 acre parcel, four subdivisions, you know, getting split up. They can always still do that, so I guess that's part of the reason I was against it, because I'd rather have the option where we can see it and see what else they want to do, rather than only one size fits all, because it doesn't fit all. De Weerd: And that's what his motion was, is not to allow the cluster. Nary: Yes. If we are at an impasse, I guess we have to just set it over. " { ( Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 10 of 63 De Weerd: Well, you can try a motion. We still can take a motion and see if you convinced anyone else. Nary: Well, Madam President, I guess, then, I would move that we basically direct the Planning Director to advise the county that we would be -- the city would be I guess agreeable to this cluster subdivision plan, which would allow for resubdivisions with a plan of remainder lots. For smaller lots, the one to 1.25 acre size lots, for, I guess, 20 acre parcels. Does that cover what you were talking about? Bird: Twenty acre -- Powell: Twenty-acre minimum? Nary: Twenty-acre minimum parcels. De Weerd: Okay. I will second that. I do understand, Anna, that they would be required to put dry lines in for sewer. Powell: They are required to double plumb the house. They are not required to put in dry line sewers by the county. However, Resolution 401 requires the dry line, as I understand it. Unless waived by the city engineer. De Weerd: Okay. Can that be part of -- Nary: I would include that. Yes, I thought that was part of what our memo says about-- Powell: It's already -- that portion is already in there. I just needed to know if -- De Weerd: Okay. Okay. It's been moved and seconded, then, to direct the planning director to state our support of cluster subdivisions as Mr. Nary suggested. Any discussion? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. All those in favor of the motion please I say aye. Those opposed? MOTION TIED: TWO AYES, TWO NAYES De Weerd: Okay. Well, I guess you won't have any resolution on this until we get the Mayor back. Powell: Should I -- I guess I'II just ask Ada County to withhold the application for a little while until we can get this resolved. De Weerd: Or we have a new Council. Bird: Madam President? ( Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 11 of 63 Nary: They can fix it. Bird: They can break a tie. De Weerd: You lucky guys. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Let's donlt hold over on that. I mean we get mad at Ada County when they hold out on us and we are holding out on them, so -- for the goodness -- and I don't think it's going to matter one way or the other. I just don't -- I just donlt like to see if we have got an acre and a half, two acre lots, on the extreme if our boundary. Then, we come in with acre lots and stuff like that, I don't think it's a fair transition that we impact, but I have no problems changing to a yea on this last motion. I hope Cherie wouldn't either, so -- De Weerd: So, you're changing your vote to yea? Bird: Yes. 11m changing my vote to a yea. I don't want to hold up Ada County. Powell: Thank you. McCandless: Far be it for me to be the only one to hold out. De Weerd: Okay. It's unanimous. Nary: I guess for t he record, do you want u s to redo t he motion 0 r you think that's adequate for your purposes, Anna? Powell: Oh, that's adequate for my purposes. Thank you. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 6. Ordinance No. Amendments: Park Impact Fees Ordinance De Weerd: Thank you, Anna, for that entertainment. Okay. We did move Item Number 10 before seven, so -- Bird: You got six, though. McCandless: You got six. De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry. Bird: The ordinance. Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 12 of 63 De Weerd: Okay. Item 6. Ordinance Number 03-1059, Park Impact Fee Ordinance amendments. Mr. Clerk, will you, please, read this ordinance by title only, Berg: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. Ordinance Number 03- 1059, an ordinance of the City of Meridian amending Title 10, Chapter 7, Impact Fees of the Meridian City Code, providing for revisions, deletions, and additional language to Definition Section 10-7-3, to the General Provisions Section 1 0-7 -4, to the Development Impact Fee Standards and Procedures Section 10-7-5, to the Section 10-7-6, Subsection B, to the Determination of the Development Impact Fees to the Refund of Impact Fees Paid Section 10-7-7, to section 10-7-8 Exemptions, to Section 10-7-9 Credits, to Section 10-7-10 Suitability of Land Offered for Dedication to Impact Fee Service Area and Trust Account Section 10-7 -11, to Impact Fee Expenditures Section 10-7-12, to Park and Recreation Impact Fees Section 10-7-13, adding a new subparagraph G and relettering thereafter to the Administrative Cost Section 1 0-7 -14, to Section 10-7-16, Appeals of the Administrative Decisions, Providing for Revisions and Additional Language, providing for deletion of language of 10-7-17, Vested Rights, providing for revisions, deletions and additional language of the 10-7 -18, Other Powers and Rights Not Affected. Providing for severability, conflict, validity, savings clause, and providing for an effective date. De Weerd: Okay. You have heard the reading of Ordinance 03-1059 by title only. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to hear it in its entirety? Thank you. Council? McCandless: Madam President? De Weerd: Mrs. McCandless. McCandless: I move we approve Ordinance Number 03-1059, the Park Impact Fees Ordinance amendments, with suspension of rules. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve Ordinance 03-1059 with suspension of rules. Mr. Clerk, will you call roll? Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 10. Public Hearing: CUP 03-047 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to demolish existing home and rebuild one single family residential dwelling for caretakers quarters on lot 2, block 2 of Observation Point Subdivision in a R-4 zone by RF Construction - 500 East Victory Road: De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. We will visit Item Number 10, the Public Hearing on CUP 03-047, request for a Conditional Use Permit to demolish existing home and Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 13 of 63 rebuild one single family residential dwelling for caretaker's quarters on Lot 2, Block 2, of Observation Point Subdivision and open with staff comments. Hawkins-Clark: Good evening, Madam President, Members of the Council. Item Number 10, this is a Conditional Use Permit for -- to demolish an existing home and rebuild it on a single-family residential lot. It's a little bit of an odd Conditional Use Permit in that typically we don't see Conditional Uses for single-family houses. As you may recall at a pre-Council meeting a couple of months ago, it was brought to the Council a question as to how the applicant could proceed with a house when there is sanitary sewer restriction on the lot. There is a plat note for Observation Point Subdivision that does restrict development, specifically obtaining a building permit for this lot that's outlined on the screen, until it can hook up to sanitary sewer. Victory Road abuts the lot. The entry to Observation Point is just to the east and just to show you a little bit -- a detail, here is the entire subdivision and, again, we are talking about this triangular-shaped piece down here. There is a -- this lot is separated from the rest of the subdivision by a lateral, so the only point of access onto Victory Road is directly from this lot. There is a landscape buffer, it's 25 feet wide, that's shown here, this rectangular -- this rectangular shape. The Planning and Zoning Commission did review and give quite a bit of discussion to the application. There was testimony given in opposition f rom the public. We also received in writing a letter from Central District Health 0 epartment, a swell a s M r. Reno testified at that hearing in 0 pposition tot he request to get a building permit and retain the septic. There is really two issues, I think, that this application is coming down to for the Council to discuss and one of them relates to the sanitary sewer restriction, the other relates to the house size. There is a CC&R condition on Observation Point Subdivision that has a minimum house size -- I believe it's 2,100 square feet and the applicant is proposing -- well, the Planning and Zoning Commission required them to have a minimum house size of 1 ,400, although the original application was less than that. While staff recommended denial of the application, the Planning and Zoning Commission did overturn that. They recommended approval, with several conditions, which are outlined in the recommendation. Here is the lot and, specifically, what the Commission is asking for is shown on page two of their recommendation. They were asking for this house to be minimum 1 ,400 square feet. As you can see, it's located at the very southeast corner of this triangular shaped lot and they are also asking for this -- all of this landscaping along Victory Road to be completed per the subdivision ordinance. All of the remaining acreage that is to the west of the house, they put a condition to -- as it was worded in their motion, to green up the remaining acreage and should you get to that point that you want some clarification. I think -- I would recommend that we go that way to give us more enforceability about what does green up really mean. Then, the fourth condition that the Commission placed on the applicant was to submit a site plan showing how the proposed garage can be accessed from the west. Again, that's just assuming that this redevelops in the future, rather than this house taking direct access onto Victory, they wanted to see the garage entrance be here to the west, so that internally to this project should it resubdivide, they could -- this house would just be one lot within several lots and would not have direct access to Victory. Then, the last item is that they are not required to hook up to city services. They could maintain their septic. However, no building permit would be issued until the sanitary sewer restriction with Central District Health is resolved. I think those are the key issues. Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 14 of 63 De Weerd: Okay. Thank you, Brad. Any questions? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Is the applicant here? Sheffield: Elliott Sheffield with RF Custom Homes. De Weerd: I need to swear you in, Elliott. Sheffield: Okay. De Weerd: Okay. Please raise your right hand. Is the testimony you provide tonight, the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Sheffield: Yes. De Weerd: Thank you. Go ahead. Sheffield: We have -- after talking with Mike Reno and finding out that we weren't able to reuse the septic system we had there, I retained Briggs Engineering and they are currently working on a plan, working with the irrigation district to bore under the lateral. We do have a -- can I see the subdivision plat again? We do, actually, have a stub on a manhole just about in this location. It stubs out into our retention area and I think we can bore under the lateral and bore across there and still tie into the sanitary sewer system. I think we have resolved that. It was a little more money than we wanted to spend for this house, but I think we can -- we can take care of that that way. As far as the garage side, we did, actually, design the garage where you can get out on the side. We are -- the plans are actually drawn -- I did not turn in the plans, I thought they just wanted a site plan. We have redrawn it. We have a total of -- I think it's 1 ,416 square feet on the plan now. The side entry on the garage, we are dropping the concrete and currently framing it with a header, so that if it ever does future develop, then, we can just take the door out, close that end, and put the garage door on the side of it. The part that sticks out on the end is an almost perfectly square 24-by-24 garage, so we can access it either way. We did make provisions for that. De Weerd: Good. Sheffield: We did intend to green up the rest of the lot, whether it was -- haven't decided exactly what yet. We were going to kind of put a plan together and decide what to do there. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Mr. Bird? Bird: Elliott, is that -- where you1re going to stub into the existing sewer line, is that natural flow? (~ Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 15 of 63 Sheffield: It will be. Bird: Okay. Sheffield: The way it looks right now, I believe we can. We are within a foot or two of being able to make it, but I believe we can do a gravity flow. De Weerd: So, you have worked with all the conditions that the Planning and Zoning Commission placed on it? Sheffield: We did. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess so that I'm clear between what you're saying you have done with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations, it still isn't necessarily compliant with what the staff had originally wanted. Right? It seems like part of the house size Issue. Sheffield: Well, the house was originally 1 ,025 square feet. Nary: Right. Now it's 1 ,400. Sheffield: Right. Nary: It's still smaller than all the other houses required to be in Observation Point. Sheffield: It is. Nary: Okay. What's the reason you can't comply with that? Sheffield: Well, this is, actually, a -- it's designed as a caretaker's quarters for the property across -- just to the south of Victory Road and just did not want to put that large of a home for a caretaker's quarters. Nary: Okay. De Weerd: There is an existing dwelling on there currently that you just wanted to demolish and, then, replace correct? Sheffield: Yes. De Weerd: That one. Certainly, this -- you're proposing an upgrade to what currently is there? ( Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 16 of 63 Sheffield: Most definitely. De Weerd: Okay. Are there any other questions? Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to testify in favor of this? Klem: I live in Observation Point. De Weerd: Please raise your right hand. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Klem: Yes. De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address. Klem: My name is Lori Klem and I live at 2833 South Andrus Way. That's Block 3, Lot 3, of Observation Point. The reason we moved there -- main rule is the bottom level of your home had to be 2,200 square foot. I do know what this home looks like and it's a shack, it's a scary looking shack. If this is supposed to be Observation Point, then, they should have to follow the rules that we did, so 2,200 square foot is what they should have to follow, whether or not -- you know, everybody did. Everybody in the whole subdivision did. That is my question is why this home is sticking out of Victory Greens, we walk by it all the time and it is a sad looking shack, whether it be, you know, somebody's caretaker or what, it is a home. That's the home as you pull into Observation Point that you see first and it's a sad looking home. De Weerd: And so you would rather that continue to stay there, rather than to have it replaced? Klem: Well, it's been there a long time, you know. The rules are rules. We had to build our home and it ended up a 3,000 square foot home. The main level had to be 2,200 square foot. If you can prove to us that this is not Observation point, then, that's, fine, build whatever you want, but if this is on Observation Point property, then, it needs to be 2,200 square feet on the bottom level. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Any questions? Bird: I have none. Sackett: My name is Gary Sackett and I'd like to be in favor of it. De Weerd: Okay. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Sackett: Yes. De Weerd: Thank you, Gary. ( ( Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 17 of 63 Sackett: On the map here there is a substantial break where the irrigation runs that blocks any view of it. Secondly, we proposed this subdivision some years that entire corner was chopped off, and we didn't plan on having that be part of the subdivision. It was the courtesy of Observation Point that they went ahead and put that corner in there by request, not that we wanted that to be in there, so we didn't want it to adhere to the CC&Rls. Nonetheless, it's 2,100 square feet, not 2,200 square feet, but if it doesn't -- if anyone built a very large home right next to Victory Road there, the viability of that home being salable in the future. If you build a brand new home on there, no would one really do something like that when they had the opportunity to build back in a subdivision where the values would be maintain and the values would be reflective of the other buildings and homes around the subdivision. That one clear up there just right next to Victory Road would just not have any potential value sitting that close to the road, so they would never ever build a home that large that close, so what you would end up with is keeping the shack that's still sitting there. Thank you. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Well, wouldn't that just mean you need to figure that more now, rather than piecemealing this thing, like what's being proposed of tearing down the shack and just rebuilding this house? From what you have said, it's not viable to build that large of home right there, but doesn't that just mean you simply should figure out what that triangle is going to be before you just come in and do one house? Sackett: Well, there were never any plans for that triangle made or proposed for that. mean it's just -- it was just there. Nary: But it is part of this subdivision, it is part of this plat, so it's stuck, so -- Sackett: Right but we felt like it had substantial division with the lateral that runs through there and the large trees that all go through there, that it wasn't going to constitute a true part of the subdivision and reflective of the homes in what development that we wanted to have happen from that road on. Nary: Well, Madam President -- is it part of this Observation Point plat or not? Sackett: It's, obviously, on the plat, so it's part of the plat. Nary: Okay. De Weerd: Was it included on there, so you wouldn't create on enclave or was there plans to do something in the future? Sackett: I wouldn't be able to speak on what their plans were of that. I know that they did not make any specific recommendation for the land at the time and, in fact, didn't even want it to be on there. ( Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 18 of 63 Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I didn't get your address. Do you live in Observation Point? Sackett: No. I represent the developer. Bird: Okay. Well, I think I'm the only one on the Council that sat through the development of that. One of the Council Members coming on in January also was there. That parcel was all included in everything and if you go back and look at the Development Agreement, it is stated what it has to be and stuff on the deal, whether -- and as I understand it, as I remember it -- I would have to go back and pull the minutes. I believe that the developer at that point stated that whatever -- when they developed that it would be the same rules as what they are doing the rest of the Observation Point in, so lid have to go back -- and you need to look at your Development Agreement, too. 11m sure there is a Development Agreement on that. Sackett: Well, I know the last meeting at Planning and Zoning it was stated that there were no plans made one way or another of what they were going to do with land. Bird: There was not a dye in the wool plan set forth, but when it was redeveloped and that was taken down, it was going to meet the same requirements as Observation Point, which youlre talking about 1 ,400 square feet to 2,200 square feet. We understood that that was the caretaker's place. We allowed it to stay on there, as long as that's what it was. I think I'm remembering right. I mean I'm pretty sure I'm remembering. 1111 certainly dig back in my papers to find out for sure. Sackett: Very good. That's alii have. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Brad, when they were in front of Council several months ago, what was the direction that Council gave them at that point? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. I was just checking that. The minutes do reflect that -- actually, Mr. Watson brought it before the Council and was looking for some direction regarding the plat notes, since, typically, the -- the staff's interpretation has always been a plat note can only be changed with a modification to the plat. There was testimony from Mr. Nichols and Mr. Sheffield was present there, did not oppose to this going to a public meeting and that was the bulk of the four pages of minutes that we have here, is just should it or should it not go to a Public Hearing and the direction was set it for a public meeting. De Weerd: Can you also find in your records was there discussion on that piece and was there anything definitive decided at that time? Is there anything in the Development Agreement? (~ Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 19 of 63 Hawkins-Clark: 11m sorry I do not have that information right here at the desk. Brad and I were -- Brad Watson and I were just talking about -- just from our own recollection was that it was an out parcel that the city asked to be incorporated to prevent an enclave. Bird: That's correct. It was all part of the Development Agreement. De Weerd: So, we asked them to include it, so we wouldn't create an enclave? Hawkins-Clark: I don't have the Development Agreement in front of me, but that's our recollection. De Weerd: It is a Public Hearing. Is there anyone else who would like to provide testimony? Okay. Council? Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess before we close the Public Hearing, I guess I'm not sure if this is a question or just a statement, but if someone else came in here with some other property in here and said I don't really want to build a 2,200 square foot house, I want to build a 1,400 square foot house. I don't think we'd grant it. If they were required a CU, we'd say it's not compatible, itls not -- it's part of this subdivision, it's required on the plat, it says it as plain as day this is how you have to do it and we probably -- at least I wouldn't think we'd grant that just because. That's all they are asking, they are saying we just want to replace this house and just want to put another house a little bit bigger on it, that's a little newer looking, but we don't want to do anything else. I just don't see why. Their inconvenience isn't really my problem. It is part of this plat. The homeowners that are here tonight, as well as the homeowners who testified at the Planning and Zoning Commission said we are stuck with all the same rules of this plat that everybody else is, why isn't this one? Whether it was required by this Council to add it to the plat to avoid an enclave, tough. I mean they have known this from the outset that they would have to deal with that once they chose to redevelop this property and that's what they are doing, they are choosing to redevelop it, I understand the testimony as saying that we probably wouldn't build a big house right here and that's probably true. Then figure out what this triangle piece needs to be and how it's going to tie into the remainder of this plat and design it and bring that here. To do this in a piecemeal fashion is unfair to all of the rest of this subdivision and it's inconsistent with this plat. It doesn't make any sense to me. I read the minutes here from Planning and Zoning and I'm not really sure what they were thinking, because they really just sort of fashioned it and ignored all the people's testimony that said ifs incompatible and they didn't make any finding as to why it was compatible, except it would make it to an R-4 standard. That's not -- that doesn't make a lot of sense to me, but I just can't support this CUP. There is no reason they have stated of any validity to why it shouldn't be the same as everything else. De Weerd: All right. I guess my opinion is that we asked them to not create an enclave and to include this in their plat, that it -- and they didn't plat it out as part of that subdivision. That as long as it fits within the R-4 and it's replacing something that's Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 20 of 63 definitely and eye sore there now -- you know, they did nit ask for it to be part of that subdivision. They did annex that piece in with the rest of it, but they did not plat it, and so because they didn't not plat it, you know, I guess -- and we knew what was there, we can ask for more. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Let me make a statement. I think that -- I don't think the staff or the city made them bring that piece in. I think t hat was an agreement with the Cavin's to get the Observation Point through. I think somebody out there can nod his yes or no with me. And so I think we need to go back and look and see what kind of restrictions we put on this deal and it isnlt -- so I would be in favor of continuing this Public Hearing while all of us pull out the minutes of the original application and find out what is -- maybe Will has them already. De Weerd: They look thick, I think ifs -- Bird: They look thick enough to do that. De Weerd: We will give you a week. Bird: But I think to be fair to the applicant, to be fair to the city, and to be fair to the existing Observation Point people and to Meridian Greens that we need to take a look and see what the deal is. I do not recall the city forcing that to be annexed or -- as an enclave. I do not recall that. I think that was something that was brought in, wasn't platted, we let them go without a plat in that one deal. We knew it at the time that they planned on replacing that older building when the time was feasible, so -- but I think to be fair to everybody, we need to go back and look to see from the original application and the original motion and stuff of what was passed. What requirements was put on it and I think that's the only way to be fair and so I would certainly entertain motion to continue one week, if it's agreeable. De Weerd: Well, I could entertain that motion. Would you like to make it? Bird: I would -- I mean I would make a motion like that, but I would have no problem if the other Council -- the rest of you Council people have no problems with it. De Weerd: You know, it seems to me like I remember that piece was not sewerable and -- Bird: Oh, yes. De Weerd: No. Itls not without the lift station across street. Why donlt we go ahead, Keith, if you will make a motion to continue this, we will have staff look further into it. Bird: Madam President? Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 21 of 63 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we continue the Public Hearing CUP 03-047 until November 18, 2003. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue the Public Hearing of CUP 03-047 to November 18, 2003. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: PP 03-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots on 4.15 acres in an L-O zone for Stokesberrv Subdivision No.2 by Properties West, Inc. - west of North Eagle Road and north of East Fairview Avenue: De Weerd: S 0, we will see you back on the 18th. 0 kayo We will move 0 n to Item Number 7. It's a Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003, PP 03-026, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots on 4.15 acres in an L-O zone for Stokesberry Subdivision NO.2 and we will start with staff comments. Item 7. Hawkins-Clark: 0 kayo Thank you. Madam President, Members 0 f the C ouneil, the item was continued -- I believe the only reason there was not a recommendation prepared. I don't believe you received a staff report on this, so I will go ahead and do that right now. The property is located right here on the west side of Eagle Road. River Valley Elementary School is just to the west. Carol Subdivision, some of those, as you know, were recently annexed to the north. The current subdivision that's shown here in the purple is seven lots. It was annexed and platted and received a planned development several years ago. The proposal tonight is for these three lots, the largest three in the subdivision, to be resubdivided, the ones that have Eagle Road frontage. They are proposing 15 building lots, as compared to the three that are currently there today. Here is the aerial and there have been three buildings constructed on the western portion, but none of these three lots that are abutting Eagle Road have any building permit activity on them. They remain undeveloped. Here is a copy of the subdivision plat that is proposed. The access to the property would remain as it was previously approved, single point off of East River Valley Street and, then, North Stokesberry Place is the cul-de-sac that extends to the north a nd that would be the public street access to serve these new lots. It's a little bit misleading, maybe, to look at the plat in terms of the number of lots. The dashed line that's running here in -- that's bisecting all of these lots is an easement line that designates where the ingress-egress is going to be and that's between these two lines. It's a little over 80 feet wide, that's to accommodate the drive aisle and the parking, and here you ean see I guess it's a little cleaner slide that shows you where the driving, parking, handicapped, and building pads are located. They are proposing six buildings that would front on Eagle Road, a smaller product as compared to the conditional use and planned development that they have already approved, which were the larger footprints. The total square footage of office Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 22 of 63 on the site is largely the same. This is not a modification to the Conditional Use this is strictly a re-subdivision. Obviously, it will involve a pretty different configuration for the property, but the access points, the elevations of the buildings, the materials to be used in the buildings, the office square footage is -- all of those factors remain pretty much the same. There was opposition' given at the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing. Primarily they were opposed to the smaller, quote, unquote, and cracker box buildings. The key issues that the Commission discussed was the landscape setback on Eagle Road and whether or not that setback should be in a common lot or in an easement. They would prefer to keep it as it currently is, which is just an easement. There is not a separate common lot, but Steve Siddoway in his staff report did bring it up, because the ordinance does require those landscape lots to be in common lots now under the n ew ordinance and so since it's a re-subdivision, he wanted to make that point. I think that's probably the main clarification that Council and the applicant need to discuss tonight is whether the easement is sufficient. Staff does support the arrangement of the easement based on past precedent. I think the only other issue to point out that is in the recommendation is on Page 6 and it deals with the Idaho Transportation Department who -- this is Item Number F on Page 6, who did submit a letter requesting that the applicant do a traffic noise screen, which, frankly, our department has never heard of. I think this might be a new thing that ITO is asking for. Mr. Fluke is representing the developer, the same thing, we just don't know what a noise screen is. Our assumption, obviously, given the context, it's a noise study and they are asking for things that would typically be asked for as part of a residential subdivision to help mitigate noise for residences. Usually, you wouldn't see that request for an office use, but I'll let Mr. Fluke address that, that does need some clarification tonight. That's all I have. De Weerd: Any questions? Okay. Applicant? Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Fluke: It is. De Weerd: Please state your name and address. Fluke: Darin Fluke, 250 South Beachwood in Boise. De Weerd: Thank you. Fluke: JUS Engineers. Representing the applicant in this matter. We will keep this brief. It's a fairly straightforward application. We will file this one under the best laid plans. Those three large lots just haven't sold in the last three or four years that they have been platted. The developer was able to sell the three to the west and those are currently developed with buildings that look just like we said they would look when the subdivision was approved. We have strict design guidelines on those and the buildings, albeit smaller in this new development, will match them in building materials and quality. It will look very cohesive with what's there now. We donlt really have any issues with the staff report. We are agreement with everything. We would ask your consideration to allow us to have the landscaping that does exist along Eagle Road be in an easement across the back of these lots, just simply for a setback reason. It doesn't ( ( Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 23 of 63 make much difference to us, really, whether it's in a lot or an easement, but if it becomes a lot, then, we have a more stringent setback there. You're all probably familiar with it, having driven by there, that there is a four-foot berm there now with fairly mature landscaping, they did a nice job of that Eagle Road frontage, and all of that is going to stay just t he way it is now. Those buildings w ill largely b e n at visible from Eagle Road. You will be able to see the tops of them, but if you think about how it is now, you can't really see the buildings that are developed back here as you come down Eagle Road. That speaks also to this requirement from lTD. This is the first time I have seen them come out with this particular letter. 11m sure you have a letter in your packet. We didn't receive this until just last week and so we have been scrambling around trying to figure out what they want us to do and have been unsuccessful in getting together with Dan Kuntz on this. However, from the tenor of the letter it seems clear that they saw 1 4 lots a nd just assumed that we h ad a residential subdivision going inn ext to Eagle Road and so they decided to talk about this noise screen and the limited access. The access is, of course, already set. ACHD has approved it. River Valley Street does provide the sole source of access to Eagle Road. It is at the half mile and so it is likely at some point in the future that that would be signalized, because it is in an urban area, and the ACHD report reflects that. One clarification on what Brad said. We do not have any access to River Valley Street, that was prohibited, but we do off Stokesberry here, here, and here, to provide access to all of these. We simply ask that you just leave out the requirement for the noise screen. It doesn't seem to provide any real function here. We have already got buffering from Eagle Road and office uses are much less sensitive to road noise and residential uses, in any event, and so we feel comfortable with what's there now. IIII leave it at that and if the Council had questions, IIII take those now. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I am concerned, Mr. Fluke, on the issue of having an easement, rather than a common lot, because, then, the maintenance of that is against each owner of those buildings or is it all going to be maintained by a common association? Fluke: The latter. The maintenance is handled the same way. Either way it's set up in the agreement between the owners for all the common areas and so whether it's in a lot or whether it's an easement across their lot, it's still maintained from a common pool by all the property owners within the development. We would be happy to have that in as a condition of approval. It's in the CC&Rs now, so -- Nary: Okay. I guess the only other question I had, Mr. Fluke -- I mean I guess I'm -- I understand what you're saying and I appreciate the fact that you have attempted to -- or your clients have attempted to market this property, but was it just four -- was if four lots on that? Fluke: Those were three lots. Nary: Three lots. I guess it just -- I guess for what it's worth, it just concerns me a little bit that we go from three lots to basically 15 buildings, from three buildings. That seems Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 24 of 63 like quite the explosion of change from not being able to find three property owners to now getting 15 of them in there with traffic congestion -- I mean the type things that were brought up at the Planning and Zoning Commission's concern. I mean there aren't more parking spaces that you have got now, 18 different potential uses on that property, versus six. The variety of traffic, the hours of traffic, the type of traffic with the school right there in Eagle Road seems a little troubling, but -- Fluke: What we found -- what the client found was that mainly it was the size of the lot and the attendant size of the building that was the problem. The floor area that we have in this is largely the same as what we were approved for in the previous application, it's just we couldn't find any users who needed that large of a building. Most of the users end up being doctors and dentists and orthodontists and such and they are looking for buildings more in the neighborhood of 2,500 square feet, which is what you're seeing with this development here, rather than a multi-story building, which is what we had approved before. The floor area is basically the same it's just in discrete buildings, rather than being lumped together in larger buildings. Nary: You don't think being next to Eagle Road and no traffic light there and getting in and out wasn't an issue in marketing this property and not really the building size? Fluke: Well, I wouldn't say that. I don't know what the full range of marketing issues are, but what was represented to me by my client was that smaller buildings are what people are looking for -- what his users were looking for. I think, you know, traffic wise a lot of those kinds of uses like to have the traffic. Access has been a big problem area, but, as we say, we anticipate that that will signalized at some point in the future. De Weerd: Thank you. Fluke: Thank you. De Weerd: 0 kayo 1st here a ny 0 ther testimony 0 n t his application? S taft, anything further? Council? Nary: Madam President, before we close the Public Hearing, I guess I did have one comment. I don't know if anybody else here has ever driven down Cole and gone to any of those offices that are along Cole between Emerald and Fairview that are on the east side of Cole Road, but that's what this reminds me of. This is intensely -- intense pool of offices with very limited access and very narrow driveways with lots of different uses and it is a mishmash of use and it is horrible getting in and out, you have lots of different people -- I mean I recognize that there is -- I don't know the right answer here. What was proposed, obviously, isn't very marketable, and they have attempted to do that. I'm not sure that this is the best alternative is turning this into this mishmash of little buildings meshed into there in front of the school up against Eagle Road with the hope that once they have a stop light at some point in the future that it's going to all be better. I have tried to use those -- I have used those facilities along Cole on occasion and it is horrible and it is impossible to find anything in there, so it doesn't serve the public and I just -- at least for me I see the public telling us what were we thinking of approving that, so -- Meridian City Council Meeting November 12; 2003 Page 25 of 63 Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: If I am -- the ones you're thinking of is the ones there by the Boise Swim and Racquet Club? Nary: Right. Bird: Those are -- those are basically three or four complete buildings, they are just cut up a lot. They are not individual buildings like this. These aren't going to be built out in one -- in six months or anything else they are going to go out as they go. It's a lot easier to rent a small -- for a dentist or something like that, a small one, than putting up in the second floor, northeast corner of a big large one. Plus, the fact is a dentist or a doctor probably would not mind buying a small little building like that, where they wouldn't on the other ones. I, too, agree with you, I think that's a lot of buildings in a small area and we all know that Eagle Road is really slowing with traffic. Hopefully, we will get a stoplight and signal light there one of these days, but -- I don't know. I understand why they took out the 60, 70,000 square foot buildings, multi-story, and going in like this. Square footage wise we are probably not -- as the applicant stated, we are not giving anymore s quare footage to s peak of, s 0 - - the traffic - - t he thing I g at, I have never heard of this noise thing before. I definitely don't know what they want there. De Weerd: Brad, as far as the parking requirements, do the parking -- the number of parking stalls-support the buildings? I'm assuming they do. Hawkins-Clark: Yes. They are, I believe, about 70 stalls over parked. De Weerd: Over parked. Hawkins-Clark: Based on code. