Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997 03-04MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH x,1997 - 7:39 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 18, 1997: (APPROVED) MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 18, 1997: (APPROVED) 1. TABLED FEBRUARY 18, 1997: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: (TABLED UNTIL APRIL 1, 1997) 2. TABLED FEBRUARY 18, 1991: CC&R'S FUR TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK BY JIM BALLANTYNE: {APPROVED CC&R'S AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH STAFF APPROVAL} 3. TABLED FEBRUARY 18, 1997: TED CUNNINGHAM: REQUEST FOR HOOK UP TO CIT1(SEWER AT 125 BLUE HERON LANE: (WITHDRAWN) 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST BY BUILDERS MASONRY: (WITHDRAWN) 5. ORDINANCE #753 -LID 9?-1: {TABLED UNTIL MARCH 18,1997} 6. AMENDED RESOLUTION #161 -PARK FEES: (APPROVED) 7. FINAL PLAT: CROSSROADS SUBDIVISION NO.5, 37 LOTS BY CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 8. FINAL PLAT: SUMMERFIELD SUBDIVISION NO. 5, 39 LOTS BY GARY VOIGT: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR USE OF MODULAR BUILDINGS BY MERIDIAN ASSEMBLY OF GOD: (APPROVED AMENDED FINDINGS; APPROVED DECISION) 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION/ZONING TO I-L BY MICHAEL AND MICHELLE MURASKO: (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO MARCH 18, 1997) 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION/ZONING TO I-L BY PROPERTIES WEST INC.: (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO MARCH 18, 1997) 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION BY PROPERTIES WEST INC.: (CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING TO MARCH 18, 1997} 13, MARTY ~~LDSMITH; DISCUSSION OF SALMON RAPIDS SUBDIVISION: 14. WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES: (APPROVED) 15. APPROVE BILLS: (APPROVED) 16. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER: 1. BID RESULTS: PRIMARY CLARIFIER PROJECT: (APPROVED TURNKEY INC. BID SUBJECT TO STATE STATUTES) B. SHARI STILES, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: 1. JIM CARRIE PROPERTY: 2. LOS ALAMITOS SCHOOUPARK SITE: 3. INTERMEDIATE CARE FACILITY: C. MAYOR ROBERT D. CORRIE: 1. APPOINT RONALD MANNING TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION: (APPROVED) ~ 1. EXECUTIVE SESSIUN: MERIDIAN CITY CGUNCIL MARCH 4 ~ 997 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Robert D. Corrie at 7:39 P.M.: MEMBERS PRESENT: Ran Tolsma, Glenn Bentley, Charlie Rountree, IlValt Morrow: GTHERS PRESENT: V1~ill Berg, Ullayne Crookston, Shari Stiles, Gary Smith, Chief Bill Gordon, Jim Johnson, Philip Janquart, Robert Smith, Gary Lee, Nancy Slanaker, Gene Smith, Raman Yargasan, Scott Cook, James Main, Keith Loveless, Jim ~lllitherell, Ann V1litherell, Jim Boyd, Bonnie McKay, Brian McCall: MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 18,1997: Carrie: Any corrections or alterations of those minutes? I will entertain a motion that they be approved. Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that we approve the minutes of the Special meeting held February 18, 1997. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we approve the minutes as written, all those in favor? Opposed? MUTIaN CARRIED: All Yea MINUTES OF PREViC~US MEETING HELD FEBRUARY ~ 8,1997: Carrie: Are there any corrections on the regular minutes? !will en#ertain a matian that we accept the minutes as typed. Morraw: So moved Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded we accept the minutes as typed, all those in favor? Gpposed? MGTIGN CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #1: TABLED FEBRUARY 18, 1997: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: Meridian Gity Council March 4,1997 Page ~ Gorrie: Counselor, I believe you, do you have anything to say on this one's Crookston: !t was my understanding that this matter was going to be sent over again for Ashford Greens because they still had some things to wark out. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I did talk briefly with Illlill I don't know that we gat any input from Mr. Turnbull but I feel reasonably safe given where we are at with the irrigation committee wark that probably a 34 day table is in order. If that is Mr. Turnbull's desire to be on the agenda for the meeting of the 18t" I will contact him and maybe find out and maybe make a correction, Gene you represent David on some issues is the 34 day table in order? (Inaudible) Morrow: That being the case Mr. Mayor I would move that we table until April 1. Rountree: Second Gorrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree that we table item 1 until April 1 meeting, any furkher discussion? Ali those in favor? ~pposed~ MOTIGN CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #~: TABLED FEBRUARY 18, 199; CC~R'S FAR TROUTNER BUSINESS PARK BY JIM BALLANTYNE: Gorrie: Counselor? Grookston: I have reviewed thane and I also reviewed the development agreement and I have given my comments to vur Planning and Zoning Administrator Shari Stiles and that is the last I have heard of it. Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I haven't reviewed that ye#. I need to get Mr. Baffantyne in here and go over some of V1layne's comments and maybe vllayne needs to be there as well. That is where we are at. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would like to ask Attorney Grookston what is your general feeling about Chase two documents? Crookston: They are pretty much in order I believe, I had some comments on them, some changes that I would call miner changes. I don't have them specifically in my mind right now, but I don't think that there is taa much that we have to work out. Meridian City Council March 4,199 Page 3 Morrow: Let me ask yvu the question in this manner then. Are the changes of such manner that you feel that they can be handled at the staff level and the process conclude the agenda tonight and press on? Crookston: I believe that it could be. Morrow: Thank yvu, Mr. Mayor unless there is further discussion by Council I would like to move that we approve the CC&R's and the development agreement for Troutner Business Park by Jim Ballantyne subject to final staff resolution of the outstanding issues with Mike Ballantyne, and that upon that conclusion we authorize the Mayor tv sign and the Clerk to attest thane agreements. Bentley: Second Carrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow second by Mr. Bentley, any further discussion Hearing none, all those in favor? apposed? M~TI~N CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: TABLED FEBRUARY 18, 1997: TED CUNNINGHAM: REQUEST FOR HOOKUP TO CITY SEWER AT 125 BLUE HERON LANE: Corrie: Council, I believe you have a letter from Mr. Cunningham requesting that this request be withdrawn. