Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998 10-22 MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22,1998 6:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1. HEARING OF NOTICE: CONCERNING MOTION ON BEHALF OF BILL AND LUCY LEAVELL. (STERLING CREEK SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL) DENY MOTION ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING OCTOBER 22. 1998 The special meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Robert D. Corrie at 6:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Keith Bird, Charlie Rountree, Glenn Bentley, Ron Anderson. OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Corrie, Will Berg, Bill Gigray. Corrie: This is the time and place set for the hearing on the motion of Bill and Lucy Leavell, owners of the Hunter Glenn filed by their attorney of record, Frederick V. Shoemaker. The motion is that the City Council n,ot approve the development agreement and return the developer's request for rezone and annexation and any other administrative proceedings is seeking which would require hearing to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further review in the consideration of the City's action concerning Hunter's Glenn in 1992 and the rights of Leavells and the residents of Hunter's Glenn. The motion is based upon the grounds that the Leavells did not receive notice of the public hearing held on applications. The leavells also seek to have notices to them sent to 2720 South Ariel Lane, Meridian, Idaho 83642. Notice of this hearing has been provided to the applicant, to Ronald L. Crow, Moore and Less, Inc., and by stipulation of the parties this hearing was moved to today's date and time. The procedure for tonight's hearing is on advice of the city attorney as it will not be a hearing on the merits of the development or its affects upon affected property owners, but will be limited to the arguments and facts relative to the basis of the motion. I will first call upon the City Clerk to inform Council their records of service and notice of this matter. The Council will then hear arguments from Leavell's counsel which will be followed by argument from the applicant's counsel followed by a brief reply by Leavell's counsel if anything new is brought up by the applicant's counsel. This will be followed by advice from staff as requested by the Mayor and Council and then the Council will deliberate on the matter to decide whether to take the matter under advisement for decision at the next regular Council meeting and/or for decision on the motion this evening. Is this agreed to by the City Council? Bird, yea. Bentley, yea. Anderson, yea. Rountree- Rountree: I have a procedural question. The 'options are to deliberate, decide on the merits presented tonight. If we choose to deliberate, then we consider it at our next regularly scheduled meeting. At that point, do we make a decision or do we go forth with the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and a decision order? Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Councilman Rountree, in answer to your question the proposed procedure for this evening's motion would just give you the option of whether or not you may not be prepared to make a decision on the motion tonight. You may want to take it under deliberation and advice. And then render opinion. I think you have to say you're going to do that at some point in time, and I would just recommend the next regularly scheduled Council meeting so you don't have ( Meridian City Council Special Meeting October 22, 1998 Page 2 to have to have another special meeting to be considered. And this isn't a situation where I think you have to issue Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and Order because this is a motion regarding the procedure and I think in this particular circumstance I mean we will prepare the appropriate order given the findings that you make, but it's going to be limited to whether or not notice was given, whether or not the state law or any law that they are relying upon would require you to do what they're asking you to do or not, and we can prepare the appropriate decision which you could have before you at the next regular Council meeting, but you could announce if you're ready or you may not announce that you're even ready to make that decision tonight. Rountree: Thank you. Mr. Mayor I would vote affirmative on your action. Corrie: Let the record note that ayes from all council members present. ROLL CALL VOTE: Bird, yea. Bentley, yea. Anderson, yea. Rountree, yea. Corrie: Will the representatives of the parties identify themselves for the record? Shoemaker: Fred Shoemaker, 850 W. Washington, and I represent the Leavells, and Lucy and Bill are both here and I believe if it's acceptable to the Council Mrs. Leavell would also like to make some remarks and submit some testimony. Stoppello: Mayor, my name is Frank Stoppello, 620 W. Hays Street, Boise, Idaho. I represent Mr. Ron Crow. Mr. Ron Leslie from Moore or Less, Inc. is also present. I spoke with his attorney, Mr. Mollerup. Mr. Mollerup stated that our interests are the same. I can't say I'm representing Mr. Leslie. But he is present to hear the matter. Corrie: Thank you. At this time I'll call on the City Clerk for the report please. Berg: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, in your packet that I prepared has some information that I'll briefly go through. If you want more detail, I can present that to you. Make note of the first item is a mailing list that has JUB at the top of the page. This is the list that was supplied to us by the applicant. Down at the bottom of that page, you notice the Leavell name and address, William D. and Lucy M. Further in the packet is a certified form from the postal service of the certified mailings on the asterisk is the same noted resident or property owner number four. Then also in your packets is the returned envelopes. One posted marked September 25. The other one postmarked November 25th of 1997. And all four of those documents if you will note that the addresses, especially the city. To just go further these were mailed out according to our ordinance and land use planning act for the hearings noticed for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat and conditional use. Also in your packet to go further through your packet is an updated list of property owners with an area map of that vicinity of the subject property, Sterling Creek. As far as looking through the documents that we have ( Meridian City Council Special Meeting October 22, 1998 Page 3 in our project files, we followed all the proper procedures as far as getting the notices out for the hearings. The conflict of the address situation as you can see is different from the list plus as to the mailing. I don't know if I have anything else to add or any other questions that you might have of me. Bentley: I have none. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, Will the first list you show here, that represents a list of the original mailing. Berg: Yes, that's correct. That's the original mailing that JUS supplied to us. Rountree: And the date is August 18, 1997. Berg: I presume that's the date the list was created which corresponds with the application date or close to the application date. Rountree: I wanted to make sure that represents. That's alii have. Corrie: Okay no further questions from Council. Mr. Shoemaker. Shoemaker: Thank you Mr. Mayor and members of the Council. Again for the record my name is Fred Shoemaker. My business address is 815 W. Washington and I represent Bill and Lucy Leavell. I agree with your City Attorney, the City Attorney's determination that the decision for you tonight is a procedural one. One to determine whether the city followed the proper procedure or did not and if not, what consequence should flow from those findings. And I'm going to talk therefore primarily and Mrs. Leavell is also going to submit some remarks that speak to this limited issue of procedure but I think it's helpful if not necessary to give you a little background as to one history and two geography to understand why we've asked you to be here on this special night. Not incidentally appreciate the city's courtesy, your courtesies in allowing us this special hearing on a Thursday evening. Again as to history if I may, back in 1992 you all the City of Meridian approved for Bill and Lucy Leavell a project that was then known as Hunter's Glenn. It's known today as Creekside Arbour. But it's the same project. It is today a 44 unit multi-family housing project. A real nice upscale apartment complex and not incidentally one that was really kind of a - Pioneer was the first upscale apartment complex in Meridian back in '92. The Leavells, this is their family operation, their only business, the primary business. They've sunk their life savings into the operation of this apartment complex. They work there with their children. It's about a 10 % acres and if I could just move (inaudible). Mr. Mayor and members of the Council north is up here. This is Fairview Avenue. This shows the project on the long range basis, both phase one and phase two. The existing 40 units located here proposed approximately 60 units located here. The applicants or the ( Meridian City Council Special Meeting October 22, 1998 Page 4 developer's property is located at the top of this map. It's to the east of Creekside Arbour apartments. This is the second phase. This is the existing first phase. Since I'm here let me talk a little bit about Badley Avenue. I've highlighted it in yellow because it plays an important part here. We're try not to get into the (inaudible) issue, but I think to understand why the Leavells are here. This is truly a crucial if not life or death issue tor their project. Badley Avenue terminates right here in terms of a public right-at-way and the Leavells were required to extend it actually pay for the paving for ACHD and this street which appears if you were to drive down there, it looks like a public street, but actually it's a private street. And the plan is approved by the city seven years ago was to have in keeping with the Leavell's request internal private streets. Even so all these streets actually Badley Avenue today as a private street extends and curves a little bit to the right and the existing asphalt begins just down here in this area. The proposal is to run Badley (inaudible) fork to the north and have the second phase of 67 units on this property. Badley Avenue if extended as the crow flies if you will of course will go due east right through the middle of 1, 2 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 units of the proposed second phase multi family housing project. This the developer has Badley Avenue stopped here on his proposal- proposed application as if it's going to be extended. Needless to say that the Leavells do not want the nor can we I think accurately assume the tenants of the project don't want this serenity of their housing project ruined nor does he want to lose the location for eight housing projects, eight units in his multi family housing project if Badley Avenue were extended. Now just a little bit on what I believe at least to be the determination that the standard for your determination - don't want to get too legalistic. I know you have a fine Council here that can talk you about that, but in a word if the substantial rights of in this case the Leavells have been prejudiced by an improper procedure I think it's incumbent upon you to set the matter straight and to remand the matter back to the Planning and Zoning Commission. In saying that I'm not unmindful being a developer and representing dozens of developers myself, how difficult that's going to be for Mr. Crow and his partners, but I think the facts warrant it, weighing the advantages, weighing the rights and responsibilities of each party. Now, I think you maybe asking well how is that the Leavells didn't even if the City made an honest mistake and put Meridian when they should have said Boise on the envelope. And no one is suggesting that this is an intentional act on the part of the city. It was an unfortunate omission. How was it then that the Leavells didn't know about this development that's going on right next to their property and Mrs. Leavell will add a little bit more information to this, but in fact Mr. Leavell had a meeting, met with Mr. Crow on his property over two years ago. And the discussed concerned the extension of Badley Avenue to the east up and Mr. Leavell told Mr. Crow in no uncertain terms that a Badley Avenue was for the 400 feet closest to Sterling Cove a private road and would cross private land and he had no intentions and he was absolutely unwilling to turn a private internal street system or any part of it into a public right-of-way. So the LeaveIls knew that Mr. Crow was going to do something with this property. They watched it develop and occur around their property over the last several years. But from that conversation and from the fact that there was - they actually received no notice, they didn't know ( Meridian City Council Special Meeting October 22, 1998 Page 5 about the hearings and they weren't concerned about what was going on until earlier this year earlier this summer when finally they saw the development and some encroachment on their property line. They ran down to the City Hall got copies of the records from the City Clerk's Office. Talked to Mrs. Stiles and were frankly dumbfounded by learning that access to Sterling Creek Subdivision was proposed to the second access the first access and this is a - got two photographs. One dated 10/26/96 which is about two years ago, and the second photograph dated earlier this year 6/29/98. And I know they are kind of hard to see so I'm going to pass them around but let me just make some remarks to both of them and at least one of them in front of you for the time being. Outlined in red is the applicant's subdivision. Outlined is the Hunter's Glenn, now Creekside Arbour, multi family housing project. You will see the existing 40 units there and then undeveloped land with a property or a sliver I'm going to call it running all the way up to Fairview. The Leavells as part of the development agreement that you all approved back in 1992 were required also to provide two public accesses. One of which is to Fairview Avenue upon completion of the second phase of their project. So if I may Mr. Mayor and - (inaudible) to comment. So the long and the short of it is that the Leavells did not know about Mr. Crow's plan to punch if you will Badley Avenue through the second phase and two buildings, two four plexes of his multi family housing project. I think it's fair to say that the City staff, of course there's been a change in staff from '92 to today did not know about the development agreement, did not know about the fact that the private street system was an integral part of the approval of Creekside Arbour back in '92. I guess as I look at the minutes and speak with the people at the ACHD not incidentally the highway apparently didn't know about this signed and quoted development agreement either because no where is there mentioned that this private street system was to be kept in tact. And in fact the second access that Mr. Crow needed for his subdivision still needs for a subdivision in addition to Washington Street which provides access to the south, is the access on the public right-af-way extending Badley Avenue through this 1 00 unit apartment complex. Now I think that sometimes matters are appealed to the City Council and Council members maybe rightly asked well so what? No harm no foul. Even if we remanded it back, wouldn't they come up with the same decision and what can we do now? So in that light I think I need to talk to you a little bit about. This isn't just a technicality that we're hanging on and had the City followed the correct procedure and again not suggesting any foul play or had Mr. Crow frankly been a little bit more candid and forthcoming about his plans, a different result I submit would have obtained and still should obtained if you do as I urge you to do and remand the matter back to the Planning and Zoning Commission and when I say matter, maybe it's important to talk about the three things, . the three actions that the City has taken to date regarding Mr. Craw's Subdivision, Sterling Creek and they are one an annexation, two a conditional use permit or a PUD and three a rezone. Now the latter two are important because both require again to get a little lawyeristic here both of those procedures under your ordinance and under the land use planning act do require that notice be sent to everyone within three hundred feet. And sadly even though JUS provided this laundry list of people that should have Meridian City Council Special Meeting October 22, 1998 Page 6 been provided notice, the people whose rights by light years the most impacted they share (inaudible - off the microphone). In the 700 feet of common boundary between Sterling Cove and Creekside Arbour to the east of the multi family housing project. That is a common boundary with Mr. Crow's subdivision so they without a doubt especially with bisecting or proposed bisecting of their property with a 40 50 foot right-of-way without a doubt they are the most impacted and are at a minimum certainly satisfy the statutory requirements of aggrieved persons or affected persons. Now back to what happened in '97. Had the notice been provided? Had the leavells learned, had Crow been more forthcoming, I don't think your city attorney would have prepared or the Planing and Zoning Commission would have made the Findings in both the rezone, the annexation and the conditional use permit which included the following statement and they quote Mr. Lee, an employee of JUS Engineers who was then