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: But, remember, how many discussions have we had about our antiquated parking code that isn't reflective of use. I mean that's -- I think thatls another problem here, is we donlt know what those uses are going to be. We don't know what kind of offices we are going to have in this place. I guess I differ a little bit from Council Member Bird in that expediting another light on Eagle isn't my goal. Having another stop light on Eagle, although it in the long run may be what happens here, expediting that -- another stoplight isn't an ideal situation to me. The congestion on Eagle Road is not going to get better, but having a stoplight isn't going to make it better. All this is going to do is if it really were to build our fairly quickly, to me is expedite having a stop light there, having more congestion, and, again, we donlt know what those offices are going to be. They are just small little buildings that could be of any type of usage that ( Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 26 of 63 fits in this zone, which can be a variety that's longer than my arm. I mean I don't know whether or not -- again, we donlt have a whole lot of idea. I know the floor space is the same and I understand. I guess, as I said before, the property that's along Cole, the fact that it's one building with, you know, 14 different office buildings -- different office spaces in it, doesn't make it easier to find anything, doesn't make it easier to park, doesn't make it easier to get out. I understand the marketing concerns that the owners had, but this solution just is horrible. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: We need a traffic light there regardless of whether we approve this or not, for the simple fact is you got a school right there and you got some existing office buildings anyway and the plans, as I understood, from ITO, was going to be every half mile. I don't like them any better than anybody else, but I think that's something that we have to deal with. We can sit here and argue all night over that. Hawkins-Clark: Madam President, if I could just make one clarification. Mr. Barnes, when they originally came through with this a couple years ago, was required to contribute to a future opticom in a signal, so the city, actually, is holding bond money, surety, for that opticom. Obviously, the decision of when it goes in is ITO's, but I believe that demonstrates that -- just a point of information, I guess, that we are holding that for future signal. De Weerd: Thank you, Brad. I guess it's the same square footage, it's going to generate the same amount of traffic, and so it's already been approved, they are just replatting it. What changes from when it was approved, then, to now? What are we asking the applicant to do different when they have the same square footage they just reconfigured it. I -- those are my questions. The issue remains the same. The trips are going to be the same, most likely. It might be a little bit less with the differences in offices than with a larger building. I -- you know, if this -- if the market bears this better, you know, it is an approved use, it fits within the Conditional Use Permit and so if we didn't approve it, what would it be based on? Bird: That's right. De Weerd: The Public Hearing is still open and is there any further testimony before we close it? Okay. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we close the Public Hearing -- McCandless: Second. Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 27 of 63 Bird: -- on PP 03-026, Stokesberry Subdivision NO.2 by Properties West, Incorporated. McCandless: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item 7. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would make a motion that we approve PP 03-026, the request for a Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots on 4.15 acres in an L-O zone for Stokesberry Subdivision No. 2 by Properties West, Incorporated. West of North Eagle Road and north of East Avenue -- or East Fairview Avenue, and to incorporated Planning and Zoning staff and applicant's testimony, with the exclusion of Planning and Zoning1s recommendations sub Chapter F completely and that's the recommendation of the Idaho Transportation Department on the noise deal, which we would eliminate. For the attorney to draw up Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order. McCandless: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve PP 03-026, with the exception of deleting Item F, the traffic noise screen on Page 6. Any further discussion? Okay. Nary: Madam President, just one question. On the elimination Item F, are we basically eliminating it because we just don't understand what that is? Is that our reason? Because we don't think we need it? Bird: Why would you want to require it? This is the only time -- how many applications have we had out on Eagle Road and this is the first time I have ever seen this come through. If you want to know the truth, I donlt know what it -- I don't know what they mean by it. I mean they want to -- if it's warranted, they want this thing, well, who determines whether it's warranted or not? I don't. I donlt know. I can tell you whether the speedway needs a noise level or not, but I can't tell you, you know, what the recommendation is out there, so why put it in an application like this that's going to hinder the owners of the property? Nary: Because I guess -- Madam President? 11m sorry. Because at some point someone has to be first and at some point we have to understand what they are asking and all they are saying is to follow these recommendations and I guess I hesitate in simply removing some other agency's recommendations mainly because we don't understand it. I mean I'd rather continue it, so we know what it is, but just to eliminate it because they have never asked for it before and we don't understand it, doesn't seem to make good sense from our position. We don't want people to eliminate our Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 28 of 63 recommendations just because they don't understand it, so why would we do that to another agency for that reason. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Okay, Councilman Nary, what -- it says if the results of the traffic noise screen so warrant, then, the applicant shall perform a traffic noise impact analysis. Who is going to determine whether it warrants it or not? It don't say -- it don't say up here. It just says for 20 years future build out. Use the existing highway centerline for the 20-year future build out 20-year future build out on Eagl~ Road? What are we going to have? I don't know. That's -- and this is -- you know, like I said, this is the first time that I have ever seen this in here. I don't -- I guess, Bill, if I knew -- if I knew what they wanted and meant, I would have no problem leaving it in. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Yes. De Weerd: I guess I would agree with Councilman Nary. Instead of sitting up here and trying to guess what it means, maybe we can instruct staff to contact ITO and ask what that condition is for, because I would agree with Mr. Nary that I would not appreciate another agency taking one of our conditions and deleting it without asking what the pertinence of having it on there is. Nary: Madam President? I mean just one more point. I mean we put on dozens of applications in North Meridian to comply with the North Meridian Plan, whatever it is, whatever we pass it. We didn't necessarily define it specifically. Here they have actually defined it. I mean they cited a manual, the cited a code section, there is something out there that relates to what they are talking about. I mean I guess I just hate to eliminate something just because we don't get it. I mean there is some way to figure out what that is. If we don't like it after we understand what it is, then, I think that's a different issue, but to just eliminate it because we don't understand what they are talking about doesn't seem very -- Bird: Then, wen eed to continue t his. We should have n at closed ita nd taken the motion. We need to continue it if we are going to have staff go back and find out what it means, because I don't know what it means. Nary: Well, you just did that. I didn't like it, so -- Bird: You might -- you guys might understand, but I don't understand what it means, what they want, and I know noise levels and there is -- De Weerd: Okay. Well, we don't have a motion, because it did not go further. Bird: You got a second. Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 29 of 63 De Weerd: Oh, I'm sorry. Bird: We got a second, so let's vote on it. De Weerd: Okay. We do have a motion on the floor and are you ready for the question? Bird: I'm ready for it or I can pull it. I don't care. Whatever you guys want to go back and do. I don't like pulling somebody else's thing, but I'd like to understand what I'm pulling. De Weerd: Okay. Well, if you're ready for the question, I can ask it or you can withdraw your motion. Bird: Ask for the question. De Weerd: Okay. Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, naye; de Weerd, naye; Bird, aye. MOTION TIED: TWO AYES, TWO NAYES Bird: I knew it was going to happen again. De Weerd: Okay. Well, this motion didn't go anywhere and so we can entertain a new motion or ask that the Public Hearing be opened again and instruct staff to find out more information. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I would move to reopen the Public Hearing, so that we -- for the limited purpose of finding out further information from the staff as to what this condition by ITD is and what impact that may have on the developer. As well as giving the developer the opportunity to respond to what that impact, they believe to be, but for that purpose only. Bird: And I would second that and that's the only testimony we will take. Nary: Right. De Weerd: For discussion purposes, I guess I would like to have one thing further explained. If the easement is made into a lot what impact that would have on those buildings for setbacks. I would like to know that as well. Would the -- Nary: I have no objection to having just that, again, limited testimony, in addition to the ITO -- ( (- f Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 30 of 63 De Weerd: Second? Bird: That's fine me. De Weerd: 0 kayo It's been moved too pen the Public Hearing for specific items of discussion on the ITO requirement of the traffic noise screen, as well as the easement or lot implications on setbacks. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carnes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES De Weerd: So, we can direct staff to bring those back. Does the applicant have any further comments? Okay. Fluke: Madam President, Members of the Council, Darin Fluke again, JUB Engineers. I did not mean to convey to the Council that we didn't know what this requirement is. We do and we donlt agree with it in this situation, because we donlt believe that ITO did their homework. What a noise screen is is to go out and study the noise levels on the road currently to project them out 20 years based on anticipated trips on the road and if the noise levels are such that -- you know, if -- excuse me. If they hit a particular noise level, decibels, then, they make us go back and study what we need to do to mitigate that noise. Whether it be a different sort of building construction or whether it be sort of screening against the road, which, typically, would take the form of a berm and landscaping, which is what we have now. I mean we could put a sound wall there, but we have existing landscaping. It might be that they wanted us to change the construction of the buildings to attenuate that noise, but it's unlikely, given that it's an office use, and those are typically built to a higher standard than residential is typically built to anyway. This is something we run into at the City of Boise within their -- within the noise contours for the airport. If you're within a particular noise contour, you have to have a different kind of construction. Certain uses are limited. What I think happened here was ITO simply saw 14 lots, they got under the gun and needed to get a transmittal out to you, because our hearing was held the very first part of October, you didn't receive this transmittal until September 29th. I twas n ot signed by 0 an Kuntz it was signed by somebody else for Dan Kuntz, and I think they simply saw 14 lots on Eagle Road, no questions, do a noise -- or a noise screen and get back to us. You know, case closed. De Weerd: So, it would be advantageous for you for us to continue this, so we can get some clarity from ITO on that requirement correct? Fluke: Well, that's less advantageous than just leaving it out, putting in on. I mean 1 know what it is and I think that when we come back we will see that. If we must, we must, but we have been tabled once already just because a recommendation didn't get done, so, you know, I would hope that we could keep it moving along. If the level of discomfort is that great with it, then, yeah, my preference is to have it tabled over having -- just leaving it in there, because you donlt know what it is, so -- Meridian City Council Meeting November 12,2003 Page 31 of 63 De Weerd: Well -- and we are just taking your word for it that they just put it in there, because they were under the gun and they really didn't mean it. We would like to know if they meant it. Fluke: Okay. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Are we looking for a date to continue? Bird: We need to have a new motion. We just opened up the -- Nary: Right. Because it appears that if we were to continue this matter to the 18th, that would, really, only give staff until tomorrow to answer those questions. That doesn't seem very reasonable. It seems like the 25th. Bird: Yes. Nary: So, I guess with that I would make a motion to continue Items 7, PP 03-026, the request for Preliminary Plat approval for Stokesberry Subdivision No. 2 for the limited purpose of answering the questions in regards to Item F on the recommendations, which would be traffic noise screen recommendation from the Idaho Transportation Department. For more definition of what that means and what the impact that may be on the applicant, as well as the question to be answered in regards to the difference between an easement and a common lot for the buffer area. What that may be in regards to -- what that may impact in regards to setbacks for the applicant and continue the matter for those purposes to the November 25, 2003, meeting. Bird: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to continue the Public Hearing PP 03-026 until November 25th, to hear further testimony on the traffic noise screen condition, as well as the easement or a lot. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 8. Public Hearing: V AR 03-018 Request for a Variance for a one-year Time Extension for recording of the Final Plat for Olsen Bush Subdivision No.2 by R2 Development, Inc. - west of North Eagle Road and no_rth of East Franklin Road: De Weerd: Okay. Item 8, Public Hearing on V AR 03-018, request for a Variance for a one year Time Extension for recording of the Final Plat for Olsen Bush Subdivision No. 2. We will open the Public Hearing with staff comments. ( Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 32 of 63 Hawkins-Clark: Thank you, Madam President, Members of the Council. This application is for a one-time extension for a recording of the Final Plat. The Council is no stranger to this type of application. You have seen numerous similar applications over the past couple of years. The property in question is shown here adjacent to Union Pacific Railroad, on the west side of Eagle Road, Olson Bush Subdivision Phase 1, as you can see, has already been platted here to the -- to the east. This aerial does reflect some of the surrounding uses. It is an industrial use area. The majority of the property in the area is either zoned industrial or hasn't been annexed. Here is the Final Plat that was approved that has not been recorded that is in question. You should have received a staff report written by myself that was received November 6th and I think just suffice it to say that staff cannot technically make the required findings for a variance for a time extension in this case. We did recommend denial. Also, as you will have read in the staff report, the Planning and Zone Commission did hear an appeal last month on this matter. Originally, the applicant requested that the Council -- they submitted a letter that the zoning administrator received requesting a time extension that was denied. The decision was appealed to the Planning and Zoning Commission, who, then, overturned it, basically, resulting in the ability for them to continue on to submit a Variance application. That's what you have before you tonight. De Weerd: Interesting process. Okay. Any questions for staff? Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Brad, what -- we got your note here in front, but what, in particular, is the reason you don't want to give your extension on this? Their reasoning to me is very legitimate. Hawkins-Clark: Madam President, Councilman Bird, with these Variances, the ordinance requires us to make -- make findings in the affirmative. The sole reason stated was economic conditions. Of course, I think an unstated reason, which I think we are all in agreement with, why does the city -- whafs the benefit to the city to deny this and make them start over again. Certainly, there probably is not much of a benefit. I think the reason that we have this in the code is after a certain amount of time, conditions around projects change, roads are improved, new houses go in, landscaping changes, water -- groundwater levels can change with, you know, more impeNious area. If they were following the ordinance, this phase would have been constructed, you know, over two years ago and that's what the neighbors -- when they -- if anyone came to a public hearing, that was what t hey would have anticipated. There was a mailing, certainly, sent to everyone within 300 feet of this project. If they were in opposition to this being extended, they should have received it. It was already -- it was also posted but we don't see that there is a hardship thafs unique to this property. Bird: Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. Any further questions? Okay. Is the applicant here? Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? ( Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 33 of 63 Miller: Yes, it is. M y name is Brad Miller with Ronald W. Van Auker, Incorporated, representing R2 Development. Our business address is 3084 East Lanark in Meridian. Since Councilman Bird's memory seems to be very keen tonight, I must admit that a year ago when I appeared before you, I told you that we need an extension, we were going to move ahead with this right away. Well, we did move ahead with it, we covered the Snyder Lateral and did a few other things and, then, the economic condition didn1t seem to -- or economic situation didn't seem to be improving much, so we kind of waited, waited, waited. Well, at the end of this summer we felt like there was some light shinning through the dark economic clouds and so we started cutting the road -- finished cutting the road and got to the point of needing a pre-con to do the utility improvements and we were informed that our approval had expired. We were under the assumption that if we had broken ground, that we could continue on, but that is not the case. 11m here to ask you to grant us another extension. I believe I asked until June of next year. We are in the process of doing the improvements right now. The sewer is in. It's been in for a while. The road is cut. We need to have a pre-con, so we can put the other utilities in. The pipe is on site right now to cover the Evans Drain. I have three tenants who are ready to go in there. I have one signed lease on my desk right now, which we have not signed, with a national tenant and I don't dare sign it until I know that we can fulfill our obligations under that lease. I wish that we would have built it last year. Our timing, actually, would have been good, b ut -- but we couldn't warrant it, given the economic conditions. I'd ask that you, please, grant us an extension to June, so we can move ahead and get this built out. If there are any questions, I would be more than happy to answer them. De Weerd: Any questions? Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Miller, did you say that you thought because you guys had started, you thought you didn't have to get an extension on the plat? Miller: It was our assumption, which was a faulty assumption -- with Building Permits, if you break ground, then, your permit continues on. We had thought that the same thing was true with the Final Plat, but we were informed otherwise. Nary: Okay. De Weerd: Any other questions? Thank you. Miller: Thank you. De Weerd: Is there anyone else who would like to testify on this application? Okay. Council? Bird: Madam President? 1"- - ( Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 34 of 63 De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I'd move that we close Public Hearing V AR 03-018. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on V AR 03-018. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move that we approve the V AR 03-018, the request for a variance for a one year time extension for recording of the Final Plat for Olsen Bush Subdivision No.2 by R2 Development, Incorporated, west of North Eagle Road and north of East Franklin Road, and for the attorney to draw up the proper papers. De Weerd: Okay. Second. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? I seconded it. Nary: Oh, did you second it? De Weerd: Yes. Nary: Okay. Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess my discussion is when does no ever mean no? I mean we -- this is the third time extension and I really do respect Mr. Miller, he's been here plenty of times. I just find it hard to believe that they didn1t understand that a plat is different than Building Permit. I mean these are very knowledgeable people that do this all the time. We have to make specific findings. We have stretched the boundaries of doing that with block lengths, with parking spaces, with these time extensions, but we have occasionally said no and generally we have said no when they haven't requested it within the time period, which they didn't. We have said no when they have requested more than one, which this is their third. I recognize that the economy is tough, but we have to make all of these findings to be legally compliant and I know no one is hear to complain about it. The' ordinance says specifically we have to make findings on every one of these things and I cannot see that there are special circumstances affecting this property that strict application of this title would be impractical or unreasonable. It is as Mr. Hawkins-Clark stated, the special circumstances of the economy is tough. It's tough for everybody. That's not particular to this property. There is no strict compliance in regards to topography, nature of the condition of the adjacent development, other physical ( \ ( Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 35 of 63 conditions that would make it unreasonable. There is absolutely nothing. This is a flat piece of property. They already started doing it they just did nit do it quickly, because economy is tough. It's tough for everybody. I mean we can't -- at least I can't make these findings. I mean we wink wink at these a lot and push the boundaries of what we can even look ourselves in the face about on making these Variances, but we just cannot do that here, at least to me. This is the third request, it is outside the year, it just doesn't fit any reason we have granted it to other people, even though Mr. Hawkins- Clark has stated we have granted these extensions and we haven't been very strict about it, but we have said no and I guess for me I'm going to say no. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: While we are on discussion. If we -- if this is turned down, Brad, they have to redo -- what are we looking at, three, four months getting it back through, plus, you know, putting some more money in our coffers. We like that, but -- Nary: But thafs not the reasons we would do that. Bird: No. I know that. Hawkins-Clark: I t would involve resubmitting a final plat application, which, typically, from the date that we receive a complete application, it's three weeks to a City Council Meeting. De Weerd: Okay. I guess my question would be was that time frame discussed with the applicant when they came and started this process? How long has this process been going on? Hawkins-Clark: I guess it was -- Mr. Miller might be able to remember it, but I think it was September. Early September. De Weerd: So, we are already two months into this, where if he had -- if the applicant had been told, rather than appealing the decision, it would easier going through and requesting a Final Plat -- you know, I understand Mr. Nary's arguments and, you know, I don't know if this the time to draw the line in the sand. Most of these have been for residential and things can change on the residential, but we have a couple of tenants that are looking to begin building. I don't see where the negative to the city is. I see there is definite benefit to the city by extending it. Those are the things that we have always discussed as part of these time extensions. I don't see what we gain by drawing that line in the sand now and asking this applicant to proceed one more month, when we have already asked them, too, to do one month that would have taken to ask him to just resubmit a Final Plat. I -- that's why I would support this. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 36 of 63 Bird: I would agree a nd, also, the thing is these people want -- a re ready to I ease, probably want to get into the thing. I suppose we can make it -- delay it and they can move lose the deal and one of our other cities get it, so thafs -- I'm supportive, because I understand and I know that Mr. Miller and Ron Van Auker has done a lot of development, they know the year time, we have -- this will be the third time we have extended it. That area 0 ut there h as been pretty tough tad evelop. I t hasn't been a Silverstone or something like that, but -- for them to get the thing in, but it's definitely an improvement to the city and I want to see the business come to Meridian, not to somewhere else. That's why I'm in favor of letting them get started on it. McCandless: Madam President? De Weerd: Mrs. McCandless. McCandless: I am going to support it, but I just hope it doesn't create a precedent. We have a lot of these. It doesn't make any sense to me that it has to take so long to get started. That was my objection but I will support it for the reasons that Keith just stated. De Weerd: I guess one thing to -- thank you, Cherie. We need to ask staff is to -- again, this is one Variance that we get a lot of requests on and we need to take a look at our variances and see what is practical, you know, for a time limitation if it -- and maybe draw that line in the sand to see what's practical residential versus commercial. As we look to be -- I guess a city that is more attractive to attract business here, this needs to be one of those considerations in looking at our process and see what's reasonable. Are you ready for the question? Nary: No one's made a motion. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Are we ready for a motion? Bird: We made a motion. De Weerd: We did, too. Bird: I made a motion she seconded it. Nary: Oh. You're right. I'm sorry. Bird: That's why we were having this discussion. Nary: You're right. You're right. I'm sorry. Madam President, I just -- one last thing, I guess, in the staff direction to do this. My recollection is that we have done this on residential subdivisions that have made the request within the year and have had other impediments that we basically found in number one of special circumstances, because Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 37 of 63 other agencies have prevented them from getting the plat completed. They haven't had ACHD approval. They found high water table. They found other circumstances and here, if -- the precedent that we are setting is that the special circumstances are a personal hardship of the applicant. That isn't something we have granted before. The next applicant comes up here, that maybe isn't quite so, upstanding as Mr. Miller, we are going to have to tell them the same thing, that just because they have a hard time, we are going to give to them. We donlt have a person who I think -- and agree with you, Mr. Miller and Mr. Van Auker are very reputable developers, they know what they are doing, they do a good job, but we are stuck with that. With the unreputable developer, who gets up here, who just putts around and waits to the last minute and we say -- and they say, well, it's tough on us and the economy is tough and we are stuck with it. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: In answer to Mr. Nary, I can guarantee you that we don't -- maybe we see two of these variance extensions a year. This isn't the first one. I have seen them come in that' it's been two and three months behind, because they forgot. They haven't all been residential and I can't see a one that we haven't -- that we haven't passed. This is the first one that I know of that the staff hasn't recommended that we do pass. This isn't a first, by a long shot, that I can recall, and we don't get a lot of them. Question. De Weerd: Thank you. Okay. The motion on the table is to approve the Variance for 03-018 and to extend it to June 2004. Bird: Yes. De Weerd: Is it June 20th? What was the specific date? Bird: June 1, 2004. De Weerd: June 1st. Okay. Mr. Berg, call roll. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, naye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. De Weerd: Okay. Three ayes. One naye. Motion carries. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NA YE Item 9. Public Hearing: CUP 03-046 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a branch bank facility with drive-thru lanes in an L-O zone for Idaho Central Credit Union by Idaho Central Credit Union - east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Overland Road: De Weerd: Item Number 9, Public Hearing CUP 03-046, request for a Conditional Use Permit for a branch bank facility with a drive-thru lane in an L-O zone for Idaho Central Credit Union. We will open the Public Hearing with staff comments. ( Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 38 of 63 Hawkins-Clark: T hank you. T his Conditional Use Permit is for Idaho Central Credit Union. It's within the Resolution Subdivision. The reason is for -- it's a drive-thru facility and our ordinance does require drive-thru facilities. The lot is shown here on the south side. It's in between Celebration Avenue and Millennium Way. Millennium, as you know, is the collector that serves the Mountain View High School. This would be the first building on this lot, the entire lot being owned by the -- by the applicant. Here is a site plan that was submitted with a conditional use. The primary entrance to the project would be off Celebration and the entry for the drive-thru, which they do have four aisles, would be on the north side of the building. One way circulation around the building on the west side and it would return onto East Gala Street, which is internal to Resolution through this two way entry-exit driveway. They are meeting the minimum standards in terms of building height and parking ratio and landscaping. The Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval. They added two conditions, which did not make it into the recommendation that's in front of you, so I would just ask that any motion tonight include the requirement to provide cross-access. What they have shown on their plan is a raised curb here along this entire west boundary and since this will clearly be redeveloped at some point in the future in order to provide cross-access between the parking, the Commission asked for a single point to be open and be shared there. Then, the second condition that would need to be added is that this entry-exit driveway also provides cross-access for this, so there is just one access point off of East Gala and they would continue in and, then, enter this western portion of the property through that shared access. I think all the other conditions are pretty standard and other than that, staff stands for any questions. De Weerd: Council, any question? Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Brad, you said there were the two conditions that didn't get into the Planning and Zoning that the Planning and Zoning had in their conditions? Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Bird: That was in the minutes of their -- Hawkins-Clark: Yes. Bird: Okay. Hawkins-Clark: The elevation of the building, the east, west, north, and south is shown there. The four sided construction. They are showing the -- the Overland Road elevation is the third one down from the top. De Weerd: Any other questions? Okay. Is the applicant here? Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 39 of 63 Christensen: Yes, it is. De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address. Christensen: My name is Steve Christensen with Lombard Conrad Architects. I'm at 1221 Shoreline Lane, Boise, Idaho. The staff has just done a good job presenting our project to you tonight, we have reviewed the special conditions that were noted to provide the cross easement access to the adjoining property with our client Idaho Central Credit Union, and they are in agreement with those conditions of approval. Something I want to note here. We have gone ahead and proceeded with further refinement of the building and the actual footprint has grown about 8,200 square feet. The current application indicates about 6,900 square feet. Based on further review of the client's needs, the program requirements have grown and so with that the building elevation has changed also, so I'm here to answer any questions you may have. De Weerd: Okay. Council, any questions? Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: The elevations have just -- have they just been enlarged? I mean they haven't changed as far as the footprint. Christensen: Actually, the character of the building has changed somewhat. We are still considering the hip roof -- upper clear story windows up high will no longer be there, just the scale of the building for that particular branch is getting a little bit out of hand, so it's coming back down. Bird: It's going to be like the existing -- a couple of the existing ones that they have just built recently. Christensen: Yes. We were the architects on the previous ones, so -- Bird: Thank you. Christensen: T he previous 0 nes h ad hipped roofs throughout. This 0 ne will have a combination of hip roof and a flat roof on it, so -- Bird: With 1,100 more square feet? Christensen: Plus or minus. Somewhere in there, so -- De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Christensen: Thank you. ( ! Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 40 of 63 De Weerd: Okay. Anyone else who would like to provide testimony? Okay. Staff, any further questions or comments? Hawkins-Clark: I f I c auld just confirm that t he 1 ,100 s quare foot expansion is going north, south, and not east and west. Christensen: Actually, ifs a combination of both. In reviewing the -- in reviewing the site plan, we do have a setback requirement off Celebration and we are maintaining that setback requirement with the building foot print expansion, so -- De Weerd: So, have you submitted a revised plat to staff? Christensen: A revised site plan? De Weerd: A site plan. Christensen: No, not yet. De Weerd: Okay. Christensen: But we can in the immediate future. We are just wrapping the building footprint up and just getting everything ready where it needs to be based on the revised program, so -- De Weerd: But you will meet all setbacks? Christensen: Yes. Yes. No problem. Also I note that with increased building footprint, we are still maintaining the required parking for that bank, so -- or credit union, should say, so -- De Weerd: So, you had additional parking lots -- Christensen: That's correct. De Weerd: And that's with the last square footage. Christensen: Correct. De Weerd: Okay. Okay. Council, anything further? Bird: I have nothing. De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain closing this Public Hearing. Nary: Madam President, before we do that, donlt we need a new site plan, so if we close the Public Hearing, wouldn't we not be able to accept that. De Weerd: Do we need a new site plan? r !\ Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 41 of 63 Hawkins-Clark: Since they own the property -- the entire lot, I'm less concerned about it. They have a couple hundred feet to the west that they can expand that they own. I would be more concerned if it was a restricted lot. At the certificate of zoning compliance, you know, we still have the ordinances that they have to comply with. The main reason for this conditional use is to address the circulation pattern and it sounds like the circulation pattern is not going to change, so I'm comfortable with it. De Weerd: Okay. Is Council comfortable with that? Bird: Oh, I am. Nary: Yes. De Weerd: Okay. I would entertain a motion. Nary: lId move the close the Public Hearing. McCandless: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on Item Number 9. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I move to approve CUP 03-046, the request for a Conditional Use Permit for a branch bank facility with a drive-thru lane in an L-O zone for the Idaho Central Credit Union by Idaho Central Credit Union. East of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Overland Road, pursuant to all staff comments, as well as comments tonight for the conditions that were omitted and for counsel to prepare Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, Decision and Order. McCandless: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 03-046 with all staff comments and testimony. Mr. Clerk. Roll call: McCandless, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 11. Public Hearing: AZ 03-024 Request for annexation and zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Glacier SprinQs Subdivision Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 42 of 63 by Tuscany Development, Inc. - north of East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road: Item 12. Public Hearing: PP 03-028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 building lots and 8 other lots on 17.5 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Glacier Sprinqs Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - north of East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road: De Weerd: Okay. We will go ahead and open -- if Council doesn't object, I will open both Item 11 and 12, Public Hearing AZ 03-024, request for annexation and zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Glacier Springs Subdivision. The Public Hearing for PP 03-028, request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 building lots and eight other lots on 17.5 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Glacier Springs Subdivision and we will open with staff comments. Hawkins-Clark: Thank you. On Item Number 11, the annexation and zoning, they are requesting the full 19 and a half acres be annexed to an R-8 zone. The density that they are proposing in their plat in Item Number 12 ends up to be a gross density of just under three, so they, actually, meet the R-4 density. They are asking for the R-8 in order to accommodate some reduced lot frontages, but the overall density does meet the R-4, so I just wanted to clarify that. The Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval with the Development Agreement and the Development Agreement had particularly one item that was sort of instigating it and -- there we go. That was on page two of the recommendation, noting that the minimum home square footages would be restricted to 1 ,500 square feet for the single level home and 1 ,800 square feet for a two level home. Both of those excluding the garage. Those -- that kind of condition could not be placed on a plat. Since there is, no planned development that was the only place that kind of condition could be put was the Development Agreement. Other than that, I think it was a standard annexation request to the R-8. As you can see, the abutting subdivisions, both Observation Point and Meridian Greens, they do have the R-4 zone. The existing county sub has not been annexed. Those are average five-acre lots. On the next item, No. 12, the plat and -- t he plat just -- you probably figured it out, but it's oriented east west. North is, actually, to the left on the screen. They have one point of access off of Victory Road. It's located about in the center of their frontage. The road, then, comes in, turns to the east, and, then, proceeds mainly north. They have two cul-de-sacs off of that street. The connection to Observation Point is made here about a quarter of the way south from their north property line. They are also providing a stub street to the east into one of the existing lots in Kachina Estates Subdivision is the name of that county subdivision. A couple of the items to point out. They did submit a revised Preliminary Plat that's dated November 3rd and was received November 4th by the clerk. That revision accommodated the Planning and Zoning Commission requirement for this stub street to Kachina Estates at this point. They also were asked by the highway district to shift their entrance to the east to meet offset policies for the district. The Comprehensive Plan does call for a multi-use pathway along the Ten Mile Creek and they are proposing to construct that and that would be placed within an easement for the public. As you probably well know, there is the -- at this point it does not extend on either side. Any resubdivision of Kachina Estates, it would be able to continue to the south and, then, Y' ( Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 43 of 63 ultimately, hook up with Tuscany Lakes. There is, I believe, a 50-foot wide easement that is through Meridian Greens on those lots. The parks department did submit a response to the transmittal simply saying that they were aware that this pathway was being proposed. I don't believe that they have done any ground truthing, walking the area to determine the extension, but they did support it. There was not a revised landscape plan submitted. What I'm showing to you on the screen is the original landscape plan and this open space lot that is shown here on the west right at the entrance has now just become three buildable lots, so we do need to get clarification from the applicant tonight as to where this open space is being shifted to. If they need to meet the five percent minimum open space. As you can see, they are proposing to do street trees throughout the project. That was another item that was -- that we'd like to get -- staff would like to get clarification on tonight was -- in order to do these, typically we see a detached sidewalk, so that the street trees can be placed within the right of way. The sidewalk -- or, I'm sorry, the street profile that they submitted shows attached sidewalks, so just clarification on whether these trees are going to be put on the individual homeowner lots. If so, when in the process they would be planted. The sewer serving this subdivision comes down Trinidad Drive and extends here through this common lot right off of Victory Road. They are providing a little wider landscape buffer lot onto East Victory and counting some of that as their five percent open space. They only are required to do 25 feet there, but they have broadened that out to over 40. I guess at this point that's all staff has. De Weerd: Okay. Any questions for staff? Bird: I have none. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Is the applicant here? Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Schultz: Yes. De Weerd: Please state your name and address. Schultz: Good evening. Matt Schultz. I'm with the Westpark Company, representing Tuscany Development. Our address is 660 East Franklin here in Meridian. I want to thank staff for giving a fairly thorough staff report covering all the main items and I hope to maybe provide a little bit of clarification of some of those questions that he had. Maybe before I do -- before I do so, I'd like to step back and say that we did have a neighborhood meeting before we went to the Planning Commission. There was one Observation Point director there, as well as the five-acre homeowners and I was really surprised that the five-acre people weren't against us they were, actually, for us. Which is probably the first time it's ever happened for me not to be opposed by, you know, the big lot owners. They were quite happy to see us clean .up some irrigation issues, the weeds, and just have a nice subdivision there on what I see as kind of -- kind of an in-fill development in terms of the shape and the size and the constraints of the site. The reason we came in with an R-8 was like Mr. Hawkins-Clark said, we just wanted a little bit of latitude on our front yard dimensions, which an R-4 is 80. We are asking for a 76- foot minimum. All of our lots are over 8,000 square feet, which is an R-4 standard. In ( ! l. Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 44 of 63 fact, our average is over 10,000, if you look at the overall average. We -- there was some discussion in the -- a very heated discussion, actually -- it started out very heated about housing size. It was proposed that maybe we would get this thing approved, zoned, and, then, sell the property and somebody else would come in with a real dense R-8 and exploit the 1,100 square foot minimum house size and the 65 foot minimum lot width and that was never our intent. Staff recommended we do a Development Agreement to lock some things in, which we wholeheartedly agree with and that's why we did propose to -- we'd like to stick with the R-8 to give us a little -- the dimensional flexibility. In the Development Agreement, weld like to specifically say a 76-foot wide minimum frontage, 8,000 square foot minimum lot square footage and just to go above and beyond R-4, even, we have said 1 ,500 square foot minimum home. In all reality, like I was telling Planning Commission, what we are seeing in the market out here in south Meridian, in Bear Creek and Tuscany, is most of the homes are over 2,000 square feet. That's really, what the market is generating. I feel hesitant to set it at that level, but we -- we did set it at 1 ,500, we agreed to it, and the Planning Commission thought that was a good gesture toward leaning away from the -- you know, trying to squeeze in 1,100 square foot homes into the R-8, which was never out intent. Maybe just to kind of reiterate some things. We did revise the site plan to move the entrance on Victory Road 110 feet to the east. Ifs a really tough sight distance there coming off the hill and -- I donlt know if any of you have driven it, but it really drops off at Observation Point. We originally had it up on the hill for that reason, but it is better 1 00 feet over and so we moved it to where you can see down the hill and up the hill at the same time, so there is not any possibility of not seeing cars coming the other way. We did extend a stub street to the east. One of the homeowners -- or the property owners to the east asked if we could do that and we also had an issue of block length, so we did it. It worked. We redesigned everything and we kept -- we kept the same number of lots without going against what we agreed to as far as the dimensional standards when we redid it. We are proposing a detached sidewalk. Those street trees will go in before the first house is built, like we have done in some parts of Bear Creek and all of Tuscany. That's how we are doing it. It's really a nice street appeal right from the get go and we -- it costs a little more up front, but it's really kind of a look we are trying to maintain and portray out in this area. You know, I really think this is a good subdivision it's a good location. We meet the master plan. The utilities are all here. We are cleaning up the site. It's been kind of weeds for a long time and we know there is some opposition to the R-8, but I think the Development Agreement would allay some of those fears that s orne people might have. Y au know, if t here a re any 0 ther questions - - I might have missed a couple from Brad, but IIII stand for any that you may have. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Matt, you say the minimum on the lots are 8,000? Schultz: Yes, sir. Bird: How do you get 52 8,000 lots in a 648,000 square foot 17 acres? Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 45 of 63 Schultz: I don't have my computer -- Bird: I did it by hand, too, here. I hope I'm right, but -- Schultz: Councilman Bird, I don't have my HP calculator and I can't work that math in my head either, but I have done the layout and it does work. All the square footages are there, all the dimensions are there, and it all works out that we do have an 8,000 square foot minimum. A lot of them are over that on the west side of Observation Point. We do meet the five percent open space, in deleting the entrance, we created some more up north at the drainage landscaping, and the sewer line is in a common lot that wasn't in the original plat. We still meet the five percent. We know that's a rule. It's a rule we always have to play by and we meet that and usually exceed it. In this case, we don't have a lot of natural features to really accomplish that in a lot of places, but we are making the five percent open space. De Weerd: What are your open space amenities? Schultz: As far as the amenities, we are not planning a PUD, so we are not proposing any like tot lots or basketball hoops or things like that. What we do have is a segment of pathway along the Ten Mile Drain. To correct staft, we are proposing only to give the easements right now to you. If the city ever wants to come through and build this, they could. They would have one of the connecting pieces and I would applaud the city for pursuing these sections and pieces when you can get them. Maybe you will be able to get through Meridian Greens someday and connect everything. We do have an area for a pathway. If a pathway would be required of us, we would do it, we just don't think at this time it's warranted, because it does go nowhere at this stage, but we will leave 20 feet from the top of bank to the back of the lot, plenty of room to put a pathway. In the meantime, it will be an HOA maintained lot and we will keep -- you know, we will keep the weeds down and maybe plant some natural grasses and things like that, but as you're aware, these ditch banks with the ditch company, the license agreements, and things like that, get kind of complicated sometimes. I'm not sure the city has worked through a master agreement with the irrigation district yet, but when that day does come, the easement will be there and the city could build it. If you want us to build it now, we could do that, too. We are suggesting that it probably shouldn't be required, but we could do that as well. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Schultz, approximately how far is it from this back end of the subdivision to Victory Road. Half a mile? Schultz: Mr. Nary, I believe -- I believe it's probably a little over a quarter mile. I think Observation Point is a 40-acre square -- I believe. Yes. I just heard it's 1,746, so it's over a quarter mile by a few hundred feet. Nary: And it appears most of your green space is this back corner here? Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 46 of 63 Schultz: It is -- Mr. Nary, it is the back corner along the path. We do have a -- like Mr. Hawkins-Clark said, we do have an extra wide buffer along Victory Road and our street trees, we -- I consider that landscaping right off the bat. In any case, even if you did consider that landscaping, we are providing it along Victory Road as well. Nary: Those little circles that are in the roadway here, is there some -- is there road barrier or something? Because this looks like a pretty straight road, so is there something there, the circles on the plat and I didn't know what -- Schultz: On the plat. Nary: Maybe it's just a manhole. I don't -- Schultz: What is there is an existing 15-inch sewer line that was put in in conjunction with the Tuscany Lakes Subdivision. Once, again, even more so limited our layout, in addition to -- just the shape of the parcel was limiting, but the sewer line being there did limit where we put the road as well. Nary: That rear -- that rear green space looks to me like drainage. It's got topography in it it's got all the lines in it for -- basically a drainage lot. You have got no amenity to it and it's a drainage lot. I mean I guess I don't see how that's really an enhancement for the people that live in the front. Schultz: Mr. Nary, if I could, it is a very shallow drainage area. In any case, it's -- the groundwater is really deep there, it will be dry, it will be a green open space that people could walk their -- you know, walk their pets down along the drain through there and enjoy the trees and the open space that's there. These lots aren't small, you know, they are slightly smaller than a standard R-4, but they are big lots and people will have the enjoyment of an extra -- you know, a bigger backyard, a deeper backyard that we are proposing. The vast majority of our lots are over the 100 foot deep minimum, so they are deeper lots and we are suggesting that people would enjoy their own lots. Right down the road where we are doing denser properties, PUD's, we are providing those amenities. That's just tot lots. In this one case, we are not. That's not to say that we might not just go throw it in there, because it works for marketing as well, you know, to put in a tot lot. We are not proposing that as a requirement of the plat. Sometimes we do them because we want to enhance it, but we don't think a straight R-8 would require that amenity back in the corner there where there is nice -- there is really big trees along that drainage. It's a really nice natural area back there that I think people are going to enjoy for it's natural features. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: Mr. Schultz, how do these lot sizes and house sizes compare to the houses on the opposite side here that are in Observation Point and Meridian Greens? ( Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 47 of 63 Schultz: Lot sizes, some of them are the same size and some of them are smaller. I can't speak to all the house sizes, because a lot of the lots in Observation Point are vacant. They are very highly priced lots. They are probably equivalent to our Highland lots in Bear Creek, they are 75,000 and up. I would assume that their houses will be at least 2,500 square foot, 3,500 square foot, very large houses with large lots, if they can find somebody to buy them. We propose ours to be nice lots. We are not going down. The standard we are proposing, lots probably priced in the 50,000, 60,000 range, with the homes probably about 200,000 to 350. That's really, what we are shooting for. We don't think it's a bad neighborhood, we think it's a very good compliment to the -- it's not exactly like Observation Point, but 11m not sure I could afford to do it exactly like Observation Point and selling one lot every six months. We are proposing something that will just be nice. There is a strong market for that now that we are experiencing in our subdivisions we are doing in Bear Creek and in Tuscany of this exact same size lot and this exact same size product that we a re going to establish by our C C&R's and minimum house size, which I think will be about 1 ,500 square feet. In fact, to make it easy for everybody. What we are proposing is maybe just a blanket 2,000 square foot minimum house in here, single, two story, whatever, bonus room -- you know, there was a big argument at P&C about what about a bonus, single level, two story, it was quite -- you know, comical. Just to make things easy, what we are proposing maybe to step up to a 2,000 square minimum home -- which is a nice house, you know, in Meridian, and single level two story, whatever, to make it easy for staff to review and -- when these things come through the building department and everything. Buildable space. That would be enforced through the Development Agreement. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Okay. You're going -- you're saying a min'imum of 2,000 square foot? Schultz: Instead of a 1 ,500, 1 ,800. De Weerd: What is your minimum lot? I know it's 76 for width, but what's the depth? Schultz: It's an 8,000 square foot lot, so I think it's like in the 76, it's 106 or 108 feet deep, it works out to an 8,000 square foot minimum, and you see those along that east property line. Bird: Okay. That is an R-4; right? Why are we asking for an R-8? Schultz: That's a good question. The same question came up at P&Z and what we are asking for is a 76-foot wide lot width in the front, because the R-4 requires an 80-foot wide lot. It's suggested that maybe you do a variance instead of that, but staff wasn't comfortable with that. We are just asking for a slight difference from an R-4, we are going to an R-8 just for that. Everything else is meeting the R-4 standard. Bird: The thing -- the thing that -- oh, I'm sorry. Madam President. Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 48 of 63 De Weerd: That's all right. Bird: The thing that I'm scared of is on an R-8 is if you resell the property -- and that's the popular thing to do, donlt blame the developer at all. Whoever buys it, it's zoned R- 8, comes in, and takes it over, we are going to get R-8's, and, you know, it can happen within corporations. You know as well as I do, Matt. I donlt feel comfortable because of having Meridian Greens and Observation Point backing up to you, who are R-4's -- the fact we had Observation Point here asking part of theirs to be down to a smaller house. We continued that on, so that is -- that's my reasoning behind -- I'd like to see you guys -- if you have got the lot and it's only four foot difference for the width, we can do a variance in that, you can get the depth, but I'd like to see it the R-4 zone. That's my personal opinion. Schultz: If I may, Mr. Bird, the whole reason we went ahead and went along with the Development Agreement would be to maybe -- would be to definitely prevent exactly what you're saying could happen from happening. This -- the Development Agreement runs with the land in each transaction that happens. We would be -- we would be to the 76, would be to the 8,000 square foot, we would be to the 2,000 square foot minimum house size that somebody couldn't back with an R-8 and say, hey, I want 65 foot minimums, I want four or five to the acre, I want 1,100 square foot homes. That could not happen with this Development Agreement and that's why we are proposing this way of doing that. I h ope that would -- that would allay some 0 f those f ears that -- and concerns that you have. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I think Mr. Schultz is right. I mean if we are comfortable with the sizes and such, the development is probably better, because, again, the variance -- a variance for this is no different than any other variance. There is nothing about this property that's unique or special or anything else that it couldn't be done that way, so a variance I think is probably not really going to get us there legally any differently than a Development Agreement, because I think you're right, Mr. Bird. I think that all of these considerations that Mr. Schultz is willing to give, at least the numbers seem to match up on the plat, that it is -- although it is an R-8. The concern I have, though, I guess is a little different that Mr. Bird, but the same. You know, the difference is you might have a Development Agreement. That's still an R-8 and the next time someone wants to develop there, we have created a transition zone. Now all those other properties, like the one that the stub street goes to, are going to say, well, we want to be an R-8 now, we want to have 1,100 square foot houses here. Now it becomes this little island of these very small homes that are not compatible with everyone else, but we are stuck with the R-8. That's what concerns me a little bit. It's not what you're willing to agree to, but what we are going to be stuck with for the rest of the development. I guess maybe if you could tell us a little bit from your perspective as to what impact it would be on your application to have to conform to the R-8 requirement -- obviously, you may lose a lot or two to do that and so I guess we need to hear a little of that if you could. ( Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 49 of 63 Schultz: Thank you, Councilman Nary. You hit it right on the head and that was brought up at P&Z as well, that, yes, we do create a transitional zoning that somebody else could come in to the east and apply for an R-8 zone. I would argue that that could happen even if we had an R-4 zone, that could still -- somebody could come in with an R-8 and propose a transition down from an R-4. The impact to this layout is probably a couple lots, like you said. You know, it's probably exactly a couple lots. I haven1t ran through the scenario of it, but just off the top of my head, knowing dimensions and I did the original layout, what w,e tried to do was model this after a subdivision right down the road that we did in Bear Creek No.6, which is almost identical. We are seeing a really strong market for this and it's a little bit extra deep lot, a little bit narrow width, but it still supports a really good house on it and I -- with the Development Agreement, we are hoping to get a good subdivision down in here that meets everybodyls concerns. I know you have some others, but I think you still have power -- obviously, when somebody else tries to come in and annex to -- to evaluate it for its merits at that time and if has merits in ten years or 15 years or 20 years, maybe an R-8 makes great sense in 20 years. I donlt know how the demographics and the economy and everything is going to change with the cost of land and everything. It may be -- there is a lot of really dense R- 81s coming across you guy's plates that I see. There is one coming in about a month right down the road that's way dense than this. I think we are on the very extreme -- you know, we are still in the low density of 2.97 to the acre; we are still down in that low density category for an R-8. I just -- I think what -- instead of doing the variance, which is hard to back up and defend, we are doing something that makes sense with a Development Agreement and adding some other things in there, like the minimum house that you wouldnlt get with a straight R-4, you would get a 1 ,500 square foot minimum with a straight R-4. You would get -- you know, just an R-4, even, is 1 ,500 square foot minimum. What we are doing is a step up even from that to -- as an extra added -- I guess concession to allow you to approve this as we have prepared it and as we have submitted it. De Weerd: Any further questions? Okay. Thank you. Schultz: Thank you. De Weerd: . Okay. Is there any further testimony? Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Chase: Yes, it is. De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and addresses. Chase: My name is Larry Chase. I live at 78 -- just moved here four years ago. I forgot it. 756 East Martinique in Meridian Greens. 11m not the Larry Chase you hear on the radio. Who I am, Meridian Greens is a -- as most of you are aware, is a subdivision of 340 homes immediately north of this. I'm the president of the board of the homeowners association. Help me understand one thing real quick. We sent a letter -- and do -- do you have that letter? There was a letter sent to the City Council on October 21 st from our board through our property management association. I'm just wondering if I should resubmit it. I I \ Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 50 of 63 De Weerd: Mr. Berg? lid have to flip through all my -- I'm sure Mr. Berg has give it to us, but I don't see it. Chase: Well, let me just reiterate real quick. De Weerd: Thank you. Chase: Basically, the board -- the homeowners association of Meridian Greens found out about this subdivision after the Planning and Zoning and we had a board meeting and concluded that we prefer the R-4, as opposed to the R-8. We wrote a letter, had our property manager send it to the City Council, and we were concerned about the R-4 versus the R-8, because as we look at the neighborhood surrounding it, as an example I will talk about Meridian Greens. My house is an average house in Meridian Greens. It is 2,800 square feet. It sits on 17,000 square feet. This is an average house in Meridian Greens. Observation Point -- when that was put in place, Meridian Greens got involved a little bit in order to make sure that that came up to that standard. What we see is 340 homes that are half million-dollar homes, a third of a million to three-fourths of a million dollar homes. Observation Point is coming close to that. The homes on Kachina Drive, which is Mesa Street, are real nice homes, big homes, and we would like to see this developed, we think this is probably a good development, but we'd like to see that happen. We would just like to see it be done in such a manner that, in fact, if we are planning on -- to use a sport analogy here. If we are all playing football, we are all playing on the football field and not one of us playing on a tennis court and we see kind of that happening here, that, in fact, maybe somebody is working on a different kind of scale than we are. Questions? I think that's all I have to say. Questions? De Weerd: Mr. Chase, I guess just one thing I would like you to consider -- and I understand your concern. One thing that the applicant did say is by requesting the R-8, they are still maintaining the density of the R -4, but by requesting the R-8, t hey are agreeing to a Development Agreement that will establish the minimum house sizes. If they go for the R-4, they won't have to have a Development Agreement and they won't have to agree to maintain a minimum house size and I guess what he was explaining to us, the advantage of going to the R-8 is to have that Development Agreement and to have certain assurances built within that agreement. Now, our concern, on the other side, would mirror yours, is would this be seen as a transitional area, you know, to encourage more R-8's as some of that vacant land develops and certainly we wauld share that concern. I think just wanted to make you aware that those are some of the things that the applicant had talked about would be advantages to doing the R-8 and they are still maintaining less than an R-4 density. Chase: Are you saying that if -- when you ask for R-8, you have to have a Development Agreement? Can you not also say when you ask for R-4 you have to have a Development Agreement? De Weerd: I couldn't answer that. I guess you could ask for it. You could. ('- Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 51 of 63 Chase: Because what I see happening is coming and they are saying we want an R-8 and so to make that happen we will do this other thing. They could also come to you and say we want an R-4, to make that happen we will do these things, we will have 2,000-foot minimums and that kind of thing, so I donlt buy that. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you. Chase: Anything else? De Weerd: No. Thank you. Okay. Further testimony? Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Sackett: Yes. De Weerd: Thank you. Sackett: My concern -- De Weerd: If you will state your name and address. Sackett: Gary Sackett, 2008 South Peppercorn in Boise. De Weerd: Thank you, Gary. Sackett: Is similar to the president of Meridian Greens, as you look at this map -- and I may be asking a question, the yellow that loops all the way around that, is, indeed, all R-4; is that correct? Then, again, yeah, we are sandwiching an R-8 inside there. I just want to backtrack to what we submitted -- when Observation Point submitted their plat, they were R-4, their smallest lot was 11 ,200 square foot lot and it came back from the previous president of -- in the homeowners association of Meridian Greens that they wanted to see those a little larger. We, indeed, removed seven lots from the subdivision, then, our smallest lot was 12,648 and many others along further towards the road got even larger, so we did that, that was seven lots removing -- I mean at 60, 70,000 dollars a lot. That's a half a million dollars of revenue that was pulled out of there to make those lots larger, yet I think it works for the subdivision and I think Meridian Greens has been happy with what -- how Observation Point values have been there. We -- it just appears to me, whether it's R-4 or R-8, whatever the R is, if there are 2,000 square foot homes, it's still a quantum leap from what we were asked to do from Meridian Greens. We are only asking for the similar consideration be made to us, who is also having another subdivision butt right up against us and, golly, I can't imagine that Meridian Greens would have been happy with us to put, you know, some larger lots just along their border there. Then, done a whole bunch of small lots after the coming out. I would imagine they would -- and we did, we even made them larger as they went to some of those premium view lots. I just feel that this subdivision is counterproductive to being compatible with Meridian Greens, with 0 bservation P oint, and also, you know, there was a comment that we sold one lot every six months, you know, golly, we have 20 some lots sold and we have had plats since August of 2002. We have -- we do sell lots, but when you're selling lots that predicate 300,000 and higher homes on them, they r" \' Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 52 of 63 take a longer time to do and our developer is patient to see that happen, isn't lowering prices of lots to try and get them to move, he's being patient. I think that's a wonderful commitment for a developer to show to have -- bring higher values to the area and we don't need a strike against us in having a smaller subdivision that can put in dramatically smaller homes right next to us. It's just another little strike against us. The economy already has a tough time selling, you know, higher priced lots and three, four thousand square foot homes. We would -- as the homeowners of Observation Point and the developer, are concerned with that size of subdivision going on, whether it's R-8 or R-4, that's still very concerning to us. Thank you. De Weerd: Questions? Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. Sackett, on Observation Point, that is an R-4; right? Sackett: That's correct. Bird: We do have a Development Agreement with restrictions; am I not right? Sackett: I believe so. I'm not real knowledgeable about the Development Agreement Issues. Bird: We do have a Development Agreement with some restrictions on it, so, you know, whether it's an R-4 or R-8, that argument don't go. You get your Development Agreements and you can have the 2,000 square foot house and everything on it. Okay. Thank you. Sackett: One last thing to mention. We removed seven lots from the subdivision. If he goes to R-4, he said he lost two lots -- I donlt know why you couldn't do that. It's not lose four to six lots and make them larger and more compatible. Thank you. De Weerd: Thank you. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Howard: Yes. De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address. Howard: Stephanie Howard, 1 2909 West Broadleaf, a nd we a re building a h orne in Observation Point right now, so we -- that address is 2164 South Daybreak, which is bordering the subdivision in question, Glacier Springs. It's the second one from the -- the second one from the bottom and I'm really concerned -- lid like to see it an R-4 to match the subdivision, because we are building -- ours is a third of an acre. I think it's about 17,000 square feet, so we will probably see them from where we are in our house and 11m really concerned that we have the same quality homes to keep the value of our ( Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 53 of 63 home what it's going to be when it's built. It's currently under construction. I would like it to be officially an R-4 and with the building requirements that -- similar to what Observation Point and Meridian Green has, in order to keep the value of our subdivision house the same as what we are going to be paying for it. That's all. De Weerd: Well, thank you. Do you have any questions? Thank you. Is the testimony you provide tonight t he truth, the whole t ruth, a nd nothing b ut the truth, soh elp you God? J. Berg: Yes, it is. De Weerd: Thank you, Please state your name and address. J. Berg: John Berg, 778 East Trinidad Drive. I have -- I'm in the house that butts right up against the area, which is the green space. My concern is two fold. I understand and I applaud the developer's efforts to make the minimum home size 2,000 square feet and I appreciate that, up from the 1 ,500 at the P&Z. I understand that the R-8, plus 2,000 square feet more than exceeds the R-4. My concern is the residents -- most of these lots right across here are all 13,000 square feet, which are the back ones of Meridian Greens. It seems like an awful drastic change for the 8,000 square foot lots that would go in here. I understand that these -- that that would appear along here are a little bit larger size, but, still, in relation they are still considerably smaller lots and I'm not sure that they compliment the surrounding subdivision. I guess the question I had for the Council is in the Development Agreement, the green space that we talked about here, I guess my concern, if we had -- go to the other -- the other one that shows -- yes. We have an awfully narrow opening that comes into this property. I think these kind of cut back a little bit and I guess my concern is what -- in the Development Agreement, what restrictions, what can we hold t he developer to in regards tot hat green space. This is my home right here I'm going to be looking at it. It if becomes a mosquito infested wasteland, I'm going to be back here talking to you. This is going to be controlled by a 52-member homeowners association, which, you know, I donlt know that they will be as lucky as having Mr. Chase with a 300-member homeowners association to look out for them. A 52-member homeowners association sometimes does have some problems in getting action done. I guess my question is is what can be placed on this or is this something that we just get to wait and see? De Weerd: Good question. We will ask the developer to answer it for you. J. Berg: Okay. I appreciate that. De Weerd: Any questions for Mr. Berg? Really? Come on. J. Berg: I know you all know where my house is, because I got all kinds of flyers on my doorstep, so -- Nary: They didn't want them to come back and talk to us, so that's -- Bird: So, we got to find out on that. ( ( Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 54 of 63 De Weerd: 11m sorry. Is there anyone else who would like to testify? Come on forward. Come on forward. You will still have to be sworn in and state your name and address. Is the testimony you provide tonight the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Shay: Yes, it is. De Weerd: Thank you. Please state your name and address. Shay: John Shay at 3155 South Mesa Way. We live right on the corner where they are coming in down there on those five acres. De Weerd: Okay. Shay: 11m curious here, because they were talking about 52 lots, buildable lots, but I'm looking at the plot here and there is only 35. De Weerd: Okay. We will ask the question of the developer -- or the applicant when he comes up. Hey, Steve, you can't do that. Do you have more questions? We can ask you to ask the questions and, then, ask the applicant to -- Shay: Okay. 11m just curious about that, because if they are, you know, building a certain size home on there and you got 52 buildable lots and 11m looking at 35 on here, you know, I'm all for the subdivision if it goes in and it's all, you know, nice. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Shay: That's just a question I got is all. Nary: There is -- I mean there is lots that go to 15 in one phase section here, there is 25 lots in the other section. De Weerd: So, they show them in phases. Shay: Okay. There are 52 all total out of the thing. Okay. De Weerd: Do you have some more questions? Shay: No, not really. De Weerd: Okay. Shay: I was just looking at the lot size, because I know back in there that's been nothing but a mess back there for the last five years. I mean the weeds and the trash ~,~.- - ( Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 55 of 63 and everything back there is terrible. It will be nice to have a subdivision in there, but I'd like to have it a nice one. De Weerd: Thank you. Is there any further testimony? Okay. Does the applicant want to respond? Schultz: Yes. Thank you. Matt Schultz again. I heard a lot of comments about small lots, noncompatible, even if we were an R-4 it would be noncompatible. Looking at my plat, if I removed a lot from the east side, which is where all my neighbors are favorable to me, I hit t he R-4. I still would nit appease, even with 15,000 - - let's see, there is 12,700, 13,000, 15,000, 18,000 -- I have 14,000, 10,000 lots adjacent to Observation Point. These people aren't happy. I don't know what else I can do, besides not submit a plat or -- this size of property, for the price of the land, and the cost of improvements and everything else, and just the dimensional limitations to it. I can make a little wider lot, but I just don't think I could -- as a developer I can't justify proposing that. We have a very strong market for this subdivision as submitted and it's going to be a nice subdivision, every bit as good as Observation Point. The quality of people and the families moving in there will be every bit as good as the quality of the families moving into Observation Point. They may only have 300,000-dollar homes, instead of 750,000- dollar homes, but I don't see that's a big problem. It's a problem to them and 11m not sure why I'm getting all this grief, but we are. I think it's just because they got picked on by Meridian Greens and now they are returning the favor and I just, you know -- and that's the impression I got from day one in the neighborhood meeting and what we are proposing is a nice subdivision, with nice size lots, with nice landscaping, the landscaping in the back that, let's see, Mr. -- I believe it's Hazeltine -- mosquito infested wasteland, that's not our intent and ACHD, the City of Meridian, would never -- I wouldn't allow that to happen. The HOA wouldn't allow that to happen. The drainage, like I said, it will be dry, unless it rains really hard, it would fill up, and it would drain out within 24 hours. That's requirements of ACHD. If it didn't, we have to fix it. It will have nice landscaping turf, trees, shrubs it will be a nice area that's really a beautiful buffer for that gentleman's backyard. I mean I wish I could so lucky with my backyard. I really don't know how to rebut their argument that we have small lots and we are incompatible. I think we are really compatible and we have a quality project, no matter what I -- I really can't do anything to appease them tonight, even if I went to an R-4 and lost a lot or two, it would be on the other side from them and I have nice big lots up adjacent to them. I just can't throw six, seven, eight, ten lots way just because. That's all I have. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Matt, you -- I don't understand, you're going to lose two lots if you go to R-4 with the stipulations and the Development Agreement, of which we can have stipulations the same as we would with an R-8 or anything else. I don't know what the hang up is on R- 8 zones. If you got a 2,000 minimum on the house and you're going to have 50, 60,000 dollar lots -- and let me tell you, I realize yau guys probably paid a lot more for this property than Fuller did or Cavin did for their property, because they bought it a long ( Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 56 of 63 time ago. Anyway, I donlt see -- I don't see what your hang up is on not having an R-4 if you are going to go with 2,000 square foot homes -- when you say your lot's going to be 50, 60,000 dollars, which I understand is cheaper, you're looking at 250, 300,000 dollar houses there. I'm sure there is some more expensive in Meridian Greens, but there is a whole lot of them within Meridian Greens that probably aren't that high. I just -- I have a real problem why your hang up is on R-8. I just can't believe that there isn't something - - I don't know. Why not go R-4. A Development Agreement and R-4, we can put the same stipulations in. That's all. Schultz: Madam President and Councilman Bird, 11m here to ask you for approval tonight and I will -- we will go to an R-4, we will hold an 80 foot minimum, we will hold the Development Agreement to a 2,000 square foot minimum house. If you will approve this thing tonight, that's -- we want to move forward and get this -- get this thing done and looking at it -- we will probably lose -- we will probably lose a nice big fat lot down there in the corner or something, but, you know, that's what we got to do. I'd like you to approve it as such and what you're left with is the same subdivision and we just made a gesture to give that lot away, which is my -- it's a big chunk of change. I mean it's a big salary -- it's somebody's good size salary there for a year, so, you know, it wasn't small, that one lot was not small, so just -- you know. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Matt -- and I agree with you Matt, it is taking out -- and I know you guys -- like I said, you paid a lot more money for this property than what Fuller and Cavin's paid for theirs. Still, we got to look out for what can be developed, as Mr. Nary said, around that, too, and what we have got there existing. I think this makes Observation Point and Meridian Greens happy. I don't think they are asking for the 13 or 14 thousand square foot lots. The 2,000 square foot homes is compatible. I -- and if you're going to do that, let's go R-4, because if we zone you R-8 with a Development Agreement and don't have a bunch of stuff in there, it could turn us upside down and 11m willing pass it tonight if we go R-4 with the stipulations. Schultz: 11m ready to go home myself. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: And I really appreciate that, Mr. Schultz, in trying to be accommodating to the concerns and I guess I'm not -- I'm not saying I would vote against -- I'm going to vote against this for this reason, but you folks do build very nice subdivisions, you do make them into very nice additions to the community. I would encourage you very strongly on that open space to really look at what enhancement that's going to be. My concerns -- and think Mr. Berg raised that, that we haven't discussed before, but you, basically, have a dead end street that is the access to this green space. There is basically -- the people t hat live h ere either have to walk a II the way down here 0 r they don't use it. ( Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 57 of 63 There is no place to park. There are restrictions on parking on the street per the fire department's requirement, so the access and usability of this is pretty limited. If you don't make it attractive, you don't -- and I know you have seen me here a lot and I don't know always tell people to put in a tot lot or a basketball court. I tell them to put in some picnic benches, some shade and some trees and things to make it an attractive, usable facility, so -- I mean I think that's really what I would envision is something more along that line. I agree with you, I mean I don't think a tot lot or a basketball court belongs in everyone of these things. I don't think it will be very usable or used without it having some amenity like trees and picnic benches or a gazebo or something that is more usable for people to invite them to that rear section. Yes, I'm not saying we wouldn't approve it without that, but I really would invite you to folks to look at that in making it much more of a usable space. I agree with part of what you said, I mean for the property owners on that side, the fact that there isn't a two story house behind them is a plus, but I think to make it more inviting, it's probably a better way to go. Schultz: Councilman Nary, I appreciate the comments and we do submit a landscape plan with the Final Plat. We will look at that area closely when we do our final landscape plan and we will do a good job. De Weerd: I guess I have some more concerns on the open space. I guess I would ask a question of staff as well on this pathway. It will be a pathway that goes nowhere. I think the irrigation -- or the waterway, as you look into Meridian Greens, is fairly well developed into landscape and it's not really practical to consider that it's going to be a pathway at any point and so -- and I guess I'll get on my soap box on pathways. We need a master plan and we need to really see where these are going to be feasible as a requirement. And so if this one will not be feasible, it's going to turn into -- well, hopefully these residents would do what the Meridian Green residents have done and make it a nice amenity. If we make it a common lot and pathway, it's just going to be an eyesore. Is it really something that we want a pathway on and even if we want one on, is it something that we will ever get? Hawkins-Clark: I agree. I really would have to defer to the Parks Department, for the most part, and I know that sounds somewhat escapist, but, you know, these pathways -- our job in the Planning and Zoning Department is to point out what the Comprehensive plan calls for. In the pre-application meetings we point out to the developers this is what it calls for and as far as our level, you're going to be much better off designating that on your plat. I don't think that the -- that it's out of the question that heading southeast at some point you could connect a nd continue through Tuscany. T hey a re providing a pathway through there and would it end at this open space lot of -- it probably will. I agree. I don't think there has been any discussions with Meridian Greens homeowners association -- we have the president here tonight and maybe it's just better to get him on the record to say they -- they absolutely refuse to work with the city to provide a pathway through there. If that's the case, maybe that's the answer to the question, but - De Weerd: Well, I guess I would -- I guess I would like to see that -- you know, I donlt think we can pass this tonight without a plat, you know, without us being able to see what it's going to be and maybe that pathway can also be a part of some of the ( Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 58 of 63 realignment. I just don't see the viability of a pathway, just like Councilman Nary points out, having that piece of open space at the back corner in drainage lot shows a lot of usability, unless tell us what, really, the vision for that open space is going to be, so -- Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: The only argument I have got to that is we just passed on this same creek up at Mitchner's property on Overland and Meridian Road, we made them put in a pathway on their side of the -- on their side of the ditch. It's on the same ditch and it doesn't -- it goes from Overland Road to Calderwood -- I don't think it even completely goes to Calderwood. Hopefully, we had a master plan that was supposed to connect all these and whether -- I don't know whether we can Meridian Greens to allows us to go through or not. I doubt if they will, but -- and I certainly wouldn't blame them, but I think it's something we need to decide if they are going to be dead ends, we treat them all the same. We either do it or we don't. We -- it's been a policy of ours to -- even if they have been a quarter mile dead end, we have made them put in pathways. We got another one -- we just had a pathway put in over there on the corner of Victory and Locust Grove and its dead end. It might run into this one of these days, but it's going to be awhile before it does, so -- Nary: The other one is through the other property. Mr. Schultz. Bird: Yes. That's right. Schultz: We don't have a problem building t he pathway for t he section, for that six, seven hundred feet, and putting a dead end sign or whatever, no trespassing, and in twenty -- you never know, you know, in ten, twenty, thirty years you can find a way to connect them all. You just never know. It's smart to get them up front and I think you acquir~ them when you can and you just never know what's going to happen, maybe Meridian Greens will say, yes, we'd love a pathway and we have got the money to go in and buy one. I don't know. You know, who knows. De Weerd: Well, you have restrictions on your back property lines of four-foot fences. It does pose a problem for our police department that will not be visible from any road to look in at. They'd have to get into that cul-de-sac, walk into your drainage field and look down it to see if there is anything going on back there and that's -- I think we are setting ourselves up to create some problem areas and they are not problem areas we really need to create. Schultz: Maybe the compromise is that we -- like we suggested, we grant the easement for a pathway with our plat to you that's an easement. The lots won't be there. If the future we do solve this problem, we do have a -- we do get it all interconnected, you will have an interconnected series of easements that you could build a pathway and at that time it would be solved in a more comprehensive fashion and that would be the compromise that we grant the easement at least. ( Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 59 of 63 De Weerd: Well, maybe a t I east it warrants some further discussion from the parks department as you revise your plat. You can talk to them, but I mean we are going to count that as open space it might not be usable open space ever and so why would we want to -- Schultz: We are not counting it now. We are not counting it now. De Weerd: Oh, you're not? Schultz: No, we are not. De Weerd: Okay. Schultz: That's totally outside our open space count, so we are not counting that pathway easement area, which we do in all of our subdivisions, but -- like I say, I think you can approve this tonight with us subtracting one lot to meet the R-4 standards. I think you can do that without having us resubmit. It's a very simple thing to do. I would hope you could pass it tonight with that condition, that you annex it as an R-4 zone and that we have a Development Agreement, 2,000 square foot minimum homes and submit a revised Preliminary Plat within so many days. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: lid ask the rest of the Council -- I see no problem in passing the annexation and zoning. I do with the Preliminary Plat until Matt or Steve, whichever one of you is going to get us back a -- you know, as soon as we could get it back it would just be a formality. I think we need to continue that Public Hearing just with the -- just with the notification that we just see the Preliminary Plat redrawn, but the annexation and zoning we can pass tonight. Schultz: And we can get that plat to you with -- what's today. By the end of the week. I mean it's not that big of deal. Bird: Okay. Without seeing the Preliminary Plat, it's pretty hard to pass that but we can pass the annexation and zoning. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I agree with Council Member Bird. If they are able to get that plat -- is next week too soon for you folks to have time to review it? I mean if you don't get it until Friday -- it may not be very comprehensive, but I mean I don't want to put you folks -- you folks have lots to do. It is just that piece that we are talking about, the Preliminar~ Plat application, not the annexation and zoning. Would that be better on the 25t, Mr. Hawkins-Clark? ( Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 60 of 63 Hawkins-Clark: The 25th. The -- so, yes, if we received it by -- by Monday that would give us four or five days, so -- yes. I think that would work. Nary: That would be fair -- I think fairer to the staff, but I think the annexation and zoning, as Mr. Bird said, I think we can go forward with. That would give Mr. Arnold time to figure out where the park benches are going to go and maybe the shelter in the back. Bird: Gazebo. Nary: And gazebo. De Weerd: Any further questions? Okay. Thank you. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: With that I would move that we close Public Hearing AZ 03-024, the request for annexation and zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for the proposed Glacier Springs Subdivision. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close Item 11, AZ 03-024. All those in favor say aye. Okay. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we pass or approve AZ 03-024, request for annexation and zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for the proposed Glacier Springs Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Incorporated. North of east Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road. That the Development Agreement includes a minimum of 2,000 square foot homes, excluding the garage and 80 square foot -- or 80 foot frontage is automatic in -- and for the attorney to draw up the Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law and Decision of Order and incorporate applicant, staff, and planning and zoning recommendations. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay. Ifs been moved and seconded to approve AZ 03-024, with all staff comments, noting that it's RUT to R-4 zones, and to add into it a Development Agreement, minimum 2,000 square foot house size. Is there any discussion, other than ( Meridian City Council Meeting November 121 2003 Page 61 of 63 what I have -- we normally don't pass one without the other and I guess I'm just not comfortable to do that. Bird: If we got it annexed and zoned, which is completely different, then, we can -- we need to see a Preliminary Plat. Nary: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I mean if there is a concern, we won't have the ordinance back for at least two weeks, so we should be able to see the Preliminary Plat before we approve the ordinance. We could also hold the ordinance at that juncture, if the Preliminary Plat isn't here. We still can maybe, hopefully, satisfy your concerns in case there isn't -- that isn't completed. We can do it that way. The Development Agreement comes later anyway. Bird: Yes. That comes later. De Weerd: Now can -- the Development Agreement comes before the ordinance? Nary: Yes. De Weerd: So, at that point can -- if something is not on there, we can always make sure -- Bird: You bet we can. Nary: Yes. Bird: We donlt have to pass it we can pull it. De Weerd: Okay. Any further discussion? Nary: I won't say what I was going to say. De Weerd: Oh, now you have us wondering. Okay. Question called? Bird: Yes, I do. De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded and the motion is to approve AZ 03- 24, request annexation and zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-4 zones for Glacier Springs Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc., with all staff comments, to note a minimum house size of 2,000 square feet and a Development Agreement. Mr. Berg. Roll call: McCandless, naye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; Bird, aye. MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES, ONE NAYE (r Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 62 of 63 Berg: It passes. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we continue Public Hearing PP 03-028, the request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 building lots -- well, that's going to be down to 50 building lots. Fifty-one. Fifty-one and eight other lots on 17.5 acres until November 25th, 2003, to see the -- and the only reason for the Public Hearing is to see the new Preliminary Plat and that's it. Nary: Second. De Weerd: I tis been moved a nd seconded toe ontinue PP 03-028 toN ovember 2 5, 2003, to see the amended Preliminary Plat on Glacier Springs Subdivision. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. Bird: Madam President? De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Matt, I want to thank you guys for the thing you did, the homeowners association, and all you guys. This, for a controversial thing, went really really good and I, as one Councilman, certainly appreciate it. Thank you for being cooperative with us. De Weerd: Okay. Staff, do you have anything? Anything further? No? You know, Brad, if you can pass onto Anna, again, the need for a pathway plan, it would sure be nice. Hawkins-Clark: I will certainly do that. De Weerd: I know I underscored that earlier today, but, you know, I think every -- almost every meeting we have something come up on a pathway and it would sure be nice to have a good solid plan, so we are all on the same page on these. Hawkins-Clark: I will do that. De Weerd: Thank you. Council, anything further? Nary: Move to adjourn. McCandless: Second. Bird: Second. (^CU_ Meridian City Council Meeting November 12, 2003 Page 63 of 63 De Weerd: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. All ayes. Motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES. De Weerd: It's 10:20. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 10:20 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ~.rT+""""""'" or ... -r..,. ~ ~ ~ ~ _ (2-1 J.-- 1 tJ3 . CORRIE, M DATE \\\\\""111//1/ \\\\ M1=h III ""..1 Of ~~l/D //~/ ", ~, '4. /'i ~.... a o~POft41; IV /~ ~ ~G ~A ~ ..... ~ v _ ff SEALATT 8-10: Ji:&~~ - -? &- ~ (/Q/; ,Q) 0 2 WILLIAM G. BERG, J ~ ~A vSr 15\ · ...~ $....... -/ VA ~ '-. .r/ r 1 ~ ,.... //1/1/1 ?Ot-'~JT'l 1 ~,."..,.'\:." 11/:1,:" ~~i" '.' November 7, 2003 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT November 12, 2003 ITEM NO. 3-E REQUEST Water Main Easement for New Academy High School -- Joint School District No.2: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: See Attached Memo / Easement ~ mtr Contacted: Emailed: Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. I' ( j....:R< . El B./.'~ '1r.... '1 7.. ':r. .' ....- , '. fJ. . ~ Ii 1 .. 'Vt , ,..- .. V .. '.1 <..j ~.1 {J.:€ i n ~."" ".~~__,...c NOV 0 S 2003 To: Mayor Corrie & City Council From: Brad Watson, P.E. CC: File, Gary Smith, PE, City Clerk Date: 11/512003 Re: Proposed Agenda Items for November 12th City Coundl Meeting f' · t'-y r w'i r> 1\! - ~ · ,'::~~J vI 1't1erldloIl t.;lty (']f:rk ()fliee The Public Works Department respectfully requests that the following items be placed on the November 12th City Council agenda, on the Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: ~ 1) Water Main Easement for New Academv Hioh School (Joint School District #2). Typical water main easement Recommended Council Action: Approve the Water Main Easement for New Academy High School and authorize the Mayor to sign and City Clerk to attest. 2) Reauest for Hookup to Citv Sewer System (Outside City Limits) bv Marvin Everett In accordance with Council direction to staff at the October 14th council meeting, this Agreement is being presented for approval. This agreement was drafted with input from the City Attorney. Recommended Council Action: Approve the Agreement for Hookup to the City Sewer System (outside City Limits) for Marvin Everett and authorize the Mayor to sign and City Clerk to attest. Thank you for your consideration~ . Page 1 " ( WATER MAIN EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, made this _ day of -' 20_between Joint School District #2, the parties of the first part, and hereinafter called the Grantors, and the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, the party of the second part, and hereinafter called the Grantee; WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Grantors desire to provide a water main right-of-way across the premises and property hereinafter particularly bounded and described; and WHEREAS, the water main is to be provided for through an underground pipeline to be constructed by others; and WHEREAS, it will be necessary to maintain, service and subsequently connect to said pipeline from time to time by the Grantee; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the benefits to be received by the Grantors, and other good and valuable consideration, the Grantors do hereby give, grant and convey unto the Grantee the right- of-way for an easement for the construction, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement of a water main over and across the following described property: . (SEE ATTACHED EXHlBIT A and B) The easement hereby grant~d is for the purpose of construction and operation of a water line and their allied facilities, together with their maintenance, additional connection thereto, repair and replacement at the convenience of the Grantee, with the free right of access to such facilities at any and all times. TO HA VB AND TO HOLD, the said easement and right -of-way unto the said Grantee, it's successors and assigns forever. IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that after construction, making repairs, performing other ~aintenance or making subsequent connection to the water line, Grantee shall restore the area of the easement and adj acent property t? that" existent prior to undertaking such construction, repairs and maintenance. However, Grantee shall not be responsible for repairing, replacing or restoring anything placed within the area describe4 in this easement that was placed there in violation of this easement. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree that they will not place or allow to be placed any permanent structures, trees, brus~ or perennial shrubs or flowers within the area described for this easement, which would interfere with the use of said easement, for the purposes stated herem. THE GRANTORS hereby covenant and agree with the Grantee that should any part of the right-of- way and easement hereby granted shall pecome part of, or lie within the boundaries of any public street, then, to such extent, such right-of-way and easement hereby granted which lies within such boundary thereof or which is a part thereot: shall cease and become null ,and void and of no further effect and shall be completely relinquished. Water Main Easement EASMT WTR /-- ( THE GRANTORS do here~y covenant with the Grantee that they are ~awfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of l~d, and that they have a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that they will warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever. IN WITNES S WHEREOF, the said parties of the fITst part have hereunto subscribed their signatures the day and year first herein above written. GRANTOR: ._stine Donnell, Superintende Joint School District No.2 ~~~i~ Secretary STATE OF IDAHO ) ) 5S County of Ada ) On this 30+n day of Oc.J u be r , 2003, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in . and for said State, personally appeared Christine Donnell and Tri~ h Du n c.~ Y") known or identified to me to be the Superintendent and Secretary, respectively, of the corporation that executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year fist above written. ,,'11111'."1 "" lA ~.. (~~\l 1l0/##~ ~ C) ~~ ~ ~ ~.. ~ ~ ~.~ - .p - :~ di . . : : : : ~~ CrSL1C ~ I ~~ - *. ,,~ ~ ..~## .,. e 0 ~.".., ~"#,. 0 F ID ~ ~ ~,..~ 1'# "t: . """111'1' ~~ NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO , Residing at m~ I ~) C.ommission Exp~es: feb.. le, lD[)9 Water Main Easement EASMT WTR GRANTEE: CITY OF MERIDIAN Robert D. Corrie, Mayor Attest by William G. Berg, City Clerk Approved By City Council On: STATE OF IDAHO, ) ss. County of Ada ) On this day of , 2003, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and f9r said State, personally appeared ROBERT D. CORRIE and WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to D)e that the City of Meridian. executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and afflXed my official seal the day and year frrst above written. (SEAL) NOTARY PUBLIC FOR IDAHO Residing at: Co!IDJ1ission Expires: Water Main Easement EASMT WTR - ( EXHIBIT A PARCEL DESCRIPTION WATER MAIN EASE11ENT August 26, 2003 Project: Project No.: WESTBOROUGH SUBDIVISION 30363 A parcel of land located in the northeast ':4 of the northeast ~ of Section 30, Township 4 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, referencing Record of Survey No. 5692, more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the northeast comer of said Section 30, marked by a 3.5" brass cap; Thence North 89051 '35" West coincident with the north line of said northeast ~ of the northeast Y4 a distance of 1317.00 feet to a 5/8" rebar marking the northwest comer of said northeast ':4 of the northeast ':4; Thence South 00029'56" West coincident with the west line of said northeast 'l4 of the northeast 'l4 a distance of 1287.39 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING; Thence South 89056'03" East, 491.23 feet; Thence North 45000' 10" East, 458.79 feet; / \ Thence South 89053 '57" East, 269.41 feet; Thence North 30006'03" East, 119.66 feet; Thence South 89053' 57" East, 173.72 feet to the east line of said northeast 'l4 of the northeast ~; . - Thence South 00037'40" West coincident with said east line of the northeast 'l4 of the northeast ~ a distance of 20.00 feet; Thence North 89053 ' 57" West, 162.17 feet; Thence South 30006'03" West, 119.66 feet; Thence North 89053'57" West, 272.65 feet; Thence South 45000' 10" West, 458.78 feet; 1/16 COR a '<{ a Ct: o G ffi -s ~ to 0) ..l.t) ~ 0>'" S'\ItO a~ C)'f-- CI) ::laJ .. to 8..l{) .0) ~S'\I Q a <:: ,.~;~ ( 491.23' S89-S6'03"E N89-56'03"W 499.52' EXHIBIT B CHINDEN BL VD. NB9-51 '35"W 1317.00' PROPOSED WES7BOROUGH SUBDIVISION ~~ ,,~ ~. ,,0 _~\ ~':) -OC) ,''\' ~':> ' ,Oi ~ -()~co ~ cj<~ ~Vj . NE COR. SEC. 30 ! -. I "/V 173.72' ~ (Q'o ~SB9-53'S7nE DO ~. "C) .:t" 0 ......~ f'-. 269.41' ~ N89'53'5?,"W ~~ S89-S3'57"E ~ ~~ 162. 17 ~ ~, N89-S3'57"W ~ ~ 272.65' -<J 0). ^'JC) " &; r'- ( ( November 7, 2003 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT November 12, 2003 3-F ITEM NO. REQUEST Approve Agreement for Hookup to City Sewer System Outside City Limits by Marvin Everett: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: See Attached Memo / Agreement v~ Ov1 r'fO Contacted: Emailed: Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ( RECEIVE.D NOV 0 S 2003 r:j'" y r 0 n Oil /1 .. · ~~. f.....Y I 1'1 elidlal1 t_~lt~V (~lerk Office To: Mayor Corrie & City Council From: Brad Watson, P. E. CC: File, Gary Smith, PE, City Clerk Date: 11/5/2003 Re: Proposed Agenda Items for November 12tii City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests that the following items be placed on the November 12th City Council agenda, on the Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: 1) Water Main Easement for New Academv HiQh School (Joint School District #2). Typical water main easement Recommended Council Action: Approve the Water Main Easement for New Academy High School and authorize the Mayor to sign and City Clerk to attest. ~ 2) Reauest for Hookup to Citv Sewer System (Olltside City Limits) bv Marvin Everett In accordance with Council direction to staff at the October 14th council meeting, this Agreement is being presented for approval. This agreement was drafted with input from the City Attorney. Recommended Council Action: Approve the Agreement for Hookup to the City Sewer System (outside City Limits) for Marvin Everett and authorize the Mayor to sign and City Clerk to attest. Thank you for your consideration. . Page 1 ",--- ( ( t'r/:y'n> / GIl-/?11 AGREEMENT FOR HOOKUP TO THE CITY OF MERIDIAN'S SEWER SYSTEM OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of 20_, by and between CITY OF MERIDIAN, a Municipal corporation of the State of Idaho, hereinafter referred to as "CITY", and Marvin L. Everett, as hereinafter defined and hereinafter referred to as "SEWER USER". 1. RECITALS: 1.1 WHEREAS, "Sewer User" is the sole owner, in law and/or in equity of certain tract of land in the County of Ada, State of Idaho, described in Exhibit "A", which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth in full, hereinafter referred to as the ''Property''; and 1.2 WHEREAS, Idaho Code ~50-323, provides and empowers cities to establish, create, develop, maintain and operate Sewer systems; and 1.3 WHEREAS, "City" operates and maintains and develops a Sewer system; and 1.4 WHEREAS, the "City" has enacted an ordinance governing its Sewer system codified in Meridian City Code ~ 9-4-26 and 9-1-16; and 1.5 WHEREAS, the "Sewer User" is the owner of "Real Property" hereinafter described which is presently located outside of the city limits of the "City"; and 1.6 WHEREAS, the "Sewer User" is desirous of obtaining connection to the Sewer to serve the "Real Property" an<i the "City" is willing to provide that connection to the Sewer service to the "Sewer User" subject to the terms and conditions and consideration ofthis agreement, and it is specifically agreed that as a specific consideration of the "City's" willingness to enter into this agreement that the "City's" "Ordinance" and ''PoliyylRegulations'' which govern its Sewer system be included as terms and conditions of this agreement and that the "Sewer User" provide perpetual consent to annexation ofthe "Real Property" in to the "City". 2. DEFINITIONS: For all purposes of this agreement the following words, terms, and phrases herein contained in this section shall be defined and interpreted .as herein provided for, unless the clear context of the presentation of the same requires otherwise: 2.1 "City": means and refers to the City of Meridian, County of Ada, State of Idaho. 2.2 "Sewer User": means and shall refer to the person or entity who is the owner of the real property. 2.3 "Real Property": means and shall refer to certain parcel(s) of real property located ill the County of Ada, State of Idaho as described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if set forth at length, together with improvements thereon. 2.4 "Ordinance": means and shall refer to the City's ordinances that appertain to the regulation and control and use of its Sewer system . presently at Meridian City Code S 9-4-26 and 9-1-16, and this definition specifically includes any prospective amendments and/or recodifications to said ordinance or any parts thereof, and shall also refer to any other ordinance of the City of Meridian governing the "Sewer System". 2.5 "Policy/Regulations": means and shall refer to any City Council enacted policy and/or regulation of its Sewer system. 2.6 "Sewer System": means and shall refer to the City's Sewer system. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: 3. INCORPORATION OF RECITALS: That the above recitals are contractual and binding and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 4. PROVISION OF SEWER HOOKUP SERVICE: " The "City" agrees to provide a connection to the "Sewer System" to service"the ''Real Property" subject to the terms and conditions of this Agree~ent. 5. CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS OF SEWER USER FOR THE HOOKUP OF THE SEWER LINE TO THE REAL PROPERTY: The hookup and assessment costs relative to the "Sewer System" connection shall be the responsibility of the "Sewer User". Additionally, the "Sewer User" shall be required to hook up to the City water service at the time of annexation. 6. ORDINANCE APPLICATION: The "Ordinance" and "PolicylRegulations" apply to the Sewer service and connection and are herein incorporated as specific terms of this agreement and at such time or times as the "Ordinance" and/or "PolicylRegulations" is/are amended or recodified, this agreement is autom~tically amended in accordance therewith. 7. ANNEXATION: At such time as the real property becomes legally eligible for 8lmexation into the "City", the "Sewer User" herein gives consent to such annexation, agrees to pay the annexation application fee, agrees to apply for annexation, and diligently pursue annexation into the City. Provided, however, that Owner shall not be required to apply for annexation, and pay the required fees for such application, until October 14, 2008, or until Owner transfers all or part of the property or enters into an agreement to transfer all or part of the property to any party other than Ada County Highway District, whichever event occurs first. Future City Councils, in their sole and absolute discretion, may extend the deadline for annexation for a period not to exceed an additional five (5) years to October 14, 2013. Any extension must be in writing and must be recorded to be effective. This provision of this Agreement is a written request and application for such annexation in accordance with I.C. g 5.0-222 or any amendments or recodification of said statute. 8. HOOKUP AND SERVICE FEES: The charges for hookup, inspection, and service fees shall be in accordance with the provisions ofthe "Ordinance" and/or "Policy/Regulations" as are applicable for real properties outside of the city limits. 9. REQUIREMENT FOR RECORDATION: "City" shall record either a memorandum of this Agreement or this Agreement, including all of the Exhibits, at "Sewer User" cost, and submit proof of such recording to "Sewer {Jser". . 10. DEFAULT: default. Any failure to perform the terms and conditions of this agreement shall be a 11. REMEDIES: 11.1 This Agreement shall be enforceable in any court of competent jurisdiction by either "City" or "Sewer User", or by any successor or successors in title or by the assigns of the parties hereto. Enforcement may be sought by an appropriate action at law or in equity to secure the specific performance of the covenants, agreements, conditions, and obligations contained herein. In addition, remedies available to the City include but are not limited t9, termination of Sewer service to all users located on the real property covered by this agreement. 11.2 In the event of a default, written Notice of Default shall be served and defaultingjJarty shall then have thirty (30) days after delivery of notice of default to correct the same before the non-defaulting party may seek any remedy provided for herein. ,- ( 11.3 In the event the performance of any covenant to be performed hereunder by either "Sewer User" or "City" is delayed for causes which are beyond the reasonable control ofthe party responsible for such performance, which shall include, without limitation, acts of civil disobedience, strikes or similar causes, the time for such performance shall be extended by the amount of time of such delay. , 12. NOTICES: 12.1 Any notice desired by the parties and/or require~ by this Agreement shall be deemed delivered if and when personally delivered or three (3) days after deposit in the United States Mail, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed as follows: CITY: PROPERTY OWNER: c/o Meridian City Engineer Marvin L. Everett City of Meridian 785 S. Locust Grove Road 660 E. Watertower Lane, Suite #200 Meridian, Idaho 83642 Meridian, Idaho 83642 with copy to: City Clerk ~ity of Meridian 33 E. Idaho Ave. Meridian, Idaho 83642 12.2 A party shall have the right to change their address by delivering to the other party a written notification thereof in accordance with the requirements of this section. 