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I move that we withdraw as per Ted Cunningham's request far hook up to City sewer. Talsma: Second Corrie: Motian made by Mr. Bentley, request by letter from Mr. Cunningham, Uppased? second by Mr. Tolsma that we withdraw the any further discussion? All those in favor? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST BY BUILDERS MASONRY: Corrie: Did Council all get the copy of Stephanie Churchman's letter along with, she gave us this afternoon? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, if we could I would like to have the City Attorney make a brief comment on the, far the record in terms of conversation that went on between he and Meridian City Council March 4, ~ 99l Page 4 Ms. Churchman that brought us to this point. l guess what it is, by withdrawing in my minds means is we na longer have a variance issue to deal with nor in terms of our proposal an agreement that was included within those findings of fact far the development of Chase services. Can you take it from there please? Croakston: Yes I can thank you, the findings of fact and conclusions of law that were prepared for the City Council and the City Council had as of the last meeting in my discussions with Jahn Fitzgerald we both agreed that was something that was better done than granting the variance in any fashion even though you were going to, the proposal was to condition upon them connecting to the sewer but not connect to the water immediately. But when the property to the south ar to the east needed the water that then they wau[d have to connect to it so that those properties could have a ranting of that water and sewer to their properties, vVe re-evaluated the findings of fact and felt that it was the same kind of situation, nothing had changed factually. We felt that those were appropriate. Vl~e also felt that it would be better rather than have a flat out denial without any kind of agreement with Builders Masonry and it was my interpretation at the last meeting that the City desired them to connect to the sewer but not connect to the water but give. In essence to grant the variance somewhat for not putting it to and through their property. I felt that the better way to do it was to have an agreement with them not to do that far a period of time and not grant the variance but just have an agreement with them that as of a certain date or whenever the City said to da it they would do it. That is the agreement that I prepared or John Fitzgerald prepared it and l faxed the findings ofifact and conclusions of law and a copy of the proposed agreement to Stephanie Churchman. I faxed it to her on Friday, I got a calls and I said that I needed to talk to her about them. She did not return my call until today. In her cal[ today, this morning she said that she would call back and tell me what they wanted to do. She called back and !was doing something, I wasn't available when she called at that time. She said that she would call back at S:OU and she did and she said, she faxed me a copy of what you have. She faxed me a copy of that and I looked at it and I said I needed to ask her what was going on and she called back and said this is what we want to do. UVe just want to take it out of the hands of the City and withdraw our application far the variance, Sa she had all of the record that you people have now. Morrow: Question Mr. Mayor, and that means that at the present time they are not going to be hooking up to the sewer until we hear further notice, the entire issue has been withdrawn. Croakston: That is correct, I did not have a discussion with Mrs. Churchman as to whether or not the desire to connect later. They said that they have some other options that they are considering and will be back in touch with the City when they decided what they were going to do. But I believe at this time that the request or the application far the variance is withdrawn on their part. If that is the Council's decision that is the action that you need to take is to accept that withdrawal of the application. Meridian City Council March 4, ~ 997 Page ~ Morrow. And they understand that they have to start over (inaudible) if they wish to do. Crookston: We did not talk about that. Corrie: Any further discussion? I will entertain a motion which ever way you want to go on this. Marrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we accept the letter of withdrawal from Builders Masonry. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma that we accept the letter of withdrawal on the variance, any further discussion? All those in favor of accepting the letter of withdrawal? apposed? MOTION CARRIEfl: All Yea ITEM #5: ORDINANCE #753: LID 97-1: Corrie: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO RE- ADOPTING AND REAFFIRMING FINDINGS FOR THE CREATION OF A LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT CREATING THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 97-1 PROVIDING FOR AND SETTING FORTH THE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE. SETTING FORTH THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. SETTING THAT THE ESTABLISHED TOTAL COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS IS $49,000 OF WHICH AMOUNT IS TO BE FUNDED BY THE ASSESSMENTS ON PROPERTY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. THAT THE $49,000 SHALL BE ASSESSED BY THE FRONT FOOT METHOD AND SHALL BE ASSESSED ON ALL PROPERTIES INCLUDED WITHIN THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT HAVING FRONTAGE ON CHERRY LANE ROAD AUTHORIZE A NEGOTIATION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ENGINEER AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION AND PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS; AUTHORIZING UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS THE ADVERTISEMENT AND NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR BIDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION WORK; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION OF THIS ORDINANCE AND PROVIDING PURSUANT TO 50-1727 IDAHO CODE FOR A PERIOD TO CONTEST THE LEGALITY OF THIS ORDINANCE AND THE PROCEEDINGS AND THE AUTHORITY HELD AND GRANTED UNDER THIS ORDINANCE WHICH PERIOD SHALL EXPIRE 30 DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THIS ORDINANCE AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the audience who would like to have Ordinance #753 LID 97-1 read in its entirety? Hearing none I will entertain a motion on Ordinance #753. Meridian City Council March 4,1991 Page 6 Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adopt Ordinance #153 LID 91-1 with suspension of rules. Marrow: Second Carrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Morrow that we approve Ordinance #153 LID 91-1 with suspension of rules, roll cal! vote. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I have a question. Question for Gary Smith, Gary, did the homeowners association get to you and talk about the specifications far the fence material and is that reflected in this ordinance? Don Howell was mentioning something to that effect last meeting. Smith: Dan Howell came and talked to me. Rountree: So what we have is a reflection of what they wanted in terms of material types and specification? Smith: As far as I knowyes it is. Morrow; You are referring to the material list on section 4, item A? Rountree: Yes, there was some question previously that the type of fencing was a lesser quality. I don't remember how that specification read. This appears to have taken care of that. Smith: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Rountree, he did state that they wanted that specified as a na hale cedar fence. I don't recall how it is spelled out in the ordinance. Crookston: It is not stated in the ordinance. Smith: As no hole? Crookston: Na, it is not stated as to what type it is to be other than wood. Rountree: Number 2 fencing Morrow: It calls number ~, that is a specification of fencing. Smith: But he did specify that the advertisement for the hearing either stated ar was to state that it was a no hole number 2. Rountree: I guess my question is then do we modify this (Inaudible) with that specification? Meridian City Council March ~, ~ 99l Page ~ Crookston: Mr. Rauntree I would have to Iook at the ordinance again, it has been some time since I prepared it to tell you exactly what it does say about the manner. Rountree: It just specifies in section 4, item A, Smith: It specifies dog eared no. ~ cedar and he added no hole no. ~ cedar. I don't knowwhat a no hole is, maybe Councilman Morrowcan comment. Crookston: I just have a question that probably can be answered at the same time. Vl~ould no hale be included in a s#atement dog eared cedar no. 2 fencing? Smith: I can't answer that I really don't know. Crookston: I guess my question pertains to, I want some snow tires does that mean I get ones with spikes in them ar not? I just wondered if that includes it, in the ordinance it says na. 2 dog eared, and I don't knave whether that would include no hale ar 28 hales per board. Corrie: I also have a comment counselor, what i just read it said $49,ggD in the amount of funds assessment in the body of the ordinance it says $48,DOg. That is an estimate yes but just to clarify. Also is there any factor in this ordinance that gives the City money back from advertising the ordinance. This just states that the project casts are proposed to come from this LID and na cast will be paid to the City of Meridian. Is that a part of that bid? Crookston: I don't believe that it is Mr. Mayor. It certainly may be, that is something I will have to look at. Corrie: I guess we better make sure that everything jives and casts are included in this. Smith: Mr. Mayor, maybe Councilman Rountree can answer this question because he is closer to this project. It is my understanding that there is also a need for a license agreement to be written and agreed to between Nampa Meridian Irrigation Dis#rict and the homeowners because of the location of this fence encroaching into their platted easement. Rauntree: It was my understanding that the irrigation district and the homeowners were going to meet on site a week ago I believe and resolve the location of the fence and it was not my understanding that the irrigation district wanted to enter into an easement. Smith: I don't knave, when Mr. Howell came in I posed several questions to him and at that point or before he called I wasn't aware that public works department was involved in putting plans and specs together to bid this fence project. Sa I was a little bit ignorant Meridian City Council March 4,1991 Page 8 of what was happening. But, subsequent to his meeting with me I talked to John Anderson and Anderson says that they could locate the fence along the north side of the irrigation boxes out there except for that huge diversion structure. As i drove the length of the project it looked like those boxes have varying positions north and south that is. I am not sure if they are over the same pipe perhaps I was looking at two different, because there are two different pipes there paralleling each other. Marrow: Mr. Mayor, I have a question of Gary, do they have to deal with bath Nampa Meridian and Settlers ar is it just within Nampa Meridian's easement that these things ga? Smith: They are both there, both ditches are there, one is Settlers and one is Nampa Meridian. Gn the plat there is only a 49, the only thing that is showing is 49 foot wide irrigation easement from the right of way line for Gherry Lane Road. That was platted at 4D feet from the section line and it is my understanding that Ada County Highway District purchased some land from those property owners when they widened the project. But I don't know how much they bought whether it was 5 feet or what. Marrow: Mr. Mayor, it seems to me like there are enough issues here that are left hanging that my preference would be that those be ironed out prior to us adapting it or voting and adapting this ordinance. That is a point of discussion from my perspective. Bentley: i would agree. Rountree: I have no problem with deferring that and resolving parkicularly the irrigation issue. Gorrie: Hearing Wane I will entertain a motion to table this ordinance. Bentley: I withdrawthe motion. Morrow: i withdraw the second Gorrie: Motion withdrawn. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I move we tabled Grdinance #753 LID 91-1 to the 18t~, March. Morrow: Second Gorrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Morrow that we table Grdinance #153 LID 911 until March 15~~', any further discussion? All those in favor? Gpposed? MGTIGN CARRIED: All Yea Meridian City Council March 4, 199 Page 9 ITEM #6: AMENDED RESOLUTION #161 -PARK FEES: Corrie: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN PROVIDING FOR A FEE FOR RESERVATION OF AND USE OF MERIDIAN PARK PUBLIC PICNIC SHELTERS AND SETTING THE HOUR OF OPERATION OF CITY PARKS AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Anyone from the public that would like to have Amended Resolution #161 read in its entirety? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adapt Resolution #161 for the parks fees and authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma authorizing the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest. Croakstan: I believe that just far the Council's edification, I believe that you shauld do a roll call vote an this issue and Vllill has a comment. Berg: Thank you, Dennis Summers and Gary Smith went over this resolution today and Wayne do you have a copy of a couple of corrections. Did you look in your box? Crookston: What is in my box does not have any marks on it at all. Berg: l will pass you my copy then. There are a couple of corrections and it deals with, same if it deals with the procedure of what was written down tv it, we kind of actually do. If you look at that real carefully. Croakstan: I believe that the resolution shauld be changes to incorporate these changes. I was not aware of these until right now. I think that they are good changes sa I think it would be appropriate to change the resolution and then adopt it at the next meeting. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I withdraw my motion. Tolsma: Withdraw the second. Berg: Excuse me if I could interject, we are on kind of a time frame that Dennis doesn't take the reservations until the first week of March and this is the first week of March. I don't knave Wayne if you could tell them just the insert of the changes of those couple of wards if they could adopt it as it is. Crookston: They could do that, I would like to have the Councilman review what the changes are. Meridian City Council March 4, ~ 997 Page 10 Berg: Okay, our intent was to get them to you tv see if you thought thane were okay before we gave them to the Council. That was our intent I am sorry far the delay. Rountree: So what are they? Morrow: I think probably what we could do, by virtue of the minutes is that read the ordinance ar at least read the changes in terms of the ordinance and then if the Council agrees to that we could adapt inaudible} At the bottom of page ~, the very last line it says as set forth in paragraph 4 below far the Meridian City Parks are reasonable, There is a question mark there, what is the intent of that highlighting and of the for the Meridian City Parks inaudible}. Smith: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Marrow, Council, when I started reading that paragraph it started out that the following were reasonable and I dust didn't understand, it didn't make sense as i gat to the end of it. That is the reason that I circled it with a question mark. Morrow: So then the desire would be to strike the for the meridian City parks (inaudible) because it is double. Smith: Yes Crookston: It would be fine to strike what is circled an that document. Morrow: Okay, sa then in the first line of page ~, the period would be paragraph four below and then striking for the Meridian City parks are reasonable. Next change is dawn in paragraph 3, it says that persons, associations, corporations and other entities desiring to use the Meridian Park picnic shelters shall apply at the Parks Superintendent's office far the use of a picnic shelter, reserve a time of use of a picnic shelter. If their requested time is available and shaft pay appropriate fees at the City Clerk's office. The City Clerk's office shall keep a record of the scheduled times and fees paid far reservations. Page 3, paragraph 5, after the semi Golan it would read if the reservations have been removed from the picnic shelter Inaudible} maintained by the Parks superintendent and the City Clerk's office shall be controlling. Paragraph six, says the parks of the City of Meridian shall be open and available for use from 1:00 a.m. to 1:00 midnight and all people shall vacate the City park no later than 12:80 midnight. Gary I would ask in the last line of that same paragraph six, it goes an to say that users of the parks which gives picnic users of the parks one hour to clean up and vacate the parks period. Is that what you are after there and striking they are using? The sentence as it is written now says vacates a park they are using, In here there is large period put in after park. Meridian City Council March 4,1997 Page 11 Smith: That is not a period l just scratched something out there. l started, so just as it is written is fine. Morrow: Because we have more than one park is the intent there I see. Croakston: Mr. Mayor and Council, I think it would be appropriate to read the entire ordinance at least the specific sections that state what the requirements so that is of record in the Council meeting so that anybody who wants to know can tell that what we have passed is in fact what is eventually what is adopted. Corrie: Counselor, it if meets with the Council's approval l will have you read that. Bentley: l have a question with a sentence we were just talking about, the one hour to clean up the park or clean up and vacate the park they are using. I think they are using needs to be struck because to me it leaves the idea that you can clean up the park you are using and go to another one. Corrie: So you are asking Mr. Bentley to strike out the wards they are using and put the period after park. Bentley: Right Corrie: Any further changes? Counselor if you will please read the amended resolution #161 with the corrections please? Crookston: I will read the entire ordinance. ATTORNEY CROOKSTON READ ENTIRE AMENDED RESOLUTION #161 WITH CORRECTION (ORIGINAL ON FILE WITH THESE MINUTES) Marrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that adapt the amended resolution #161 as read into the record authorizing the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley to approve the amended Resolution #161 as read for the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest. Any