representing Mr. Crow. And I'm just going to paraphrase it. But I'm not taking it I submit to you out of context and this is the findings and conclusions dated 10/24/97 just about a year ago tonight. Mr. lee says or is quoted as saying that he had on behalf of Mr. Crow quote made provision for extension of Badley Avenue, end quote. That is if not patently false a slight of hand, a half truth. No provision had been made with Mr. and Mrs. Leavell. In fact Mr. Leavell told Mr. Crow flatly and absolutely two years ago no my plan my long term plan and as approved by the City of Meridian two years ago called for the maintenance of this project. All be it the fact that Leavell didn't have the money to build 40 units any more than 40 units on day one. The plan always was and always has been and in deed the city's approval back in '~2 part of the development agreement you'll see if you read it you all require three amenities. You wanted a pool, a clubhouse and a laundry and Mr. and Mrs. Leavell required to build the laundry which is in place out there. It's the square building on the northwest corner of phase one and they proposed as you see here the construction of a clubhouse and a pool. I think under the development agreement has to be completed within 9 nines of months of the final approval the phase two. So again not wanting to talk about the merits of the case, but to submit to you that there are alternatives practical alternatives today other than cutting through the middle of Leavell's apartment complex and I need to at least ask you all to make reference to you may want to look again at the (Inaudible - off the microphone) Fairview Avenue on the north, the subject applicant's subdivision and you'll see about three hundred feet is a - 40 feet width the white ribbon down the center is concrete. The darker piece is asphalt. It's a paved public right-of-way bisecting the Roundtree west property owned by Shorty Johnson to the east and Mr. and Mrs. Cava's (sic) property which is a Texaco station. You may think of it or know it as a Texaco station to the west. Now Mr. Cova approved that right-of-way at his expense. It's primarily as I understand and on Shorty Johnson's property the Roundtree west property but it comes within 30 feet of the north border of Sterling Cove Subdivision so I submit to you that there are other and in fact better ways to design a second access a second means of ingress and egress as ACHD requires other than blasting through the middle of the Leavell's apartment complex. Now curiously Mr. Cova is here tonight and he can speak for himself. But curiously as of 15 minutes ago, Mr. Crow hasn't contact Mr. Cova about ( Meridian City Council Special Meeting October 22, 1998 Page 7 this other alternative access. There are not incidentally other accesses that could have been provided. There's a subdivision as you may recall having approved it some of you may recall having approved it years back called Danbury Fair. It's the subdivision just to the east of Sterling Cove. Now if you look in your city records as I did, you'll find that the building permits for the tier of lots facing the Sterling Cove Subdivision to its east through which access could have been obtained, that second alternative access, you'll see that the building permits weren't actually issued for those lots the most the last was issued on December 12, 1996. The first was issued in April of '95, so there was a fairly lengthy period of time I think we'll find that Mr. Crow or his family has owned this property for a long time and certainly had in his plans development of the application at least in 1995 if not 1996 and could have sought when he learned of Mr. and Mrs. Leavell's position that a it was a private road and as far as they were concerned it was going to stay a private road could have found access and means of access to the east or again I think most logically today that's their opportunity to figure out I think they need to get to work on finding that alternative access through Mr. Cava's property. He is prepared, again Mr. Cava can speak for himself. He's prepared to at least discuss, sit down and discuss the issue of providing alternative access. Mr. and Mrs. Leavell are not. Their plans as blessed by this city don't call for any portion of their project to be bisected by a public street. If I may Mr. Mayor, I'd be glad to stand for any questions at this time, but I would like Mrs. Leavell, she had a few remarks on the details of the notice to her and her husband. Corrie: Okay. Gigray: Mr. Mayor do you wish me to - I mean if we're taking testimony in support of a motion in our customs to swear, do you want me to swear the witness? Corrie: I think so. LUCILLE LEAVELL 2720 S. ARIEL LANE MERIDIAN WAS SWORN THE CITY ATTORNEY. Leavell: We have lived there since March or April of '97. The address that Mr. Lee of JUS had submitted was a house that we had vacated in March of '96. And so I'm not sure why he submitted that particular address. The County Assessor did not use that address in '96 or '97 to send us our tax bills. Mr. Crow was given when he had his discussion with my husband, my husband gave him a copy of his business card with our office address at Creekside Arbour. He had our office address. The County Assessor used our office address per our request for business pertaining to Creekside Arbour and part of the reason for that was that we knew we were in a state of transition. We were in Boise. We wanted to be in Meridian. It takes time to build a house. We lived in two other places and two other personal addresses. There is absolutely no way that that would have reached us had it been sent out the way or at least I don't suppose that it (r Meridian City Council Special Meeting October 22, 1998 Page 8 would have. Beside getting the address wrong from what they gave you, even, I'd like it noted that when the little strip mall on Fairview Avenue directly north of us was built, they could find us. They could notify us. The City of Meridian has notified us for other things too. So other developers could find us. Another thing that could have prevented this that just astounded me when I saw those returned envelopes. Both of them were clearly marked no such address. But the postal service provides a service free of charge, but you have to request it. The Meridian post office knew where we lived. That was sent to Meridian and returned because no one asked for address service. You can get a little stamp for about $5.00 or $6.00 that says address service requested. Stamp it on the envelope. If you have something misaddressed, the post office will notify you and I really encourage you to do that in the future. If it seems reasonable to you. I really would like to suggest that you require engineering firms or whoever is submitting lists to you if they're going to use the County Assessor's address list, that they be required to use the address that the County Assessor uses. We have never missed getting a tax notice. The County Assessor has our address. Both of them the office and home both. So that doesn't help us where we are now. We had no knowledge of Mr. Crow's plans other than what he had discussed with my husband approximately two and a half years ago. Until August 5th, we returned from being out of town and saw the earth moving machines next door. At that point, my husband did go to city hall and request some information. A few hours later I talked with Ms. Stiles on the telephone. She did not know that our - she didn't even know off hand and she said she had the files out since my husband had been there. She didn't know that we owned both pieces. She didn't know that we had a plan in place. A concept plan that had been approved. And I would like to see if it's possible some safeguards in that respect. I just found it rather alarming that neither the city person in charge of it nor the ACHD review panel knew about that. When I talked with the tech review panel on Friday of last week, they asked me to clarify whether I owned Creekside Arbour or the vacant lot behind it. So I kind of wish we could have color in map or something and mark it all as Creekside Arbour even though it isn't there yet. We are in the planning stages for phase two. We're also in the money collection stage. And hope to break ground at the latest by the spring of 2000. Hopefully weill be coming to you within six months to a year and begin some planning work on that. Thank you for your time. Bentley: Mr. Mayor I have a couple of questions. Lucille, the address shown on the certified letters was 2484 Sushine Drive? Leavell: Yes. Bentley: And that was a correct address except for the city was wrong? It says Meridian on there? Leavell: It would have been in '96 up until March of '96. (~ ( Meridian City Council Special Meeting October 22, 1998 Page 9 Bentley: But the City of Meridian is where that address is? Leavell: No. Bentley: It's in Boise. Leavell: And the zip code is 83712. Bentley: Okay. The question I had you stated that the postal service knew where you lived? Leavell: They said gives our mail every day. We started getting mail on Ariel Lane in February before the house was finished to prevent another postal change. We had our mailbox up and they allowed us to get our mail there. Bentley: Right, but how did you get the mail from Boise is what I'm getting at from your address on Sushine Drive? Leavell: I had put in the cards that you give the post office and various people, the change of address. Bentley: When did you move out of that Sushine address? When did you have the forward put in? Leavell: March of '96, March 15th as a matter of fact. Bentley: Okay because their forwards are only good for a year and these certified were sent out in September of '97. Leavell: We had another address between those. We had taken a house a smaller house in trade. We moved into it when we transferred our address to that. That was on Mortimer Street in Boise with the same zip. Bentley: Right, but the point I'm getting at is that you said the postal service knew where you were and then if we would have put an address correction requested there, that they would have gotten it, but this was marked up by the carrier service in Meridian stating that it's no such street. Leavell: That's correct. Bentley: So the carrier service - Leavell: They're not obliged to send it to another address. ( ( Meridian City Council Special Meeting October 22, 1998 Page 10 Bentley: Yes, they are obliged. Yes they are. If they know that the city is wrong, they are obligated to correct the city and send it on. I'm not trying to argue with you on the point. The point you were making was they could have taken care of it had we requested that. That isn't true. Because when you get into the amount of carriers there are, there are just too many to recognize the address. The error was made with putting the wrong city on it, but to put address correction on every envelope is pretty expensive. What I'm getting at they can - if they know where you live, they're suppose to get the mail to you. It's not just weill know where she is, but it's the wrong address on it, so I'm going to send it back because that's not the policy. Leavell: No, but I have no idea what carrier in Meridian had an address correction, it would have gone through the post master's office as I understand it. Bentley: No, that's not correct because the fOlWarding for Meridian's mail goes to Boise because they have a central forwarding service for virtually the whole valley and it's all in Boise. It's not Meridian's mail is handled here. Meridian's mail isn't. And that's all that I was trying so that you understand that. It's just not the way it works. Leavell: So maybe it would not have prevented this one. Bentley: Right. Leavell: But it might another one. Bentley: But you did have the changes in so they could have backed it up from there. Leavell: Yes, I did. Bentley: Okay. Thank you. Anderson: I had one question. Is this - we have a 1312 E. 5th Meridian, is that your office address? Leavell: Yes, it is. Anderson: So that is a current address. Leavell: Yes, that's our current office address. Anderson: Okay. Leavell: And that is the one the tax assessor uses for taxes on those properties. Meridian City Council Special Meeting October 22, 1998 Page 11 Anderson: And they've been using that ever since you built it? Leavell: No, I think the correction - they were actually addressing it to 1304 4th Street for a while and we asked them to correct it and I don't recall the date of that correction. But I know it was at least six months before this was sent out. Corrie: Thank you. Mr. Shoemaker is that the end of your- Shoemaker: (Inaudible - off the microphone) Corrie: Mr. Stoppello. Stoppello: Mayor Corrie and members of the Council, Mr. Gigray, my name is Frank W. Stoppello and I represent Ron Crow whose family has owned this approximately ten acre parcel since the early 70's. In October of '96 Mr. Crow began development of the present project. After the preliminary plat was approved in February of 1998, he sold 33 residential lots of the subdivision to Mr. Ron Leslie which his corporation is Moore or Less, Inc. He retained 8 townhouse lots in the same subdivision. My client received notice of this grievance or this motion October 3rd, 98. I only represent Mr. Crow but I believe both Mr. Crow and Mr. Leslie have the same interest. I spoke with Mr. Dick Mollerup before this hearing last week, who is Mr. Leslie's attorney and he agreed we have the same interest. Mr. Mollerup wanted me to tell you that he was out of town for the week and could not attend. The current status of the construction of this subdivision is that the water, sewer and irrigation has been completed. The bridge in the subdivision has been constructed and completed. All utilities are in. All roads have been cut in. Today they were laying the base and rolling the base for the pavement, curb and gutter sidewalks. Within a week the curb and gutters and sidewalks will be in or least started. Final paving will be immediately thereafter. If this objection is upheld or it's put back as wanted by the grievant, it will be financial disaster for both parties. It is critical the project be continued in the final plat filed. The final plat is now being held by the Meridian City Engineer I guess subject to this motion. That's our understanding. Presently both parties have invested approximately the following approximate amounts. My client for his 8 townhouse lots has approximately $62,000 invested at the present time. The value when completed this project is $147,000 for his 8 townhouse lots. Mr. Leslie informed me before the hearing he has invested $500,000 to date. I believe I can say it will be a financial disaster for him if this is sent back. Am I right, sir? There are some things here that I think must be addressed. When you say someone is less than forthcoming, it implies some dishonesty. Mr. Crow was somewhat set back by this notice. He did not somehow confuse the address or provide a wrong address, whatever. I don't know what happened there. Mr. Shoemaker made another statement that is not quite true in my opinion. He said to the effect that Mr. Crow needs this Badley Street extension to get his subdivision approved. That is what I heard. This (- Meridian City Council Special Meeting October 22, 1998 Page 12 subdivision is already approved by all entities. Ada County Highway District required as part of their approval that Mr. Crow put in a stub. Now that isn't something that Mr. Crow wanted to do. It was part of the ACHD requirement. There is not going to have to be an extension before he builds on his townhouses or the final plat is approved. That is not a correct statement. The subdivision is not subject to a Badley Street extension in no way, shape or form. Mr. Leavell objects because this could mean an extension of Badley to the stub in the future by ACHD, not be Mr. Crow or Mr. Leslie or the City of Meridian. He's objecting to a process that ACHD might require or if ACHD wants to extend that stub and make that a public street, under eminent domain procedures, they have a perfect right to do that. If you have a ten story building, if they wanted to pay for the building, they can take that land by eminent domain. This objection to any future extension is quite properly with ACHD, not my client or Mr. Leslie or the City Council. There's nothing we can do about what ACHD wants to do in the future if they in fact want to do that in the future. Obviously if my client had any idea there was a mistake in notice, I don't think we would have invested this kind of money nor I would believe Mr. Leslie would have invested the kind of money he did. If my (End of Tape) Stoppello: ... Leslie decided not to develop that land and left it as a pasture, under current ACHD policies when Mr. Leavell develops the north side or whatever, there's a great possibility they would require some stub into the Leslie/Crow property. I have sat here personally in front of this Council as an owner of a 12 acre parcel out on South Locust Grove with Mr. Sales from ACHD. When Lost Alimotis was approved and I have 12 acres of bare land I'm farming, and alii did was ask the Council and ACHD what happens is there going to be access? I have a private road. That's the only access I have. They said it's absolutely our policy. I know have two paved streets, curb and gutter utilities on my northern boundary with a fence dividing my farmland from the street. I believe the gentleman's name is Mr. Craig Johnson, I'm sorry if I don't know is developing on the south side of Victory and Locust Grove. His first parcel he's moving to the east. He will be required, it's already in the plans to stub in to my property. Now that is the way it is. Now sometimes they make a mistake and they don't do this. They even informed Mr. Crow that on the eastern side as