13. ATTORNEY FEES: Should any litigation be commenced between the parties hereto concerning this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled, in addition to any other relief as may be granted, to court costs and reasonable attorney's fees as determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction. This provision shall be deemed to be a separate contract between the parties and shall survive any default, termination or forfeiture of this Agreement. 14. TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE: The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that time is strictly of the essence with respect to each and every term, condition and provision hereof, and that the failure to timely perform any of the obligations hereunder shall constitute a breach of and a default ,under this Agree~ent by the other party so failing to perform. 15. BINDING UPON SUCCESSORS: This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties' respective heirs, successors, assigns and personal representatives, including "City's" corporate authorities and their successors in office. This Agreement shall be binding on the owner of the property, each . subsequent owner and each other person acquiring an interest in the Property. Nothing herein shall in any way prevent sale or alienation of the Property, or portions thereof, except that any sale or alienation shall be subject to the provisions hereof and any successor owner or owners shall be both benefited and bound by the conditions and restrictions herein expressed. 16. INVALID PROVISION: If any provision of this Agreement is held not valid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed to be excised therefrom and the invalidity thereof shall not affect any of the other provisions contained herein. . 17. FINAL AGREEMENT: This Agreement sets forth all promises, inducements, agreements, condition and understandings between "Sewer User" and "City" relative to the subject matter hereof, and there are no promises, agreements, conditions or understanding, either oral or written, express or implied, between "Sewer User" and "City", other than as are stated herein. Except as herein otherwise provided, no subsequent alteration, amendment, change or addition to this Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto unless reduced to writing and signed by them or their successors in interest or their assigns, and pursuant, with respect to "City", a duly adopted resolution of "City". 18. TERMINATION: At such time as the "Real Property" is annexed into the City this agreement shall terminate, except that if any default exists at such time, the agreement shall still be enforceable to the extent necessary to remedy such default. 19. EFFECTIVE DATE: Agreement. This Agreement shall be effective at such time as both parties have executed this - ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have herein executed this agreement and made it effective as hereinabove provided. /}11 C:L:)" J:.r., '-1 Marvin L. Everett C, ./. Ii UJ..{juJ!Jr CITY OF MERIDIAN By: MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CITY CLERK BY RESOLUTION NO. Approved by Council: SATE OF IDAHO, ) : 58. County of Ada) · ,/7..4/7/ /2 rJ ~il 'J'J-;2 . // On ~> Gr '7 - day of 1/ Cr 77J r Ii:: -'L- , ill the year 20~ before me, .....,. II "'" J. /"1 ~!-J1f ~ /V1~4 , a Notary Public, personally appeared, 1J/1rte.\c'P",J, , bVl':/I'e.n ; known or identified to me to be the individual who executed the instrument or the person that executed the instrument on behalf of said corporation, and acknowledged to me that such corporation executed the same. ",,~I~SS WHEREOF, I have hereunt et my hand and affixed my official seal.. the.:-~~!t.~~l.in ~{ certificate first ab · en ~ '.6.. '....lJl....' Y """ ~ ... ~ ....' ~" (SEAWa71 t" 0\ i~ .4. , ; = %0 ;; i ~ g ot?I?' PublIc f009ah? -:. · ~A_ ~~ i bq :: ReSIding at. ;l;;ft!/.f~ ... ~ '\...." p ~ ~ ~ .~ -:.~,.., ~,... 0 ... Me. · E · "=' . ~/".. ""\"~~ ~ Y ormmSSlon xprres: J I //1 It. 7.6 " ",.." 'j .f 'i .. e..:.' " '" - s,r \" 11111",..", \,\\\ STATE OF IDAHO, ) : SS. County of Ada ) On this day of , in the year 20-, before me, , a Notary Public, personally appeared ROBERT D. CORRlE and WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., known or identified to me to be the Mayor and Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, who executed the instrument or the persons that executed the instrument on behalf of said City, and acknowledged to me that such City executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal, the day and year in this certificate first above written. (SEAL) Notary Public for Idaho Residing at: My Commission Expires: Subj ect Property: / l. EXHIBIT "A" Agreement for Sewer Connection wi Marvin L. Everett Ada County Tax Parcel No. 81118142200 785 South Locust Grove Road (" November 7, 2003 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT November 12, 2003 3-c; ITEM NO. REQUEST Water Line Crossing Agreement with Bureau of Reclamation and Tuscany Development for Messina Village Subdivision: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: See Attached Memo / Agreement ~~ Contacted: Emailed: Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Memo To: Mayor Corrie & City Council From: Brad Watson, P.E. CC: File, Gary Smith, PE, City Clerk, Bill Nichols Date: 11/5/03 R. ~.f ,.*"""Y:. 11~. T. -~V:'. F Y-~i ~- ..)) -~_A '-J ~ 1! ~ . l B -_k-__...~......~ '" ,,",'._.J~. j ;VQ \/ 11 t/ 2003 / )- . ~I :. ~ 1-: 'T' T u- rr. 1- · · ._:<~ ~ - '- ~ ~ J .l \ 1 e 11 dl an \--,1 tv (~J f\rk Of~ -'-- ~- - .. . 111 C e Re: Proposed Agenda Items for November 12 City Council Meeting The Public Works Department respectfully requests that the following items be placed on the November 12 City Council agenda, on the Consent Agenda, for Council's consideration: Water Line Crossina Aareement with Bureau of Reclamation & Tuscanv Development (Messina Villaae Subdivision). This agreement covers a water main crossing of the McDonald Lateral Canal that is part of the Boise Project Board of Control. The agreement is between the Bureau of Reclamation, Tuscany Development, and the City of Meridian. During the construction period, the agreement is between the BuRee and Tuscany Development, and upon the final acceptance of the water main by the City of Meridian, Tuscany Development is released from the agreement, and the City becomes the Licensee. This agreement is similar to previous three party agreements the City has executed with Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and private developers constructing water/sewer mains. Recommended Council Action: Approve the Water Line Crossing Agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation and Tuscany Development and authorize the Mayor to sign and City Clerk to attest. Thank you for your consideration. ~ . Page 1 ( ( UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Cant. No. 3-07-11-L1943 Boise Project, Arrowrock Division, Idaho CROSSING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made this day of , 2003, pursuant to the Act of Congress June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), and acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto, all of which acts are commonly known and referred to as the Federal Reclamation Laws, between the United States of America, hereinafter referred to as the UNITED STATES, represented by the officer executing this agreement, hereinafter referred to as the CONTRACTING OFFICER, and Tuscany Development, Inc., an Idaho corporation represented by its president, and the City of Meridian, hereinafter referred to as the GRANTEES. WITNESSETH, THAT: 2. WHEREAS, ,in connection with the Boise Project, Arrowrock Division, hereinafter referred to as the Project, the UNITED STATES, through the Bureau of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, has, pursuant to Federal Reclamation Laws, constructed and o~s, operates and maintains certain power, communication and irrigation works hereinafter called the Project facilities; and, 3. WHEREAS, the Project facility, known as the McDonald Lateral Canal, is being operated and maintained by the Boise Project Board of Control , hereinafter called the Board, under a repayment contract with the UNITED STATES; and, 4. WHEREAS, the GRANTEES desire to install a water line located under and across said Project waterway. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and stipulations hereinafter stated, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows: 5. The UNITED STATES hereby grants to the GRANTEES, subject to the terms and conditions of this agreement, the right to construct, operate and maintain said improvement and appurtenant structures across said waterway in the SW~, Sec. 21, T3N, RIW, B.M., in the manner and at the location shown on the attached Exhibits "A" and "B", said exhibits by this reference made a part hereof. 6. This agreement is granted subject to all rights previously acquired by third parties. r ~OONALD . j '- '- LAI[R4J. / i i I j i I I J I I I J ! ~ ~ jijiB J! 00 EACLE ROAD CRA VEL DRIVE EXISTING VALVE -A" IS LOCATED APPROX, 415' NORTH AT THE INTERSECTION or E. MOON N6 DIPPER STREET AND S, EAGLE ROAD. ~ ~ b C::5 Vl w ~~B5 u...:t:tf) O:::<E~ tgffiz 3=50 ~g~ -I-<l:0:: ~g~ ~~~ ~ ~ CJi. ACHD LITTER SlCN E. VICTORY ROAD - , ----- :' - - -4'&,ASOHP ( N r~ . T . S ~ EXHIBIT "A" to City of Meridian's Contract No. 3-07-11-L1943 for water line crossing of McDonald Lateral Canal in SW~, Sec. 21, T3N, RIW, B.M. ( o AIL - WATE CROSSING AT McDONA 0 LATERAL ND S. EAG E ROAD 2695 2695 2690 h.... ~ ~ ~ Q:) ~~ Slj- ~ ~ ~ ~~l!~ ~Cl) ::::;;;::; <..c:i ~ ~ ~~~ '-.j ~ ~.Sl. ~IJG~ ~~:: ~ ~ c;::s D;:) ~ lJ..J ct:i '-. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '=5 ~ ~, ~ ~ .'\1 '-.j II 11 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ h...: f-.: ~k? k? --- ~ t5 tS 2690 -- 2685 2685 EX/STING GROUND EX! 1. 24 1) CONe. 2680 2680 2675 . INSTALL 20 LF (1 0 FEET EACH SIDE OF CROSSING) OF 18" C9 5, CLASS 2351 DR 181 PV SLEEVE. 2675 EXHIBIT "B" to City of Meridian's Contract No. 3-07-11-L1943 for water line crossing of McDonald Lateral Canal in SW~, Sec. 21, T3N, RIW, B.M. (. /' ~ 7. There is reserved to the UNITED STATES, its successors and assigns the prior right to use any of the right-of-way herein described to construct, operate and maintain all structures and facilities including, but not limited to, canals, wasteways, laterals, ditches, roadways, electrical transmission lines, communication structures generally, substations, switchyards, powerplants and other appurtenant irrigation and po~er structures and facilities, without any payment made by the UNITED STATES or its successors for such right. ' 8. There is reserved to the UNITED STATES the right of its officers, agentsr employees, licensees and permittees at all times and places freely to have ingress to, passage over and egress from all of " said right-of-way for the purpose of exercising, enforcing and protecting the rights reserved herein. 9. The UNITED STATES, its officers, agents and employees and its successors and assigns shall not be held liable for any damage to the GRANTEES' improvements or works by reason of the exercise of the rights here reserved; nor shall anything contained in this paragraph be construed in any manner limiting other "reservations in favor of the UNITED STATES contained in this agreement. 10. This agreement shall terminate at the option of the CONTRACTING OFFICER if the GRANTEES fail to comply with any of the terms and conditions hereof, upon mutual agreem~nt of all parties, upon six (6) months' nonuse of this improvement by the GRANTEES, or if the CONTRACTING OFFICER determines that there is an overriding public or project need for the land for an incompatible use. 11. No member of or Delegate to Congress or resident commissioner shall be admitted to.any share or part of this agreement or to any benefit that may arise herefrom. This restriction shall not be cons~rued to extend to this agreement if made with a corporation or company for its general benefit. 12. The GRANTEES agree as follows: a. GRANTEES' structures shall be constructed, operated and maintained by the GRANTEE without cost to the UNITED STATES or its .assigns, and in such a manner as to cause no interference with the normal operation of the works of the UNITED STATES. All construction, reconstruction and maintenance work performed by the GRANTEES upon the premises of the UNITED STATES shall be undertaken only at times, according to plans, and in a manner satisfactory to the CONTRACTING OFFICER. b. To construct, operate and maintain their structures in a good, workmanlike manner and shall insure compliance with all laws, regulations and orders of the UNITED STATES and any other public authority a~fecting such works. The failure of the GRANTEES after due notice to abide by any of the ...., ( terms and conditions of any applicable laws, rules or regulations shall cause this agreement to be subject to immediate termination at the option of the CONTRACTING OFFICER. c. All backfill placed in the facility or its embankments shall be placed and compacted to the satisfaction of the CONTRACTING OFFICER. . The facility and appurtenant works shall be restored by the GRANTEES to a condition at least as good as before the work was accomplished. d. If the construction, operation or maintenance of any or all of such structures and facilities of the UNITED STATES across, over, under or upon said right-af-way should be made more expensive by reason of the existence of improvements or works~ of the GRANTEE thereon, such additional expense is to be estimated by the Secretary of the Interior, whose estimate is to be final and binding upon the parties hereto. Within thirty (30) days afte"r demand is made upon the GRANTEES for payment of any such sums, the GRANTEES .will make payment thereof to the UNITED STATES or any of its successors or assigns. As an alternative to payment, the GRANTEES, at their sole cost and expense and within the time limits established by the UNITED STATES, may remove or adapt facilities constructed and operated by it on said right-of- way to accommodate the aforementioned structures and facilities of the UNITED STATES. The GRANTEES shall bear any costs incurred by the UNITED STATES occasion~d by the failure of the GRANTEES to remove or adapt its facilities within the time limits specified. e. To indemnify and hold harmless the UNITED STATES, its officers, agents and employees from any loss or damage and from any liability on account of personal injury, death or property damage, or claims for personal injury, death or property damage of any nature whatsoever and by whomsoever made arising out of the GRANTEES' activities under this agreement. f. The GRANTEES shall comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations, and Reclamation policies and instructions, existing or hereafter enacted or promulgated, concerning any hazardous material that will be used, produced, transported, stored or disposed of on or in lands, waters or facilities owned by the United States or administered by Reclamation. g. "Hazardous material" means any substance, pollutant or contaminant listed as hazardous under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C. ~ 1901, et seq., and the regulations promulgated pursuant to that Act. h. The GRANTEES may not allow contamination of lands, waters, or facilities owned by the United States or administered by Reclamation by hazardous materials, thermal pollution, refuse, garbage, sewage effluent, industrial waste, petroleum products, ( mine tailings, mineral salts, pesticide containers or any other pollutants. i. The GRANTEES shall report to Reclamation, within 24 hours of its occurrence, any event which mayor does result in pollution or contamination adversely affecting lands, water or facilities owned by the United States or administered by Reclamation. j. Violation of any of the provisions of this article shall constitute grounds for immediate termination of this contract and shall make the Grantee liable for the cost of full and complete remediation and/or restoration of any Federal resources or facilities that are adversely affected as a result of the violation. k. The GRANTEES agree to include the provisions contained in"paragraphs (g) through (k) of this Article in any subcontract or third party contract they may enter into pursuant to this contract. 1. Reclamation agrees to provide information necessary for the GRANTEES, using reasonable diligence, to comply with the provisions of this Article. m. The UNITED STATES has only an easement right at the point of crossing of the canal; therefore, the GRANTEES shall obtain further clearance from the parties owning the underlying . fee. n. All work performed under this contract -shall be outside the irrigation season (generally October through March) when the project facility is dewatered. o. GRANTEES hereby affirm the existence of a federal right-of-way along this project facility pursuant to the Act of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat. 391). This right-of-way is agreed to run the length of the facility and measure 15 feet northeasterly and 15 feet southwesterly of the canal centerline measured at right angles to it. p. The GRANTEES shall notify the Boise Project Board of Contro.l (ph. 344-1141) at least 7 days prior to beginning the work described herein. g. To comply with Title VI (Section 601) of the Civil Rights Act of July 2, 1964 (78 Stat. 241) which provides that "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving "Federal financial assistance," and to be bound by the regulations of the Department of the Interior for the effectuation thereof, as set forth in 43 CFR ~ CFR 17." ( r. To comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, P.L. 93-112, as amended by the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1974, P.L. 93-516, and the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Service, and Developmental Disabilities Act of 1978, P.L. 95-602, 29 D.S.C. 700 et seg. which are designed to eliminate discrimination on the basis of handicap in any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance which provides that "No qualified handicapped person shall, on the basis of handicap, be excluded from participation in~ be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity which receives or benefits from Federal financial assistance and to be bound by the regulations of the Department of the Interior for the effectuation thereof, as set forth in 43 CFR ~ 17.H s. To comply with the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amendedl 42 V.S.C. 6101 et seg.; 45 CFR ~ 90 which are designed to prohibit discrimination on the basis of age in programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance. The Act also permits federally assisted programs and activities, and recipients of federal funds, to continue to use certain age distinctions and factors other than age which meet the requirements of the Act and its implementing regulations. The Act provides that "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial asslstance and to be bound by the regulations of the Department of the Interior for the effectuation thereof, as set forth in 43 CFR ~ 17." t. To obligate its subcontractors, subgrantees, transferees, successors in interest, or any other participants receiving Federal financial assistance hereunder, to comply with the above requirements against discrimination. 13. The provisions of this agreement shall apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the parties hereto,'but no assignment or transfer of this agreement or any part or interest therein shall be valid until approved by the CONTRACTING OFFICER. 14. The parties expressly agree that the City of Meridian shall not be considered the GRANTEE under the terms of this agreement until the City provides final approval, in writing, of the construction and installation of the water line described herein. Until such time as the City provides final approval in writing, all covenants, conditions, and obligations of this agreement shall be binding upon Tuscany Developmentl Inc.. At such time as the City provides final approval of the construction and installation of the water line, the parties hereto agree that Tuscany Development, Inc. shall be released from any and all obligations, conditions and covenants of this agreement, and shall no longer be considered the GRANTEE under the terms of this agreement. ( IN WITNESS WHEREOFr the parties hereto have executed this agreement the day and year first above written. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA By Area Manager Bureau of Reclamation 214 Broadway Avenue Boiser Idaho 83702 TUSCANY DEVELOPMENTr INC. By: :V1 r President CITY OF MERIDIAN By: Title: BOISE PROJECT BOARD OF CONTROL By .~d<?~/p Ken HenleYr Manage~ * * * * * * * ( County of State of Idaho ad t{ BS On 'this , 2003, personally appeared before me , to me known to be the official of the oise,Pr ject Board of Control, who executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said Board for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. ,., .,........,... ~..' ,..... J E At ~ ,... ~y.. ........ '4:rA ~... ... L"'\" .. .. "'0",).. ~) ~ --...." .. e. ~ i~f ~OTA~r \ . . . (~M) ~.~ : * -.-.. C · ~ ... J> U B \.., \ .: ~ '- ~ -. .- 0 , -.: ~.. .- ...~ ~ ~ -or ~ ....... ,..."""'1" , ~#~#. 1'1] OF \\) ..' ~"f: ,t ,..,.......... Qua {} .Q!i:41~at= at y Public i and for the State of ~LL) Residing at CO-~cLuu-elP.JO My commission expires: ~~q~&r * * * * * * * State of Idaho ss County of Ada On this day of , 2003, personally appeared before me , to me known to be the official of the City of Meridian that. executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said City for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above wr~tten. ( SEAL ) Notary Public in and for the State of Residing at My commission expires: ( \ State of Idaho ss County of Ada On this .;27 day of o c+-. before me G::~ --::f'Q hns.~ the official of T - cany Development, Inc., an Idaho corporation, that executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was ~uthorized to execute said instrument. , 2003, personally appeared , to me known to be IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year first above written. 'O.,Uluna al'#t, ~~'\'\ B 0 iblle-. ~~ \.. · <.,r n- 'q~, ~~ .()o..~ ....OQ L.~ " ~ "" Y ... -.e ~, ~ ~ ,v.e e. ~ ~.Q:('.. -<~y .e~~ ~ ~. Q'). \,... : =~: ~ '" . : -~. ,. v." : ~ ~ 10: ";a -5./8 'rnJ'I 'fr~ \J · 1:1:: q, ~ it ... .tr.tY..J) o. """ $ ~ 841i .. .("'\ y ..~ ~.(> S -"eleefleQ-<1 ~v ~..~ f\'~4'(.'Q 1:4 TE 0 \.-t,~~~~ .c .cOa Dt! Gii [J IH.i u,\?! ~~ ~IIA-g(t'-~ 0( ~~ Not y Public in and r the State of ~~ .... Residing at "-t~?-. ~ My commission expires: f? Igo J o? * * * * * * * State of Idaho ss County of Ada On this day of , 2003 , personally appeared before me , to me known to be the official of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA that executed the within and foregoing instrument and acknowledged said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said UNITED STATES for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said instrument. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my han'd and affixed my official seal the day and year 'first above written. Notary Public in and for the State of Idaho (SEAL) Residing at My commission expires: * * * * * * * ( November 7, 2003 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING Department Reports November 12, 2003 APPLICANT Planning & Zoning Department ITEM NO. Lf - A-I REQUEST Update on Comprehensive Plan Adoption by Ada County: AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTH ER: See Attached Memo ~ ttufr f>fllA ~~ n. 1^ l' LY: < j(\~ \UP d./Vl &#b Contacted: Emailed: Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ( MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: MAYOR AND COUNCIL ANNA BORCHERS PO\VELL, AICP PLANNING DIRECTOR R E .~ E-:1 I~\ TV D<' I.,) 'AG .~ . V D.. t~O\J 0 7 2003 DATE: RE: NOVENfBER 7, 2003 City OfMeridi~ctrl City Clerk Office ADA COUN1Y ADOPTION OF :MERIDIAN CO:MPREHENSIVE PLAN RUT CLUSTER SUBDIVISIONS As I mentioned in my department report on \Vednesday November 5th, I need to discuss the concept of RUT Cluster Subdivisions with you all. I've included a brief discussion of the general concept and intent of the RUT Cluster Subdivision and also the specific code language from the Ada County Zoning Ordinance. \X'hen the County was re-writing their Zoning Ordinance, they added the cluster subdivision as an option within the Rural-Urban Transition Area. The intent was to give landholders a mechanism to sell off a portion of their properties, while still preserving a large enough landholding to redevelop when municipal services were available. For example, if an owner had a 20-acre property, instead of subdividing four 5-acre lots, the owner could do four i-acre lots and preserve the remaining 16 acres for future development within the City limits. The minimum property size for a new residence in a Cluster Subdivision is 1.0 acre, with a maximum size of 1.25 acres. This is generally large enough to accommodate individual well and septic systems. The houses are required to be double-plumbed for eventual connection to municipal services. Please Note: A variation of the cluster subdivision is to have a smaller lot size consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and then provide community sewage disposal instead of individual septic systems. Resolution 03-401 is clear in that it does not want community sewage disposal systems within the area of city impact. In the letter that I am drafting for your signature, I will specifically state that the City of Meridian does not support Cluster Subdivisions that incorporate community sewage disposal systems. The Ada County Code provides an incentive for developers in the RUT district to do cluster subdivisions. With a straight 5-acre minimum lot size subdivision, the applicant must provide a plan of how those 5-acre lots could be re-subdivided to "city-sized" lots (consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.) . \Vith a Cluster Subdivision, the applicant is not required to do a re- subdivision plan. I hope this gives you a basic idea of the Cluster Subdivision. I look forward to your thoughts on whether such subdivisions are appropriate within the Area of City Impact. The exact code language from the Ada County Zoning Ordinance follows this memo. CITY OF :MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING DEPART:MENT 660 E. WATERTO\VER ROAD :MERIDIAN, ill 83642 ( ( 8-2B-6: RII AND RSW ~j$~iEb0] SUBDIVISION: A.Purpose: This regulation allows owners of qualifying properties in the rural- urban transition district or southwest community residential district to create a limited number of clustered residential lots before urban services are available. The intent is to: 1) create a means whereby farm owners may sell off a small portion of their property before urban services are available while still enabling agricultural production as an interim use, and 2) mmtlt~ such residential lots on a portion of the property to facilitate redevelopment of the remainder lot. B.Applicability: This regulation shall apply to any property that meets the following criteria: 1. The property is within the rural-urban transition district or southwest community residential district; 2. The qualifying property has a minimum of two hundred fifty feet (250') of frontage along a public street; and 3. The applicant proposes a density that does not exceed the standard in subsections 8-2B-1A and B of this article as applicable. C.Process: 1. Application: A preliminary plat application and fees, as set forth in chapter 7, article A of this title, shall be submitted to the director on forms provided by the development services department. 2. Standards: The preliminary plat shall be reviewed subject to the standards of subsection D of this section and the standards for subdivisions as set forth in chapter 6 of this title. 3. Required Findings: In addition to the findings required for a preliminary plat, the commission and/or board shall make the following findings: a. The proposed subdivision shall not create undue adverse impacts to adjacent agriculture; b. If the qualifying property is currently used for agriculture, the proposed subdivision shall maximize, to the extent possible, the continuation of such use on the remainder lot; and c. The proposed subdivision protects all gravity flow irrigation systems to the remainder lot. 2 ( D.Standards: 1. The residential lots shall meet the dimensional standards for ~ lots noted in table 8-28-2 of this article. See also figure 7, section 8-1A-2 of this titl e . a. The minimum residential lot size for dwellings on individual sewage disposal systems shall be 1.0 acre. The maximum residential lot size shall be 1.25 acres. b. Reduced property size standards may be approved when the applicant can demonstrate the following: 1) the property size and dimensional standards comply with the applicable comprehensive plan, and 2) a community sewage disposal system shall serve the lots. 2. A community sewage disposal system shall serve any fiIlm:tm subdivision or each dwelling shall be required to plumb the house for connection to a municipal sewer system. 3. Access and frontage for all residential lots shall be as required by section 8-4A-3 of this title. 4. The subdivision plat shall note the remainder lot as dedicated open space until the property is annexed to a city or obtains a zoning ordinance map amendment. Allowed dedicated open space uses shall be as specified in subsection 8-4J-3C of this title. 5. The subdivision plat shall preserve two (2) means of future access to the remainder lot. Such access shall be a dedicated easement or a minimum of one hundred twenty five feet (125') of street frontage for each access point. If the qualifying property has frontage on two (2) or more streets, at least two (2) streets shall maintain a means of future access as noted above. 6. All proposed residential lots shall be able to provide potable water and adequate sewage facilities as provided for in sections 8-4A-23 and 8-4A-22 of this title respectively. (Ord. 389, 6-14-2000) 3 ADA COUNTY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AGENDA November 13, 2003 6: 00 PM 1st Floor Public Hearing Room Ada County Courthouse and Administrative Complex 200 W. Front Street, Boise, ID I. CALL TO ORDER (6 PM) R.. .E- (: 'E TVE~-) . '. J_./. _J J., _1 I. NOV 0 7 2003 II. ROLL CALL {'=;ity Of IVleridiarl City Clerk Office D Steve Kehoe D Frank Martin D Lynn Moser D John Tomkinson D Chuck Story D Neil Boe! D Chris Hayen ID. OLD BUSINESS ~'/'('~.' ,~,~,Q~~l6~S :~:$~.n~eAn~V A' IUDGE ..'suB~,:(~~.,~~:,,:'/}i~!,-\('~~:', <'~/" '. ','! ~ '.,:~:t<'::';;.<~(:>::':>:'_://.~~;;?,',;~ ',~.,' ..~.: ,~',~,(-- :; Final Plat Staff Recommendation: Approve Commission Action: (Mark Perfect) *' - ::Z.'O~..08~WA ADA :COlJNl'Y <l\tEiRIIJIAN A.R:EAO FCrfYlMP ACT-: .~'.;t;~'\;)i:~' ", t',~~.,::,; . An ordinance amending the Ada County' code title nine chapter four section three and four~ the Meridian Area of City l1npact b:y providing for the adoption of the Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted by. the Cit}r of Meridian on August 6~ 2002:-- and ad amended on April 8, 2003, and amending the requirements for cit}r approval of subdi,rision plats. Staff Recolnmend ation: Approve COlllinission Action: (Nichoel Baird Spencer) . .~.~ ~'03-:29'~GU/f)3--:~9~MSP'~~OR1HwEsT;PAAAMEPIC:.AS.SOClA.TEs,:>~\'..~.' . ,"~"-:~ ': 'i~' ~;:>' ~ <;-,,- A Conditional Use Permit and Master Site Plan to allo,v the conversion of the existing residence into accomnlodations for ambulance service and a garage added to house the vehicles. The propertyt contains 0.69 acres and is located at 7815 W. Victory Road, Boise, ill: Section 25, T. 3N... R. IE. Staff Recommendation: Approve Commission Action: (Mark Perfect) IV. NEV. BUSINESS .,1. O.2-1~~S;CENTENNIAL 'DEVELOP~NT/CREEKWOOD 'SUB..: Final Plat Staff Recommendation: Approve Commission Action: (Scott Cook) ( ( CITY OF MERIDIAN ORDINANCE NO. 03- (oF'! BY: (]/tfrle (/1c{tlndl.es.J AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN AMENDING TITLE 10 CHAPTER 7 IMPACT FEES OF THE MERIDIAN CITY CODE PROVIDING FOR REVISIONS, DELETION AND ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE TO THE DEFINITIONS SECTION 10-7- 3, TO THE GENERAL PROVISIONS SECTION 10-7-4, TO THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE; STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES SECTION 10-7-5, TO THE SECTION 10-7-6 SUBSECTION B. TO THE DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES, TO THE REFUND OF IMPACT FEES PAID SECTION 10-7-7, TO SECTION 10-7-8 EXEMPTIONS, TO SECTION 10-7-9 CREDITS, TO SECTION 10-7-10 SUITABLITY OF LAND OFFERED FOR DEDICATION, TO IMPACT FEE SERVICE AREAS AND TRUST ACCOUNTS SECTION 10-7-11, TO IMPACT FEE EXPENDITURES SECTION 10-7-12, TO PARK AND RECREATION IMPACT FEES SECTION 10-7-13 ADDING A NEW SUBPARAGRAPH G AND RE- LETTERING THEREAFTER; TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS SECTION 10-7-14; TO SECTION 10-7-16 APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS PROVIDING FOR REVISIONS AND ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE; PROVIDING FOR DELETION OF LANGUAGE OF 10-7-17 VESTED RIGHTS; PROVIDING FOR REVISIONS, DELETION AND ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE OF 10-7- 18 OTHER POWERS AND RIGHTS NOT AFFECTED; AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, CONFLICT, VALIDITY, SAVINGS CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO: SECTION 1: That Section 10-7 IMPACT FEES of the Meridian City Code, be, and the same is hereby amended to read as follows: Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 1 of 28 10-7-1: SHORT TITLE, APPLICABILITY AND PURPOSE: A. Short Title: This Chapter shall be known and may be cited as the CITY OF MERIDIAN IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE. B. Applicability: This Chapter shall apply to the development of property located within the boundaries of the City as well as "service areas" identified in the City of Meridian! Ada County area of impact agreement as the same is amended from time to time. Cw Purpose: The City Council finds that an equitable program for planning and fmancing public facilities needed to serve new growth and development is necessary in order to promote and accommodate orderly growth and development and to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the citizens of the City. It is the intent by enacting this Chapter to: 1. Ensure that adequate facilities are available to serve new growth and development; 2. Promote orderly growth and development by establishing uniform standards by which the City may require that those who benefit from new growth and development pay a proportionate share of the cost of new public facilities needed to serve new growth and development. 3. Ensure that those who benefit from new growth and development are required to pay no more than their proportionate share of the cost of public facilities needed to serve new growth and development and to prevent duplicate and ad hoc development requirements; 4. Collect and expend development impact fees pursuant to the enabling powers granted by the provisions of the Idaho Development Impact Fee Act; 34 5. Provide the legal and procedural basis for the implementation of development impact fees within the area of City impact; and 6. Ensure that any capital improvement funded wholly or in part with impact fee revenue shall first be included in an approved capital improvements plan that lists the capital improvements that may be funded with impact fee revenues as well as the estimated costs and timing for each improvement. D. Chapter To Be Amended: It is intended that this Chapter will be amended as capital improvements plans are approved and adopted as part of the Comprehensive Plan, pursuant to the provisions of Idaho Code section 67-8208, to include specific methodology for the calculation of development impact fees for specific categories of public facilities. Development impact fees shall not be charged, collected or expended for public facilities which are not included in an approved capital improvements plan that lists the capital improvements which may be funded with impact fee revenues, as Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 20f 28 ( well as the estimated costs and timing for each improvement. No amendment to this Chapter adopting an impact fee for public facilities or amending or adopting the methodology for calculating an impact fee shall be effective unless approved by ordinance adopted by the City Council in accordance with the procedural requirements of Idaho Code section 67-8206. (Ord. 723,3-1-1996) 10-7-2: RULES OF CONSTRUCTION: A. Interpretation: This Chapter shall be liberally construed to effectively carry out its purpose in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare. B. Rules Enumerated: Unless otherwise stated, the following rules of construction shall apply to the text of this Chapter: 1. If there is any conflict between the text of this Chapter and any table, summary table or illustration, the text shall control. 2. The word "shall" is always mandatory and not discretionary; the word "may" is permISSIve. 3. The phrase "used for" includes "arranged for", "designed for", or "occupied for". 4. The word "person" includes an individual, a corporation, a partnership, an incorporated association, or any other similar entity. 5. The word "includes" shall not limit a term to the specific example but is intended to extend its meaning to all other instances or circumstances of like kind or character. 6. Words used in the present tense shall include the future; words used in the singular shall include the plural and the plural the singular, unless the context clearly indicates the contrary; and use of the masculine gender shall include the feminine. 7. Unless the context clearly indicates the contrary, where a regulation involves two (2) or more items, conditions, provisions, or events connected by the conjunction "and", "or" or "either... or", the conjunction shall be interpreted as follows: a. "And" indicates that all the cOlU1ected terms, conditions, provisions or events shall apply. b. "Or" indicates that the connected items, conditions, provisions or events may apply singly or in any combination. c. "Either... or" indicates that the connected items, conditions, provisions or events shall apply singly but not in combination. (Ord. 123, 10-7-3: DEFINITIONS: Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 30f28 ( For the purpose of this Chapter, the following terms, phrases and words shall have the meaning given herein. APPLICANT: Person who applies for a building permit or is otherwise subject to the provisions of this Chapter. APPROPRIATE: To legally obligate by contract or otherwise commit to use by appropriation or other official act of the City. BUILDER: Person who applies for a building permit or is otherwise subject to the provisions of this Chapter. BUILDING: Any structure having a roof entirely separated from any other structure by space or by walls in which there are no communicating doors or windows or any similar opening and erected for the purpose of providing support or shelter for persons, animals, things or property of any kind. BUILDING PERMIT: An official document or certificate by that name issued by the Meridian Public Works Department, authorizing the construction or citing of any building. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS: Improvements with a useful life often (10) years or more, by new construction or other action, which increase the service capacity of a public facility or service. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PLAN: A plan adopted and amended pursuant to the provisions of the Development Impact Fee Act, Idaho Code section 67-8208 which identifies capital improvements for which development impact fees may be used as a funding source. CITY COUNCIL: The City Council of the City of Meridian, Idaho. CITY PARK SYSTEM: Includes all park and recreation facilities operated by the City. COMMUNITY PARK: A park plalU1ed primarily to provide active and structured recreation activities for young people and adults. In general, community park facilities are designed for organized activities and sports, although individual and family activities are also encouraged. Community parks can also provide indoor facilities to meet a wider range of recreation interests. Where there are no neighborhood parks, the community park can also serve this function. In comparison to neighborhood parks, community parks serve a much larger area and offer more facilities. Their service area is roughly a one to two (2) mile radius, and will support a population of approximately seven thousand five hundred (7,500) to fifteen thousand (15,000) persons, depending upon size and facilities. As a result, they require more support facilities such as parking, restrooms, covered play areas, etc. Community Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 40f 28 ( ( parks are usually about twenty (20) acres in size and often have sports fields or similar facilities as the central focus of the park. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan known as "The City of Meridian Comprehensive Plan" as updated and amended from time to time pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6508. CREDITS: The present value of system or service improvements, contribution or dedication of land or money required by the City from a developer for system or service improvements of the category for which the development impact fee is being collected. DEDICATION: A deliberate appropriation of land by its owner for use as public facilities as the same are defined herein. DEVELOPER: A P-Qerson "'l/ho applies for a building permit or submits a plat that undertakes the subdivision of property as defined in Meridian City Code or is otherwise subject to the provisions of this Chapter. DEVELOPMENT: Any construction or installation of a building or structure, or any change in use of a building or structure, or any change in the use, character or appearance of land, or the subdivision of property that would permit any change in the use"l character or appearance of land"l which creates additional demand and need for public facilities. DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL: Any written authorization from the City which authorizes the commencement of a development. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE: A payment of money imposed as a condition of development approval to pay for a proportionate share of the cost of system or service improvements needed to serve development. This term is also referred to as an impact fee in this Chapter. The term does not include the following: A. A charge or fee to pay the administrative, plan review, or inspection costs associated with permits required for development; B. Connection or hookup charges; C. Availability charges for drainage, sewer, water or transportation for services provided directly to the development. D. Amounts collected from a developer in a transaction in which the governmental entity has incurred expenses in constructing capital improvements for the development if the owner or developer has agreed to be financially responsible for the construction or installation of the capital improvements, unless a written agreement is made pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-8209(3), for credit or reimbursement. Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 50f28 ( ( DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENT: A requirement attached to a development approval or other governmental action approving or authorizing a particular development project including, but not limited to, a rezoning which requirement compels the payment, dedication or contribution of goods, services, land, or money as a condition of approval. DWELLING UNIT: A building or portion of a building designed for or whose primary purpose is for residential occupancy, and which consists of one or more rooms which are arranged, designed or used as living and/or sleeping quarters for one or more persons. "Dwelling unit" includes "mobile home". EXISTING DEVELOPMENT: The lawful land use which physically exists or for which the landowner holds a valid building permit as of the effective date hereof or that maximum level of development activity for which a previous impact fee was paid under the provisions of this Chapter. As used in this Chapter, the term "lawful land use" shall not include a land use which has been established or maintained in violation of this Chapter or applicable codes. EXTRAORDINARY COSTS: Those costs incurred as a result of extraordinary impact. EXTRAORDINARY IMP ACT: An impact which is reasonably determined by the City to: a) result in the need for system improvements, the cost of which will significantly exceed the sum of the development impact fees to be generated from the project or the sum agreed to be paid pursuant to a development agreement as allowed by Idaho Code section 67-8214(2), or b) result in the need for system improvements which are not identified in the capital improvements plan. FEE ADMINISTRATOR: The official or designee appointed by the Mayor with City Council approval, to administer this Chapter. FEE PAYER: A person intending to commence a proposed development for which an impact fee computation is required, or a person who has paid an impact fee, provided a letter of credit, or made a contribution in-lieu-of-fee pursuant to this Chapter. IMP ACT: The effect on the local public facilities and services in a given area produced by the additional population attracted by development. INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ASSESSMENT: An assessment of a particular project based upon an agreement between a fee payer and the City after review of materials and information submitted by a fee paver whereby clear and convincing evidence has established that the impact fee requires adjustment. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS: A description of the service area and projections of land uses, densities, intensities, and population in the service area over at least a twenty (20) year period. Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 60f 28 ( LEVEL OF SERVICE: A measure of the relationship between service capacity and service demand for public facilities. MANUFACTURED HOME: A structure, constructed according to HUD/FHA mobile home construction and safety standards, transportable in one or more sections, which, in the traveling mode, is eight feet (8') or more in width or is forty (40) body feet or more in length, or when erected on site, is three hundred twenty (320) or more square feet, and which is built on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities, and includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical systems contained therein, except that such term shall include any structure which meets all the requirements of this subsection except the size requirements and with respect to which the manufacturer voluntarily files a certification required by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development and complies with the standards established under 42 USC 5401 et seq. MOBILE HOME: (See also definition of Manufactured Horne.) A transportable, factory- built home, designed to be used as a year-round residential dwelling and built prior to the enactment of the Federal Manufactured Housing Construction and Safety Standards Act of 1974, which became effective June 15, 1976. MODULAR BUILDING: Any building or building component, other than a manufactured home, which is constructed according to standards contained in the Uniform Building Code, as adopted by the City, or any amendments thereto, which is of closed construction and is either entirely or substantially prefabricated or assembled at a place other than the building site. NEIGHBORHOOD PARK: A combination playground and park, designed primarily for nonsupervised, nonorganized recreation activities. They are generally small in size (about 5 acres), and typically serve residents within a half-mile radius. At average residential densities, this amounts to a service area population of about three thousand (3,000) to five thousand (5,000) residents. Since these parks are located within walking and bicycling distance of most users, the activities they support often become a daily pastime for neighborhood children. NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT: Any development project not providing for residential dwelling units. OWNER: The person holding legal title to the real property, including the local, State or Federal government or any subdivision thereof P ARK AND FACILITIES: All park lands and facilities as described in the Comprehensive Plan including neighborhood, community, linear and regional parks as well as special use and open space areas together with the park system improvements necessary to support the recreation needs of the population served and to be served as identified in the Plan. Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 70f28 PARK PLANNING AREA: A statistical area of the official City of Meridian Area of City Impact area. Community park facilities in Meridian are deemed to serve the entire community and impact fees for such facilities shall be charged equally within the boundaries of the Meridian area of City impact, including the City of Meridian. PRESENT VALUE: The total current monetary value of past, present, or future payments, contributions or dedications of goods, services, materials construction or money. PROJECT: A particular development on an identifiable parcel of land. PROJECT IMPROVEMENTS: Site improvements and facilities that are plalll1ed and designed to provide service for a particular development project and that are necessary for the use and convenience of the occupants or users of the project. PROPORTIONATE SHARE: That portion of the cost of system improvements determined pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-8207, which reasonably relates to the service demands and needs of the project. PUBLIC FACILITIES: Shall include: A. Wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities; B. Storm water collection, retention, detention, treatment and disposal facilities, flood control facilities, and bank and shore protection and enhancement improvements; C. Landscaping associated with roads, streets and bridges and rights of way associated therewith; D. Parks, open space and recreation areas, and related capital improvements; and E. Public safety facilities, including law enforcement, fire, emergency medical and rescue and street lighting facilities. PUBLIC FACILITIES PLANNING AREA: A designated area identified in the Comprehensive Plan and capital facilities plan for which public facilities needs have been determined based upon assumptions made in accordance with generally accepted planning and engineering standards. SERVICE AREA: Any defined geographic area identified by the City in the Comprehensive Plan or by intergovernmental agreement between the City and another governmental entity, in which specific facilities provide service to development within the area defined, on the basis of sound planning or engineering principles or both. SERVICE UNIT: A standardized measure of consumption, use, generation, discharge or need attributable to an individual unit of development calculated in accordance with Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 80f28 ( generally accepted municipal, engineering or planning standards for a particular category of capital improvements. SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT COSTS: Costs incurred for construction or reconstruction of system or service improvements, including design, acquisition, engineering and other costs attributable thereto, and also including, without limitation, the type of costs described in Idaho Code section 50-1702(h), to provide additional public facilities or services needed to serve new growth and development. For clarification, system improvement costs do not include: A. Construction, acquisition or expansion of public facilities or services other than capital improvements identified in the capital improvements plan; B. Repair, operation or maintenance of existing or new capital improvements; C. Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing capital improvements in order to meet stricter safety, efficiency, environmental or regulatory standards; D. Upgrading, updating, expanding or replacing existing capital improvements solely for the purpose of providing better service to existing development; E. Administrative and operating costs of the City unless such costs are attributable to development of the capital improvements plan, as provided in Idaho Code section 67- 8208; or F. Principal payments and interest or other finance charges on bonds or other indebtedness except fin~ncial obligations issued by or on behalf of the City to finance capital improvements identified in the capital improvements plan. SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS: In contrast to project improvements, mean capital improvements to public facilities which are designed to provide service to a service area including, without limitation, the type of improvements described in Idaho Code section 50-1703. UNIT(S) OF DEVELOPMENT: A quantifiable increment of development activity dimensioned in terms of dwelling units, or other appropriate measurements contained in the impact fee schedule. (Ord. 723, 3-1-1996) 10-7-4: GENERAL PROVISIONS: All development is deemed to create an impact and therefore an increased demand for public services. As such, the cost of new public facilities should be borne by new users to the extent new use requires new facilities. Therefore, any application for a building permit enabling the construction on or after the effective date hereof or any amendment hereto which provides for impact fees for any additional allowed category of public facilities, adopted by the City Council pursuant to the provisions of Idaho Code section Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 90f28 67 -8206, shall be subj ect to the imposition of impact fees in the malU1er and amount set forth in this Chapter as it is adopted initially or as it is amended as provided for in subsection 1 0- 7 -1 D of this Chapter. A. Building Permits Previously Granted Or Pending: 1. Complete applications for building permits received by the Public Works Department prior to the effective date of this Chapter or amendments hereto adopting impact fees or amending or adopting any methodology by which impact fees are calculated, will be exempt from that portion of this Chapter or amendment enacted after the application, if a complete building parmit is issued "ly"f/ithin one hundred h"f/ent)T (120) da~ys oftha effective dute of this Chapter or amendment. A "complete application" for a building permit shall be defined as including permitted plans signed and sealed by a State licensed engineer or architect showing all site work, zoning compliance, architectural, structural, electrical, and plumbing work. Applications for building permits filed prior to the effective date of this Chapter or amendment but which become null and void shall be subject to the provisions of this Chapter in the event of reapplication. In the event that an amendment to this Chapter involves a change in the amount of impact fees charged for a particular category of public facility or services, the ~ fee payer who submitted a com?lete application prior to amendment of the fee shall pay the lesser impact fee amount. In determining whether this section applies'l the date of application for any incomplete applications shall be the date the application is made complete. Amendments and suP?lements to an a?plication to achieve completeness do not relate back to the original application date. 2. For building permits which expire or are revoked after the effective date hereof the fee payer shall be entitled to a refund of previously paid impact fees (see Section 10- 7 -7 of this Chapter) provided that in the case of a reapplication for permit, the impact fee in effect at that time shall be paid. B. Prior Fee Payment Required: All fee payments shall be made to the Fee Administrator prior to the issuance of a building permit unless otherwise agreed to in writing by the City and the developer; and no building shall commence nor shall a building permit be issued unless and until the applicant has satisfied the provisions of this Chapter. Violations of this provision shall be subj ect to the sanctions set forth in subsection 1 0- 7-5E of this Chapter. C. Duplicate Charges: This Chapter shall not be construed to subject any development to double payment of the same impact fees. D. Benefits Not Exclusive: A development impact fee shall not be deemed invalid because the intended improvement for which the fee was paid may result in an incidental benefit to owners or developers within a service area other than the persons paying the fee. Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 100f28 ;' \ ( E. Additional Requirements: Compliance with this Chapter shall not excuse the applicant from compliance with all other governmental development regulations. Building and/or use permits may be withheld until all such requirements are met. F. Anticipated Excessive Impact; Options: The Council recognizes that there may be circumstances where the anticipated fiscal impacts of a proposed development are of such magnitude that the City may be unable to accommodate the development without excessive or unscheduled public expenditures which exceed the amount of the anticipated impact fees from such development. If the Council determines that a proposed development activity would create such an extraordinary impact on the City's public facilities and services system, the Council may refuse to approve the proposed development activity and/or may recommend to the other affected government agencies that the project not be approved. In the alternative, the Council may calculate a pro rata share per service unit of the extraordinary impact and charge an impact fee greater than the fee indicated by use of the fee schedule. G. Individual Assessments: Individual project assessments of development impact fees may be made by application to the Fee Administrator who shall evaluate such individual project assessments under the guidelines provided for in subsection lQ.l HG in the applicable individual proiect assessment provisions related to a particular impact fee of this Chapter. If the guidelines are met, the individual project assessment shall be recommended for approval by the Fee Administrator and forwarded to the City Council for approval within thirty (30) days of receiving such application. An adverse recommendation by the Fee Administrator may be appealed to the Council under subsection 10 7 13G3 of this chapter. Final determination regarding project assessments shall be made by the City Council. H. Periodic Review; Recommendations To Council: ill The Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee shall periodicall)r rc"/ic"v"l the contents of the adopted impact fee ordinance (this Chapter) and, \T/hen appropriate, make reoommendations for re"/isions to the Cit)r Council be composed of not fewer than five (5) members appointed by the City CounciL Two (2) or more members shall be active in the business of development~ building or real estate. (2) The Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee shall serve in an advisory capacity and is established to: (a) Assist the City in adopting land use assumptions: (b) Review the capital improvements plan~ and proposed amendments~ and file written comments: (c) Monitor and evaluate implementation of the capital improvements plan: (d) File periodic reports~ at least annually~ with respect to the cavital improvements plan and report to the City any perceived inequities in im-plementing the plan or imposing the development impact fees: and (e) Advise the governmental entity of the need to update or revise land use assumptions~ capital improvements plan and development impact fees. The City Council shall consider the Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee's recommended revision(s) to this Chapter at least once every twelve (12) months. The Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee's recommendations and the City Council's action are intended to ensure that the benefits to a fee paying development are equitable, in that the fee charged the development shall not Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 110f28 / \ (' exceed a proportionate share of the costs of system improvements, and the procedures for administering impact fees remain efficient. COrd. 723,3 1 1996) 10-7-5: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE; STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES: The development impact fee reflects the need for capital improvements to public facilities or services made necessary by new development. Any person requesting a building permit for development or who is otherwise subject to this Chapter, shall pay the impact fee equal to the sum of impact fees reflected in the impact fee schedules set forth in this Code and determined pursuant to the following: A. Fee Limitation: The development impact fee shall not exceed a "proportionate share" of the costs incurred or the costs that will be incurred by the City in the provision of "system improvements" to serve the new development. B. Proportionate Share: The "proportionate share" is the cost attributable to the new development after consideration by the City of the following factors: 1. Any appropriate credit, offset or contribution of money, dedication of land, or construction of system improvements; 2. Payments reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of the new development in the form of user fees,. and debt service payments, or taxes "v"';hich arc dedicated for S)~stcm impra\rcmcnts for "v"',rhich de~/clopmcnt impact fccs "v"'/ould othcn"visc bc imposed; .1. That portion of general tax and other revenues allocated by the Jurisdiction to system improvements: and J..4.. All other available sources of funding such system improvements. C. Additional Factors: In determining the "proportionate share" of the cost of system improvements to be paid by the developer, the following additional factors shall be considered+ and accounted for in calculation of impact fees. 1. The cost of existing system improvements within the service area or areas impacted by the new development; 2. The means by which existing system improvements have been financed; 3. The extent to which the new development will contribute to the cost of system improvements through taxation, assessments, or developer or landowner contributions~ ~ or has previously contributed to the cost of system improvements through developer or landowner contributions directly related to the development to which impact fees will be assessed: Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 120f28 4e The extent to which the new development is required to contribute to the cost of existing system improvements in the future; 5e The extent to which the new development should be credited for providing system improvements, without charge to other properties within the service area or areas impacted by the new development; 6e Extraordinary costs, if any, incurred in serving the new development; 7 e The time and price differential inherent in a fair comparison of fees paid at different times; and 8e The availability of other sources of funding system improvements including, but not limited to, user charges, general tax levies, intergovernmental transfers, and special taxation as set forth more specifically in the Comprehensive Plan as required by Idaho Code section 67-8207(2)(h)e ' D. Protection Against Increasing Fees: After payment of development impact fees to the Fee Administrator or the execution of an agreement for payment of development impact fees, additional impact fees or increases in fees may not be assessed unless the number of service units increases or the scope or schedule of the development changes. In the event of an increase in the number of service units or schedule of the development changes, the additional development impact fees to be imposed are limited to the amount attributable to the additional service units or change in scope of the developmente Ee Method Of Collection: To ensure collection of development impact fees, the Fee Administrator may use the following means and methods provided~ however" that if the Fee Administrator" or the Development Impact Fee Advisory Committee discovers an error in the impact fee formula that results in assessment or payment of more than a proportionate share" the impact fee shall be adjusted at the time of assessment on a case by case basis to collect only a proportionate share or" the collection of any impact fee may be suspended until the error is formally corrected: 1 e Additions to the fee for interest at the highest legally allowable rate as well as a penalty of five percent (5%) for each thirt:r (30) da)r period if the payment is more than thirty (30) days late under the terms of this Chapter or the agreement between the developer and the City; 2e Withholding the building permit or other approval until the impact fee is paid; 3. Withholding utility services until the impact fee is paid; and 4e Imposition of liens for failure to timely pay the impact fee following the procedures set forth in Idaho Code title 45, chapter 5e (Orde 723,3-1-1996) Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 130f 28 ( 10-7-6: DETERMINATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Prior to issuance of a building permit for de~/elopment, the applicant or O\T/ner T,.vill bo required to pay monetaiJ7 fees in accordance "",.""/ith this Section. Unless othetwise agreed in writing by the developer and the City" all development impact fees shall be paid no earlier than the commencement of construction of the development" or the issuance of a building permit or a manufactured home installation permit. It is intended that this requirement extend to any owner or builder, including the State of Idaho, the United States of America and any other governmental or quasi-governmental entity where allowed by law. A. General Formula: The development impact fee per service unit may not exceed the amount determined by dividing the costs of the capital improvements described in the capital improvements plan and as required by Idaho Code section 67-8208(2)(f), by the total number of projected service units as described in the Comprehensive Plan and as required by Idaho Code section 67-8208(2)(g). If the number of new service units projected over a reasonable period of time is less than the total number of service units shown by the approved land use assumptions at full development of the service area, the maximum impact fee per service unit shall be calculated by dividing the costs of the part of the capital improvements necessitated by and attributable to the projected new service units described in Idaho Code section 67-8208(2)(g) by the total projected new service units described in that section. B-: j\ltemate Methodolog)7: 1. Criteria: J.^J} altemutiT/e methodology ma)7 be used; pro""/idcd, that it can be demonstrated that such altemati""/e methodolog)7 accuratel:r calculates tho proportionate share of the impact of the proposed de""/clopment on the capacity of s)7stcm impro'vements in terms of generally accepted municipal, engineering and planning principles. 2. Right To Question ~1ethod: Challenges to the methodolog~y adopted b)7 an)7 impact fee ordinance appro~./ed b)7 the City Council ma)7 be brought b)7 any interested indiT/idual "'yT/ithin sixty (60) da)7s of the adoption or modification of such impact fee methodolog)7 by filing formal protest "C,.T/ith the Cit)7 Clerk "C,.""/ho shall set the matter for hearing before the Cit)r Council \vithin thirt)7 (30) days ofrecci~/ing such protest. The protesting part:r shall be specific in identifying objections to the methodology. The City Council shall render a "C,."C/ritten decision v~/ithin fifteen (15) dU)7s of the closure of the hearing on the protest. The decision of the City Council shall be final. GB. Permit Fee Increased; No Refund: In the case of development activity involving a change of use and/or magnitude of use in which a building permit is required, the applicant shall be required to pay the computed impact fee for any proposed development activity for which the impact fee has not been previously paid. When any building permit expires or is revoked after the effective date hereof and a fee has not previously been paid under this Chapter, the applicant shall be required to comply Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 140f28 with the provisions herein. No refunds will be given for proposed development activity resulting in a negative fee calculation. BC. Exemption To Fee: No impact fee payment shall be required for any development activity when the total calculated fee is less than five dollars ($5.00); eD. Fee Administrator Determination: If the type of dwelling unit within a proposed or current development is not specified in the impact fee schedule, the Fee Administrator shall use the dwelling unit most nearly comparable in computing the fee. This determination shall be made at the discretion of the Fee Administrator, with appeal to the City Council if the applicant disagrees with the Fee Administrator's determination. IZE.. Criteria For Determination: In determining existing development activity and the units of proposed or existing development, the Fee Administrator shall use the building permit or zoning certificate of use information contained in the building or zoning records of the City. GE. Manufactured Homes; Possible Exemption: A development impact fee will be assessed for installation of a modular building, manufactured home or mobile home unless the fee payer can demonstrate by documentation such as utility bills and tax records either: 1. That a modular building, manufactured home or mobile home was legally in place on the lot or space prior to the effective date hereof; or 2. That a development impact fee has been paid previously for the installation of a modular building, manufactured home or mobile home on that same lot or space. (Ord.723,3-1-1996) 10-7-7: REFUND OF IMPACT FEES PAID: A. Qualification: The fee payer or current owner shall be entitled to a refund of the impact fee if: 1) a building permit encompassing fee paying development expires or is re~/okcd is denied or abandoned, or 2) if the public facility or service for which the fee was paid is available but never provided, or 3) the City, after collecting the fee when the public facility for which the fee was paid is not available, has failed to appropriate and expend the collected development impact fees within ten (10) five (5) years on a first in, first-out (FIFO) basis unless the City has identified" in writing" a reasonable cause for holding the fees longer than five (5) years" but in no event may the fees be held longer than eight (8) years: or in determining whether this section applies" the date of application for any incomplete applications shall be the date the application is made complete. Amendments and supplements to an application to achieve completeness do not relate back to the original application date" the fee payer pays a fee under protest and a subsequent review of the fee paid or the completion of an individual assessment determines that the fee paid exceeded the proportionate Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 150f 28 share., cJccept that the City shall retain the general administrative or specified administrati've charge portion of the fee to co~./er the cost of the administration of the impact fee oalculation, collection and refund. However, no refund shall be provided for the cost of completed improvements contributed in lieu of fee unless otherwise provided for in a development agreement. B. Refund Made With Interest; Requested: Any impact fee trust funds refunded shall be returned to the fee payer or current owner by the Fee Administrator with accrued interest at one-half (1/2) the legal rate as provided for in Idaho Code section 28-22- 104 from the date on which the fee was originally paid. The fee payer or current owner shall be required to submit a written request for refund to the Fee Administrator before issuance of the refund can be authorized. No refunds of development impact fees will be provided for in the event the fee payer or current owner does not request such a refund prior to the expiration of one year following the ton (10) five (5) year period from the date the development impact fee was paid. C. Prompt Reimbursement: Refunds shall be sent to the fee payer, or person entitled to such refund, within ninety (90) days of their appro~{al bjr the Cit)r after determination bv the City that a refund is due. D. Council Approval For Expenditures: Funds shall be deemed expended for purposes of this Chapter when payment of said funds has been approved by the City. (Ord. 723, 3- 1-1996) 10-7-8: EXEMPTIONS: A. Criteria Enumerated: The following shall be exempted from payment of development impact fees: 1. Rebuilding the same amount of floor space of a structure which was destroyed by fire or other catastrophe, providing the structure is rebuilt and ready for occupancy within two (2) years of the fire or other catastrophe; 2. Remodeling or repairing a structure which does not increase the number of service units; 3. Replacing a residential unit, including a manufactured home, with another residential unit on the same lot; provided, that the number of service units does not Increase; 4. Placing a temporary construction trailer or office on a lot; 5. Constructing an addition on a residential structure which does not increase the number of service units; Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 160f 28 6. Adding uses that are typically accessory to residential uses, such as tennis courts or clubhouses, unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the use creates a significant impact on the capacity of system improvements; and 7. Development projects which are commercial, industrial or office projects, or portions of projects that involve commercial, industrial or office uses or building permits. B. Claimed At Time Of Application: An exemption must be claimed by the fee payer upon application for a building permit. Any exemption not so claimed shall be deemed waived by the fee payer. All requests shall be submitted to and determined by the Fee Administrator. Appeals of the Fee Administrator's determination shall be made under the provisions of Section 10-7-16 of this Chapter. (Ord. 723,3-1-1996) 10-7-9: CREDITS: A. Based On Present Value: In the calculation of impact fees for a particular project, credit shall only be given for the present value of any construction of system improvements or contribution or dedication of land or an interest in land or money required by the City from a developer for system improvements. Credit shall not be given for project improvements. B. Taxes and User Fees: In the calculation of development impact fees for a particular project'l credit shall be given for the present value of all tax and user fee revenue generated bv the developer within the service area where the impact fee is being assessed and used by the City for system improvements of the category for which the development impact fee is being collected. If the amount of the credit exceeds the proportionate share for the particular proiect'l the developer shall receive a credit on future impact fees for the amount in excess of the proportionate share. The credit may be ap-plied by the developer as an offset against future impact fees only in the service area where the credit was generated. BC. Duplication Of Fees: A developer who is required to construct, fund or contribute system improvements in excess of the impact fees T"yhich \vould othcnvise haTle been paid b)r the dCT/elopmcnt project development project's proportionate share of system improvements costs, shall at the developer's choice'l receive a credit against future impact fees or be reimbursed for such excess construction, funding or contribution from analogous impact fees paid by future development located in the service area which is benefitted by such improvements. GD. Disposition Of Excess Funds: If credit or reimbursement is due to the developer pursuant to this Section, the City and the developer shall enter into a written agreement, negotiated in good faith, prior to the construction funding or contribution. The agreement shall provide for the amount of credit or the amount, time and form of reimbursement. Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 170f28 BE.. Documentation; Determination; Appeal: Any person requesting such credit or reimbursement shall present documentation of costs or payments for facilities to be considered by the Fee Administrator for use in determining the amount of credit or reimbursement to be given. The determination shall be made no more than thirty (30) days after complete documentation is submitted to the Fee Administrator. Any appeal from such a decision by the Fee Administrator will be reviewed by the City Council pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 1 0- 7 -16 of this Chapter. (Grd. 723, 3- 1-1996) 10-7-10: SUITABILITY OF LAND OFFERED FOR DEDICATION: In the event that a developer intends to contribute or dedicate an interest in land in lieu of paying impact fees or a portion thereof, the following procedures and criteria shall be applied: A. Qualifying Land: The Fee Administrator, with the advice of the appropriate department head and the City Attorney, will determine whether the land proposed for dedication is acceptable. He will be guided by the following consideration: 1. Size: The size of the parcel is expressed as a net amount and is exclusive of street right of way, existing and proposed easements, borrow pits, lakes and other manmade or natural conditions which restrict or impede the intended use of such areas. 