further discussion? Rvll call vote ROLL CALL VOTE: Marrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree w Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 12 ITEM #7: FINAL PLAT: CROSSROADS SUBDIVISION NO. S, 37 LOTS BY CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT: Currie: Is there a representative of Capital Development here is this evening? Oene Smith: Mr. Mayor if I could make a short presentation. Crossroads No. 5 is the fifith continued development within the Crossroads Development which is located east of Eagle and Suuth of Fairview Avenue. I did receive, we did receive staff's camments dated February 2~'t" to Mayor and Council. I have provided my response to those camments, I had those delivered today to the City Clerk as well as engineering and planning and zoning. I believe you each have a copy of my response. Basically we agree with all of the comments, there are one or two items that I would like to discuss with you for clarification if nothing else. Under site specific camments, item 3, in the memo that was addressed to you concerns permanent perimeter fencing is required to be placed along the northerly exterior subdivision boundary prior to obtaining building permits, Temporary fencing shall be installed along the entire westerly boundary to contain construction debris prior to obtaining building permits. The letter of credit, cash or appropriate banding will be required for this items prior to signature of plat. UVe have na problem with installing the permanent perimeter fencing along the northerly boundary but we would like to propose a variation and I know that there has been a lot of discussion and a lot of concerns aver the temporary fencing far the debris and so forth. I would like to propose a trial if you will something that we are doing in some of the other developments that Mr. Yorgason with Capital Development is doing in some of the other developments around the valley and that is posting notices for the contractors to maintain their job sites to clean up the debris and I have a couple pictures of these notices. These have been very effective they have been working. don't believe that the temporary snow fencing is doing any better of a jab than what these notices are doing. I would like to propose that we be allowed to try this on a trial basis for this phase of the development to see if this is an effective means to control the debris. The second item that I would like to discuss with you briefly would be site specific comment number 5 also located an page ~, This has to do with lots frontage of lots of career lots and in particular it, I would like to request a waiver for lot 25, black 7. believe you each have a copy of the plat, it is Garner lot at Caucus and Florence. It is probably the largest lot within this phase of the development. I would like to request a waiver to allow the house orientation to be either toward Caucus or Florence as the builder may apt. The frontage far this particular development according to the minutes of what was that Shari the Planning and Zoning minutes or the City Council minutes I don't recall. The minutes refer to minimum lB foot of frontage. My interpretation of the ordinance states that the only thing that is required is a minimum street frontage. It doesn't say a minimum street frontage End of Tape} short side of the lot that the house would be facing to the center of the return. ~111e are 5B feet an this particular lot we have a total street frontage around the corner of ~ to feet. Sa I am just requesting that we be allowed, that waiver to orient the house either direction vn that particular lat. Ail of the other issues i have addressed and i believe are satisfactory to staff. Meridian City Council March 4,1997 Page 13 Carrie: Counci I questions? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would like to hear the comments from staff concerning those two proposals. Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, I will address the request for the waiver on Iot ~6 block l frontage. Gene is right when he said that is a standard that I have established as I read the ordinance that requires whatever zone we are dealing with a certain street frontage. Gn corner lots I have simply taken half of the return curve and applied that to side of the Iot, to each street frontage of that Iot in order to come up with that to meet that minimum frontage. If the configuration of the subdivision is such that It is very difficult to meet that minimum on one side or the other of the Iot then I requested that the developer's engineer, land surveyor show by arrow or by some designation an the plat which way the house should sit on the Iot and that would be the front of the house. That would be designated as the front therefore that would be the frontage of the Iot and it would meet the ordinance then whatever the zone designation required. The other side of the lot would not be a front therefore it could be whatever the dimension would be, Morrow: And your thought about this particular proposal given the ~6 feet and the 194 feet on the other side. Smith: U`lell !guess if I am going to have a standard l am going to have a standard. It is either going to be to feet ar it is going to have to be designated that the front is not 6~ foot dimension is the 104 foot dimension. That is just a standard that I set up as far as how I read the ordinance. That is my opinion of how the ordinance is written. Although the ordinance doesn't say that you can't designate an the plat a front of house direction, I have accepted that as an alternative to having both front lot lines meet the required minimum. So that one could be less than what the zoning ordinance requires as long as the front of the house was designated towards the lot lines that did meet the minimum required ordinance dimension. Morrow: Gary, follow up question, in this particular case or in any case with a corner lot then if the face the front of the house is say on the l0 foot side and the side of the house is on the 10o foot side the required set back an the 1 qo foot side ends up to be the same ~o feet as on the front of the house is that not correct? Smith: That is correct Morrow: And so would not on something like this the possibility of side entry garages ar whatever somewhat mitigate the front footage in terms of the ~6 feet or lQ feet ar whatever? Is there some flexibility within the ordinance for that