Mr. Shoemaker - is it Danbury? That they made an error. They did not require a stub there. They should have. Once that subdivision was approved. There was no way to get access through there. I don't care what Mr. Shoemaker says about building lots and whatever. There's no way to get access to the south. The only - Washington Street I believe is the street is basically to the south. The access through the north and Mr. Lee is here to talk about that. I wasn't involved in that and I understand the city denied any kind of access to the north. It goes through commercial property or whatever. I don't care what Mr. Coba wants to do. The choice to put that road in was ACHD. If these people have to go back through the process it will result in an obvious financial ruin. Secondly we believe the city and all entities would still approve this subdivision. That this objection is improper and would not be allowed in stopping this subdivision because this prerogative of the street lies with ACHD. In other words if this was sent it would result in the same approval we ( Meridian City Council Special Meeting October 22, 1998 Page 13 believe but instead we now have two people that are financially ruined. Because I guess Mr. Leavell's address was wrong on the envelope. I'm not quite sure. As I hear it I believe there were some errors there. Clearly it's my understanding, I don't speak for the City, weren't signs posted on that property about these various changes and whatever? You mean to tell you did not know about this until you filed an objection the latter part of August? The construction started the first part of August. We have a principal of law, and I'm not going to be one of these lawyers that tries to whatever, but there is a principal and one of the cases I remember is a neighbor knew that somebody was building a house or structure one foot on to his property. He sat back, he sat back watched the foundation, watched the sticks go up, watched the roof and when it almost completed is when he made his objection. As I remember that particular case the Court's ruled you waited too long. So you cannot object. I think there has been sufficient due process noticed here. Again we must look at the nature of the objection. I see this as a kin to making an objection to the color of the houses or the styles of the roofs.. This is not a germane objection in my opinion. It is nothing this Council has anything to do with in my opinion. It's an ACHD requirement and policy. We do not believe their rights have been prejudiced which I believe has been referred as to what the test is. Because we believe that such an objection would be overcome and we'd be right back where we are now maybe a year down the road from now. He has received adequate notice under the constitution with the posted signs and the actual work. If he wants to object about extending the street through his property which obviously would be an eminent domain procedure, they'd have to pay him for whatever the value of that land is. If they want to hook up with the stub, that's their problem again. And he has a right to reasonable compensation, a jury trial under our law. We would ask this Council to rule as a matter of law that in fact they have not been prejudiced, that their intent of their whole objection is something that they can take up with the Ada County Highway District. Their objection has been lost and we're asking that you sirs as members of the Council approve the final plat, allow these people to finalize - they're in the last of the 9th inning on this matter and allow them to finish what they believe they had an approval to do so and we're asking that there be findings that they have not been prejudiced. They've received adequate notice and as I said before their third objection is not with this Council, but it's still preserved in the future with ACHD when in fact ACHD if ever wants to extend that. Their rights or their property rights are protected because if ACHD wants to take that step, they'll be compensated for under our state and federal constitution. Thank you very much. I'll try to answer any questions if anybody has any for me. Anderson: Could you go over one more time where they're at on the construction? The water, sewer lines in and the bridge - Stoppello: Yes, sir. There is a bridge in the subdivision, a concrete bridge as I understand that's required. And then sir all of the utilities are already in. And the irrigation water is also in. As of today, they're replacing and placing the base and rolling / \ Meridian City Council Special Meeting October 22, 1998 Page 14 the base, and I'd defer anything to Mr. Lee here, but I believe the curb, gutter and sidewalks are scheduled for within a week. I'm sorry sir, for tomorrow and then immediately thereafter as soon as the curing the pavement, Boise Pavement is ready to go on that. Am I right on that? I don't know if there is anything left to do other than getting the plat process, the final plat. Anderson: Thank you. Corrie: Mr. Stoppello, how many entrances are there into the Sterling Creek now? Stoppello: I believe just the Washington Street entrance. Corrie: Just one. Stoppello: Yes, sir. Corrie: And how many units are there going to be in there? Stoppello: 33 residential single family and 8 potential townhouses. Corrie: Okay. Thank you. Sto,ppello: Mr. Leslie and Mr. Crow and also Mr. Lee can emphasize that for them this has to be done and finalized so they can develop and sell and build on the lots this fall. If it's delayed to next year, it definitely would be financial ruin. Corrie: Do we have anybody else that would like to -- Mr. Lee. Stoppello: Mr. Lee might have some comments on some of the (inaudible). GARY LEE WITH JUB ENGINEERS WAS SWORN BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. Lee: My name is Gary Lee with JUB Engineers. We're the consulting firm that has been hired by Ron Crow and Moore or Less, Inc. to prepare the plat and plans for Sterling Creek Subdivision. I guess the first thing I wanted to address is the address issue. I find it very interesting that all the different addresses that have come up for the Leavells during this hearing tonight. But over the past what nine years I have been presenting projects to the City of Meridian, we have followed a certain procedure in acquiring neighbors' addresses within 300 feet of all these zoning issue projects and that is we work with local title companies a number of them and they have a direct computer access to Ada County's Tax Assessor's rolls and they also have access to the current zoning not zoning, but parcel maps, and what they do is they take these parcel maps and identify the land that's in question, draw a circumference around it of 300 / ( I Meridian City Council Special Meeting October 22, 1998 Page 15 feet, take off all the parcel numbers. They enter those into their computer system and it prints out a single sheet with the current property owner's name, the property's address as well as the latest mailing address for tax notices and that's a direct link right into the county system. Those are provided to us. In the old days we used to take that stack of papers and sometimes they were pretty lengthy and have our secretaries type up the list so we can hand it to the City of Meridian and they can take the names and addresses right off that list. This particular development and we started doing things a little bit differently in the last months actually two years, Ron Crow the developer had brought this list from Pioneer Title that we normally get, which we didn't use at the time because we were on a mailing from the County and we get direct mailings of CD's for our computer systems with all the same information on that list, so we take that information from the CD, it goes right into an electronic spread sheet and we sort those names on that area and generate this list electronically so there isn't any retyping involved so there isn't any chance of error of us entering the wrong address or name or city or whatever it might be. So then we take that list it's on an Excel spreadsheet and we deliver that to the City Clerk for his mailing. When this came up, we got a copy of this same tax assessor notice from Shari Stiles that she had run checking what the address should be and it was dated 1998 and the address she indicated then was at 1312 S. 5th I think in Meridian where their office is now, so I dug through records and looked at first our database, electronic base that we had in 1997 to verify the address that was in there and it was the one on Sunrise. And then also I pulled out that list of statements that Ron Crow had given me from Pioneer Title, looked at their address from the tax assessor in 1997 and it was the Sunrise Drive so the address that was given to the City was the best available information from the County at the time so we felt pretty comfortable that we had best data we could get our hands on. I can't explain why there was a difference in mailings that Mrs. Leavell has spoken of. All we know is that is what was on that tax assessment roll and that's what we used. The access issues I guess have kicked around from both sides so far and it is true that the County Highway District did require an extra stub street there for future traffic circulation and it's good planning and it's really required for this property because of its length. As noted earlier there's about 700 feet of common boundary there and it wouldn't be possible to provide access to the Crow property as a dead end street because we'd exceed maximum cul-de-sac lengths that are required in the city of 450 feet. So a second access was necessary and the County Highway District reaffirmed the fact that one was needed there and that's how the plan was put together and presented to you. Prior to Mr. Crow application on the annexation and preliminary plat there was a I believe it was a conditional use permit, I don't really remember at this point. But Mr. Koba had submitted for his development on Fairview which is situated north of the Crow property but at the time it was separated by another parcel about an acre and a half so it was a gap there. Mr. Crow had requested that we come in and testify at the City Council hearings on that particular development stressing the need for a secondary access at that point. And the main reason then was the Five Mile Drain bisecting the property. We didn't feel that it would be advisable to put a bridge across the Five Mile Drain just to access three or four acres (~ Meridian City Council Special Meeting October 22, 1998 Page 16 in the back there. So there was concern at that time about access to the north, but I think the city and ACHD by the way were comfortable in trying to separate the commercial areas from the residential areas. They didn't want to have the residential traffic going through that commercial zone right on to Fairview and neither did the highway district. So that particular access was exhausted and was pointed out earlier that Danbury Subdivision (inaudible) and one other area that hadn't been mentioned was a little subdivision called Kathy Sub. Which is right on the south boundary of Sterling Creek. There's a private street there but it is private and we can't take access there as well. So the only accesses available were Washington Street and Badley. I don't believe I have any other testimony to give and I'd be glad to answer any technical questions about the subdivision. Corrie: Any questions of Mr. Lee? Bird: I have none. Bentley: I have none. Corrie: Mr. Stoppello is that your- Stoppello: (Inaudible - off the microphone) Corrie: At this time Mr. Shoemaker if you have a reply to anything that's come up. Shoemaker: Yes, thank you Mr. Mayor. I'll try to be brief. I want to respond to the equities or lack of equities argument that Mr. Stoppello talked about and I think it is important for the Council to listen to and think about whether someone's been sitting on their hands or otherwise. I think the record shows the Leavells acted properly based upon the information they had including and I'll stick to my words the false information or half truth not incidentally which I didn't hear Mr. Lee rebut the statements contained in your findings and conclusions of a year ago October 24, 97. The Leavells when I was on vacation when they came back from theirs on August 5, they ran down and talked to Shari Stiles. And informed here or that it was a holocaust for them. They first learned that a public street was going to be extended through their multi family housing complex. Now we haven't heard from Mrs. Stiles. I don't know who she talked to. I can't believe she didn't talk to Mr. Crow and inform him of the potential problem but we do know that when I got back from my vacation on August 28, I came out and looked at the property, met with the Leavells, looked at the copies of the documents we got from Mrs. Stiles and acted as fast as I could on the heals of a vacation and wrote you all a letter dated August 28th. We tried to set out the facts completely and accurately. Today is by my calendar seven weeks later, and I can submit to you having been on the property or around it almost every week for the last seven weeks, that Mr. Crow and his partners and his developers have not been doing the opposite of sitting on their hands. ( Meridian City Council Special Meeting October 22, 1998 Page 17 They have been moving pell-mell as fast as they can trying to put streets, roads and gutters in when they've known or should have known for at least five weeks if not seven weeks that there was a substantial objection by their major next door neighbor, the Leavells. Now again I do some development of my own and I can't imagine if lor any other somebody a lot smarter than I am on notice that there is a problem like this would not only move ahead but move ahead a pace with putting in streets, roads, gutters and sidewalks when the lead requirement and I submit that it's very clear that there - that you're bound to remand it back to the ,Planning and Zoning Commission. I can't feel sorry for this developer and my natural inclination not incidentally is to side with the developer to feel sorry for the developer but he knew they knew full well that there was a problem and they've elected to try to skew the facts a little bit and I don't they're deserving of any sympathy. Now again we get back to the practical facts. What can we do today even if they continue to pave their subdivision that hasn't been properly noticed and has been misnoticed because of Mr. Lee's statements to Mr. Leavell. I want to just circulate also one drawing from your file and again you can see surrounded in dark line the applicant's proposed subdivision. At the top of the drawing (inaudible) you'll see the double hammer head cul-de-sac I'll call it. And there is an opportunity even with the curbs and gutters still in to punch a road through a private road or a right- of-way just like you heard Mr. Stoppello say about the Leavells. Yes, contrary to the approval made by the Highway five years ago, your approval five years ago, I guess the highway district could condemn Badley Avenue through their property. I won't deny that. I've done all kinds of those lawsuits too. Cities and Counties can condemn the Empire State Building if they want to. That's not the issue. The issue is let's balance the equities and look at what's fair. There is an opportunity even with the status quo despite the fact that Mr. Crow has been going pell mall for the last seven weeks to run a road through Mr. Coga's property. Yes, it is another alternative access. I am mindful and respect that Council's determination and the Highway District's determination generally not the mixed commercial with residential traffic. I appreciate that and respect that. But I think we need to measure that concern and weigh it against the Leavell's rights here. And I submit that had there been the kind of hearing there should have been and I'm going to quote Mr. Lee again, this kind of statement would never have been in the record. He says or the author of the Findings say quote the applicant has complied with ACHD requirements. Referring I submit to the two requisite two accesses on access and his quote made provision for the extension of Badley end quote. I think that is not an accurate statement, and I leave to you the judgment as to whether to agree with me or Mr. Stoppello. I don't believe it's an accurate statement given the conversation that I didn't hear rebutted between Mr. Leavell and Mr. Lee. I'm sorry Mr. Crow and Mr. Leavell. So I ask you to be fair to the Leavells. It's unfortunate but I don't think it's appropriate to be too sympathetic to the applicant given his activities having had the notice he's had of the concerns and the prejudice of the Leavells without repeating myself too much. I don't think the record admits of only one conclusion and that is that he Leavell's rights would be prejudiced. We all know that if the development as the applicant now proposes it, the inertia will develop so that when the Leavells get ( Meridian City Council Special Meeting October 22, 1998 Page 18 around to developing this subdivision, just like the applicant sat on his rights and didn't ask for access from Danbury to the east, when these houses start to get built up when the stub is already in as on Sterling Cove as the developer proposes it to be when the homes are all built up here to the north the Highway District isn't going to have any choice but to extend and I imagine Mr. Leavell, Mr. and Mrs. Leavell will be required would be required to extend a public street through their apartment complex. It will be the only choice. A public street not incidentally funded probably on the Leavell's (inaudible) so I understand what's motivating the developer, but gentlemen it Anita fair given what they knew in contrast to