2. Unity: The land to be dedicated shall form a single parcel of land except where aforesaid review determines that two (2) or more parcels would be in the best public interest. 3. Shape: The configuration of the parcel of land is such as to be usable for public facilities purposes as determined by the City. 4. Location: The land to be dedicated is so located as to serve the needs of the development, by being within the service area and/or public facilities service zone. 5. Access: Appropriate access to the land to be dedicated is provided by improved public street frontage. 6. Utility: Dedicated land should be usable for public facilities purposes and meet the following criteria prior to its final acceptance by the City Council: a. The property is platted and ready to be developed so that no funds would be required to be expended for site development. b. All utilities are in place and are at the perimeter of the site and include roads, walks, curbs, water lines, sewer lines, electric service lines, and telephone service lines. Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 180f28 ( c. All utilities are of sufficient quality and quantity to adequately service the site. d. The property is filled and compacted to comply with all appropriate subdivision codes, building and zoning codes, and flood insurance laws and regulations. The fill and compaction are of sufficient quality to accept the improvements contemplated. 7. Plans: City, regional and State plans shall be taken into consideration when evaluating land proposals for dedication. 8. Site Characteristics: The Fee Administrator shall determine, based on specific review of each application, whether the proposed site contains the requisite site characteristics consistent with public facilities criteria. This determination shall be in writing and shall specify the reasons the site was approved or denied credit for inclusion in the land dedication requirement. The Fee Administrator's determination shall be made within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the request and shall be forwarded to the Council for action. The Council may affirm, rej ect or revise the determination of the Fee Administrator pro~/iding and must provide written findings of fact and conclusions of law. B. Appeals Process: Appeals of the Fee Administrator's determination of land suitability shall be made to the City Council by the filing of an appeal with the City Clerk no later than ten (10) days following the date of the decision of the Fee Administrator. (Ord.723,3-1-1996) 10-7-11: IMPACT FEE SERVICE AREAS AND TRUST ACCOUNTS: A. Fund Established: All impact fees will be deposited in a designated "trust fund". Interest-bearing trust accounts shall be established and maintained by the City, said trust accounts shall correspond to the area contained in the corporate boundary as the same is adopted and amended from time to time by action of the City Council. The City shall maintain accounting records for each category of system improvements within each service area for which impact fees are collected. All interest earned on any impact fee fund shall accrue to that fund and shall be subiect to all restrictions placed upon the use of impact fees pursuant to this code. B. Areas To Correspond: Public facilities planning area (service area) shall correspond to the corporate boundary and the Area of City Impact identified in the Comprehensive Plan, and the same area adopted as part of capital improvements plan approved by the City Council, indicating the designated planning areas for the public facilities needed, including, but not limited to, those associated with parks and recreation. C. Costs Of Administration Separated: All impact fees collected by the Fee Administrator will be promptly deposited into the proper trust account, excepting genoral administrative charges that portion of fees attributable to development of a capital improvement plan as provided in I.C. 67-8208 which will be directed to the Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 190f 28 appropriate department to underwrite the cost of administering this Chapter. (Ord. 723, 3-1-1996) 10-7-12: IMPACT FEE EXPENDITURES: A. Limited Use: Except as otherwise provided herein, funds from the impact fee trust funds, including any accrued interest, shall be limited to the financing of acquisition, expansion, and/or improvement of real property, capital facilities, or for principal and interest payments (including sinking fund payments) on bonds or other borrowed revenues used to acquire, expand or improve such facilities or services necessitated by the impact of new development within the community. B. First In, First Out: Trust account funds shall be deemed expended in the order in which they are collected. c. Fair Distribution Of Funds: In the event that the level of service standards for public facilities have been met within a particular area of the community, the City Council may authorize the Mayor or his designee, following a public hearing, to expend the funds in another area of the community for system improvements of the same category, in a fair and reasonable proportion to the fees charged. Said authorization shall only be permitted upon a finding that the expenditure will fairly and proportionately mitigate the impacts of and will fairly and proportionately benefit the development paying the fees in question. D. Allowable Adjustments To Expenditures: In the event compliance with the level of service standard for public facilities meets or exceeds the projected population estimates adopted in the Comprehensive Plan through the year 2015, the City Council may authorize the Mayor or his designee, following a public hearing, to expend the additional impact fees collected from the development in excess of original projections, for system improvements within the community from which the fees were collected. Said authorization shall be permitted upon a finding that the expenditure will mitigate the impacts of and will benefit the development paying the fees in question in a fair and proportionate manner. E. Annual Financial Report: A financial report on the impact fee trust funds shall be provided annually by the Fee Administrator to the Mayor and Council: " describing the amount of all development impact fees collected" appropriated" or spent during the preceding fiscal year" setting out the category of public facility and service area and describing the percentage of tax and other revenues (other than impact fees) collected" appropriated" or spent for system improvements during the preceding year by category of public facility and service area. F. Protest Process: Any interested citizen may challenge the expenditure of any impact fee funds within one year of said expenditure by filing a written protest with the City Clerk. The City Clerk shall set the matter for hearing before the City Council within thirty (30) days of the filing of such protest. The protesting party shall specifically Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 200f 28 identify the impact fee expenditure and the basis of the protest The City Council shall render a decision regarding the protest within thirty (30) days after the close of the hearing on the matter. (Ord. 723, 3-1-1996) 10-7-13: PARK AND RECREATION IMPACT FEES: A. Incorporation Of Standards: This Section addresses the development impact fees collected for park and recreation service improvements. The Comprehensive Plan~ including the Capital Irnvrovement Plan developed pursuant to I.C. 67-8208 and incorporated into the Comprehensive Plan~ as adopted by the City Council together with the land use, acquisition and construction cost and service unit assumptions upon which said Plan is based are hereby incorporated into this Section by reference. (Ord. 723, 3-1-1996) B. Incorporation Of Maps: The maps contained within the Comprehensive Plan are hereby incorporated into this Section by reference. Copies of said maps may be obtained at the office of the City Clerk or viewed and obtained at the administrative office of Meridian Planning And Zoning Department (Ord. 723,3-1-1996; amd. 1999 Code) C. Park Impact Fee; Purpose And Implementation: All residential development is deemed to create an impact and therefore an increased demand for park and recreation services. As such the cost for new public park facilities should be borne by new users of park and recreation facilities to the extent new use requires new facilities. Therefore, any application for a building permit enabling the construction on or after the effective date hereof, shall be subject to the imposition of park and recreation impact fees in the manner and amount set forth in this Section. D. Payment Of Park Impact Fee: Prior to receiving a building permit or commencing construction of any building for which park impact fees are to be paid pursuant to this Chapter, whichever first occurs, the applicant therefore, must demonstrate that the appropriate impact fee has been paid to the Fee Administrator. The Fee Administrator and/or the Public Works Department Director shall have the authority to witliliold a building permit or stop construction, as the case may be, until the appropriate impact fee has been collected. E. Methodology: The methodology adopted for the purpose of determining park and recreation impact fees shall be based upon the assumptions set forth in the Comprehensive Plan that new neighborhood and community park facilities are needed in Meridian to serve growth. Said assumptions, based upon the "existing and future facilities approach", set the existing standard for park needs as set forth~ ifl:.-the follo'y'/ing table: Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 210f28 Park Deseription Ex.isting Standard 1'1 eighborhood pat=ks 0.28 J1.L^..c/1 ,000 population based upon the existing Community parks 1.67 ~ .L^..c/1 ,000 population based upon the existing situation Parkland .L ^.. cqxui si ti 0 n Existing Cost (October 1, 1991 M!Q2) $25,000.00 One ncro (de~/elopable ) Parkland Existing Cost (October 1, Impro "{,/ern ents 1991 M!Q2) Dc~/elop one acro $70,000.00 Total service cost $95,000.00 per acre Cost Per Person Calculations: situation of one 5 17.1 acres neighborhood park per 18,000 100\000 population. O[t\"IO (2) 15 101.0 acres of community parks per 18,000 100\000 population. $95,000.00 (existing ~/alue of one acre of de"veloped parldand) times 0.28 ..11 (existing neighborhood park standard) di~/idcd by 1,000 population - $26.60 ~ ($95,000.00 x 0.28 J1 . 1,000 - $26.60 ~) $95,000.00 (existing ~/aluc of one acro of dC~/elopcd parkland) times 1.67 ~ (cJeisting communit)rpark standard) di~/ided b)r 1,000 population - $158.65 218.65 ($95,000.00 Je 1.67 ~ ~ 1,000 - $158.65 218.65) Methodology to determine the Park Impact Fee: Descrintion Current developed acres of Parks Plus an allocation for the undeveloped acres Equals the TOTAL developed acres Divided by the current population Times the TOTAL service cost to develop an acre Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended N ei1!hborhood Park Community Park 11.3 78.9 5.8 25.1 17.1 104.0 400\000 400\000 $ 950\000 $ 95'l000 Page 220f 28 ( Eauals the park development cost per person $ 40.98 $ 248.65 Times the # of persons per Single Family 2.93 Dwelling 2.93 Eauals the park development cost per Single $ 120.07 Familv Dwelling: $ 728.55 Times the # of persons per Multi Family Dwelling 2.67 2.67 Eauals the park development cost per Multi Familv Dwelline $ 109.42 $ 663.90 Service Cost to DeveloD an acre ExistinQ Cost (October 1 ~ 2002) Parkland Acquisition per acre $25~OOO.OO Parkland Imnrovements ner acre $70~OOO.OO TOTAL Service Cost per acre $95~OOO.OO Additionally the Comprehensive Plan and demographic data provided by the Ada Planning ,'/\ssociation during preparation of the Comprchonsi~/c Plan Official 2000 Census assumes the following average numbers of people per dwelling unit: Single-family residential U 2.93 persons per dwelling unit Multi-family residential ~ 2.67 persons per dwelling unit F. Development Impact Fee Schedule For Meridian Parks: Pursuant to the assumptions in the Meridian Comprehensive Plan and demographic data provided by Ada Planning ,L^~ssociation Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho, development impact fees for parks before adiustment for general fund contribution~ are set forth in the following table: Impact Fee Park Description $/Person Neighborhood parks $ ~ 40.98 Single-Family $/Residence Multi-Faallil)' $/Residence $ 69-:-l-6 120.07 $ ~ 109.42 Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 230f28 ( Community parks Total 158.65 248.65 112.19 728.55 $185.25 289.63 $181.65 848.62 317.30 663.90 $370.50 773.32 (Example: $26.60 ~ x 2.6 2..:2J persons per a;rerage single famil)r dTyvelling unit - $69.16 120.07) G. Adiusted Development Impact Fee: Homeowners proportionate share == the portion of their tax dollars used to develop City parks. Meridian Average Residential Value x Meridian Levy Rate x Percentage of City actual tax dollars spent on park development == Proportionate Share. City's proportionate share == the tax dollars the City Council will commit to develop parks. GH. Individual Project Assessment: An individual project assessment of park impact fees is permitted in situations where the fee payer can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence established through verified studies.. data.. and other relevant information submitted by the developer that the established impact fee is inappropriate. 1. Written application for individual project assessment shall be made to the Fee Administrator at any time prior to receiving building permits or other necessary approvals. Late applications for an individual project assessment of park impact fees may be considered for a period of sixty (60) days after the receipt of the building permit only if the fee payer makes a showing that the facts supporting such application were not known or discoverable prior to receipt of the building permit and that undue hardship would result if said application is not considered. 2. The Fee Administrator shall render a written decision regarding the individual project assessment of park impact fees within thirty (30) days of the date a complete application for individual proiect assessment is submitted. The decision shall address the evidence submitted by the developer'! and include an explanation of the calculation of the impact fee and other relevant factors. The decision of the Fee Administrator shall establish the park impact fee for the project in question for a period of one year from the date said decision becomes final so long as there is no material change to the proiect as identified in the individual assessment application. The decision of the Fee Administrator shall be forwarded to the Council for action. The Council may accept, reject or revise the Fee Administrator's decision regarding individual project assessment and shall provide written findings of fact and conclusions of law. Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 240f 28 ( 3. Appeals of the Fee Administrator's determination of individual project assessment shall be made to the City Council by the filing of an appeal with the City Clerk no later than ten (10) days following the date of the decision of the Fee Administrator, HI. Certification: Certification of the park impact fee schedule for a particular project may be applied for in the following manner: 1. Written application may be made to the Fee Administrator not later than sixty (60) days after preliminary plat approval by the City Council. Late applications for certification of the park impact fee schedule will not be considered unless the fee payer makes a showing that the facts supporting such application were not known or discoverable until after the time had run and that undue hardship would result if said application is not considered. 2. The Fee Administrator shall provide the applicant., upon request., with a written park impact fee schedule for the particular project within thirty (30) days of the date of application. The certified schedule provided by the Fee Administrator shall be based upon the Comprehensive Plan., shall include an explanation of the calculation of the impact fee" including an explanation of factors considered under I.C. 67-8207" shall identify the system improvement( s) for which the impact fee is intended to be used., and shall establish the park impact fee for the project in question for a period of one ~year from the date of certification so long as there is no material change to the ?roiect as identified in the individual assessment application. 3. The certification of the park impact fee schedule may be appealed to the City Council as provided in Section 10-7-16 of this Chapter. (Ord. 723,3- 10-7-14: ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS: The Cit)r shall add a ten percent (1 O~~) administrati'/e charge to the impact fees to administer this Chapter. The ten percent (1 O~~) administrati'/c fee \vill be added to the subtotal of all applicable impact fecs required b:r this Chapter. (Ord. 723, 3 1 1996) Surcharge for Preparation of Capital Improvements Plan. Pursuant to I. C. 67-8208(1 ). Tthere is hereby imlJosed a surcharge" in addition to each develo1Jment impact fee., in the amount of $20.00 per residential unit. 10-7-15: SUMMARY OF IMPACT FEES: Description Cost $/Pcrson Single Famil)r $/Rcsidencc ~fulti Famil)r $/Residencc Park $ 289.63 $ 667.39 $ 607.15 Grand Total $ 289.63 $ 667.39 $ 607.15 Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 250f 28 ( r'''''''--=-''''''''''~~-~--~'' I I Impact Fee I Description $/Person I Neig hborhood parks I $ 40.98 ICommunity parks I $ 248.65 I CIP surcharge I SUBTOTAL Single-Family I Multi-FarTli'iY" $/Residence I $/Residence $ 120.07 I $ 109.42 $ 728.55 $ 663.90 $ 20.00 $ 20.00 289.63 I $ 868.62 I $ 793.31 1$ Homeowner Proportionate Share 110;0 $ (39.38) $ (39.38) t= I City S hare of t de\elopment costs 200;0 $ (161.85) $ (146.79) ~ I 1$ 667.391 $ I TOTAL FEE 607. 15 10-7-16: APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS: Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the decisions of the Fee Administrator may be appealed by the fee payer to the City CounciL Decisions of the City Council shall be final. A. Appeal Process: If a fee payer wishes to appeal, the fee payer shall first file with the City Clerk, a notice of administrative appeal on the form provided by the Fee Administrator. All appeals shall be filed within thirty (30) days after the earlier of: 1) issuance of a written decision by the Fee Administrator; or 2) the Fee Administrator's acceptance of payment of the development impact fee. When filing an appeal, the fee payer shall submit a letter providing a full explanation of the request, the reason for the appeal, as well as all supporting documentation. A fee payer may pay a development impact fee under protest in order to obtain a development approval or building permit and shall not be estopped from exercising the right of appeal provided herein, nor shall such fee payer be estopped from receiving a refund of any amount deemed to have been illegally collected. B. If agreed upon by the fee payer and the City'l mediation by a qualified independent person may be used to attempt to resolve a dispute regarding impact fees for a proposed development. Mediation may occur at anv stage of the appeal process. During mediation'l all time periods are tolled pending the outcome of the mediation. Costs of the mediation'l unless otherwise agreed'l shall be shared equally by the fee paver and the Citv. Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 260f 28 ( '- ( BC. Council Decision; Notification: The City Clerk shall schedule the appeal before the City Council as soon as practicaL The City Council may affirm, reject or revise the decision of the Fee Administrator, providing written findings of fact and conclusions of law. The written decision of the City Council shall be mailed to the fee payer, certified mail, return receipt requested. GD. Judicial Review Available: A party aggrieved by the decision of the City Council may, within twenty eight (28) days of the City Council's decision, seek judicial review by filing a petition in the District Court in the manner provided by Idaho Code title 67, chapter 52. (Ord. 723, 3-1-1996) 10-7-17: VESTED RIGHTS: Nothing in this Chapter shall limit or modify the rights of any person to complete any construction for which a lawful building permit was issued prior to the effective date hereof and on "f,,'vhich there has been a good faith reliance and a substantial change of position. (Ord. 723, 3 1 19 10-7-18: OTHER POWERS AND RIGHTS NOT AFFECTED: A. Reasonable Requirements: Nothing in this Chapter shall prevent the City from requiring a developer to construct reasonable project improvements in conjunction with a development project. B. Adjustments To Requirements: Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to prevent or prohibit private agreements between property owners or developers and the City in regard to the construction or installation of system improvements or providing for credits or reimbursements for system improvement costs incurred by a developer including inter-project transfers of credits or providing for reimbursement for project improvements which are used or shared by more than one development project. C. Approval Rests With City: Nothing in this Chapter shall obligate the City to approve development which results in extraordinary impact. D. Minimum Standards Maintained: Nothing in this Chapter shall obligate the City to approve any development request which may reasonably be expected to reduce levels of service below minimum acceptable levels as established herein. E. Orderly Development: Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to create any additional right to develop real property or diminish the power of the City in regulating the orderly development of real property within the service area. F. City Rights Protected: Nothing in this Chapter shall work to limit the use by the City of the power of eminent domain or supersede or conflict with requirements or procedures authorized in the Idaho Code for local improvement districts or general obligation bond issues. (Ord. 723, 3 -1-1996) Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 270f28 ( SECTION 2: SEVERABILITY: The provisions of this chapter shall be deemed severable and a finding by a court of law that a provision of this chapter is unlawful shall have no effect on the remaining provisions. SECTION 3: All ordinances, resolutions, orders or parts thereof in conflict herewith are hereby repealed, rescinded and annulled. SECTION 4: VALIDITY: The Meridian City Council hereby declares that any section, paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance as adopted and amended herein be declared for any reason to be invalid it is the intent of the Meridian City Council that it would have passed all other portions of this ordinance independent of the elimination herefrom of any portion as may be declared invalid. SECTION 5: SAVINGS CLAUSE: This ordinance does not affect an action or proceeding commenced or right accrued before this ordinance takes effect. SECTION 6: DATE OF EFFECT: This ordinance shall be in full force effect after its passage, approval and publication, according to law. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this /2 -/k day of ;/0 f/ e in 6eA.- , 2003. APPROVED BY THE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, this !ltl//~Pn~ /2 -t1:- day of , 2003. City Clerk - h1 e t<J.u. f-cL (!/hy tJr.9 tvn-~ fJ re.I i c/ ef/vt \\\u\1 II filII III \\\ r: M- 1/, ,.....\\ 'l Or ~t:.RID 1//// ......',' ~ '4.. ............. $ CJ o~pOFl.4 h ~ /~ ..... ~c; ~o --::. ~ '" - ~ ~ ~ ~ AL Attest: ~~A ~ ~ fi:) //-/"Z - ():3 ~ _ c.Qu ,0;0 0 .2 First Reading: ~ I() '8.,. 1S\ ' ~.; Adopted after X-t reading by sUSpensfQ>>"'Y~. ,the u e ~~t~\ved pursuant to Idaho Code //1/ Ul.JNT'. \" 50-902 Yes: No: 1I11 'Ii 1111 ;1111 II' I" Second Reading: --- Third Reading: Z:\Work\M\Meridian\Meridian 15360M\Ordinances City Hall\2003 Ord\Park Impact Fee Ord 11 0403.doc Impact Fee Ordinance - Amended Page 280f 28 'ylJClS~ CYD~t ji;Y ?UbVGY1o+i0hC0~H=-S~ CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 12, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: Tammy de Weerd Cherie McCandless Mayor Robert Corrie Bill Nary Keith Bird 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03- 015 Request for annexation and zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Saaeland Planned Development by Quasar Development, LLC - northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03- 020 Request for revised Preliminary Plat approval of 41 building lots and 9 other lots on 10.64 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Saaeland Planned Development by Quasar Development, LLC - northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: c. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03-036 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with a private neighborhood park in an R-8 zone for proposed Saaeland Planned Development by Quasar Development - northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: D. Approve Liquor License Application for Corona Villaae - 21 East Fairview Avenue: E. Water Main Easement for New Academy High School - Joint School District No.2: Meridian City Council Agenda -November 12,2003 Page 1 of2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ( F. Approve Agreement for Hookup to City Sewer System Outside City Limits by Marvin Everett: G. Water Line Crossing Agreement with Bureau of Reclamation and Tuscanv DeveloDment for Messina Village Subdivision: 4. Department Reports: A. Planning and Zoning Department - Anna Powell: 1. Update on Comprehensive Plan Adoption by Ada County: 5. (Items Moved from Consent Agenda) 6. Ordinance No. Amendments: Park ImDact Fees Ordinance 7. Continued Public Hearing from November 5, 2003: PP 03-026 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 15 building lots on 4.15 acres in an L-O zone for Stokesberrv Subdivision No.2 by Properties West, Inc. - west of North Eagle Road and north of East Fairview Avenue: 8. Public Hearing: V AR 03-018 Request for a Variance for a one-year Time Extension for recording of the Final Plat for Olsen Bush Subdivision No.2 by R2 Development, Inc. - west of North Eagle Road and north of East Franklin Road: 9. Public Hearing: CUP 03-046 Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a branch bank facility with drive-thru lanes in an L-O zone for Idaho Central Credit Union by Idaho Central Credit Union - east of South Locust Grove Road and south of East Overland Road: 10. Public Hearing: CUP 03-047 Request for a Conditional Use Permit to demolish existing home and rebuild one single family residential dwelling for caretakers quarters on lot 2, block 2 of Observation Point Subdivision in a R-4 zone by RF Construction - 500 East Victory Road: 11. Public Hearing: AZ 03-024 Request for annexation and zoning of 17.5 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Glacier Sprinas Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. - north of East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road: 12. Public Hearing: PP 03-028 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 52 building lots and 8 other lots on 17.5 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Glacier Sprinas Subdivision by Tuscany Development, Inc. _ north of East Victory Road and east of South Meridian Road: Meridian City Council Agenda -November 12,2003 Page 2 of2 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ( \. ** TX CONFIRMATION REPORT ** 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 DATE TIME TO/FROM 11/07 15:23 3810160 11/07 15:24 PUBLIC WORKS 11/07 15:25 2084664405 11/07 15:27 8841159 11/07 15:28 2088840744 11/07 15:29 POLICE DEPT 11/07 15:30 8985501 11/07 15:32 IDAHO STATESMAN 11/07 15:33 208 388 6924 11/07 15:35 2088886854 11/07 15:36 ALL AMERICAN INS 11/07 15:37 208 895 0390 11/07 15:39 Laurel 11/07 15:40 208 387 6393 11/07 15:41 ADA CTY DEUELMT 11/07 15:43 8885052 11/07 15:44 CHERRY LANE 11/07 15:46 POST OFFICE 11/07 15:48 IDAHO ATHLETIC C 11/07 15:49 ID PRESS TRIBUNE 11/07 15:57 LIBRARY 11/07 15:59 2088886701 AS OF NOU 07 '03 16:00 PAGE. 01 MODE EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S G3--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S CITY OF MERIDIAN MIN/SEC PGS 01' 10" 002 00'42" 002 00'43" 002 00'44" 002 00'43" 002 00'43" 002 00'42" 002 00'43" 002 00'54" 002 00'42" 002 00'43" 002 00'43" 002 00'43" 002 00'42" 002 01' 12" 002 00'43" 002 00 ' 54" 002 01' 10" 002 00' 43" 002 00'43" 002 00'54" 002 00'42" 002 CMDij 014 014 014 014 014 014 014 014 014 014 014 014 014 014 014 014 014 014 014 014 014 014 STATUS OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'YUQSe.. 'Pf)~t. ji;y <PubllGYlo+iCe...-1h~t:s~ CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 12, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: Tammy de Weerd Cherie McCandless Mayor Robert Corrie 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Consent Agenda: BiJJ Nary Keith Bird A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03- 015 Request for annexation and zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R-8 zones for proposed Saaeland Plann~1"I n~nl....I...____.. L. ,...". ** Ti ( FIRMATION REPORT ** AS OF NOU 13 '13~ -18:57 PAGE. 131 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIWSEC PGS CMDit STRTUS 131 11/13 08:21 PUBLIC WORKS EC-S 1313'57" 003 13613 OK 132 11/13 08:22 12084664405 EC--S 00 ' 58" 003 0613 OK 03 11/13 08:24 POLICE DEPT EC-S 130'58" 1303 13613 OK 134 11/13 08:26 89855131 EC--S 1313'57" 003 1360 OK 05 11/13 08:27 LIBRARY EC--S 01' 13" 003 0613 OK 06 11/13 08:29 92083776449 EC--S 00'57" 13133 0613 OK 137 11/13 138:313 2138 388 6924 EC-S 131' 12" 13133 0613 OK 138 11/13 08:32 2088886854 EC--S 13121'57" 003 0613 OK 09 11/13 08:33 208 895 133913 EC-S 00'57" 12103 13613 OK 113 11/13 138=35 208 387 6393 EC--S 12113' 57" 13133 060 OK 11 11/13 08:36 ADA CTY DEUELMT G3--S 131'43" 003 1360 OK 12 11/13 08:39 88851352 EC-S 00' 58" 1303 13613 OK 13 11/13 138:413 CHERRY LANE EC-S 131' 13" 13133 0613 OK 14 11/13 138:42 POST OFFICE EC--S 131'34" 1303 0613 OK 15 11/13 08:44 IDAHO ATHlETIC C EC--S 00' 57" 003 13613 OK 16 11/13 08:46 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC--S 00'5711 13133 1360 OK 17 11/13 138:47 21388886701 EC--S 1313 ' 56" 1303 0613 OK 18 11/13 08:52 381131613 EC-S el' 33" 003 13613 OK 19 11/13 08:54 8841159 EC-S 00'57" 13133 060 OK 20 11/13 08:56 20888413744 EC-S 1313'56" 13133 060 OK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 12,2003 at 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attandance: ~ Tammy de Weerd ~ Bill Nary ~ Cherie McCandless =...r Keith Bird --D-.. Mayor Robert Corrie 2. Adoption of the Agenda; a,of"'VH. ar a~.et:C.. 3~ Consent Agenda: A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: AZ 03.. 015 Request for annexation and zoning of 9.8 acres from RUT to R..8 zones for proposed Saaeland Planned DeveJoDmQnt by Quasar Development, LLC - northeast corner of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: -I?z61e fo 11-25'-1)3 B. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: PP 03- 020 Request for revised Preliminary Plat approval of 41 building lots and 9 other lots on 10.64 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for proposed Saaeland Planned DevQloDment by Quasar Development, LLC - northeast comer of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: -h.,6U /-l? 11-"2~-t73 Ca Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for Approval: CUP 03..036 Request for Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Development with a private neighborhood park in an R-8 zone for proposed Saaeland Planned DeveJoDment by Quasar Development - northeast comer of South Locust Grove Road and East Victory Road: hb-U h 1/-25"-03 D. ApprovQ Liquor License Application for Corona Vina~e _ 21 East Faiaview Avenue: appr-t?v<- E. Water Main Easement for New Academy High School _ Joint School District No.2: c:lfIln? ue..... Mt:rkii,.n Clf)' Council Agt:nda -November 12, 2003 P.:lge- J of2 A II marcri.,ls pl't$entl;t) lit public ma:tings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone de,<;iring accommolhlion for d~bilme:; rdafcd 10 docum~ andJuT hearing plca"c: ecm~ct the- Cily Clcrk.'~ Offico ar R~S-4433 a11easl4S hou.n; priono the public meeting. CITY OF MERIDIAN PRE-COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 12, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: -L Tammy de Weerd )( Bill Nary ~ Cherie McCandless ~ Keith Bird o Mayor Robert Corrie 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Executive Session per Idaho Code 67-2345(1)(b) and (c): (1 hour 15 minutes*) M dR&/r/W 4. Discussion of Westborough Subdivision Sewer Service Request: . * ....... ,-- (15 minutes ) ct7Jvl>n~ dl:rctt5f/~;47 //-/B.--tl3 * Approximate allowable time set for agenda item may change depending on discussion. Please use the designated minutes as a guideline only. Meridian City Council Agenda - November 12,2003 Page 1 of 1 All materials presented at public meetings shall becolne 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. CITY OF MERIDIAN PRE-COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 12, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: Tammy de Weerd Cherie McCandless Mayor Robert Corrie Bill Nary Keith Bird 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Executive Session per Idaho Code 67-2345(1)(b) and (c): (1 hour 15 minutes*) 4. Discussion of Westborough Subdivision Sewer Service Request: (15 minutes*) *Approximate allowable time set for agenda item may change depending on discussion. Please use the designated minutes as a guideline only. Meridian City Council Agenda - November 12,2003 Page 1 of 1 All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting. ( ( Meridian City Pre-Council Meetintl November 12.2003 The Pre-Council Meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order at 5:30 P.M. on Wednesday, November 12, 2003, by City Council President Tammy de Weerd. Members Present: Tammy de Weerd, Cherie McCandless, Bill Nary, and Keith Bird. Members Absent: Mayor Robert Corrie. Others Present: Bill Nichols, Pauline Skeggs, and Brad Watson. Item 1. Roll-call Attendance: X Tammy de Weerd X Bill Nary X Cherie McCandless X Keith Bird o Mayor Robert Corrie De Weerd: Okay I would like to call the meeting to order for Wednesday November the 12th at 5:30 and start with roll call Mr. Clerk. Item 2. Adoption of the Agenda: De Weerd: Number 2 adoption of the agenda. Bird: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I move we adopt the agenda as published with the exception of on Number 3 the Executive Session delete parentheses b. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay it's been moved and seconded to adopt the agenda as printed with the deletion on three the item listed as 67 -2345( 1 )(b). All those in favor say aye. All ayes motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES Item 3. Executive Session per Idaho Code 67-2345(1)(b) and (c): De Weerd: Item Number 3. Bird: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. /1;." AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CiTY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SElTlERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: ~ Contacted: EmaiJed: Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at pUblic me.tings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ( Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting November 5, 2003 Page 2 of 10 Bird: I move we go into Executive Session as per Idaho Code 67-2345(1 )(c). ( Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay it's been moved and seconded to move into Executive Session per Idaho Code 67-2345(1 )(c). Mr. Clerk will you call roll. Roll Call: Bird, aye; Nary, aye; de Weerd, aye; McCandless, aye. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES (Enter into Executive Session) (Come back from Executive Session) McCandless: I'll entertain a motion to bring us out of executive committee. Bird: So moved. Nary: Second. McCandless: All in favor. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES McCandless: Have we opened the Pre-Council? Bird: Yes. McCandless: No decisions were made in the Executive Session. Item 4. Discussion of Westborough Subdivision Sewer Service Request: De Weerd: Okay we'll move to Item Number 4 discussion of Westborough Subdivision sewer service request. We'll open with Brad's comments. Watson: Thank you Madam President. Several weeks ago Jim Jewett the developer of Westborough Subdivision submitted a letter to the Public Works Department requesting sewer service to the five residential lots that are part of that. As you may recall a month or so, Council agreed to provide water service to these five residential lots. What they're proposing is not really a central sewer system like the city would - term 1. It's more of a private collection system for the five lots. Each residence would have a grinder pump and they would pump it into a Collin pressure sewer. Ultimately it discharges into the city sewer out on Locust Grove Road. We've put together a summary memo, which I hope you have in your packet. It's dated October 2nd. The Public Works Department doesn't object to this and maybe I need to back up a little bit a little bit more background. All along, we thought the developer evidently thought that these ( Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting November 5, 2003 Page 3 of 10 five lots would be served by individual septic systems. They met with Central District Health and apparently, that won't fly. That's why they've approached us. The memo that I sent to you has six conditions. At least most of them I discussed with Mr. Jewett last week. There were a couple of other ones that we discussed here just a few minutes ago and I don't think that they have a particular problem with them. They have a copy of this memo now too. Anyway, we would like if the Council does approve sewer service for these five lots in Westborough we would like those six conditions to be part of your motion. Mr. Mike Reno from Central District Health is here tonight too who could answer any questions on what has transpired as far as those approvals. Obviously, Mr. Jewett is here as well. I don't have anything more to add unless you have some questions of me. (- De Weerd: Any questions Council? Mr. Jewett. Jewett: Thank you do you need my name and address? De Weerd: Please. Jewett: Jim Jewett 3654 South Rustler in Meridian. Brad was - I've reviewed the conditions that he would like to have and we're in agreement with those. The only thing I would like to minorly correct was in our meeting with Central District Health they have a grave concern about septics out there. There is a process that we can go through with them albeit lengthy to obtain those septics but their opinions in sewer is so close that this temporary (inaudible) would be a better alternative than septics that would be - ultimately have to be removed once the sewer was hooked up. In Brad's conversations with me that's in the near future and the near being two to five years. Central District Health thinks that this is the way to go. Mike Reno is here tonight and he can answer any of your questions regarding Central District Health's position on it. I'm in agreement with what Brad wants to do and I'll stand for any questions. De Weerd: I guess the only question I have is when you came through with this subdivision did you not know this at that time. Why has it changed? Jewett: When we met with Central District Health, as you are aware we started this some time ago with the original subdivision that's been changed to this. When we came back through with this plat, Central District Health had transmitted to Ada County that was never transmitted to us their concerns. We never got a copy of these concerns until we met with them in October or late September whenever it was to address what they needed us to do to do the septics. Then they showed us the letter they had transmitted to the county but has never been transmitted to us. Until I met with them on October 22nd, I was not aware of their concerns of a high water table in the area. That's - so any time prior to that I wasn't aware of their concerns. De Weerd: So their comments were not part of staff's comments for conditions or anything else? ( Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting November 5, 2003 Page 4 of 10 Jewett: When we went back and researched it we did find it buried into their staff comments but it wasn't transmitted to us. It was part of staff's comments at Ada County. (< De Weerd: And don't you read your conditions and staff comments before you agree to them? Jewett: Yes so it was an error on my part. The comment that was in the staff was comply with Central District Health. That's what the comment was in the staff report. We had to go get their comments to know what those were and we weren't aware that they're concerned with this area. Their septic is just across the street all of Castlebury is completely done with septics with one-acre lots. Spyglass, which is right across the street, is all done with septics. We weren't aware of this concern and all staff comment was was comply. That's pretty standard to comply with Central District Health. De Weerd: Any questions Council. Thank you. Do you have any questions for Central District Health? Bird: I have none. Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: My view on this is - you asked the question I was going to ask is why this wasn't brought up when the water was brought up because the conditions had to be - Central District Health had to be on this Ada County approval. I don't know it seems like we're going outside the city more than we're going inside the city with our sewer. Just a bigger reason why we should be sewered out within the city as far as we can. Another reason we should have sewer trunk line fees in place which we need to get taken care of. I don't know this is a problem that's going to keep happening particularly out there on the northeast corner. I'm sure that the water table all that area out there isn't going to allow very many septic tanks if any. I'm sure Mr. Reno can verify that. I don't know it (inaudible) I've got to sit down myself and personally think about whether I would say yea or naye. Nary: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess I did have one question for Brad. I read your letter but - so what if we say no. Then what. Watson: Council Member Nary and Council Members I think if we say no his project has to go back to the drawing board either with some sort of a central collection system that ties into our system or maybe resurrection of the other proposal that he had several years ago. One thing I can point from a development side of things is with the project you'll be seeing very soon sewer will be at least preliminarily designed within an eighth of a mile of this project. I think it is more of a short-term system. I think Mr. Reno can probably maybe (' Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting November 5, 2003 Page 5 of 10 expand on some of the contingencies that might happen if you say no if, you wish. De Weerd: I guess one more question for you and maybe for Mr. Reno because it appears he might have to come up and talk to us anyway is that there's the church out there. There's also the school and you know our - what are the sewer plans for those projects. Watson: Madam President the Council has already approved sewer service to both of those project. Those can gravity flow into the line that's going up Locust Grove Road where as these are on the west end of that project and can't gravity back into that line. That's why this proposal is a little bit different. De Weerd: What is to say that it's not going to grow in numbers once we agree to this or if we agree to this? Watson: I'm sorry what would grow. De Weerd: His project. Watson: Well it's platted now. I believe it's recorded or at least it's really close to it. There are five residential lots. There is one quasi-commercial lot in the northwest corner that's not included as part of this proposal. I don't know that there's anywhere it can grow within the 40 acres that he owns or did own. De Weerd: Okay. Council would you care to hear from Central District Health? Nary: Sure. De Weerd: Okay. Reno: I'm Mike Reno with Central District Health Department. Madam President Council Members Central District Health isn't saying that this can't be sewered with septic systems it's just that they have a lengthy process that they would have to go through to do that. They would have to in our transmittal to the county back in January we indicated that they would have to do grown water monitoring on that site from June through October through the irrigation season. They would also have to do a nutrient pathogen study on that property to evaluate whether they could put five lots on septics on that amount of acreage. That wasn't done. Mr. Jewett came to us in October and that's the situation (inaudible). If you were to have him proceed down the path of septic systems we would make him go through that process and it would be the end of October before we could ever know if we could issue a permit or not on those properties. This subdivision has been up a couple of times. It's come through for the first time I think it was in April of 2001 as a 71 lot proposed on city water city sewer. The church and the school that you were referring to earlier originally we were going to propose the on septic system and then they chose to go - not to do the nutrient pathogen study to go with the city sewer when it was approved. ( Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting November 5, 2003 Page 6 of 10 De Weerd: And they were where? The church and the school what those conditions would be if they chose the septic route. ( Reno: I believe the church was. If they were going to be discharging more than 600 gallons per day to the sub-surface then they would have to go through the nutrient pathogen study evaluation on that property. De Weerd: And is that a pretty standard requirement? Reno: It is anymore. Any subdivision with five or more lots or any commercial development over 600 gallons per day in an area of concern with the district has designated as an area of concern either shallow depths of ground water or shallow depths to basalt or an area where we have known contamination. The Castlebury Subdivision and then Spyglass Subdivision that Mr. Jewett was referring to were approved under the old standards. The standards have been revised and become more stringent. The chances of a one-acre lot are pretty slim anymore. De Weerd: When were those revisions made? Reno: Late 2001. De Weerd: Okay. Bird: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Mr. Reno I think you stated that January of this year was when you made your comments to the Ada County Planning regarding the existing makeup of the subdivision as it is now. Is that right? Reno: That's correct. Bird: Okay so at that point Mr. Jewett should have been able to see your report? Am I not right? Reno: Yes sir. De Weerd: Okay. Thank you very much. Nary: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Nary. Nary: I guess to me it appears that you know this is not a public health issue yet. When we have agreed to extend the sewer services outside the city limits many of the times we've done that we've done it because there was a public health risk. Somebody's septic system failed the sewer line was pretty close and they ( Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting November 5, 2003 Page 7 of 10 weren't annexed yet. We allowed them to hook onto the sewer for the public health concerns. That's not the issue here. Here it's the inconvenience to Vienna Woods and the fact that Mr. Jewett didn't read his conditions ahead of time when he asked us for water service. I guess I'm really not that compelled to want to do this. I think what Mr. Bird said originally was correct. We try to be very cautious in doing this because this is the type of situation that other cities have gotten into a pickle with later because they have extended these services. It takes awhile for these places to become contiguous. Once they become contiguous it gets them being in a fight with the people over the fact that they are to get sewer service and now they have to pay for it. I guess I haven't heard anything compelling yet as to why we should agree to this. Unless I missed the boat. Bird: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I too feel like Councilman Nary in that why we would hook up again. Brad how far is the North Slough from being sewered out. This has to go back into - flows naturally back into the North Slough right? Watson: Council Member Bird you're correct. That was the project that you approved funding for for this year and we've selected a consultant to at least begin negotiations on a contract to design that out. Bird: Would you - Brad would you think that it would be out for bid this spring? Is that too early or - Watson: It's conceivable but there are some easement negotiations that have to take place. As we, all know those could be longer. I hope that by next summer it's being constructed. Bird: And how - what kind of a project do you anticipate Brad about how long? Because we have it up so far don't we up Ten Mile. Isn't it up to Lochsa Falls in that area? Watson: Correct it's up to Lochsa Falls and all the way through to Linder Road. Paramount Subdivision will be taking that - Bird: On over to Meridian? Watson: Well just through their first couple of phases or whatever they're going to build. Then we'll try to build the rest of it. A project of that magnitude the White Trunk was three miles. We did that in about six months. This would be less than two miles so four or five months. Bird: Brad maybe I misunderstood or something but how are we going to - how is he - is he going to put a lift station in and pump it over to the other one for now or are we going to have a collector there? What's - what am I missing here? (0 - Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting November 5, 2003 Page 8 of 10 Watson: As I understand it each residential lot will have it's own grinder pump that will pump into a common pressure line that traverses eastward to Locust Grove Road. That would all be a privately owned and maintained system. Bird: And then, it would come into the Locust Grove deal, come down to the pump station, and come on in that way to the white? Watson: Correct for right now until the North Slough comes and picks that up. Bird: Until the North Slough comes in. Is that pump station capable of handling - I mean we're only talking about five more lots? Watson: Right it would be fine. It will soon be upgraded for another project that you haven't seen yet if you approve it. Bird: This is - I mean we're pumping stuff into the lift stations. The feeling I've got in my five or six years that I've been on the Council is we don't like lift stations. Yet, we just keep pouring stuff into a lift station. Vienna Woods probably wasn't - which nonetheless were on the Council at the time probably wasn't a good idea but we did it. Now we're putting - pumping other stuff into it. Who's paying for the upgrades? Watson: The project that you will be seeing is one that will annex to the city and will go into Vienna Woods lift station and will have to upgrade that lift station. It will come in as a normal project so to speak. Bird: Then by 2005 the lift station or that will go away and be flowed back into the North Slough right? Watson: Correct. Correct. If I could just point out the one benefit of this scenario is that the developer is willing to put up half the cost of the eight inch main up Jericho Road whereas if he proceeds through the county and with the septic systems that's not on the table because it's all through Ada County. That's one financial benefit to the city. Bird: But the only problem is Brad as I see in it - and we've got great examples just to the east of us. They went out and sewered a whole bunch of their ground. The people the developers and everybody signed an annex when they got contiguous. When they did it, they had lawsuits because the developers in the first place don't convey that to the buyers. Here the buyers are getting told they're coming into the city because of the developer. I don't know. Unless there is a way we can put it on the plat which we don't control the plat because it comes through the county. Watson: Correct. ( Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting November 5, 2003 Page 9 of 10 Bird: Can we put a stipulation on there that everybody that buys a place there says - realizes that hey, once I'm contiguous I'm going in the city because I'm on their sewer and water. Watson: From what I understand it's already recorded. Bird: It's recorded on the plat? Watson: No, the plat is already recorded so it's - Bird: That's what I mean so you can't do that. How's our protection? We had the same thing that the ones to east had with us or they had. Sure they won I guess most of the suits but it cost them a lot of money and time to do it. That's the thing that scares me Brad. It absolutely scares me. I don't want to put some burden like that on a future Council. De Weerd: Well and it's not just the future Council it's as the homes pass down the line. The first homebuyer might realize it but the second time that same house is sold well that homeowner that buys it knows it. I think that's where Boise did get in it's trouble is it's not really the first person who bought that home it was the subsequent ones that did. They were not aware of it. Yes, we are only talking five lots but we're creating another enclave or an island out there that I don't know - I can't see right now, what the benefit to the community is to do this. Once those property owners would have to be put on, this kind of a sewer will have it out there and then it's not at the cities cost anyway or is it if they had to ask for sewer eventually. Watson: Madam President I guess it depends on how badly they need it or want it. If they have septic system failures, they will obviously be in there wanting to build that I think. If we're trying to bring all that property in and annex it then it maybe on the city's tab at least in part. De Weerd: So staff's recommendation is to do this? Watson: Well the way I worded it is we don't have any objection to it. The two primary reasons why I didn't have an objection to it was because of the cost issue and we would get half of that up front to build the eight-inch main in Jericho in the future. The second reason is maybe not as a city employee but I guess maybe as a professional engineer I just hate to see septics go in the ground. That has nothing to do with the position with the city. Bird: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: Brad I agree with you. I don't want to see another septic system in any of the ground around here if we can help. In the same token this eight inch pipe you keep saying from Jericho now is that going to be the one that flows back the natural flow one back to the North Slough? Meridian City Pre-Council Meeting November 5, 2003 Page 10 of 10 Watson: Correct. Bird: And he's willing to pay for half of that? Watson: Yes. Bird: You're putting me between a rock and a hard place coming up this soon and stuff. I don't know how soon Mr. Jewett needs an answer on this but I'm not ready to make one right now. I can't speak for the other three Councilmen. De Weerd: Well we can ask to put this on the Regular Agenda next week and revisit it. It might be helpful Brad, also to have an area map and a copy of the proposed development or the approved development so that we know more about the location and actually what land it surrounds. What might be annexed or proposed as well. Watson: Okay I can do that. Thank you. De Weerd: Okay so Mr. Jewett we'll take this up again next week. Thank you Mr. Reno for being here. Okay that concludes our Pre-Council Meeting Agenda. Bird: Madam President. De Weerd: Mr. Bird. Bird: I would move that we adjourn the Pre-Council Meeting. Nary: Second. De Weerd: Okay it's been moved and seconded to adjourn Pre-Council. All those in favor say aye. All ayes motion carried. MOTION CARRIED: ALL AYES MEETING ADJOURNED AT 6:59 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ~ ;---( ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR ATTESTED: i -1~ ~ ~ c/f/d?r--~ /cJ-J WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., I 6.. \ , \ \ U II If tllJ II /) /J \\\\ F.... III / / (/ ~ ,,\\ ~ 0 MEFiID 1/1/ ,",~ ~ /,..~ DATE (' v ~~~o ~ \ /- {, November 7, 2003 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL MEETING APPLICANT Pre-Council Meeting November 12,2003 (13 ITEM NO. REQUEST Executive Session per Idaho Code 67-2345(1 )(b) and (c): AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATIORNEY CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: CITY WATER DEPT: CITY SEWER DEPT: CITY PARKS DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: SANITARY SERVICE COMPANY CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: OTHER: Jte {1/~ nD Contacted: Emailed: Date: Staff Initials: Phone: Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. YWQSe., vo~ W 17~blAGtlotz'~ 1ha.+zJ-s~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PRE-COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 12, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: Tammy de Weerd Cherie McCandless Mayor Robert Corrie Bill Nary Keith Bird 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Executive Session per Idaho Code 67-2345(1)(b) and (c): (1 hour 15 minutes*) 4. Discussion of Westborough Subdivision Sewer Service Request: (15 minutes*) *Approximate allowable time set for agenda item may change depending on discussion. Please use the designated minutes as a guideline only. Meridian City Council Agenda - November 12,2003 Page 1 of 1 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. ** TX CON( .~TION REPORT ** ( AS OF NOU 07 '03 17:25 PAGE. 01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMDij STATUS 2S 11/07 17:19 3810160 EC--S 00'26" 001 017 OK EC S rAfA'19" 001 017 OK 26 11/07 17:20 PUBLIC WORKS -- ~ OK EC S 00'19" 001 017 27 11/07 17:21 12084664405 -- OK 28 11/07 17:22 8841159 EC--S 00'19" 001 017 29 11/07 17: 23 2088840744 EC--S 00' 19" 001 017 OK EC S 00' 19" 001 017 OK 30 11/07 17:23 POLICE DEPT -- OK EC S lAfA'20" 001 017 31 11/07 17:24 8985501 -- ~ OK 32 11/07 17:25 LIBRARY _ __:===:___~~~~~~~~:_____~:~_______________________ -----------------~----~--------------- - ry/Q~e.. 7o~ W 7ubLtc, tlob.~-1hwqF-s~ CITY OF MERIDIAN PRE-COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 12,2003 at 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: - Tammy de Weerd _ 8H1 Nary Cherie McCandless Keith Bird - _ Mayor Robert Corrie- 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Executive SeSSion per Idaho Code 67-2345(1)(b) and (c): (1 hour 15 minutes*) 4. Discussion of Westborough Subdivision Sewer Service Request: (15 minutes*) *Approximate allowable tIme set for agenda item may change depending on discussion. Please USe the designated mInutes as a guideline only. Meridfun City Council Agencl<l - November 12, 2003 I'age I of I An materiaJs prtSented llt public meetings sball become property of lhe: City of Mt:ridi:m, Anyone d~Lring 3Ccommodation (urdi~biliti~ related to docwncnts and/or hearings please contact the City Clerk's Office s[ 888-4433 at least 4S hours priort(') the public meeting. ! I ** TX cl - RMAT ION REPORT ** AS OF NOU 07 J0~ 17:51 PAGE. 01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIl"E TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMDI:* STATUS 01 11/07 17: 26 92083776449 EC--S 130' 18" 0131 017 OK 02 11/07 17:27 208 388 6924 EC--S 00'20" 001 017 OK '213 11/07 17:28 2'2188886854 EC--S 00' 19" 001 017 OK 04 11/07 17:29 RLL AMERICAN INS EC--S 00' 19" 001 017 OK laS 11/07 17: 29 208 895 0390 EC--S 00' 19" 001 1317 OK 136 11/07 17:31 208 387 6393 EC--S 00' 19" 1301 017 OK 07 11/07 17:32 ADA CTY DEVELMT G3--S 00' 39" 001 017 OK 138 11/07 17:34 8885052 EC--S 00'20" 001 017 OK 09 11/07 17:35 CHERRY LANE EC--S 00'21" 001 1317 OK 10 11/137 17:35 POST OFFICE EC--S 130'26" 0131 017 OK 11 11/07 17:37 IDAHO ATHlETIC C EC--S 00' 19" eel 017 OK 12 11/137 17:37 10 PRESS TRIBUNE EC--S 00' 19" 001 017 OK 13 11/07 17:39 2088886701 EC--S 00' 18" 001 017 OK 23 11/07 17:51 CHAMBER-COMMERCE ----5 00'00" 000 017 BUSY THIS DOCUMENT IS STILL IN MEMORY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ry/QQ8e.. ?O~ W 'P~b.Uc, tI~iee..,- 1htMtt-s! CITY OF MERIDIAN PRE-COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 12, 2003 at 5:30 p.m* City CouncU Chambers 1. Rolf-call Attendance: - Tammy de Weerd Bill Nary Cherie McCandless ~ Keith Bird - Mayor Robert Corrie 2. Adoption of the Agenda: Executive Session per Idaho Code 67-2345(1)(b) and (c): (1 hour 15 minutes*) 3. 4. Discu,ssion of Westborough Subdivision Sewer Service Request: (15 mlnutes*) *~pproX~mate allowable tIme set for agenda item may change depending on diSCUSSion. Please Use the designated minutes as a guideline only, ~eridi.an City Council Agenda - November 12, 2003 Page J or I A II malma1~ p~e01<<1 at ,pubW: meetin~ shall become propeny of lhr: City of Mmdi~n. Anyone ~Uln~ ~(:o.DlJlJO<b.tJ.o.n. furdi~ilities rd.!ttd {o docwncnts a.cd/or hc::trings please CODU1ct dl~ City Clerk's Office at 8384433 at le.1.St 48 hours prior tn che public meeting. ,. ( ** TX CONFIRi'"" ION REPORT ** ( AS OF NOU 19 '03 15:44 PAGE. 01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD~ STATUS 26 11/19 15:43 Laurel EC--S 00'21" 001 017 OK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ~lDQSe. 7o~ W ~~b.iAc. tlCfb'~ -1hwqr.-s! CITY OF MERIDIAN PRE-COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 12,2003 at 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Rolf-caJl Attendance: _ TammydeWeerd Cherie McCandless __ Mayor Robert Corrie _ Bill Nary Keith Bird 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Executive Session per Idaho Code 67-2345(1)(b) and (c): (1 hour 15 minutes*) 4. Discussion of Westborough Subdivision Sewer Service Request: (15 minutes*) *Approxlmate allowable time set for agenda item may change depending on discussion. Please Use the designated minutes as a guideline only. Meridian Ciry Councll Agenda - Nov~nbc:r 12, 2003 Page J of I All JlU1tef1ab preseoled at public mCClings shaU become property of the: City of Meridian. Anyone desiring ~commodatio.n (ordar..abiliti~$ rdsted to documents fuldlor hc.uings please COlWlCt the Cily Clerk's Office st 888-4433 st leasl 48 hews prior to rhe public meeting. / ** TX CONF I Rl .. . I ION REPORT ** ( AS OF NOU 12 '03 11:18 PAGE. 01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM 02 11/12 11:17 208 331 6466 MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMD~ STATUS EC--S 00'20" 001 055 OK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CITY OF MERIDIAN PRE-COUNCil MEETING AGENDA Wednesday, November 12, 2003 at 5:30 p.m. City Council Chambers 1. Roll-call Attendance: _ Tammy de Weerd Cherie McCandless _ Mayor Robert Corrie BilJ Nary Keith Bird 2. Adoption of the Agenda: 3. Executive Session per Idaho Code 67-2345(1)(b) and (c): (1 hour 15 minutes*) 4. Discussion of Westborough Subdivision Sewer Service Request: (15 minutes*) *Approximate allowable time set for agenda item may change depending on discussion. Please use the designated minutes as a guideline only. Meridian City Council Agenda - NOvt!Ulbl:r 12, 2003 Pag~ 1 of 1 All mnim!ls presented ;l[ public mectins-q shaJJ become Pl'Opaty of the City of Meridian. Anyone desiring accommodation [01' disabilities rdatc:d to documents and/or hearings please cnntaof the Ciry Clerk's o.ffice at 88&-4433 st lC3St 48 hOuni prior lO the public meeting, re ( MAYOR Robert D. Corrie ~>. . 't"f~Jt~~ oU;;;dl;~~t~~. IDAHO .> ,! " , \1 }I j?' /? / QmcE .. \ 1903 LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 466-9272 · FAX 466-4405 PARKS & RECREATION (208) 888-3579 · Fax 898-5501 PUBLIC WORKS (208) 898-5500 · Fax 887-1297 BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 · Fax 887-1297 PLANNING & ZONING (208) 884-5533 · Fax 888-6854 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Tammy de Weerd William L. M. Nary Chelie McCandless Keith Bird NOTICE OF PRE-COUNCIL MEETING MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a Pre-Council Meeting at City Hall, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho, on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 at 5:30 P.M. The Meridian City Council will be discussing the following agenda items: -- Discussion of Westborough Subdivision Sewer Service Request -- Executive Session per Idaho Code ~67-2345(1)(b) and (e) The Executive Session is closed to the public, however, the public is welcome to attend the remainder of the meeting. DATED this 7th day of November, 2003. J~~ \\\\\11111/11" \\\\ 'III ,\\\ ~ Of ~~~~?l^-III// " ~" <..~ /.... $'-" c:} Go?POR-1/'; '-11-- ~~ f ~ ~~ \ SEAL 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE. MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 · (208) 888-4433 Ci ty Clerk Oftice Fax (208) 888-4218 · Human Resources Fax (208) 884-8723 · Finance & Utility Billing Fax (208) 887-4813 MAYOR Robert D. Corrie ?k- ~ rO~-t }Vy PUblic, [W+l ~- ThU/YlJcS ( 'I...~;,~~:i~ LEGAL DEPARTMENT ~":~'~.(i~~i(~~ :j; (208) 466-9272. FAX 466-4405 ~., "''Ii ~~,.~,-, clfe;;dl:~~:;. .~.~'\ (2J;~~:f:~;~E:~~~:~~5~O] IDAHO _~ (208) 898-5500 · Fax 887-1297 A j. :S-~ ~j/ ~v Q/ , r~li 0 lire TREASURE V ~'\ SINCE "\1903 BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 · Fax 887-1297 PLANNING & ZONING (208) 884-5533 · Fax 888-6854 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Tammy de Weerd William L. M. Nary Cherie McCandless Keith Bird NOTICE OF PRE-COUNCIL MEETING MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a Pre-Council Meeting at City Hall, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho, on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 at 5:30 P.M. The Meridian City Council will be discussing the following agenda items: - Discussion of Westborough Subdivision Sewer Service Request -- Executive Session per Idaho Code 967-2345(1)(b) and (c) The Executive Session is closed to the public, however, the public is welcome to attend the remainder of the meeting. DATED this 7th day of November, 2003. J~4- \\\\111111111/1 \\\\ ,1,/ ,,\\ ,f Of ~Aflr/f"\ 1/1// " ~"' .t,J/ /.... ~...... a GotwOR-4 r !.11-- \. f.;f ~6 \ SEAL & "'~ , ..... ....... ...... ..... ..... . . ~ : -t l 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE. MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 · (208) 888-4433 City Clerk Ot1ice Fax (208) 888-4218 · Human Resources Fax (208) 884-8723 · Finance & Utility Billing Fax (208) 887-4813 ( ** TX CONF I Rl .. , ( I ON REPORT ** AS OF NOU 10 '03 11:39 PAGE. 01 CITY OF MERIDIAN 01 03 DATE TIME TO/FROM 11/10 11:31 IDAHO ATHLETIC C 11/10 11:38 ADA CTY DEUELMT MODE EC--S G3--S MIN/SEC PGS 00'24" 001 00'40" 001 CMDtt STATUS 030 OK 030 OK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAYOR Robef'[ D. Corrie ? [ea.&., ~O~rt JW P(Lb{Le-!bh CL - 7J7WYl.'?S ( "~~4~' 0 LEGAL DEPARTMENT *;;:r.'*{ ~:!~ (208) 4GG~9272 . FAX 466.4405 ...~ . ~ olfe {;/TY O~ ~~.:.:.~~. PARKS & RECREATION d · ~-~., ~ '. ':, (201:{) 88~.:;579 · Fo1X 898.5501 ~rl I' /171 .1.)</ \\\ PUBLIC WORKS ~(/ I j 1;::1'10;Y (208) 898-5500. F~x 887-1297 ~y BUILDING DEPARTMENT ~ 0~ ,.Y. (208) 887-2211 · Fa~ 887.1297 ~~ ~Il" PLANNlNG & 7.0NfNG 19.OJ (208) ::i84-5533 . Fax 888.68541 CITY COUNCIL MEMBHRS Tammy de Wel:'l-d William L. M. Nary Cherie McCandless Keith Bird NOTICE OF PRE-COUNCIL MEETING MERIDIAN CITY COUNCil NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a Pre-Council Meeting at City Half, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho, on Wednesday, No"ember 12, 2003 at 5:30 P.M. The Meridian City Council will be discussing the following agenda items: - Discussion of Westborough Subdivision Sewer Service Request - Executive Session per Idaho Code s67-2345(1)(b) and (c) The Executive Session is crosed to the public. however. the public is welcome to attend the remainder of the meeting_ DATED this 7th day of November, 2003. J~,~ \\\ \' \ \I \11J I' ''It:lll, \\\\..l of ~f{I~.F'/J". /// ....,.... ~." ~ Vl '............ ~~' 0- oo~OR.qr ~~ % ~ ~ <.~ ~ ff ~ v ~ 33 EAST IDAHO AVEN'T)'R · MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 . (208) 888-4433 Ci[y Clerk Office Fax. (208) 888..4218 · Hum.)" Resources Fax (208) 884-8723 . Finance & UriJirv Billln" ~!l\' (.,nQ\ QQ"7 .110, ~ ,," f ,~ ** TX ( I RMAT I ON REPORT ** AS OF NOU 10 '03 11:30 PAGE.0! CITY OF MERIDIAN DRTE TIME TO/FROM MJDE M I N/SEC PGS CMD~ STRTUS 13 11/10 11=06 3810160 EC--S 00'34" 001 030 OK 14 11/113 11:07 PUBLIC WORKS EC-S 00'24" 001 030 OK 15 11/10 11:08 12084664405 EC-S 00'25" 001 030 OK 16 11/10 11:09 8841159 EC--S 00'25" 001 030 OK 17 11/10 11:11 POLICE DEPT EC--S 00'23" 001 030 OK 18 11/10 11:12 8985501 EC--S 00' 25" 001 030 OK 19 11/10 11:13 LIBRARY EC-S 00'29" 001 030 OK 20 11/10 11:14 92083776449 EC--S 00'24" 001 030 OK 21 11/10 11=15 20888B6854 EC-S 00' 24" 001 0313 OK 22 11/10 11=16 ALL AMERICAN INS EC-S 00'23" 001 030 OK 23 11/10 11:17 208 89S 0390 EC--S 00'24" 001 030 OK 24 11/10 11:18 Laurel EC--S 00'25" 0131 030 OK 25 11/10 11:19 208 387 6393 EC--S 00'24" 0131 030 OK 26 11/10 11:21 8885052 EC-S 00'24" 0131 030 OK Z7 11/10 11:22 CHERRY LANE EC--S 00' 28" 001 030 OK 28 11/10 11:23 POST OFFICE EC--S 00'33" 001 030 OK 29 11/10 11:24 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC-S 00'25" 001 030 OK 30 11/10 11:25 20B8886701 EC--S 00'24" 00'1 030 OK 31 11/10 11:29 2088840744 EC--S 00' 24" 001 030 OK 32 11/10 11:30 208 388 6924 EC--S 00' 28" 001 0313 OK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAYOR Robert D. Corrie ? teak ?O~-t j;y PU.Wc. Y1t:rh. &- - 7hWYl.~S ( '; ..~~tI. LEGAL DEPAR1'MENT ~~i ;~,' (208) 466.9272 4 FAX 466-44U5 oW; ,;/TY O~ .et.~.~. . PARKS &. RECREATION ~rl'. Jl'./r1/1~"1; -'\\1" (2Ul:i) 888-3579. F~x 398.5501 V J .. Ol J. /A1 t '( PUBLIC WORKS 101'\110 J.~ (20B) 89~~S500' F;1;( 887-1297 J BUU..DING DEPARTh1GNT ;r (2ll8.) 1:(87-2211 · FJ<\ 887./297 PLANNING & ZONING (208) ~i!W..SS;3 · F~x 858.GRS4 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Tammy de Weerd Willitlm l. M. Nary Chllrie McCandl~ss Keith Bird NOTICE OF PRE-COUNCIL MEETING MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a Pre-Council Meeting at City Half, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho, on Wednesday, November 12, 2003 at 5:30 P..M.. The Meridian City Council wHl be discussing the following agenda items: - Discussion of Westborough Subdivision Sewer Service Request - Executive Session per Idaho Code 967-2345(1)(b) and (c) The Executive Session is closed to the public, however, the public is welcome to attend the remainder of the meeting. DATED this 7th day of November, 2003. J~,~ 33 bAST IDAHO AVENUF. -1v1ERIDIAN.1DAHO 83642 _ (208) 888-4433 City Cieri< Office Fo.~ (208) 888~42l8 · Humon Resource, Fax. (208) 884-8723 . Finance & Utility BtIllng Fax (208) 887.4813 ** COMMUNICRTIONS REPORT ** TOTRL PRGES SEND 0030 RECEIVE 0003 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 DRTE TIME TO/FROM 11/10 07:39 11/10 08:14 3810160 11/10 08:15 PUBLIC WORKS 11/10 08:15 12084664405 11/10 08:16 8841159 11/10 08:17 2088840744 11/10 08:18 POLICE DEPT 11/10 08:19 8985501 11/10 08:20 2088886854 11/10 08:20 208 895 0390 11/10 08:21 IDRHO ATHLETIC C 11/10 09:50 12089392855 11/10 11:06 3810160 11/10 11:07 PUBLIC WORKS 11/10 11:08 12084664405 11/10 11:09 8841159 11/10 11:11 POLICE DEPT 11/10 11:12 8985501 11/10 11:13 LIBRRRY 11/10 11:14 92083776449 11/10 11:15 2088886854 11/10 11:16 ALL AMERICAN INS 11/10 11:17 208 895 0390 11/10 11:18 Laurel 11/10 11:19 208 387 6393 11/10 11:21 8885052 11/10 11:22 CHERRY LANE 11/10 11:23 POST OFFICE 11/10 11:24 ID PRESS TRIBUNE 11/10 11:25 2088886701 11/10 11:29 2088840744 11/10 11:30 208 388 6924 AS OF NOV 10 '03 11:30 PAGE. 01 MODE G3--R EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--R EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S EC--S TOTAL TIME CITY OF MERIDIRN SEND 00011'49" RECEIVE 00001'48" MIN/SEC PGS 00'50" 001 00'27" 001 00' 19" 001 00'19" 001 00' 19" 001 00'18" 001 00'19" 001 00'18" 001 00'18" 001 00'18" 001 00'19" 001 00'58" 002 00'34" 001 00'24" 001 00'25" 001 00'25" 001 00'23" 001 00'25" 001 00'29" 001 00'24" 001 00'24" 001 00'23" 001 00'24" 001 00'25" 001 00'24" 001 00'24" 001 00'28" 001 00'33" 001 00'25" 001 00'24" 001 00'24" 001 00'28" 001 CMDt:t 026 027 027 027 027 027 027 027 027 027 027 029 030 030 030 030 030 030 030 030 030 030 030 030 030 030 030 030 030 030 030 030 STRTUS OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK MAYOR Robert D. Con.ie ,f- .- 'V'V\-ClSt VO~-t .j;V 'V(AlG~G.1i)i1cJ ' . hM({cS~ , >""'~~ll<~~;J LEGAL DEPARTMENT ,_~~~~a~~i;ltf~}f'~ (208) 466-9272 · FAX 466-4405 ~.._-::.. ~.f,.1. ~ P /e';7~ OJ1';~~1; '\\'/ (2~~~~t3~7~~CF~;~~~~5~01 \..../1/L 6 I j 0/ J 14 F t '\. PUBLIC WORKS IDAHO ~ (208) 898-5500 · Fax 887- 1297 ..if BUILDING DEPARTMENT /"'"' (208) 887-221 I · Fax 887- 1297 9..c, PLANNING & ZONING .. 1903 (208) 884-5533 . Fax 888-6854 CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS Tammy de Weerd William L. M. Nary Cherie McCandless Keith Bird NOTICE OF PRE-COUNCIL MEETING MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a Pre-Council Meeting at City Hall, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho, on Wednesday, November, 2003 at 5:30 P.M. The Meridian City Council will be discussing the following agenda items: - Discussion of Westborough Subdivision Sewer Service Request - Executive Session per Idaho Code ~67-2345(1)(b) and (c) The Executive Session is closed to the public, however, the public is welcome to attend the remainder of the meeting. DATED this 7th day of November, 2003. 33 EAST IDAHO AVENUE · lvIERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 · (208) 888-4433 Ci ty Clerk OtTice Fax (208) 888-4218 · Human Resources Fax (208) 884-8723 a Finance & Utility Billing Fax (208) 887-48 I ~ ( ** TX { :RMATION REPORT ** AS OF NOU 07 ' e~ ' 04 d: 02 PAGE. 01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE M I N/SEC PGS CMDi:t STATUS 14 11/07 17: 413 PUBL I C WORKS EC--S 013'24" 0131 018 OK 15 11/07 17:413 12084664405 EC--S 00' 23" 001 018 OK 16 11/07 17:41 8841159 EC--S 00' 23" 001 018 OK 17 11/137 17:44 21388840744 EC--S 00'22" 0131 1318 OK 18 11/137 17:44 POlICE DEPT EC--S 00'23" 121131 1318 OK 19 11/07 17: 45 8985501 EC--S 1313'23" 001 018 OK 213 11/07 17: 48 LIBRARY EC--S 1313' 26" 001 018 OK 21 11/07 17: 49 92083776449 EC--S 1313'22" 001 018 OK 22 11/07 17: 49 208 388 6924 EC--S 00' 26" 121131 018 OK 24 11/07 17:52 21388886854 EC--S 00'22" 0131 12118 OK 25 11/1217 17:53 RLL AMERICAN INS EC--S 00'23" 13131 1318 OK 26 11/137 17:54 208 B95 133913 EC--S 00'23" 001 018 OK 27 11/137 17:56 208 387 6393 EC--S 1313'23" 001 1318 OK 28 11/137 17:57 ADA CTY DEUELMT G3--S 1313'413" 001 1318 OK 29 11/07 17:58 88851352 EC--S 1313'22" eel 1318 OK 30 11/07 17:59 CHERRY LANE EC--S 00'27" eel 1018 OK 31 11/07 18:1313 POST OFFICE EC--S 00'32" 001 1318 OK 32 11/07 18:131 IDAHO ATHLETIC C EC--S 00'23" 0131 1318 OK -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MAYOR Robert D. Come '? l.e.QSe.- ?O~-l: j:.,V 'VlA-k> ~C-,;Vi)-bC-<.-1 ~AH~ ~S! "I w;~~iO LEGAI~ DEPARTMENT ,i '~~~' ,) (20X) 466-D272 .. FAX d(j6.~05 ~~~~~ ~. r cU; err,' OF r~~IS.~ - PARKS & RECREATION :- J. . ':';','" '" "....;, (208) 888.3579 · FQX 81J8-5501 fir! 011 an 6./ ~I PUBLIC WORKS ~ JO^HO V (208) RQ8-55no. F~x 887-1297 .>.~ L,if BUILOING DEPARTMENT C'~..... (208) SS 7 -2211 .. F~ x 887. J 297 .I1U:...<:.l~B#E.~ 1I/lCl' PLANNING &:. Z.ONING 1903 (208) 884-55:;3 . {!<l;&:; 888-6854 CITY COUNCJL MEMBER.S T;lmmy de: Weerd William L. M. Nary Cherie: Ml.:Candle~~ Kcilh Bm.! NOTICE OF PRE.COUNCIL MEETING MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOTICE JS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a Pre-Council Meeting at City Hall, 33 East Idaho, Meridian. Idaho) on Wednesday, November, 2003 at 5:30 P.M. The Meridian City Council will be discussing the fOllowing agenda items: - Discussion of Westborough Subdivision Sewer Service Request - Executive Session per Idaho Code 967-2345(1)(b) and (c) The Executive Session is closed to the public, however, the public is welcome to attend the remainder of the meeting. DATED this 7lh day of November, 2003. 33 .cAST IDAHO AVENUE · MERIDIAN. IDAHO 83642 · (208) 888-4433 City Clerk Omct Fax (208) 888-4218 · HumAn Rerources Fax (208) 884-8723 · Finance & Utility Billing p(),'t (208) B87~4S /3 { ** TX CONF l~ _ 1 T ION REPORT ** ( 1, AS OF NQU 07 '03 18:19 PAGE. 01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TO/FROM MODE MIN/SEC PGS CMDtf STATUS 01 11/07 18:02 ID PRESS TRIBUNE EC--S 00'24" 1211211 018 OK 1212 11/07 18:03 21218888671211 EC--S 0121'22" 01211 12118 OK 03 11/07 18:18 UALLEY TIMES ----S 121121 ' 00" 000 12118 BUSY 04 11/07 18: 19 CHAMBER-COMMERCE ----S 121121 ' 121121" 121121121 12118 BUSY THIS DOCUMENT IS STILL IN MEMORY -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MA YOR Roberl D. Corrie 'V Le.QSt. ?O~* fw 'V()j~~C1i)tiC<.-l~(M~KS~ ..:.. .J...0 ~;;~~'i~,' ,~ (20R~~~2~~:'}ZC~~~.105 oU; <..:rtv O~ rt~I~.~-. ~ - , PARl(S & RECREATION e'r?- Jl~Frn-" 1~; '~~~I/) (20tH 888.3579 - FI1X 8t)S-5501 I t OJ A U J PUBLfC WORKS ~ IDAHO ~ (208) R98-5500. F~x 8$7-1297 ~f BlJlLOING DEPARTMF;NT ~C"e...... /'. (208) 887.2211 · F:lx ~87.12l)7 1/r'~eY~/. :J1tti PLANNING & ZONING 1iOJ (208) 884.5533 . Fax S88.GS54 CITY COUNCJL MEMBERS Tmnmy do Weerd William L. M. Nary Cherie M l,;CaJldle$~ Keith BITd NOTICE OF PRE-COUNCIL MEETING MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a Pre-Council Meeting at City Hall, 33 East Idaho, Meridian. Idaho) on Wednesday, November, 2003 at 5:30 P.M. The Meridian City Council will be discussing the following agenda items: -- Discussion of Wesfborough Subdivision Sewer Service Request - Executive Session per Idaho Code 967-2345(1)(b) and (c) The Executive Session is Closed to the public, however, the public is welcome to attend the remainder of the meeting. DATED this 7th day of November, 2003~ ~~~J~~ WILLIAM G. BERG. JR. CI CLERK JJ EAST IDAHO AVENUE · MERIDIAN. LDArJO 83642 · (208) 888-4433 Cily CI~rk Ofi1ce Fax (208) 888-4.2 J S · Human Re~oul'ces Fax (208) 884-8723 · Finance & Utility Billing Pa,\ (208) 887-48/3