determination. f.: Merldlan Clty Cauncll March 4, ~ 99? Page 14 Smith: UUell l guess if you want to put a house pad on the plat and say this is going to be a side entrance house we could do that. Say that the side entrance shall be off of that side street. I think we are getting away from what the plat is really intended to do. Even having arrows on the plat an the Iot designating which way the front of the house is going to situate is probably a ways away from what the plat was really intended to da. I understand what you are saying councilman Marrow and the answer to your question is yes it would be but how da you track this I don't know. I just try to make it as generic as passible so that it is easy to fal low far whoever may buy the lat. Morraw:llllell I guess from my perspective trying to think this through with this parkicular Iot and this subdivision is that there are several scenarios by which someone might opt to build a house a homeowner ar whatever in terms of where it faces and its frontage and whether it is a front entry garage or a side entry or whatever the case may be. guess the question in my mind is that something that clearly has these kind of faotages do we necessarily need to designate one side as being the front or the other. Should that be a decision that is left up to the buyer of the lot or the homeowner of the lat. Smith: tilllell [guess my attitude was that I was interpreting the ordinance that the, and I can't be specific at this point but the ordinance says that the lot shall have a frontage of so many feet, in an R~4 zone I believe it is ~Q feet. 1 don't know how you interpret that for a corner lot because you don't know which way the house is going to face when the plat comes in for final approval. Morrow: 1111e11 actually nary there is another scenario here is the house could be diagonally placed an the corner and so then where is the front. That is not uncommon an a Garner lot. House sits back, it is diagonally faced to approach that the front ofi the house faces or the center of the front of the house faces the center of the curve. So then what becomes the front. Smith: llllell I guess maybe you will need to tell me then haw wide da you want tv make that side lot. Da you want it 4o feet, 3o feet, I don't know. I guess we could get it down as skinny as you want but I can truthfully say up to this paint in time far plats this is the first time a developer has not chaser to designate a direction on a lot for a house frontage. I have never realized that it was a problem. Yorgason: Raman Yargason with capital Development, maybe far a little bit of clarification it might help us on this one. Normally we have an R-4 zone this is an industrial mixed used zone and it is a PUD so it really is a different kind of zoning than we normally are working with. Sa that might give us a little mare, we are not governed by the same restrictions that are an a regular R-4 zone. VUe do have with a PUD a lot of flexibility. Marrow: I guess Shari yaur part of the question is to address the fencing issue or the fencing proposal as opposed to the signs and then also the PUD issue. Meridian City Council March 4,1991 Page 15 Stiles: As far as the fencing is concerned I guess if they want to try this on a trial basis and if it doesn't work the City give them notice and have them go ahead and fence it. There is a lot of debris out there right now and a lot of people dumping their concrete out there and it looks like same of the dead end streets might be goad party places right now. That is where the majority of the trash is coming from I think. l have no problem with that. As far as the PUD normally a PUD would came through as a conditional use permit. At the time the PUD is approved it would be, you would knave what all of those uses were. In this case ~2o acres were approved as a PUD with absolutely 0 plans of what would be within that PUD. Then after the fact the plat carves through, it does appear that they attempted to meet the 1g°/o requirement but other than that I wouldn't say that it went through a conditional use permit process far this process far this particular plat. The representations made by the applicant's representative were that they would be minimum of l0 foot frontage, minimum 8,o0g square foot lots. I believe that was at the City Council level. If the City Council feels it appropriate to allow a BB foot frontage an one lot I suppose that would be within your discretion since it is a PUD. But you can either accept it ar not. I don't think that we can dictate that the house is going to have the garage on the 10o foot side. It would be nice if it would but Council needs to decide if they want to allow a BB foot frontage in a development where they said the minimum would be l~ feet. Marrow: Mr. Mayor, if I may respond to that, it seems to me like and I am not in favor of changing the l0 foot frontage issue, I think that is primarily designed for straight on lots. In a corner lot situation I can think of at least 3 ar 4 scenarios by which a homeowner would choose to locate his house where the frontage could be spanning the corner. Now we are making a decision here as I understand it that the frontage is based to the center of the arc on or the radius of the lot in the curve. But under certain circumstances and to capitalize on views and those kinds of things a homeowner may want to locate the house so that it essentially faces both streets. You could use a reverse L, you can use side entry garages and so an and sa forkh. So I am not convinced in my mind that on a career lot that we ought to be saying that the frontage is to feet measured from the center of the curve because there are lots of scenarios that people could have that they wish their home to be. And I guess that is a topic that we as a Council need to address to get same guidance an corner lots as to what frontage does mean. Sa that is a point of discussion from my perspective. Gary? Smith: Mr. Mayor, Councilman Marrow, one other thing that I would like you to take into consideration an whatever you do tonight an this subject and for future. Is that typically homeowners are fighting a battle of having a big enough backyard an a corner lotto the extent that we get a substantial number of requests for variances to situate fences inside the side yard set back so that they have a big enough back yard. I don't know in this particular case if this is a problem or not but