what the Leavells knew. Today there still is despite the utter failure of the applicant to go out and find some other access not just in '96, but today despite the other failure of Mr. Crow to do that, there is still a way to him to find another method of access other than cutting the guts out of the Leavell's apartment complex. Any questions, Mr. Mayor? Rountree: What's the date on that drawing you just referred to? Leavell: We just had it professionally drawn. We had it hand drawn before and had it professionally drawn to scale just recently. Shoemaker: October, 1998. Rountree: Okay. Corrie: Any other questions from Council? Rountree: I have none. Bird: I have none. Leavell: I would like to add one thing. Corrie: Come up here please. Leavell: I did speak with the tech review channel. Gigray: I would suggest you have the speaker identify themselves and their name and remind them they are still under oath. Leavell: My name is Lucy Leavell. And I did speak with the tech review panel at ACHD last Friday, a week ago. I spoke with Mr. Steve Arnold, Barb Camp and Mr. Dave Splat. They had been unaware of this situation up to that point and they said that we needed to find out from you if you would be rerouting that back to them or if we needed to ( Meridian City Council Special Meeting October 22, 1998 Page 19 petition them for a change and due to the non notice situation, they would be very willing to review it. Corrie: Okay thank you. Bentley: Mr. Mayor I have a question for Mr. Stoppello. Mr. Shoemaker referred to the August 28th letter that was sent to the City. Did you receive a copy or your clients receive a copy of that? Stoppello: That's what I said in my direct that on Saturday on October 3rd is when he received that. He was into my office I think Tuesday the earliest and you had already set this for two days ago. I had a hearing and the parties moved it two days, so that's when he got his first notice. Bentley: I just needed to verify what the date was. Thank you. Corrie: Council have any requests of staff at this point? Staff? Rountree: I was just going to say that I have questions of staff, but it doesn't relate to the procedural issue. Bentley: I have a question for Will, but I don't see him. Rountree: He just got paged. Bentley: I'll pass to Charlie. Rountree: Shari, do we have anything official in our files on the '92 or there about approval of the apartment complex, phase one and/or phase two? And is there a development agreement that relates to that development on record with the City of Meridian? And would there be additional requirements on the part of the owners of that property for either conditional use permit or some other public process? In your opinion. Stiles: Councilman Rountree, Mayor and Council, in reviewing the files for 1992 on the Hunter's Glenn project, the Badley extension was discussed by the City Engineer. In a statement made by Mr. Shoemaker at the meeting before the City Council on June 16th, 1992, if I could quote what he said here. It says initially the primary access for phase one is to the south. There will be an emergency access easement for phase one over a graveled road to Fairview Avenue. It will be gated at the north border of phase one just to make sure that it's used for temporary access only. As soon as there is any development on what is called on that site plan phase two and three, there will be at that time an additional access provided either through Fairview on a permanent basis but probably to the west, there is an existing right-of-way that abuts up and runs into ( Meridian City Council Special Meeting October 22, 1998 Page 20 what's called phase two a 50 foot right-of-way that would provide to 4th. And I would assume that would be Badley. The property to the north of their existing development is zone R-8. That does not permit apartment complex. They would have to rezone to an R-15 and get a conditional use permit in order for that to be approved, and I would in my opinion the road would be required to be extended through that project. There is a development agreement. It is somewhat vague. It speaks to improvements in phase two and three as far as the amenities are concerned, but there is no where in the file even a concept of phase two and three and there is no absolutely no approval indicated. It was only for phase one. Rountree: Thank you. Bentley: Point of clarification Shari. You said that the road would have to be put in. Which road which direction? Stiles: Mr. Shoemaker's testimony was that there would either be a temporary road clear to Fairview Avenue which is a requirement in the R-15 zone that they have access to an arterial. But he also refers to an additional access probably to the west to an existing right-of-way. Bentley: And you're talking that's Badley. Stiles: I don't know exactly, but I would assume. That's the only public right-of-way there. I would think that today it would be my recommendation that their project would not have been approved because they had no public road frontage. Bentley: Thank you. Corrie: Shari, to make sure that I understand this now. Phase two that they have here has not been brought to the Council for a zoning; is that correct? It's not zoned R-15 at this point? Stiles: That's correct. Corrie: Thank you. Any other questions of our staff? Rountree: I have none. Corrie: I have a question for the city attorney at this point. Bentley: I have a question for Will. Will, on the certifieds, what procedure are we using on verifying-do we verify addresses? Or do we just go straight off what they bring in? ( \ Meridian City Council Special Meeting October 22, 1998 Page 21 Berg: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bentley, currently the Planning and Zoning Department makes that list off of their database that they receive from the county. Is that correct Shari? Stiles: Yes, that's correct. Berg: We do not go off a list that's submitted to us by the applicant. That's today's standard. Bentley: What about at the time this was done? Berg: At the time this was done was - I don't think we had our database up to date and we were going off the applicant's submission. Bentley: And we fill out the certified envelopes? Berg: Yes, we do all the handling and mailing. Bentley: And fill out the form book and the whole - Berg: Yes and stuff the envelopes with the hearing notices. Bentley: Thank you. Berg: We also put a notice in the paper as well as check and see if the property is posted. That is done by the Planning and Zoning Department. Bentley: Thank you. Corrie: Questions for attorney? Mr. Gigray do you have any comments? Gigray: My comment would be that in my view the merits of the proposals on either side are not the issue in this particular proceeding but the facts relating to notice and the objection raised by Leavells concerning the lack of notice is the thing that is the most serious issue. My advice to the Council is if you find that notice was not provided and notice by mail is a condition precedent to zoning amendments, and it is my opinion that at least the current rulings by the Idaho Supreme Court and my own recent experience in judicial reviews before district courts is if they find that there is a lack of notice as required by the statute they will hold an amended zoning ordinance void and then it will be remanded back to the City Council with directions with regards to providing proper notice and it appears to me that that remedy may be available both as a declaratory relief action as well as a judicial review. And so I think essential question here is whether or not you would find that notice has been provided or not. The case that most (- Meridian City Council Special Meeting October 22, 1998 Page 22 concerns me in this regard would be McKusky v. Canyon County which is 851 P2D953 just decided in March of 1993 and I've had recent experience with this in the third district court, and so I think that's the central question. If you find that and the central question here has to do with the zoning designation on the ordinance and if a conditional use permit is granted as a subsequent action to a rezone because that then puts it in appropriate zone to grant a conditional use permit then that issue looms as well. As far as the annexation question is concerned you don't have to have public hearings for annexation and I think annexation ordinance would stand and would not be a matter which would even be of consideration for remand based on the record that I have heard so far. You have to weigh what information is before you for you to make a decision. In my opinion if you should determine that there was a notice failure here as required by the statute, then my recommendation would be that you remand the matter on zoning and rescind the action on the zoning as well as the conditional use permit and any other pending matters involving public hearings to the Planning and Zoning Commission with a directive that they give proper notice under law and that they forthwith proceed to hear these applications of the applicant. If you find that the notice was adequate given the circumstances of this particular matter and all the matters that have been presented relating to that then I'd let things stand as they are. Anderson: Mr. Mayor I have a question of legal counsel. Is there any requirement in the state or county statutes that if a property owner moves, are they bound to notify the taxing authority of their new address or is the taxing authority just have to find them? Gigray: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, Councilman Anderson, to answer your question, it is my opinion that the record establishes that notice has been given to appropriate address to the property owner as shown of record in the Assessor's Office that notice would be proper. Rountree: Did that help? Anderson: No. Gigray: Did it answer your question? Rountree: Mr. Mayor, question for counsel could you help me with the side boards that might constitute what is a legitimate notification and what would not be considered a legitimate notification as it relates to tax rolls and where we get addresses and that sort of thing. Gigray: In my opinion I think that the City in its procedures can rely upon the information which it receives from the Assessor's office and the tax rolls because that is the official records of who is the owner and has the ownership interest in the property ( ( Meridian City Council Special Meeting October 22, 1998 Page 23 and it's that record and that type of procedure that's prescribed by the planning act with regards to who is entitled to notice of these. When noticed by mail is required. Rountree: Now if that's not a correct address, or incorrectly addressed to that address for the current location of the owner of the property in question, are we still within the bounds of it being considered a reasonable effort for notification along with the other procedures that we have to follow. Gigray: Councilman Rountree, Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, in my opinion that is all we can do and if we were on notice that that was an incorrect address by some reliable evidence, then we should provide notice also to some other address that we had notice or knowledge of. But otherwise the only notice that we're going to have is going to be that notice that is provided through the Assessor's Office and I think the procedures that we have in place are correct. And in many instances if someone appeared and said we want our notice sent to this address and we've received new information then we should follow that, but there would need to be a record made that was requested as has been done here this evening. Rountree: Mr. Mayor question for Shari. Given our experience with ACHD, a stub street in your opinion does not necessarily constitute an extension of a street. Or does it constitute an extension of the street? Stiles: Not always, no it doesn't mean that they will actually extend the road through there. Rountree: I don't ha~~ any more 9uestions. Corrie: An~y~.f~JJ1her questions Mr. Ander~on? Mr. Bentley? <:: Bentley: Yeah, I have got a question for the Clerk. You may not even be the-one who-' ' does this, but I'm going to ask you. What procedure do we follow when W~ receive some. .maiLreturned marked undeliverable or no such address? Ber~_ Mr. Mayor, Councilman Bentley, members of the Council, hopefuIlYJb~__ ---+T procedure is that we look and ~ee what is written on the ellvelope and then proceed' to- try to find other means t~ se~d that nbt~ce. The fe~ling in tpe. Ci~ Cler~~~ O~<f~ is Wf$ melthe-statutes by sending It the first time but we feel an obligation to th~ citizens ofi Meridian to try to mail itpr get it sent ~nother way if possible. I cannot tell you' what the interp~ Qf1be1'~r~~..eelved this letter back what their view 9r what their , _..'~~~as. " , . Bentley: My question is if it's returned back, do we try to verify that the address - we do put the address on the envelope? ( Meridian City Council Special Meeting October 22, 1998 Page 24 Berg: Yes, we do put their address on the envelopes. We actually qo the mailing out and yes I would hope that the person would look and try to verify why did this return back? Did we put the wrong address on? Did wetfTlisspell the person,'s nam~?: Did we do something else and try to see if there's any other means sending it ~r notifying them. Bentley: Thank you. Berg: I'm just going to mention one more thing Cou~cilman B~ntley. We do ~ npt to down play this, but this is one of many certified mailings that we do get returned every day in the mail, so it's not j~~t one project that we have to deal with, but there are quite a few not to make an excuse. Bentley: Thank you. That's alii have. Bird: I have nothing. Corrie: Council you have two items that you can do here. One of twq things, yqu caFl take this matter under advisement for decision at the next reg~la,~ C04ncil meeting as stated earlier or you can make a decision on the .motion this evening. . What is your pleasure? Bentley: Mr. Mayor in the point of discussion I would prefer to take it Linder advisement. Rountree: If that is the action we take can we direct Council to evaluate questions we may have as it pertains to this so we can have that when we discuss it at the next meeting, or is this something that we have to live with for a couple of weeks and then make a decision without benefit of input from legal counsel? Gigray: Mr. Mayor and members of the Council in answer to Councilman Rountree's question it is my opinion that the Council and the Mayor have every right to ask legal counsel questions regarding these matters every bit as much as judge would be able to ask his clerk about what is appropriate in terms of rendering a decision. The thing you cannot do is talk about this among yourselves or convene at some point to discuss anything the merits of this that would be an open meeting law issue, but you certainly can confer I believe with Counsel and we're available for that and that's part of the things you pay us for. Rountree: Thank you. Anderson: I guess I'm of the opinion with work proceeding at the rate that it is on the project right now that it makes sense to me for both parties' benefit that we make a decision tonight. ( Meridian City Council Special Meeting October 22, 1998 Page 25 Bird: I concur. Rountree: Mr. Mayor per Mr. Anderson's comment, I don't have a problem with that, but given that he brought the ice on the discussion, I would be curious as to rationale and what direction he might be leaning so we can have some discussion there. Anderson: I guess I'm looking at this from was there any violation of policies or anything like that and how we noticed it. I guess I'm leaning that we made all reasonable attempts on notification. And I guess I'm kind of leaning in favor of taking no action on that, that we noticed the meeting properly. Bird: I concur with Councilman Anderson. I feel bad about the Leavells but I believe that everything was done in good faith. You have human errors, and they've moved around quite frequently in the last year or two. We've got a development going. I'm leaning that way to go ahead and let them go with it. Bentley: The procedure, although the property from indications was properly noticed, I don't feel the Leavells were. I feel the error unfortunately is with us. We misaddressed the envelope. I would hope seeing two of these envelopes were sent out and the second one came back, that we do a little better job of verifying the addresses and I understand the clerk's position that we have literally hundreds of these go out. Maybe it's time we institute a little better checks and balance system of verifying of addresses. It's easy to do, I've done it myself. Since I deal with this stuff all day long, it's real easy to throw a letter in the wrong hole, and throw it in the wrong mail box and normally when I do it, it's somebody's check through a letter shoot that I can't get back till the next day, because they are working. I'm inclined to see if we can't get some help from ACHD and zoning and trying to get this road straightened out. Rountree: Again, I think the question is procedural, but to the point of access, that would be my observation and opinion that the access is not mandated by ACHD, the provision for access was indicated in necessity on the plat. They didn't indicate that anyone had to provide that access other than the opportunity to provide for it in the future. So, to the access. question, I don't believe that the Leavells have been wronged in that regard. There will be a stub street there. The question of what they do with their property is subject to future review by the city and ACHD. They pointed out that their drawing of their concept is October 1998, right now. I agree with Glen that yeah there was an error made, but I believe it's a mute point. The letter could've been addressed to the Sunshine address in New York. Mrs. Leavell indicated that they weren't there in March of 1996. If it would've been Boise, Idaho, it still wouldn't have been delivered. I think the intent was, and I'm not a liar, I don't believe there was any wrongful intent. I don't believe that there were compounding errors. I believe the address issue is mute. The residents were not there at the time of the mailing. I would be inclined at this moment to favorably look at not taking any further action and leaving the record as it is. ( Meridian City Council Special Meeting October 22, 1998 Page 26 Bird: Is that a motion? Rountree: That is my opinion. Corrie: Since that is the first Councilman's words here, I'll entertain a motion. Whatever you want-see where it goes. Gigray: Mr. Mayor, just for purposes of procedure and to aid the council in forming a motion, if you seek to-if you find that the notice was given then you just simply deny the motion. If you go the other route, then you would grant the motion subject to the remand. Corrie: Is that pretty clear to the council, which way you want to? Okay, I'll entertain a motion one way or the other here. Anderson: I guess I make a motion to deny the motion, is that? Bird: I second it. Corrie: Okay, the motion has been made by Mr. Anderson to deny the motion before us, seconded by Mr. Bird. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion of denying the motion, say aye. MOTION CARRIED: Three ayes, one aye. Corrie: The motion is carried by three to one, the motion is therefore denied. At this time, I don't believe we have any further-the notice of hearing, do I hear a motion to... Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we go into executive session. Bird: Second. Corrie: It isn't on the agenda? I was wondering about that. Bentley: I withdraw the motion. Bird: I withdraw the second. Corrie: Do you want those photographs back? Bill, can we give him that. Gigray: They weren't admitted into evidence. ( Meridian City Council Special Meeting October 22, 1998 Page 27 Anderson: Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we adjourn. Bird: Second. Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we adjourn, all in favor say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. MEETING ADJOURNED AT 8:10 APPROXIMATELY (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.) APPROVE: C C c- r-,. {2...--C- ROBERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR ATTEST: MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1998 6:30 P.Mw CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1 w HEARING OF NOTICE: CONCERNING MOTION ON BEHALF OF BILL AND LUCY LEAVELLw (STERLING CREEK SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL) de~ I11A;)"h}rn/ fvlayor ROBERT D. CORRIE HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Live ( Council fvfembers CHARLES ROUNTREE GLENN BENTLEY RON ANDERSON KEITH B IRO CITY OF MERIDIAN LEGAL DEPARTrYlENT (208) 884--t264 33 EAST IDAHO ~IERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 · Fax (208) 887-4813 PUBLIC \VORKS BUILDING DEPARTivlENT (208) 887-2211 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPART~IENT (208) 8~4-55J:1 NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a Special Meeting at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho, on Thursday, October 22th, 1998 at 6:30 P.M. They will hold a special hearing to discuss a procedural question concerning the notice for public hearing for Sterling Creek Subdivision. The public is welcome to attend. DATED this 13th day of October, 1998. ~ WilliAM G. BERG, JR. - SEAL ~"76.. ~ E -.~ ~~~n' %.?'a lJsr 1 S~ · ';<:1' ! ~ :;"'.f .<\ ~ ,'" ,~ ~ 7 f',.... "" " /.....I/~ ,-,~..utiT'{' \\".... 1/1/ \\' 1IIIlllB ntH" ( Meridian City Council September 15, 1998 Page 18 Bird: No, the motion was just for anew They told me that's alii couldw I would change my motion if he would pull a second and do all three if we - Bentley: Can we do all three? Or do they have to each individual public hearing be opened? Gigray: I think we should ask the individuals that have testified if they are here to testify specifically to any of the other agenda items or they felt they were addressing all three items. Corrie: Let me ask the ones here, is there anybody here that had testimony for 7, 8 and 9 or any continuation of those? Then hearing none, we can still have the public hearing on all those and notice it will be a public hearingw Bird: So I can - Bentley: I'll withdraw my second. Bird: I'd like to change the motionw I'd like to continue items number 7, 8 and 9 which are public hearings for annexation and zoning, preliminary plat and conditional use permit for Wilkins Ranch at the Lakes by Steiner Corporation until October 6, 1998w Bentley: Second. Corrie: Motion is made by Mr. Bird second by Mr. Bentley to continue the public hearing on items number 7, 8, and 9 which includes the annexation and zoning, preliminary plat and conditional use permit for Wilkins Ranch at the Lakes Subdivisionw Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO.1 0: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR STERLING CREEK SUBDIVISION: Corrie: At this time Council I did receive a letter from the attorney in regards to this Sterling Subdivision. The attorney is Fred Shoemaker and he's here tonightw I would like to make sure that you all had that and put that in the record that we did receive that letterw At this time I would like to ask Mrw Gigray if he would make his comment to the Council. ; Gigray: Thank you Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, I have reviewed a letter which is addressed to you dated August 28th 1998 referencing the Sterling Creek Subdivision and it references the file number and it was addressed to you by Mr. Fred Shoemaker on behalf of Bill and Lucy Leavell. The long and short of this particular letter is I believe ( ( Meridian City Council September 15t 1998 Page 1 9 there's a motion contained at the end of that letter which references that the Council not approve the development agreement now scheduled which was I think previously may have been scheduled for the 1st of September and to return developer's request for rezoning and annexation and any other administrative proceedings which it is seeking which requires a hearing the Planning and Zoning Commission for further review. The basis for this motion is that as stated in the letter that his clients did not receive notice of the public hearings on the basis that they mailing was to a correct address in the wrong city that it was addressed to Meridian and should have been addressed to Boise. It is my opinion and my recommendation to the council with regards to this matter that the Council should schedule this for a hearing on this motion. I believe the developer should have an opportunity to respond to this motion. Mr. Shoemaker and his clients have the ability to argue their motion. I'-believe that it's a serious motion that demands attention. I think it's important not only to Mr. Shoemaker's clients but also the developer and the city that this matter be fully addressed and at that point in time they could address those motions and then the council could decide from a procedural standpoint how it wishes to proceed. Corrie: Council any questions? We want to definitely schedule a hearing then at their request. Do we schedule that hearing at a council meeting or a special meeting? Gigray: I think we could do it at either time. Your choice giving them reasonable notice. I would also recommend that you authorize the clerk's office and we'll provide assistance that we would send out a notice to the affected parties of the purpose and intent of this particular hearing 50 that they are advised. Corrie: Would October 20th be enough time for - Mr. Shoemaker would that give you enough time? October the 20th for hearing? Okay, thank you. Bird: I move that we table this development agreement with Sterling Creek Subdivision until October 20th 1998 and the interested parties know and inviting that. Anderson: Second. Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bird and second by Mr. Anderson to schedule a hearing on October 20th to discuss the Sterling Creek approval of the development agreement and their areas of concern. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion say aye. MOTION CARRIED: All ayes. ITEM NO. 11: APPOINTMENT Q'F THE HUMAN RESOURCE DIRECTOR BY MAYOR: ( ( COSHO, flUMPHREY, GREENER & WELSH, P.A. COUNSELORS .A/'JD A TTORNEYS AT LAW C.AJ~J'lf:Gle BUll DING a) 5 '^'EST WASHINGTON STREET BOISE. IDAHO aJ 702 CrfK:!' AQMlN1ST~ TOR (f.,jSlNE THOM~eN TFLEPHONE (2.08) J.44-7811 FACSIMILE (208) ]38-3290 e .ma.d: fshoemaker@chg'N .com X.FA' )(4:;;c.~ LAW F1~ ~EOC\A rK..'N l'''REDRIC V. SHOEMAKER August 28, 1998 HAND DELIVERED Mayor Bob Corey Menlbers of the City Council Ci ty Hall 33 East Idaho Avenlle Meridian, Idaho 83642 fiLE COpy Re: Sterling Creek Subdivision CHGW File No. 6861..01 Dear 1vlayor and Menlbers of City Council: I represent Bill and Lucy Leavell~ \vho are the owners Hllnter's Glen, \vhich is an upscale apartment complex located on 10.58 acres in1mediately to the \vest of the proposed Sterling Creek Subdivision. Hunter9s Glen shares a 700 foot conl111on boundary "vith that proposed developnlent~ A<c, proposed, the Sterling Creek Subdivision "Ivill have a huge adverse impaa on the Leavell's complex and greater than any other propeny or property Owner in the vicinity_ Yet unfonunarc!y they only recently learned of the nature of the project and its il11pact on their property. This matter is apparently set for final administrative review by the City Council on September 1, 1998 where the developer of Sterling Creek is asking that the City Council approve a Development Agreement, a copy of which I obtained yesterday. Washington Avenue is the only public street providing access to Sterling Creek' Subdivision at this time. The second public access proposed by the developer is from Badley Avenue, which curremly r.erlllinates 520 feet west of Sterling Creek Subdivision and JUSt west of tht> I .t~:lvdl apanmem complex. The applicant proposes and the City's approval to date, assumes that the semnd public access will be throngh 1 hE> I.eavell SEP 15 '98 16:01 208 338 3290 PAGE.01 ( ~1ayor Bob Corey Members of the City COt.Inci! August 28, 1998 Page 2 apartment comple..'( and that Badley Avenue ,,'ViII become a dedicated public street. 1'[ is ' this aspect of the, Sterling Creck proIJosal that is absolutely objectionable to the Leavcl1s. It is objectionable because the Leavell's project \-vas approved by the City in 1992, born as a rezone and a PUD, the latter being required because the apartment comple.x was approved Vlith internal private streets, which includes Badley Avenue extended as a private street 240 feet to the Leavell apann'\ent complex. Badley Avenue actually' terll1in;;ttes and turns south into the existing first phase of Hunter's Glen and seven required parking stalls are located just east of \vhere this private road tenninates. As a result) Badley Avenue cannot be ext~nded) \vhcther as a public or private street,. \vithout elinunating these required parking stalls. Over a year ago Mr. Leavell tolcl the developer of Sterling Creek on the site that Bailley Avenue was a private road, \vas approved by the City of Meridian as a private road and Leavell W~ un\villing to allovv conversion of Badley Avenue to a public street to pro'lide public access to Sterling Creek. Yet t.he developer of Sterling Creek apparently processed aI\d sought approval frolll tIle City callillg [or a second eventual required public access throllgh the Hunter9s Glen apartment conlplex. Although the Leavells kne'Yv the developnlcnt\vas being considered for the Sterling Creek property, they \vcre not notified of its impact on their apartment conlplex and the developer's proposal to run a public street through tl1e n)iddle of their apartment complCJ,( because the notices mailed by ccnified n1ail to the Leavclls was n1ailed to 2484 Sunshine Drive, Meridian, Idaho 83642~ and ,vere returned 11\arked UNo Such Street" according to copi~s of documents obtained fron1 the City files. Tb.is occurred despite ule fact that the list of property owners 'within 300 feet prepared by the developer's engineers iI'lcltldcd the correct add ress f()r the L~eavells at 2484 Sunshine [)rive, Boise, Idaho 83712-7557. failure to provide \vrittcn notice to tl\e l.eavclls is a breach of the Land Use 1)larl11iI"\g Act, Idaho Code 9 67 -6511 and Meridian City Ordi11anccs. The fact the Leavell::; 0111y rect-:11tly learIlcd of the developer's proposal to provide ptlblic access throLlgh the lniddlc of tlleir apart111ent C0111ph:.., is a fact most sttrpri~i11g since Mr. Leavell explicitly told tlle developer UI\e year ago that Badley Avenue \vas a privace road aI)cl!,c \vould noe give perl11ission to provide access through tIle apartrncnt project. SEP 15 '98 16:01 208 338 3290 PAGE. 02 ( Mayor Bob Corey MC1l1bers of the City COtlncil August 28, 1998 Page 3 The preliminary approvals given by the City and its staff were also. apparently made without knowledge of the falt that the City approved Hunter's Glen apanment complex in 1992 with internal private roads. The objectionable basis of having a public road bisect an apartment complex is self-evident and no other like-sized apartment complex exists with a public right-of-way bisecting the middle of it. It would be especially objectionable to the integrity of the Humer's Glen project. When the Leavells proposed their project in 1992, they pioneered the developn1em of an upscale apanmem compkxwith amenities of on-site pool, laundry facilities, play areas and a clubhouse in Meridian. Many que~'tioned the advisability and survivability of the project. Their project was proposed and planned in two phases. The initial phase of 44 apartment units on t.he southerly most 3.8 acres ,vas constructed in 1992. The remaining 7_5 acres is planned for approximately 60 units. The City approved the project and required the Lcavells to construct a laundry facility on Phase 1 which they did in 1992 and also requires the Leavells to construct a clubhouse, swimming pool and play area on Phase 2 on the northerly parcel. Thus, internal circulation, both pedestrian and vehicular, cannot be efficiently or safely accomplished with a public right-of-way bisecting the Humer's Glen apartment: community. In addition to taking out the seven required parking stalls, Badley Avenue, if extended through the project, would go through that pan of the development. that was planned for common area and would destroy t.he peacefulness and security that was central to the project's apprOY-d.l as a planned unit dcvclopnlcnl in 1992. The failure to provide notice to the Leavells as required by Idaho statutes and Meridian City Ordinances renders the approvals thus far obtained by the developer of Sterling Creek illegal since Idaho courts can reverse or modify local land use decisions ". · · if substantial riglus of the panies have been prejudiced which violate. . . statutory provisions, are in excess of authority, or made upon unlawful procedure, or <lre clearly erroneous or arbitrary and capricious. to Petersen v. Frallklill COZl1Iry, 130 Idaho 176, 938 P.~d 1214 (1977). ~r Leavell,) request that the City Council not approve the Development Agreement now scheduled for consideration on Tuesday, September 1, 1998, and retum the developer's request for rezone and annexation (and any other administra.tivc proceedings it is seeking which require a hearing) to the Planning and SEP 15 '98 16:01 208 338 3290 PAGE. 03 Mayor Boh Corey Melnbers of the City Council August 28) 1998 Page 1 Zoning Commission [or further review in consideration of the City's actions concerning Hunter's Glen in 1992 and the rights of ule Leavells and the residents of Hunter's Glen. The Leavells also request that further notices be sent to them at 2720 South Arid Lane, Meridian, Idaho 83642. r ---- FVS/srb cc Bill & Lucy Leavell Shari Stiles SEP 15 '98 16:01 208 338 3290 PAGE. 04 Mayor ROBERT D. CORRIE HUB OF TREASURE VALLEY A Good Place to Li ve CITY OF MERIDIAN LEGAL DEPARTMENT (208) 884-4264 Council Members CHARLES ROUNTREE GLENN BENTLEY RON ANDERSON KEITH BIRD 33 EAST IDAHO MERIDIAN, IDAHO 83642 Phone (208) 888-4433 · Fax (208) 887-4813 PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING DEPARTMENT (208) 887-2211 PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT (208) 884-5533 AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING IN THE MATTER BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL AND ) REFERENCED APPROPRIATE MATTERS, ZONING, ) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PLAT APPROVAL, AND THE ) DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR STERLING CREEK ) SUBDIVISION. ) TO: Ronald L. Crow, Frank Stoppello, Attorney Moore or Less, Inc. Bill and Lucy Leavell Fredric V. Shoemaker, Attorney Please take notice that the City Council has received a motion on behalf of Bill and Lucy Leavell pursuant to a letter to the Mayor dated August 28, 1998, a copy of which is attached to this notice. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to stipulation by the above parties and discussion at the October 6, 1998 City Council meeting, the above matter will be heard at the Meridian City Council special meeting on October 22, 1998, at the hour of 6:30 o'clock p.m. at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho, County of Ada, State of Idaho. DATED this 8th daVtR.~.cJntober, 1998. \\\ \ 11' Irlll ~,\ ....t: ".n::'"... '11/ ~ ~(\, Vt ~'~UI I~ .t"A~~'" ~~ ~~~, "'~ ~ A - ~ :2" v-~.. % ~ " I~ f \ WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., cMT CLERK = S'!iI, 4i -- L = E ~~ = ~ ~ p f ~ ~. ~~" ~ ~ ~ ~~r ..~-.r . "/ fJ $ NOTICE OF HEA~~1 ~~~~ ,$' "".1/.1 CO-J 1t~( 'Qv ....''