historically corner lots have been problems. Gnce they situate a house and they whack off a ~o foot setback an two sides of the lot they don't end up with much back yard and the next thing we know is that the 1 Meridian City Council March 4, ~ 99~ Page 1 G property owner is in here requesting a variance to set their fence out in the setback, the side street setback. So I think that is something that I would like you take into consideration. I would be happy to enforce your directive an these corner lots. Rountree: I guess I take the position to hold fast with the l9 foot frontage and I would like to them orient to the long side in this particular instance. I think we are making a mayor issue out of one that. If they orient to the long street whether they skew it a little bit an that lot or not they are still oriented to the long frontage and hold by that. Either that or we will see every corner lot we will have to make an exception for. I agree with Gary's pain# as far as the fences go. If you have a long skinny lot and you orient an the skinny side front then you have a very skinny Iong back yard and people want to put the fence on the street. with the 20 foot setback with the fence they don't have much backyard by ordinance, Morrow: I think with the 20 foot setback either way on a corner lot you have (inaudible). Rountree: As far as the sign goes, yes let's give it a try and if it doesn't work condition it in such a way that the fence goes in. Corrie: I can attest to corner Iots having problems with 2a foot setbacks, I have one. Council, I guess we have the final plat, how do you want it to be worded. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I had one additional question under general comments under number 5, it says plan far pressurized irrigation has been submitted to Nampa Meridian, the approval will be submitted prior to signature of the final plat. Gene, do you know what the status of that approval is by Nampa Meridian? Gene Smith: (Inaudible) Morrow: And you don't have a time frame as to when that signature might be forthcoming, thank you. Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the final plat for Crossroads Subdivision No. 5 by Capital Development with the exception under item 3 site specific comments that we allow the trial of a interior sign as proposed by the applicant and that we not require the temporary fencing between the phases if we have sufficient complaints from the neighboring property owners then the Council would require that the separation temporary fence be put in place while the phase is under construction. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley, to the final plat as stated and the fencing and signage and with no waiver, any further discussion? All those in favor? Upposed? ~~ Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 17 MGTIGN CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: FINAL PLAT: SUMMERFIELD SUBDIVISIGN N0. 5, 39 LGTS BY GARY VG I GT: Cowie: Is there a representative of Summerfiefd here this evening. Cook: Scott Coak, Hubble Engineering. Vlle have reviewed the comment letter from staff, we didn't have any objections to it. VIle did submit a revised plat to staff correcting many of the comments that they had addressed in their Fetter and we are basically in agreement with those comments. Morrow: Mr. Cook you have changed sides have you not? Cook: Yes I have. Currie: Any further questions or comments from Council or staff? Entertain a motion on the final plat then. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the final plat for Summerfield Subdivision Na. 5 by Gary Voigt. Tolsma: Second Currie: Motion made by Mr. Marrow, second by Mr. Talsma to approve the final plat of Summerfield Subdivision Nv. 5, any further discussion? Hearing none, ail those in favor? Gpposed? MOTIGN CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR USE OF MODULAR BUILDINGS BY MERIDIAN ASSEMBLY OF GOD: Carrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and invite the representative from Meridian Assembly of God Church to testify first. James Main, 414 South Sailor, Kuna, was sworn by the City Attorney. Main: The Meridian Assembly is in receipt of the review by the Planning and Zoning Commission with the comments concerning the conditional use permit for the modular buildings at their site. I did provide a packet to the Council on Thursday that I reviewed with Shari Stiles. The Church would like to propose that the Council consider one change to that request for the conditional use permit. I Dave brought along a larger version of the plan that I included in your packet there. That consideration would be ta, Meridian City Council March 4, ~ 99l Page ~ S this is basically the plan that submitted initially, It showed the modular buildings located behind the existing building to the east off of Linder. The consideration would be to locate those buildings to the south side of the existing structure adjacent to a vacant lot which is awned by an adjoining church. The reason far that consideration is 3 fold which I indicated in the letter. First its the location of site utilities, it makes it considerably easier and less cyst involved to the owner to hook up bathrooms in those facilities. Second would be the church right now is suffering same growing pains an they are looking at several options. one would be selling the property and moving to a new location, another would be putting a new building on the site. If in fact they choose tv stay an this site they would like the option available to locate a new building behind the existing building. Third, locating those modular units to the south create less of a safety concern as far as people crossing across asphalt parking areas. Now the comments that we receives from Planning and zoning and the Ada County Highway deparkment have been incorporated into these two plans which I submitted in my packet. Again these are temporary modular buildings which would be constructed by Northwest Building Systems and they would be used just on a temporary basis until the church either sells their property and relocates or until they provide permanent structures an the site. Currie: questions from Council for the applicant? Thank you, is there anyone else from the public that would like to enter testimony at this time an the conditional use permit. Hearing none, Council, questions far staff? Morrow; !have one question Mr. Mayor, Shari, does a