-' 1;,\ UN '(. t ,\' 'I, ' \\\ III/UHf l1H\\\ ( CERTIFICATE OF MAILING I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 8th day of October, 1998, I mailed a true and correct copy of the foregoing AMENDED NOTICE OF HEARING, postage prepaid in the United States mail to the following: Ronald L. Crow 6937 West Parapet Court Boise, Idaho 83703 Frank Stoppello, Attorney for Ron Crow 620 W. Hays Boise, Idaho 83702 Moore or Less, Inc. 1185 Osprey Ridge P.O. Box 814 Eagle, Idaho 83616 Bill and Lucy Leavell 2720 South Ariel Lane Meridian, Idaho 83642 Frederic V. Shoemaker, Attorney for Bill and Lucy Leavell COSHO, HillvIPHREY, GREENER & WELSH, P.A. Carnegie Building 815 West Washington Street Boise, Idaho 83702 .~~(f~ NOTICE OF HEARING 2 (~ Mailist ( 8/18/97 * ~ i ~ d-U-B ~ i CROW ANNEXA TION REQUEST & ---- ELVI.RA SUBDIVISION APPLICATION I ~J( \\f'A l'~ I - (\ i I PROPERTY OWNER NAME i ADDRESS ! I ~ AYRES SCOTT LESLIE & LORI A ;1027 E GRANDBURG CT MERIDIAN 10 83642-4044 BAKER SPENCER LEE AND 11029 E 05TH ST MERIDIAN 10 83642 BATALI JORENE M : 1133 N SHREVEPORT AVE MERIDIAN 10 83642-4047 BELISLE ROSEMARY 11234 N SHREVEPORT AVE ! MERIDIAN 10 83642-4047 I CONDON ANDREW P 1992 E CROSSBILL CT I MERIDIAN ID 83642-4045 I CRAWFORD ARLIS P 1956 E WENTWORTH ST I MERIDIAN 10 83642-4046 CROSS BETTY A !1308 N SHREVEPORT AVE !MERIDfAN ID 83642-4047 CROW RUTH 18921 SUNFLOWER CT I BOISE 10 83704-6948 DANBURY FAIR HOMEOWNERS iP 0 BOX 190446 i BOISE 10 83719 DELZELL DONALD 0 TRUST :3040 DUANE DR iMERIDIAN 10 83642-5831 DEVCO PROPERTIES L TO PARTNERSH iPO BOX 1228 BOISE 10 83701-1228 DICKMAN RONALD R & CHARLOTTE M ;1116 E 05TH I MERIDIAN 10 83642 DWYER THOMAS M & GERDA M !1093 E CROSSBILL CT MERIDIAN 10 83642-4017 ELSTON MILO 0 ! 1054 E CROSSBILL CT MERIDIAN 10 83642-4016 FORT PATRICIA A 11047 N MAPLE CREEK AVE IMERIDIAN 10 83642 FRENCH CHRISTINA JO AND 1997 E CROSSBILL CT MERIDIAN 10 83642-4045 GILDEROY RONALD R & LESLIE 1996 E ASHFORD ST MERIDIAN 10 83642-4052 GLENCOE SYL VIA ANN 11029 N MAPLE CREEK AVE MERIDIAN 10 83642 GUNNERSON DANIEL M & LESLIE G 1931 E WINSLOW ST MERIDIAN 10 83642-4049 HABENIGHT KURT A 11132 N MAPLE CREEK AVE MERIDIAN ID 83642-4053 HIGBY CHRISTOPHER [1229 N SHREVEPORT AVE MERIDIAN 10 83642-4047 HOPKINS JUSTIN & JENNIFER 11046 E GRANDBURG CT MERIDIAN 10 83642-4044 HOUSER MICHAEL R J 890 E WENTWORTH ST j MERIDIAN 10 83642-4046 HUFF ROBERT L & PAMELA S !1178 N SHREVEPORT AVE I MERIDIAN 10 83642-4047 HUGHES JOHN C & DONNA L 1928 E WENTWORTH ST MERIDIAN 10 83642-4046 JOHNSON ELNORA L 1/2 INT AND 18306 W STATE ST BOISE 10 83703-6070 JORDAN STEVEN M ! 1033 E CROSSBILL CT MERIDIAN 10 83642-4017 KANGAS TRACY D AND 11028 E GRANDBURG CT jMERIOIAN 10 83642 KOON DONALD & KAREN 1995 N MAPLE CREEK AVE I MERIDIAN 10 83642-4053 KOUBA LAMONT & LYNN :3875 E USTICK RD I MERIDIAN 10 83642-5653 KOVACHEVICH CRAIG N & 11069 E CROSSBILL CT jMERIDIAN 10 83642-4017 LARSON THEODORE W j2909 GROVER ST BOISE 10 83705-1623 LEATHAM STANLEY N & LAURA L 1991 E CROSSBILL CT MERIDIAN 10 83642-4045 LEAVELL WILLIAM 0 & LUCILE M !2484 SUNSHINE DR jBOISE 10 83712-7557 LEMKE JEFF & WANDA J 11285 N SHREVEPORT AVE MERIDIAN 10 83642-4047 LOSH CARL H & BETTY J ! 1030 E 05TH ST MERIDIAN 10 83642 I LYONS HAZEL R [1088 E CROSSBILL CT MERIDIAN 10 83642-4016 MASON NORMAN D AND /864 E ASHFORD ST MERIDIAN 10 83642 MAYHEW RICHARD E & TERRI L !513 E CARL TON AVE I MERIDIAN 10 83642-2362 MCGREGOR JASON & TRACI ; 958 E ASHFORD ST I MERIDIAN 10 83642 Page 1 of 2 , - ( Mailist ( 8/18/97 METZGER SHELLEY 899 E WINSLOW ST i MERIDIAN 10 83642-4048 MILLER RUSSELL S & GINA S 963 E WINSLOW ST i MERIDIAN 10 83642-4049 MORGAN SCOTT W & JODI 1020 E CROSSBILL CT IMERIDIAN 10 83642-4016 MORGAN SHERRY A AND )1010 N MAPLE CREEK AVE )MERIDIAN 10 83642-4053 MUGELE NICHOLAS F ~ 1 092 CATHY LN I MERIDIAN 10 83642-2366 I NELSON RYAN X & JILL A !966 E WINSLOW 8T I MERIDIAN 10 83642-4049 OLMEDA ANGEL JR & ELL Y : 1146 N SHREVEPORT AVE iMERIOIAN 10 83642-4047 OVERTON N'ORA 8 :532 E STATE AVE IMERIDIAN 10 83642-2353 RANGE BRENT K & LISA R 11"069 N MAPLE CREEK AVE 1 MERIDIAN 10 83642 RICE DOROTHY G 1512 E STATE AVE i MERIDIAN 10 83642-2353 RICH H L :512 E CARL TON AVE ; MERIDIAN 10 83642-2363 RUMSEY CLIFFJOHN & TRACI !912 E ASHFORD 8T !MERIDIAN 10 83642-4052 RUSH KAREN S ! 888 E ASHFORD ST ! MERIDIAN 10 83642-4052 SMITH BARBARA A : 1124 CATHY IN ! MERIDIAN 10 83642-2368 SMITH LENORA M 11165 N SHREVEPORT AVE MERIDIAN 10 83642-4047 SNODGRASS MICHAEL 0 & ANGELA D :1341 N SHREVEPORT AVE MERIDIAN 10 83642-4047 i STEVENSON DAVlD A ~ 1151 N MAPLE CREEK AVE ! MERIDIAN 10 83642-4053 STEWART DIANA ! 1062 CATHY LN i MERIDIAN 10 83642-2366 STOPPELLO ANTHONY L 120762 GRAVELLY LN IWILDER 10 83676-5344 STUTZMAN DARLENE Y i 1154 CA THY LN ! MERIDIAN 10 83642-2368 THOMAS CHARLES L & ANGELLA L i 1117 N MAPLE CREEK AVE IMERIDIAN 10 83642 THOMASSON DAVID C & BRENDA 0 : 1115 E 05TH 8T I MERIDIAN 10 83642 THORNTON SCOTT J & DENICE i 1284 S ASHLEE PL I MERIDIAN 10 83642 TRAMPE LAUREN WAND ! 1101 N SHREVEPORT AVE )MERIDIAN 10 83642-4047 TURNER JARED P & KRISTINE A i 1251 N SHREVEPORT AVE I MERIDIAN 10 83642-4047 VALLETTA LOUIS A ]1210 N SHREVEPORT AVE lMERIDIAN 10 83642-4047 VANG CHER C & KA MOUA ! 1272 N SHREVEPORT AVE jMERIDIAN 10 83642-4047 r WATKINS TERRY B & C LYNN ; 1143 N MAPLE CREEK AVE I MERIDIAN 10 83642-4053 WELDON EVERETT E & SHERRI L i 923 E ASHFORD ST 1 MERIDIAN 10 83642-4052 WHEELER KATHY J 1957 E WENTWORTH ST I MERIDIAN 10 83642-4046 WHITNEY CLAYNE F AND )524 E STATE AVE MERIDIAN 10 83642-2353 WOOD WILLIAM ALLAN & MINDY J i 1401 N STONEHENGE WAY MERIDIAN 10 83642-4011 YOUNG BRIAN & MELISSA M 11197 N SHREVEPORT AVE MERIDIAN 10 83642-4047 I YOUNG RICK L 11042 CATHY LN MERIDIAN 10 83642-2366 I J Page 2 of 2 j I j ) J l I f 1 l~ I }. 1 i I~ / { .-: · i~f~~~~\i':i., ~... ",-.. J .- - ~ : . ([1 ...c: ~1 ~~j~:,~~,"~s~;~; . t,:., , : ~~L> ~" f' :'('i :- ~-- >. C'\f ~Q) "I::t C (ij .?: ~ ca>....,J co -Q)O 0 "'C ~ - .r= i: :3 OJ 0 <'0 al~~~:E :E ~ a: ]2 c" .....-1:)_<'0 Oog~:E ~.c r~ W :p o~ )~ o ~ -IJ ('- co -Ll CJ r-=t .:T a.. :;J ~;)\~rvl? .6< .. C/) } ~~J ~ ~.- ~ I ~-l .~ I -, r ~I <: '~i ~! ~ a :..u ::.....) J..l CJ b :z: -g ~ z a: .::> f- LU c.c ... ... -:: :.::! .::J -,., Ji . -.... ,. ,~) \" \J J i, "" !:; c-.; c..t.J ....~ - u ~~~.~ ~ ;::: ~ ~ j '~,..:; Q) f3 j 11 ~i.":'~ "i\i ,;'1 d 1 :k .;; 4~' .). t: .." N_ c::t - ..; ::1 } .:.' ~." ; "" '-.q- _ ~ ~... "4 ~ Ji;>..., ....J Cl <D _ - '- - Q) Q) C'? ::: '0 c: (0 : ::J:CO...:: ...J en _ : oCScc-= :J co _ E (f) ._ -= co~:2: =(01--= ~ ~ ~ : ~ .~ .-; .) ( ~. ( ( NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE .IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., on December 16, 1997, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Ron Crow, for annexation and zoning of approximately 10.85 acres of land located in the E % of the NW X and in the W % of the NE X of Section 7, T.3N, R.1 E, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located 650 feet South of Fairview Avenue, West of Danbury Fair Subdivision No.4. The Application requests a zone of R-8. Further, applicant requests Preliminary Plat approval of the parcel of land above described for 33 single family dwelling lots and 8 single family townhouse lots for Elvira Subdivision. A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Dated this 26th day of November, 1997. "t~~ife~ WilliAM G. BERG, JR., TY" PUBLISH November 28 and December 11, 1997 ( ( NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., on December 16, 1997, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Ron Crow, for a Conditional Use Permit for approximately 10.85 acres of land located in the E % of the NW ~ and in the W % of the NE ~ of Section 7, T.3N, R.1 E, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property. is generally located 650 feet South of Fairview Avenue, West of Danbury Faii Subdivision No.4. The Application requests a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for 33 Single Family Lots and 8 town house lots. A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Dated this 26th day of November, 1997. te~ ~ j3e~ 7 WILLIAM G~ BERG, JR~, . I~ CLERK PUBLISH November 28 and December 11, 1997. ( , ~If \ "1 f . ( F AIRV1EW A \IE - U. S HWY .30 r I t I I fA """ N. 0 . ~ ~~ ~~ ~ l~ ~, ~ ~ 11..&..0 GRUBER A"VE - i i "\ l S I T E ~!- liE CROSSBIL~~ ~ ",""", AD , L ~ J ,,-., fj f' I -~ " ~ ~~ --- r " ~ ~ I I ~r~ -=- <{ ~ \ - ~ . , ~I ~ == ~ ~ I ~ .: :" :- t / ~ I ~~ ~ I I I -~ r \ ~Ji /l \ \ ? - tL - - Z ~ - ~ ~ !, - ~. \ u u II ~... I j jALL~ v .- I VJ ~ i.- ~ L..J Z ,~ - u..I L ~ WASHINGTO~ ~ VE / I I rt.AKLfUf\t AvE IIIllTll r I I I JIll , E L VI R A SUB 0 I VI S ION, P. U .0. VICINITY MAP SCALE: 1" = 300' I ( JICUO :n- -" : I I . . I I j i :v. I; )!; , ~f ~ ~ t f~ ~ -, !1 0 . ~~ t~ ~. i! ~ }l j f 11: :5 ;1 .. t? ~ 1- i ~ \ UUlIIM _____ ~ "'~ 1 .. "q'~ . JO'I Otr I I -;;- II.ClCX j - 1". j wt l~ ~ I 11)~ I, \~ 12 @ ~I ~z ~ ~ I 3l 3~ ~i ~i c. ... j. ~ii II ~..- ~I 2;4 :, ~ " is. ~ i J: ~ l~ ~~ >- ill I " ~ I . ,; = ..~ 8-- ~ . I AI . i i II c @. - i t~ I; I ,. @~ " J: >- U) JTI ~.. I flU it i · i II .. j I t i ::3:. :i)q~i ~. ~ ~~~ !..I>>- 8"'"" -0; g~ ~ i ~ ~i ~iJ .. c: o -1 ~CML1--:' ~ 'J~[ji :~ 1!;~~. 1 iilt' ~ ~ ~ 11 · ~~J{ ~~;1 I.. ! -=!. ., ?iIs ...1 , ~ ii : oo.. .. .Z 1 f i !t~ ], if if l!li i~ itiff: 1ft !I! ~H" ~ ,It ......... '"I f -I 'l,tr 11 ..li~Ir f'I II'. (T1 'i( !!t f :1 J tt:'" ,. (,._, f; t I tlll1 ;..1 (1.- If ,< I lrll:l !HJ=) oJ! zlt tl! .~f~ tl~ f; If} ~! it'll iz ~:tjl!. i;I~ i1fJ ~:i 1: :2. ,. ...,"l II 1fl 1 f..t }l :t o"J.: I I" it! ,!i Il; l 1}:' f 1 ;Jt j~ (.= , I' f1 ;lH rJ fi1i".1 I t it ~ it : I i jI. 'I!l H {t c~ 11 l":. i" I! ':. i ~ It 1 '-1 I' fl- '!- I ; f 1 t.i t I ~ ~ f. t · ~ " - '0 SUi.!! ~'11' r 1: f~j& i 1 1- tiJ .. it'fl ;J' ~, fr !- ii~ ~ i ! ~h , ~l -:1 ~.! !! jt. ! t . .. 1 , i O!:... I. ., f 'l .~. - 1 . \ t I ' ~ ff 1 " ! J-U-a ENGINEERS. Inc.! ~ ~ IaIlIfM ~ AWJiI.C 'l sum 101 . ~1CL...o~~ CD r.u: ~JI.I.-N:a fLVI.... ~ A "'-....-.::D UNIT oe:WL.~...-T W 11 2 .. 11 4. /I>#m . 112 .... ".. 0tfII U:CTlC* ,. T"... ..... LIlL ....... IIDA C04MT1'. ClAMC) j ~ l' t ~~~~~~~.:~{\'? ~"! r--- . I .' ~ t ) i J ;, , tu, ~ t t, sl . r ~ ; r r. ~ ! '" ,.:z: ~ 1 t ! 1 S '-. i ~- f ~~~i ~ t~~ ~i l ~- t ~~hf I tcj ~ ~~~I . ~~t U!- ~ ! I ~fi~"..:<'-"'L~ t 'i ~..~....~ <lei' if[;;}:::z: ,..._ . · It ~"~ :irlW ~ F;' ~ 1'''' ~ ",::'~t ... t- c_ "'"3l..3l tt ~.1 ..~:~~ ~ ~ r.~~ l' ~.\-.~;"~f \t~ r.') I r~ i-iT r;:......(;. ~.':....,..,..}ro c..) 'x:'i:.~'i...~.....J. ':". .::t.00 ..~~~~ ~~:" ~\'\t:~ .t,.~ /-;- , ~ ~ OJ."" /' "','. .'. t ~."./ t'A ' r- tr/..........'{ 0> II ,'CJ u, f(~ ~ ~ ,~ 1..:...' ~ 1 \ V} ,(..., ,,' ~ 1 t ' ,." i I ./ :J~ -~ .:r ...c ::r ...c c:(J ...D CJ r-=t ::r a.. 't 1 I I l I >. C'\I ~ (l) ~ CCij.?: C") ca>-.J co :g~.2 ~ -.: ~ (b 0 CU CDns~-a:E :e ~Q::E c;- -t-*lJ_CU 'Og~B .. '~ (!) W CD - ~ ("') ~ O~q:("') ( .:.. \~~, . -' e: W! I t"f ; f / ~ UW' 1 I ,~ .:J e s ,~g ,- ::J :t) .,..,. K~ C rJ V) .:a 5: ~ -a _ h .~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ 11..~.:; .~ ~ 'f ~ c;; ~ 3 g [;5 .S l' Q: 'ij 'S ~ ~ ~ ;'~!JJ~S~g~o i!::! - ~ _ ~ '" '-? I:' - :;;) oJ: <i .:; ~ ~ ~ (j Q) > co N Q),-~ -10<.0 <DQ)~ &0 C :]1:0 -JUJ- ~c:c :J ctJ E en .- ctlv:2 =coQ5 ~~:2 -H -; .,,- ~ ... _~,,_"""""4."', f ~ t ~ ~ (~ , \ I . ( ( NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., on October 14, 1997, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Ron Crow, for a Conditional Use Permit for approximately 10.85 acres of land located in the E % of the NW 'X and in the W % of the NE % of Section 7, T.3N, R.1 E, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and which property is generally located 650 feet South of Fairview Avenue, West of Danbury Fair Subdivision No.4. The Application requests a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Unit Development for 33 Single Family Lots and 8 to\Nr1 house lots. A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shaH be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Dated this 26th day of September, 1997. PUBLISH September 26, and October 10, 1997. ( ( NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the. Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., on October 14, 1997, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the Application of Ron Crow, for annexation and zoning of approximately 10.85 acres of land located in the E %of the NW X and in the W % of the NE X of Section 7, T.3N, R.1 E, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and vvhich property is generally located 650 feet South of Fairview Avenue, West of Danbury Fair Subdivision No.4. The Application requests a zone of R-8. Further, applicant requests Preliminary Plat approval of the parcel of land above described for 33 single family dwelling lots and 8 single family townhouse lots for Elvira Subdivision. A more particular legal description of the above property is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. A copy of the Application is available upon request. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Dated this 26th. day of September, 1997. PUBLISH September 26, and October 10, 1997. " , ( -.......-.......... .. ",,=- m::.... JOI_ a:r --..., ,... ~ aooc J n 1'I @ ~I I h 2 ~ I 3' ~a ~, c... i. il ~.a ~I t'lC ~I QIIo i~,. ii " ~I ~ ....a II >- iji ." ~ I . ,I' = "f @.. ~ I II I ~ i :, . @.. i f. i I; I II @'- ~ . ~. . ~~ . I! I! r I · i IJ ' j I it i ~3:~ ~~'.::'1 ~e!~ ~QI'" 8~" -d~ ~~ I" i ;U lQ . .. c o :{ .. i -1 · I I Co c:-..,. __ ~ · jl -~- ---V ( : I I I · · · : I II., ..... ~r ~ li i it ~ !~ 1~ \f; l.-z 1 f 1f 1 .~ ~1 to? ,. i ~ ~;~[ji =~ 11:~!.. 1 lili' · 't , ~1 '! ~~tf t:.. i ~i~i ~.. i.. ;i f i ,..i '. ii = ,.; . . ... IV, t .. z I'i !t~ ~f if {~{ '~li i~ It"Iff: irr IJ! 1!( S ,I! t"" '"I 11 E 4f' f 11..1 If fff Ii ~ 'tf. r'l ;!1 i~! I,. -I' jt HiPl' ~ili~1 iii ai Lj 111 '1- tl11~ r 1 -fIb: J1-j!t .... .1'- ll, .: ~ .1.. tr 11. i If !Z ;..l"J= 1:1 tlJ 1'" : .,! tIt "- # f',.. t,. I . I. 1. ~t :,= I ti ll.'f ~'-i "lv 1}- t 1 'ltl ! Ii;'= , I' H f rH f} i h 1'.1 : i . t f \ i i~ i!~! ~ il 1 (1 (;11:, IIi Ii :.1 ;i .~~ f iI .1., it ~OJtj iJ.. t.. itr ;; IiI l I 1 t,t ! fllfl1!l _\ tf' i i ~ i .. lIe i :, ".f !l 1t. f! t. I .. , (-1 :... · .f ~ .. 1 it i J !f (LVIIIA ~ A .......-0 l.RT orvnON.-..T J-tJ..a ENGINEERS. W:..l i:! 2:M .".. ~ MIDM 'fe' -- IQMC ~ . ,... 2Oe-n.-na CD '&II: ~JU-4.UI W 112 .. ". AM) . 112 .. tI.. 0# sac TlOII ,. T.... ...... ...... ........ ADA C~, I)NIO en ~ IUJ GRU BER AI\/E - I r I / jALL~V r- I VJ ~ 0.- ~ W Z ...".,. - --- L u " ,1 . f I I I ~r f (J I ~ J ( - v- F AIR\I1EW A \IE - U. S HWY 30 -" I 'v D~ N. t ~t*- .. ..-----... ~~ "'---" ./ j~ i i \ I I S I TE -~ ~ !- "E CRoss8rLL~~ _ ~~ AD 1 t< ~ ~ ~ =- (A ~ ~ - l...-.L.ui ~ ~ >~ <( N " \, - Uj ~ = ...-- - WA~HINGTOf' .., VE / ~ ~ T : ~ I / I --t J_ -~Q:)t:; -- -~ - ~ I ~ 'I-~ (J ,~. \ u \...nA.\~L I UI~ A Vt. IIIllTll r I I I I) II I , EL VIR A SU SOl VI SI ON, P. U.D. VI CI N I TY MAP SCALE: 1" = 300' ( lZew !I--rf tl~ 10-22--98 STERLING CREEK SUBDIVISION PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300' -/or C ~;yJQ/t; r ~ ~? JOHNSON ELNORA L 1/2 INT AND JOHNSON ELNORA L TRUSTEE 1/2 8306 W STATE ST BOISE ID 83703-6070 1005 E F AIRVIEW AVE LYONS HAZEL R 1088 E CROSSBILL CT !vffiRIDIAN ID 83642-4016 1088 E CROSSBILL CRT GENTRY ALLEN ET UX 1800 LARCH ST BOISE ID 83706 EFAIRVIEW AVE DANBURY FAlRHO!vffiOWNERS' ASSOCIATION INe PO BOX 190446 BOISE ill 83719-0446 E CROSSBILL CRT E ASHFORD ST ~ . LEAVELL WILLIM1 D & LUCILE M 1312 E 05TH MERIDIAN ill 83642 E F AIRVIEW AVE 1304 E 5TH ST LEATHAMSTANLEYN & LAURA L 991 E CROSSBILL CT MERIDIAN ID 83642-4045 KOUBA LAMONT & LYNN 3875 E USTICK RD MERIDIAN ill 83642-5653 835 E F AlRVIEW A VB STRAIN ESTHER L 1069 E CROSSBILL CT !vffiRIDIAN ID 83642-4017 CROW RONAL 6937PARAP CRT BOISE 3703 EF WAVE ASmNGTON AVE DWYER THOMAS M & GERDA M 1093 E CROSSBILL CT !vffiRIDIAN ID 83642-4017 JORDAN STEVEN M 1033 E CROSSBILL CT !vffiRIDIAN ID 83642-4017 CONDON ANDREW P 992 E CROSSBILL CT MERIDIAN ill 83642-4045 FRENCH CHRISTINA JO AND WHITE CARMEN & RALPH GARY 997 E CROSSBILL CT !vffiRIDIAN ill 83642-4045 MORGAN SCOTT W & JODI 1020 E CROSSBILL CT MERIDIAN ID 83642-4016 YOUNG STACY & CHAD 956 E WENTWORTH ST MERIDIAN ill 83642-4046 ELSTON lvIILO 0 4378 E VIEW RIDGE DR MERIDIAN ill 83642 1054 E CROSSBILL CRT WOOD WILLIAM ALLAN & lvIINDY J 1401 N STONEHENGE WAY !vffiRIDIAN ill 83642-4011 ( HUGHES JOHN C & DONNA L 928 E WENTWORTH ST lvIERIDIAN ill 83642-4046 SNODGRASS MICHAEL D & ANGELA D 1341 N SHREVEPORT AVE lvIERIDIAN ill 83642-4047 HOUSER MICHAEL R 890 E WENTWORTH ST lvIERIDIAN ill 83642-4046 ACKLEY JEFF S & VALERIE S 993 E WENTWORTH ST lvIERIDIAN ill 83642-4046 WHEELER KATHY J 957 E WENTWORTH ST lvIERIDIAN ID 83642-4046 CROSS BETTY A 1308 N SHREVEPORT AVE lvIERIDIAN ill 83642-4047 DEGRANGE KATHERINE L 1317N SHREVEPORT AVE lvIERIDIAN ill 83642-4047 LE:MKE JEFF & WANDA J 1285 N SHREVEPORT AVE lvIERIDIAN ill 83642-4047 HOPKINS JUSTIN & JENNIFER 1046 E GRANDBURG CT 1vIERIDIAN ill 83642-4044 V ANG CHER C & KA MOUA 1272 N SHREVEPORT AVE 1vIERIDIAN ill 83642-4047 TURNER JARED P & KRISTINE A 1251 N SHREVEPORT AVE 1vIERIDIAN ill 83642-4047 BELISLE ROSEMARY 1234 N SHREVEPORT AVE 1vIERIDIAN ID 83642-4047 KANGAS TRACY D AND MCMAHAN BRIAN S 1028 E GRANDBURG CT 1vIERIDIAN ID 83642 HIGBY CHRISTOPHER 1229 N SHREVEPORT AVE 1vIERIDIAN ID 83642-4047 OLSON CHRISTOPHER D & DARLENE L 1210NSHREVEPORT AVE 1vIERIDIAN ill 83642-4047 AYRES SCOTT LESLIE & LORl A 1027 E GRANDBURG CT lvIERIDIAN ill 83642-4044 YOUNG BRIAN & lvIELISSA M 1197 N SHREVEPORT AVE 1vIERIDIAN ill 83642-4047 DEVCO PROPERTIES LTD PARTNERSH PO BOX 1228 BOISE ill 83701-1228 510 E 05TH ST ROCKWOOD PROPERTIES ill ORE L TD PO BOX 230 SALEM OR 97308-0230 1222 E 04TH ST HUFF ROBERT L & P AlvIELA S 1178 N SHREVEPORT AVE 1vIERIDIAN ill 83642-4047 SMITH LENORA M 1165 N SHREVEPORT AVE 1vIERIDIAN ill 83642-4047 (r NELSON RYAN X & JILL A 966 E WINSLOW ST 1v1ERIDIAN ill 83642-4049 OL1vfEDA ANGEL JR & ELL Y 1146 N SHREVEPORT AVE 1v1ERlDIAN ill 83642-4047 DEVCOPROPERTIESLTDPARTNERSH PO BOX 1228 BOISE ill 83701-1228 E WASHINGTON AVE WIED1v1EIER JORENE & KIRK 1133 N SHREVEPORT AVE 1v1ERlDIAN ill 83642-4047 FASTABEND GREGORY E & FASTABEND JESSICA J 1101 N SHREVEPORT A VB 1v1ERIDIAN ill 83642-4047 DAVIDSON DANIAL L & BETH R 999 E WINSLOW ST 1v1ERIDIAN ill 83642-4049 ARASIM JArvlES K & CLAIRE M 963 E WINSLOW ST 1v1ERIDIAN ill 83642-4049 GUNNERSON DANIEL M & LESLIE G 931 E WINSLOW ST 1v1ERIDIAN ill 83642-4049 1v1ETZGER SHELLEY 899 E WINSLOW ST 1ffiRIDIAN ill 83642-4048 MCGREGOR JASON & TRACI 958 E ASHFORD ST 1v1ERIDIAN ill 83642 RUMSEY CLIFFJOHN & TRACI 912 E ASHFORD ST 1ffiRIDIAN ID 83642-4052 ( RUSH KAREN S 888 E ASHFORD ST :MERIDIAN ill 83642-4052 MASON NORMAN D AND PARMENTER LORI A 864 E ASHFORD ST :MERIDIAN ID 83642 DANBURY FAIR HO:MEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION INC BAKER DENNIS M 250..S BEECHWOOD #120 BOISE ill 83709 E ASHFORD ST STUTZMAN D'ARLENE Y 1154 CATHYLN :MERIDIAN ID 83642-5906 E STATE A VB 1154 CATHY LN STUTZMAN D'ARLENE Y 1960 E FRANKLIN RD 1v1ERIDIAN ill 83642-5906 1184 N CATHY LANE STOPPELLO ANTHONY L 20762 GRAVELLY LN WILDER ill 83676-5344 509 E WASHINGTON ST LARSON THEODORE W 2909 GROVER ST BOISE ill 83705-1623 1131 E 05TH ST COPENHAVER DAN 435 E WASHINGTON AVE 1v1ERIDIAN ill 83642-1730 STEVENSON DAVID A 1151 NMAPLE CREEK AVE lvlliRIDIAN ID 83642-4053 ( WATKINS TERRY B & C L YNN 1143 N MAPLE CREEK AVE 11ERIDIAN ID 83642-4053 GILDEROY RONALD R & LESLIE 996 E ASHFORD ST 11ERlDIAN ill 83642-4052 RICH H L 512 E CARLTON AVE 11ERIDIAN ill 83642-2363 DICKMAN RONALD R & CHARLOTTE M 1116 E 05TH 11ERIDIAN ill 83642 THOMASSON DAVID C & BRENDA D 1115 E 05TH ST 11ERIDIAN ill 83642 ANDERSON GORDON W & ANDERSON ELSAE 428 E CARLTON A VB 11ERIDIAN ID 83642-2327 HABENICHT KURT A 1132 N MAPLE CREEK AVE 11ERIDIAN ill 83642-4053 WELDON EVERETT E & SHERRI L 923 E ASHFORD ST 11ERIDIAN ID 83642-4052 SWTH BARBARA A 1124 CATHY LN 11ERIDIAN ill 83642-2368 THOMAS ANGELLA L 4758 N LANCER A VB BOISE ID 83713 1117 N MAPLE CREEK AVE ( MORGAN SHERRY A AND MORGAN DANIEL B & PEGGY 1110 N MAPLE CREEK AVE 11ERIDIAN ID 83642-4053 MUGELE NICHOLAS F 1 092 CATHY LN 11ERIDIAN ID 83642-2366 GREEN JUDITH A 1089 N CRESTLEY AVE 11ERIDIAN ill 83642-4056 OVERTON NORA B 532 E STATE AVE 11ERIDIAN ID 83642-2353 E CARL TON AVE 532 E STATE AVE KOON DONALD & KAREN TRUST KOON D & K CO-TRUSTEES 1095 N MAPLE CREEK AVE 11ERIDIAN ill 83642-4053 MAYHEW RICHARD E & TERRI L 513 E CARLTON AVE 11ERIDIAN ill 83642-2362 LOSH CARL H & BETTY J 1030 E 05TH ST 11ERIDIAN ill 83642 BAKER SPENCER LEE AND BAKER JASON E11ERY 1029 E 05TH ST 11ERIDIAN ill 83642 PLACKETT EARL D ET UX 427 E CARLTON AVE 11ERIDIAN ID 83642-2326 STEWART DIANA 1062 CATHYLN 11ERIDIAN ill 83642-2366 YOUNG RICK L 1042 CATHYLN 11ERIDIAN ill 83642-2366 WIllTNEY CLA YNE F AND WIllTNEY LOIS M 524 E STATE AVE 11ERIDIAN ill 83642-2353 RleE DOROTHY G 512 E STATE AVE 11ERIDIAN ill 83642-2353 TR011BURG J R & B REV L VNG TRST DELZELL DONALD 0 REV L VNG TRST TR011BURGillELZELLTRUSTEES 3040 DUANE DR 11ERIDIAN ill 83642-5831 502 ESTATE ST DODGE DOUGLAS 0 & SUSAN R 438 ESTATE ST 11ERIDIAN ill 83642 ] ITIID J 6JJ]][ll ~ g=rn 3 EITIIill] ~~ ( (~ e . e e e e e "" / \ ~~'}Nr} .. .. (J) W I , J ~ J :JJ ill (J a 0 i= ~ ' I~ ;- 0 0 z .:> :2: I- -g lU U) ex: ..- C\I o f"- -D C"- eo ....JJ a r-=I ::r a.. >. C'\I ~Q) ~ C::(ij~ ~ =>-.. co :C~.E ~ 1:::JQ)Ons G)rJ~ia:E :I: ~ a: :E c- --t-b_ns o-oCtJ:o ~~ r~ ~ ~ =::J 'i ::E OJ:J r- t._,,- ! ~ /!, - ; U~ ~ ;; i5 d J ,_ !:;J -: f2 'J I 8~ I J fjli;: ~~ N r./.... B '.;/ :J) -'> .", · Q) o;;t_ ~~q~~.i~l-J J:::. <D = '- L-.I ('f) _ Q)Q)co: .0 C -:: :J1:0-= ....J UJ _ : oCSsc: E en .~ -= -c - .~ ~.C : =roa.>-: .- ~ - $N~= , t >(, j ',' 'J ':..;- t, ..,...... ".. -r " ill- 1"1" ~ oIor-,.. ~, t,.- i1 .....1 ,J" r --~-r- i" ~'... --.~ ~... ...........:-.....---.,. \ \.: '.:;. ~ "\, ~'.. ' .. I . , I , i " . . , . I '1 I .. ( \~~" , - ./ ,r~~"~i<~~-k~,\(it{; ., r --.... -........... ; ~ 1 · ; l ; I ~u ~ II q 1 1"- ~ I ,i,~ '" t?l ~vJ 0 ! qaf ~ ! ~'~I w =:) ! fc~l~~~~:;~:rr-. R:..~.ir ~~~:~.:~:tt.1;: c~ ~,. [-:., ~..~...;. '..1.: :::'1 ~ ~~t;~~.:A:.i~ i.;';~"",~.j,. . 1',,' ..,m _:) ~;~~~::-~~:-.:.~~o. '-. [t~~\~ "-, ~r,',{ f'- \ i/~ ::: 0" ~ ! r'f' ~ -- ' t ',:~ w i 1 ~,~~ ; I // :,),# .~. , II 1.' ; / /:J J J'~ o ' :;) ~ j ~~J (- -=\ ~ ::::! ;!! ;;; l.::i ~ ;:., CI) .;!! .:t:" __ fj .~.::: ~ ~ C '::: .... -;:; ',. c: ::> 0 ~ ~ @ ~ ..~ .:.:- a E ~ ff';;~~"& 0) '- t' Q .~ .-:: .;;J t:: ~ ,~~5E~Yfi~ c: - :" - ,:J CI)~.~ 0 ':>~~~o~VJt:: -';:c:~a '. :r -D :r -I1 cO ....0 CJ .....=t :r D- <D > co N Q)\-~ -10<.0 Q) ('f) :=Q)CO o C ~.- '-J ~ 0 ~CC :J co E rJJ -- .~ ~ :Q -co\- ==-q-ID SN~ , " L" , " "-r .I -H ~ N c=Q) oq- &a~~ ~ :c Q) 0 '6 -.:~; 0.1:: G) en (,) ~ a:s :e ~ cu a:s :'2 ~~ii~ ~~ w- O~~~~ I ( ,. :- r :-"": ---""";-' .~~, .,-. ;;:; v: ~ ~.~~::-:;r:-:;"~~' .?~; ::.:' ;, . , . ' \' \ ' . \' ...:.: .' ,:;. . , , i ~ \ 1 ~ , ,'. ,I, rJ~~ 1:10...0 ~~:E .5!l cn= -CO .~~ ~ ~~'g. 0.00 EQ)- ;g~o~ '" ~ .- ~~~ <(oca .E .:::L, (J o CD :c g a> ca CO .:..: ~ .~ 'co .E c: g. ~ (ij .. r-I Ci "0 1ii O~ ~ ~ g Cfl.:::L, "* = := .~ ~ ..r-t~ .0 ~ ~ =o~. .~ ~DO ~B u .0 ::s U) CD Q) _~o Lf '~'6 -g == o C 1:1 <<S cO ~~ 0:; J.-f c:~g~ ..,-i .2::: ~ ~ ~-=~s~~ ~D rn ~i a. ~ '"C ~'*~ ~ ~'~~8~ .2 a: .E () () -g, I I I I N \.0 c: ~ rt1 M ..,-i 0 CO 'U...c: ..,-; (tj Q ~r-oH Q)H :8 ~ ~..wcO o m"r; (tjro :>1 ~ ." oW ~ ..r-t M Q) UM:E: ~ "Ctn~ Ctn"C CCG.lC . G) ... G) E :g (I) ~<O ::CQ) .S en If (1) t.) Q) cr: ..... o ~ ~ "'0 t:: C\J ~ C\J .s fJ) & ~~ ~m CD .5> CJ c ca :; .s ~-; rn ~.~ U5 ...: a: &.. :i ~ Q) Q) u... C/) . ..:.:: CD m Cl E - Q) ~a: a: .2:' II) (I).c: "0 01 .c~~~~~ ~ ~ ~c i? ~ ~.~~ ~g~ E5o~lI)~ E" ~:3 E ~ ~ .~~ ~~ ~~ ;5C.*~~ .c: g ~'cn 0 E ~~~~~~ '(ij a.; II) ~.2.2 EE-g.E~a; ~ - S(.- E 13 gECS.5 Q) Qi"C E"'~'~ ]2 ~ .x (\f - c: ~~ (tI ': N 0 ~ (I) E.- Ol Q) ~ ~~~~ ~ g ;tt-: ;2. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ gtC'f 8 ~ ~ ai Z'm 15 :; 5 ~.~ u.: ~ ~~g~~~ ~ E d;.E~.~ ~::lo.ECl3= Eg~E~O.!ri .g ~ q 'x ~:: @ = :a 8 <<Ie:::: ~ (1) C'Octll(') o::Jc:c. C:=~CD~raCJ) o&"O.c:u::SgJ -g~==~~~o .~ c E S( q) ~ .c: ~o=t:nE<"t:: g':COV.oQi5 ~oo Qc:- en c: - Ja Q) ,0 "0 ';g~B~~~ ~g:g~~~:g ~~en~g.s= a; ~ :5 8,~ ~ ~..9 Q. g ~'a ~ ~ (I) ~ -e ~~ d;:gj~~ -0 o::o.~enE~ a.. ~ .Q 8 e 8.Q t'O ~~oE~8 ~ ~ Q) ~~:= g ~ Co ... t= ~.~ ~ g- ~ -5 ~ .E ,/ '":.:; .:-- ':. '.. cia> .Q) CJ)lJ.. f'" ,..',': .;, .._-~. \ - ~:;.\.. \ \ '.~: ' ,~ k; ~ J r, \ :::.\ T~ .:: . \.:~,:~-~ ~.___ f-'/' ',,"" .' '"<.. /' cia> .IV a:u... ~ Q) ~o aio (JH.J a>:= =' o """ . ..: oS Q;' 1: co ~ S ~ - >- ~r~~ N 0') "C ~ .~ oS '- Q) \..0 Q) _ U c. M a:Q) -E co 0 ~~~ ~ en ~ ::J :: E a- o 11. CD N en ctS ~ 1ii N N \.D N 0 0- ~ \..0 M ~ - - ~ - ~ N ~ ,.., \.0 ~ ('II co -. N \.0 N N N \.0 ~ ~ -.::::tl ~ ~ M \.0 \..0 \..0 co co M M M M co co co Q 0 H Q Q Q H H H H Q H co M co M N ~ \..0 C M H co c: <t1 ~ ~ ~ ..~ "M ro c: ~ "r-! M nj a.> C E ~ M ...-i :E c: HrtlQ)Q)"O CO ...c: :E :> .'-; (l) ..,-; Q)+J m~ ::> ro ..w U) ctS +J Q) Q) ,::C . r-! U .~ Q) u ~ :E Q) ~ ..c: 0 ~ ~ +J...c: (l) ~ UM ~ ~Q)~E~U):E U5 .r-! ~ c: ctS ,-.I r-I a OJ 0 0 ai' :>"r-! 0 +J J..4 ~ "n ~ 0 ~ :>- Q) Q).o en U) ~ -r-j t.> Q) Q) ro ~ ...c: U) ~ ctS ,.Q ~ c: ro :> >t ~ ~ t.> U) (1j ~ ~ U) ~ ...-( ro Q) +J "0 m 0 ~ Q) tfJ ..c: c ~ oW ..c: <( :> 1--1 :> ~ 0 ~ rn cO...c: Q) -+J '0 au Q) 0 ~ ~S:U)t:QU1 E ~ 1--1 J..1 >tu E ~ ctS r.Ll 0 c." ,.....j rtj u) ~ z o?j ~ Z tn ro Q) Ji:J .r-i r-i ..,.; 0"\ 0 0"\ C ,........, ~ 4-1 L() r-i 0 Q) co ro\.OQ)oro~"""""C04-lCO~MNCO 1--1 0 ...c: 0"\ .w ~ .,-t ~ Q) N cO 0 rtj 0 u ~ 8 N U) m :;: N t-:) ~.u ~ ::c: ~ M co M co Q H Q H N \.0 ~ M OJ ~ co ." rei ..,.; ~ Q) :E: Q H '0 H c: CO ..-1 C "0 cO ..r-t c: .r-t H C cO C C c ro Q) ro .r-I cO rtj ro .r-t ~ c: ..,.; 'U ~.'-; .'-; ...-1 ~ rd O:i ro ~ .r-! ~ 'U ro ro OJ Q) .,.; c- .,.; Q) ~ 0..,.; ..,-i ~..r-t :E :> roo O:i ~...c: OJ tn H H (l) ~ ~.,-i en (l) :>1:E OJ Q) Q) r-i Q) c: +J H co :Em ~:E :Er-I:Erc1U ~ IDE :E OJ t!J .. r-t tn Q):E en ,........, +J :>UoW oW:E:oW~r-i Q) ~ r-4 C/.) .r-i ~ :E: u) u) u) 0 r-I J..1 Q) Q) .,....f ~ (1j :8 "r-! U r-I c: .0 "0 ~ r::"r; ro H ~ C ~ ..0 ~ Q) res tfJ ~ H Q) 0 U J..1 Q) 0."; O.M ,00 m (l) ~~ U)tfJ008.wrc10tn,.....jt!Jr-iroU)~r-i~ c: 0 U)~ r-4 J..1~ N tfJ en 0 0 ~ 0.:8 >- ~e o H rtj J:: ~ J..1 8 ...c: .w c: o(lj c: tJ J..4 0 cO ...c:.~ 6 :>-, U :E U) res U) :E 'Or-t ..,-; U:E::8 UJ +J a.._ ~ ~rouo?j~ ~""""":;:o(lj rd,::Co~ ~ C H >t r-I ~ ~z r-I (j Ci)Cl.. (tj ~ ct1 Ji:J c: Ji:J r-I Ji:J (1) ~ ..w ~ 0 E co E ...c: 0 r-I U) -t.J 0 ~ 0 ...c: N =,-g J....i ~ U M tfJ co (1) m en M 0 N Q) r- U 0"\ z.~ o \.0 ""; '("'- cO L{) ..c 0'\ ~ \.0 t> 0 ..c: 0 ..,-t 0 ~ ~ Z co P:: L() ~ CT\ (f.) co ~ 0'\ u) ~ U) r- Z t- ~ a:: en en ~ '"0 1:1 < CD t) :t: o c (tj ..,.; roo .~ ~ Q) :E: Lt") o ['-.. M co a H U5 o a.. ~ c n:I +J U ~ ~ ("'- 'J --... \. -J~ ~ 0 '-.) C""- C' ti:., ~ ~ --.) ('"', ~ Q)Q; ~ 0 ~ l' -.0 ~ C; ~ r'- ~ .2 E C>O 't::::l -:5 <z 5 c:-., ~ .--?: --.: ~ .::::-., ~ ~ ..::) -- ..::::. - ~ - .-l 'c- <:... --...J ~ ~ ~ N (<\. :r- lj\ ~ f'.. ~. CJ'. ~ (' C" (' ~ --- <:'., C'" ~ ~ \' C"- c- ~ 0<:J --.; ~ -:J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ tI) ~ t' r 0- Q) (' ~ r- ~ \X' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..:J ~ ~ -3 ~ a:: \0- -3 -2J ~ :::) -<1> \-5" --:::J -:::::J '~ ~ ~-g -... ~ ....... --.... Q --::) ~ """'-- ~ IDa> --. ~ ~ - -- --. --- .I:Jen -... :::r -. ~ ;:::s... '.'=;- .-J ...3- -' ~ E>. - <> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ q ~ Q.. ~ ='.0 =-g c.o I"- co 0') 0 T-" N C') ~ Lt) $v; 0._ T-" T- ~ 'T"- T- ~ l--J Q) c: ::i C\I M ...q to ~ I IDIAI ~'''D' II nn""....."'" In I j I ~ ~ f a.. j J cri ? v Ol 0) ~ ~ co :::J .0 Q) u.. f'o.- I'- CO M E o I.L. en a.. .....it. .f. ..;t.. ~ (- /lrar t.r -{-:n.-/rodtLv/J1n-; Recommended hearing procedure In the Mater before the City Council and Referenced Appropriate Matters, Zoning, Conditional Use Permit, Plat Approval, and The Development Agreement For Sterling Creek Subdivision. This is the time and place set for the hearing on the motion of Bill and Lucy Leavell owners of Hunter's Glen filed by their attorney of record Fredric V. Shoemaker Motion that the City Council not approve the Development Agreement and return the developer's request for rezone and annexation (and any other administrative proceedings it is seeking which require a hearing) to the Planning and Zoning Commission for further review in consideration of the City's actions concerning Hunter's Glen in 1f)2 and the r4ights of the Leavells and the residents of Hunter's Glen. The Motion is based upon the grounds that the Leavell's did not receive notice of the public hearings held on applications. Leavell's also seek to have notices to them sent to 2720 South Ariel Lane, Meridian, Idaho 83642. Notice of this hearing has been provided to the applicant to Ronald L. Crow, Moor or Less, Inc. and by stipulation of the parties this hearing was moved to todays date and time. The procedure for tonight's hearing on advice of City Attorney is that this will not be a hearing on the merits of the development and or its effects upon affected property owners but will be limited to arguments and facts relative to the basis of the Motion. I will first call upon the City Clerk to inform the Council of the records of service of notice in this matter. The Council will then hear argument from the Leavell's Counsel which will be followed by argument from the applicant or applicant's counsel followed by brief reply by Leavell's council if anything new is brought up by Applicant's counsel. , . \:, ( \ This will be followed by advise from staff as requested by the Mayor and Council and then the Council will deliberate on the matter to decide whether to take the matter under advisement for decision at the next, regular Council meeting and or for Decision on the motion this evening. Is this agreed to by the City Council, Will the representatives of the parties Identify themselves for the record. Call on City Clerk for report. ~<;1~ ~., fW'. .. 't wP> ~ Leavell's Counsel--rAJ. (l,w ~tJ.. ~ ~ 191' - # J ~"-,d ~~~~ -.No~ WfI-~l() Applicant's Counsel-. Reply rJ;y-5"'f'!. ~ + ~.~Ut? Council and requests of staff or City Attomey~ Decision. /. ~.- 'L pu\)- \)J~~~~~ ~, ~-I ~ - #'J-- t ~auJ. -ttw.~lsn' 2:, ~ttu~ - 7'- 3-/; C9~~- ~. . - ~ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL. J U f\~ E 1 (; , 1 g C) 2 PAGE 10 Jon Barnes: I'm here In Basically Tract #2 is 44 Mea d 0 w 9 )"" ass , a C a lIe c t 0 l'" coming off. We are also Joseph Elementary School. your engineel~ felt that City' 5 needs. answer 1 at 5, furt.h er making We did it was a any questions you may have. we are just continuing E. west and those other streets a paved walk path into Chief move the original well lot, better location to serve the The Motion was made by Corrie and seconded by Tolsma to approve the Final Plat on Tract Subdivision #~: Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #7: FINAL PLAT ON ONE SUBDIVISION #3: Kingsford: Any questions? Cor)~ i e : ft. and Gary had a comment on Lot 14, I believe it was 6g.34. Block 4, millimum was 70 Max Boesiger: That catches me by surprlse. If that's the case I would think something that small we can fix. The Motion was made by Corrie and seconded by To!sma to approve the final plat on One Subdivision #3 with the adjustme~t of lot line of Lot 14, Block 4. Motion Carried: All Yea: ITEM #8: HUNTERS GLEN PROJECT: Fred ShoemaHer: Passed out site plan to the Council. The site plan far Phase I shows how the 44 units will tie in with what we call Phases II and III. At your March 17th meeting you approved the rezone that was requested for the three acres that comprises Phase I and also approved a conditional use permit for a forty unit project. We carne back to you with a forty four unit project~ which is an increase in the density of the development on the order of 10~ and I submit to you there has been no reduction in quality of construction or amenities. This project will earn rents up to $530.00 a month and up byanybody's definition I think it' 5 fai:r to describe it as an upscale, first cl.=tss apartment pl'~oject. Gave brief history on owner' 5 histDry. ( See tap e ) The L e 2. veIl' s are p l"~ e p a:.... e d t 0 5 i g n a d eve 1 C pine n t ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL JUNE 16, 19'12 PAGE 11 agreement saying that the quality of construction will be equal to or greater than the quality and size of the units in Phase I and they are prepared also to promise to construct two amenities, a club house for certain and either a swimming pool or tennis courts. I will be happy to answer any questions you have. \ Kingsford: We've just got this development agreement today, but a cOt.lple of things that jump out a.~ me was, first the issue of those two amenities, if doesn't stipulate in this agreement what they might be and you could call. an amenity about anything. Also, item #4 on page 2, we are talking ab"out a prime new development then it wouldn't be appropriate to give it that R-15 zone. It should be a part of this planned unit development. Shoemaker: I wasn't sure that you would want a development agreement and I was just thinking about the basics. Kingsford: Last meeting Mr. Jones was here and eluded to a couple of things. One was that phases II and III would have the size units that you had talked about originally and certainly the amenities were addressed but they ought to be something certain. Shoemaker: I think it's fair that you might want the amenities specified. If you go this direction I hope that you won't require the developer for later phases, again, all that's really before us is Phase I and we are prepared to sign some type of development agreement for Phases II and III. Kingsford: I don't have a problem with either one but it doesn't speak to either one in this agreement. Any other questions that the Council may have? Giesler: We met with Mr. Leavell and the necessary people to tlelp out on this project, I had asked for some information on some different projects in Boise or surrounding area that would be equal to what their plan is and I just want to ask them if Phase I will be equal to or better than what you have down on t~is proposal. Am I correct? Leavell: right. Those will be comparable to what we are building, Giesler: I would just like to say in looking at the ones I could find, they were very nice and I was quite impressed with those p~'" 0 j e c t 5 . r<. i n 9 s f G r d : a~r'ee8e::-: ~ ~y ;5:0::~ assumption -:he ~ine ':)f is that you will have some rental covenants that will be pretty tight. r 1 ( MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL- JUNE lG, 1<392 PAGE 12 Shoemaker: Yes. T 0"1 sma: The m e e tin 9 w e had wit h the p e 0 p 1 e her eat C i t Y Hall, there was a mention of after Phase II started that the entry way into Phase I would be closed. Did I misunderstand that? Shoemaker: Initial~y the primary access for Phase I is to the south. There will be an emergency access easement for Phase I over a graveled road to Fairview Ave., it will be gated at the north border of Phase I just to make sure that it's used for temporary access only. As soon as there is any development on what is called on that site plan Phase II and III, there will be at that time an additional access provided either through Fairview Avenue on a permanent basis, but probably to the west, there is an existing -right of way that abuts up and runs into what's called Phase II a fifty foot right of way that would provide access to 4th. Kingsford: Any ather questions from the Council? No response. Are you prepared to make any kind of decision? We need a motion. I would suggest to you if it is your desire to approve of this that you should condition it upon re-examination and approval between the Leavell's and the City with regard to the Development Agreement. The Motion was made by Giesler and seconded by Yerrington to a.pprove the Huntel~ Glen Project changes from 40 to 44 units and that a Development Agreement be agreed upon between the Leavell's and the City of Meridian. Motion Car'ried: All Yea: ITEM #g: ORDINANCE #579: INTEREST RATE: FINAL LID ASSESSMENT, TERM OF LID AND Kingsford: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO, CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL OF LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-1 EAST FIRST STREET RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, LEVYING ASSESSMENTS AGAINST THE SEVERAL LOTS AND PARCELS OF LAND AS SHOWN ON THE ASSESSMENT ROLL, PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF ASSESSMENTS IN INSTALLMENTS, FIXING INTEREST AND PENALTIES AND PROVIDING FOR THE PAYMENT OF SUCH ASSESSMENTS, INTEREST AND PENALTIES INTO LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. 90-1; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone present who wishes Ordinance #579 read in it' 5 entirety? No response.. ~ ~'" ~~ ,,{r L o (q "~pc.Ji oa.~~~o ~~ /'J) J C\.~~ ~ / !Ie J-V \:(, . S 2 S 3 1 6 9 (l'vJ::y ck ADA C'''''T;':./ J. FC~ld~' J DA\'/"" ~I}..':JR · .) i 1 J\ · . ~ f\ 0 ~~ I r RECORC::~ BY~ MENT AGREEMENT FOR HUNTERS GLEN ~ I &--0 '92 SEP 18 RPJ 9 ~5 THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the City oj A Meridian, Idaho (UCity"), and Bill Leavell and Lucile Leavell, (UDevelpper-), on the :) ~ti.-uay of July, 1992. I WITNESSETH: WH r= M J:' ^ S n -. '......'''''pers ,... ra "",..h ''"''fa I"\f+r-ens ceavi,.., 9 ..-0:..0 ~;,... ~; ""'.-'\ l..,..!"""'" "" :.., ._ ....M__M. , ~t:::VOIV a '" fJllVo... vu.tL. &. """ ....,.~1l1 i'-",,-,lIl1iv.,:)iVil UVIII VllY LV develop an apartment complex known as Hunters Glen in Meridian; WHEREAS, the Developer has submitted an application for a rezone and conditional use of certain property described in Exhibit ~1 U which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as if set forth in full, and requested the zoning of R-8 residential be changed to R-15 and has subm itted plans for the subject property as required by the City; WHEREAS, the Developer made certain representations at the public hearing and meetings before the Meridian City Council as to apartment sizes, quality of construction, site amenities to be constructed, off-site improvements for access, and the rental values of toe apartments that would be constructed; WHEREAS, Developer is seeking a zoning change of their property from R-8 to R-15 and are seeking a conditional use permit for the construction of Hunters Glen in three phases. Phase 1 of Hunters Glen is currently before the Meridian City Council for approval of construction of 44 apartment units of approximately 945 square feet each, with two bedrooms, 1 1/2 baths and carports, and with anticipated rentals of approximately $"530.00 per month, all as more particularly described in their Conditional Use Permit Appiication. City is inclined to approve the Exhibit U1 U property so long as it receives assurances that the property described in Exhibit "2" which is attached hereto DEVELOPMENT AG,REEMENT FOR HUNTERS GLEN, Page 1. RRJlsJrlO7113192(LeavellAgreeme nt) (,r__ ( and incorporated by this reference is constructed with the quality and amenities equal to or better than those provided in the Exhibit -10 property. Developer is desirous of obtaining approval for immediate construction of the Exhibit 01- property and contingent approval for construction of the Exhibit -20 property, subject to terms and conditions imposed by City; WHEREAS, the State of Idaho legislature, in 1991, passed Idaho Code 67- 6511A, Developme!1t Agreements, which provides that cities may enter into development agreements with developers upon rezoning land; that the City has not passed a development agreements ordinance, but is in the process of adopting such an ordinance; that Developer was granted a rezone and a conditional use permit based on the representations of Developer made during the rezone and conditional use permit process conducted on Developer's initial Applications; Developer subsequently desired to have the conditional use permit changed and requested the City Council to alter the conditions which lowered the standards and reduced the representations of the Developer made pertaining to the Exhibit 01 n property; it is the concern of the City that if Developer is allowed to reduce the conditions and requirements of the Exhibit II 111 property that the Exhibit D211 property may not be constructed as represented or may not be constructed at all; that rather than go forward with the original development, developer desires to commit to development of the entire parcel of land described in both Exhibits n1n and 02n, and does not desire to wait until a development agreements ordinance is passed by the City; WHEREAS, Developer desires the City to enter into a development agreement, even though the City does not have a development agreements ordinance in force, and is urging and pursuing this agreement so that Developer may proceed with its planned development; DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR HUNTERS GLEN, Page 2. RRJ/sJr 107 /13/92(LeaveILAgreeme nt) ( WHEREAS, the City has authority to place conditions and restrictions upon rezoning of property even though it does not have a development agreements ordinance in force; WHEREAS, Developer deems it to be in their best interest to be able to enter into this agreement and acknowledges that this agreement was entered into voluntarily and at its urging and request; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows: 1. The ab.ove recitals are contractual and binding on the parties hereto as jf set forth herein in full. 2. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to Idaho Code S67-6511 (a), which provides for development agreements between municipal governments and developers. 3. The. properties referred to. herein are commonly known as Hunters Glen and identified as Exhibits 1 and 2. Developer intends to develop the Exhibit 112" property in two phases. 4. The City has rezoned the land described in Exhibit 111 a and agrees to process Developer's request for a rezone of the parcel described in Exhibit" 1120 when application is made therefore, but does not hereby commit or agree to rezone said parcel. Specifically, City has granted a zoning change from R-8 to R-15 pursuant to Ordinance No. 575 passed March 17, 1992 and a conditional use permit for the construction of the Exhibit U111 property of Hunters Glen, subject to the terms and conditions specified by City in its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law passed March 17, 1992, as modified by its decision of June 16, 1992 and this Agreement. 5. Developer intends to submit an application for rezone from R-8 to R-15 and an application for a conditional use permit for the Exhibit "2u property. Such DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR HUNTERS GLEN, Page 3. RRJ/sJ r/07/13192(LeavellAgreement) (-~ ( application shall include plans for and require Developer to construct apartment units equal or greater in size and of construction quality equal or greater than those approved by City for the Exhibit A1A property. In addition, the application for improvements of any portion of the Exhibit D2D property shall include and require the construction of two amenities. .Amenities., for purposes of this Agreement, shall mean: (a) the first amenity shall be a clubhouse constructed of materials equal to or greater in quality of the improvements constructed on the Exhibit 111 D property and size and type to serve all of the existing residents residing in the Exhibit "1 n property and future residents of the Exhibit A2D property; (b) the second amenity, which shall be selected by Developer, shall be either a tennis court or a swimming pool. 6. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as requiring City to grant the rezone for the property described in Exhibit u211. Upon Developer's submission of an application for development for all or any portion of the Exhibit 112D property complying with the requirements set forth in this Agreement, City shall conduct a review and hold a hearing for Developer's application for a rezone of the Exhibit "2" property from R-8 to R-15 in accordance with City's ordinances and applicable state law and should City approve such rezone, the requirements imposed upon Developer in this Agreement shall continue to apply. 7. If the City does not grant the rezone for the property described in Exhibit "2", this Agreement shall continue to encumber the property described in Exhibit "2" since the reason that the City has agreed to grant Developer's request for a reduction in the quality, size and amenities for the development to be constructed on the property described in Exhibit 111" is based on Developer's assurance that the amenities would be available for the development of the parcel described in Exhibit "111. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR HUNTERS GLEN, Page 4. RRJ/slr/07/13/92(LeavellAgreeme nt) ( 8. If the rezone from R-8 to R-15 for the Exhibit "2" property is approved and a conditional use permit is issued for any portion of the Exhibit U2Q property, Developer shall diligently p.ursue construction of the improvements approved and amenities required and the required two amenities shall be completed within one year of such approval. 9. That Developer agrees to abide by all ordinances of the City of Meridian and the property described in Exhibits 111 It and "2" shall be subject to rezone to R-8 jf the owner or his assigns, heirs, or successors shaH not meet the conditions contained in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, this Development Agreement, this Agreement, and the ordinances of the City. 10. This agreement shall be recorded in the Recorder's Office of Ada County, Idaho, and shall be binding on the heirs, executors, successors and assigns of the parties hereto, on all purchasers of lots or parcels of land in the property annexed and zoned property, and all persons acquiring an interest in the annexed and zoned property. 11. Developer hereby waives any and all rights it may have if this agreement is declared null and void for failure of City to have a developments agreement ordinance enacted or rules and regulations enacted governing the creation, form, recording, modification, enforcement and termination of development agreements and specifically agrees to hold City harmless and indemnify City in the event that a person or entity not a party to this agreement institutes actions or proceedings to have this agreement, or any part of it, d~clared null and void, including attorneys fees and costs and agrees to defend City in any such actions or proceedings. 12. This Agreement may only be amended in accordance with the requirements of Idaho Code 967-6511A. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR HUNTERS GLEN, Page 5. RRJ/slrI07113/92(Leavellt\greemen9 ( ( 13. This Agreement shall be deemed a covenant running with the lands above-described an9 shall be binding upon and inure to the respective successors anc;f assigns of City and Developer. 14. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts and as executed shall constitute one agreement binding upon all the parties hereto. CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO AlTEST: ~ -t?~lA/ Gran Kingsford, a or ~ dU/~ Bill Leavell . ~~ Lucile Leavell DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR HUNTERS GLEN, Page 6. ARJlslrI07/13192(LeavellAgreement) ( STATE OF IDAHO ) SSe County of Ada ) On this ( 'f Ii day of S e iJ-f~ . 1992 before me, a notary public, personally appeared GRANT KINGSFORD and JACK NIEMANN, known or identified to me to be the Mayor and City Clerk, respectively, of the City of Meridian, Idaho, that executed said instrument, and acknowledged to me that the such City officials executed the same on behalf of the City of Meridian. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and yeai first above written. . " ~ ~ 1 ~~ \ : l : ; ~ , ; r .;. t. " ,...~ .\\~, ...\ :"'~.. ,) l.~ / '.f...~ ,\. "(".. ~~... . ......JOe... I" ~ , ::,:," \.:.,~ ~r."'{ ~ _ ;, ,. ~ "." ~:.:-> -:.~~ ~ /f ~::. ~~ \ I i. '''"1' : ~ r 0 :. _. f" __ . (l _ ~ ~ B - ..... Q r\ - :: 1.; AJ \ ~. _* ",,,,- = ~)~ ~ U B \. I. - C. ~~ ~ '::. ,,?,~ ,..c""~ 2 ~. t...r.,!\ u~(l03 "..':,1",;,.-- .."C . ,,'" -.... .. ",1 av.~e.~'" \"........... .I I .", ~ _ ':'"\ t-...~, \. ... ~~.'#':' (; Oi: \v r" 'I, i \\' Il:'lfl&n~\ ~ Notary Pu r for Idaho Residing at: My Commission Expires: II 0- 27 -'1 ~ STATE OF IDAHO ) 55. County of Ada ) On this rrttJ day oEert..of'0~ , 1992, before me, the undersigned, a notary public in and for said state, personally appeared BILL LEAVELL and LUCILE LEAVELL, husband and wife, known or represented to me to be the persons whose names are subscribed to the above and foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that they executed the same. . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed:my official seal the day and year first above written. .t~ ..."\,,.......... " , ~. ::" ~: :"~,;: ". · '. . ,,, <.J . ~ ~e.rdL&10 S,~r:;F "'. .~" Not 'Public for Idaho . · ." - . . _ () : \~.; '- Residing at Boise, Idaho . '. ~,~~ \_ ,,'\"~ .: -- My Commission Expires: i. X,. q-=f . - - < " ~ ;.... .:.: . . " DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR HUNTERS GLEN, Page 7. RRJ/sfr107 /13192(LeaveILAgreeme nt) (- ... ~ .. EXHIBIT 1 . PHASE 1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION A portion of the E 1/2 NW 1/4, Section 1, Town~hip 3 North, .Range 1 West, Bois8 Meridian. Ada County, Idaho. more particularly described by metes and bounds as follo~s: Commencing at the Center of Section 7, T. 3N., R. lW., B.M.. Ada County, Idaho and running N. 0 OO#OO~ Ea 1294.00 feet along the Easterly boundary ,of the NW 1/4 of s~id Section 7 to a plont; thence S. 69 01-30" W. 150'. 00 feet along a line parallel to and 1294.00 feet Northerly from the Sou~herly boundary of the said NW 1/4. Section 7 to the TROE POINT OF BEGINNING: thence continuing S. 89 01-30" W. 361.00 feet along a line parallel to and 1294.00 feet Northerly from the said Southerly boundary of the 1/4, Section 7 to a point; thence N. 0 00'00" E. 365.21 feet along a line parallel to and 617.00 feot We~terly from the said Easterly boundary of the NW 1/4. Section 7 to a point: thence N.89 56 '20.. E. (formerly 4escribed as S.89 50 - E.) 366.95 feet to a point; thence S. 0 00'00" W. 359.36 feet along a line parallel to and 150.00 feet Westerly from the ~aid E~~terly boundary of the NW 1/4. Section 1 to the point of beginning; containing 3.052 acres, more or less. t ' l ( RX'RTRIT 2 PHASE 2 WEKfltT and APPROX. ! ACW 1:~l J2~~pno~ A-tract of land situated in Northeast Quarter of the Northwest Quar.ter of Section 7, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the quarter corner common to Sections .0 and 7; thence .'; South 88 degrees 35'4911 West along the line common to said S~ctions 6 and 7, a distance of 330.00 feet; thence . South 0 degrees 35.09M West a dis~ance of 47.8 feet to the South right of way of Fairview Avenue, being THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence South 0 deqre~s 35'09M West a distance of 624.32 feet; , thence Nor~h 88 degrees 50' 48. Eas't a distance 9f 329.99 feet to the East line of the said Nor~heast Quarter Northwest Quarter; thence . South 0 degrees 34'58" West along said East line a distance of 219.00 feet; thence South 38 degrees 44'10n.West a:d~stance of 192.27 feet; thence '. .. . North 89 degrees 28'20n West ~long. a common boundary line a distance of 510.91 .feeti thence . . .North 0 degrees 35' 05" East a distance of 351.60 feet": thence . ..~ North 88 degrees 50' 48" East a distance of 239.99 feet;. thence . ~ North 0 degrees 35'12" East a distance of 624.06 feet to the said South right of ~ay of Fairview Avenue: thence North 88 degrees 35149" East along said South right of way a distance of 60.00 feet to THE REAL POINT OF BEGINNING. EXCEPT ANY PORTION THEREOF THAT MAY LIE WITHIN THE FIVE MILE CREEK ( BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL IN THE MATTER BEFORE CITY COUNCIL AND REFERENCED APPROPRIATE MATTERS, ZONING, AND ANNEXATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR STERLING CREEK SUBDIVISION, ) ) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ) REMAND REZONE, AND ) ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT ) AGREEMENT This matter coming before City Council on October 22, 1998 pursuant to notice and stipulation of Ronald L. Crow, Moore or Less, Inc., and their counsel, and Bill and Lucy Leavell and their counsel, upon Sill and Lucy Leavell's Motion to Remand Rezone, and Annexation and the Development Agreement approval to Planning and Zoning Commission and the applicant, Ronald L. Crow, appearing together with his counsel, Frank Stoppello, and Sill and Lucy Leavell appearing together with their attorney, Fredric V. Shoemaker; and the Council considering arguments of Counsel the report of the City Clerk and testimony both in support and in opposition to the Motion; The Council finds that given the circumstances of this matter the Notices of Public Hearings were given in accordance with the law; and therefore Leavell's Motion is denied. By action of the City Council at its special meeting held on October 22, 1998. By: RT D. CORRIE Mayor, City of Meridian ORDER DENYING TO REMAND REZONE, ANNEXA liON AND ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT STERLING CREEK SUBDIVISION Copy served upon Applicant and his Counsel of Record, Leavell's and their Counsel of Record, and the Planning and Zoning Department. By: Dated: /&-- zz -98 ORDER DENYING TO REMAND REZONE, ANNEXATION AND ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT STERLING CREEK SUBDIVISION 2