change in the location of the two buildings constitute a substantial change in the application in your opinion? Stiles: Councilman Marrow, Mayor and Council, the reason l did have them make sure that they submitted this today was that if you are going to approve this plan that it was before the public and everyone knew. They had initially wanted to move it to the north side of the property but because of the negative testimony we had although it wasn't a lot at Planning and Zoning I felt that would make a significant difference to those people on the north side. So, I suggested they put it an the south side, it is a change but I guess I don't consider it that significant unless you don't like the idea of it being so visible from the street. Morrow: I think my concern was in reading the minutes of the testimony and the findings of fact for P & Z and the letter from Ms. Garrett the concern by the neighbors was somewhat of an issue with respect to the noise and sa on and so forth. That maybe moving it to the south then that would further take away some of those concerns from where it was before. Sa, that is why I am interested in seeing if it constitutes a major change. It seems to me it is a benefit to those who had testified before, Stiles: that is the way !felt too. Meridian City Council March 4, ~ 997 Page 19 Morrow: I have no further questions Mr. Mayor. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, question far Shari, what has been our- track record with temporary modular housing or facilities in terms of compliance and meeting the terms and conditions of the conditional use permits, length of time allowed? Stiles: I am trying to think of how many we have approved. I know there are a lot out there that have been there for a Iong time. Rountree: Mast of them have a one year conditional use permit? Stiles: Yes, as far as I know. I know that they may be interested in making these permanent at some time but I, if that were ever to be the case they would have to come back before the City Council if they were to want to extend that at all. Marrow: Fallow up to that Mr. Mayor, I believe that in most cases they are one year renewable are they not? And that we are seeing the renewable on the temporary modular that are used for example as sales offices within developments. As memory services the churches have a pretty decent record of coming forth and doing their renewals. So !think those are two groups that are meeting the intent here, l am struggling to figure out same that may not but I can't think of an example right off the top of my head. Corrie: That is correct they usually are for one year. Rountree: I am just looking at this and it is requesting 3 years and my preference would be a one year renewable to stay with what we have required in the past. ether than that i have no particular issue with it. Morrow: Neither do I, l think that is fair. Rountree: I think the adjustment they made does in fact eliminate some of the problems that were identified in the previous hearing. Corrie: Council, you can approve their findings if you want to make any changes in the time element if you don't see any other problems with it. an page 9, you might have to change item C because !don't believe he submitted a new site plan to us other than the one presented tonight. Marrow: Mr. Mayor, I believe we can handle that by a motion that says something to the affect that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for us by P & Z as amended to allow the moving of the site of the two modular to the south side of the lat. And to request that the temporary use be done in one year renewable increments and capped a three year total. Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 20 Bentley: Is that a motion? Corrie: Let me close the public hearing, go ahead. Rountree: Can you repeat that? rj ;. i Morrow: Let me try again here, I want to make a motion with the Council's permission that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions as prepared for us by P & ~, with the change that we allow the moving of the structures to the south side of the lot as presented to us tonight by the Applicant James Main and that we keep with our policy of having vne year renewable temporary permits capped at a three year fatal as per the presentation by P & ~. Bentley: Second Corrie: Matian made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Ben#ley to adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law prepared by Planning and zoning with the corrections that the modular buildings be on the property in accordance on the south side of the lot and that the conditional use permit shall be restricted far a period of one year renewable and capped three years, any further corrections.? Roil tail vote RILL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea M~TI~]N CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: Motion on the decision and recommendation? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move the City Council of the City of Meridian approve the conditional use permit as amended requested by the applicant far the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law as amended or similar conditions found justified and appropriate by the City Council and that the property be required to meet the water and sewer requirements, fire and life safety codes, uniform fire code, parking, paving, landscaping requirements and all the ordinances of the City of Meridian. The conditional use shall be restricted to a period authorized of three year total subject to annual renewal. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree on the decision and recommendation, any further discussion? All those in favor? ~ppased'~ M~TI~N CARRIED: All Yea Meridian City Council March 4, ~ 99l Page ~ 1 ITEM #10: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION/ZONING TO I-L BY MICHAEL AND MICHELLE MURASKO: Corrie: I will invite the representative to come forward. Keith Loveless, 3338 Grace Street, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Loveless: At this time I request that this item be deferred to the next available City Council meeting. My client is out of state and our only conversations are by telephone and we are having a hard time explaining to him the development agreement and all of the conditions and coming to terms. So I need some more time to discuss it with my client, Marrow: Mr. Loveless, would the 18~" of March be sufficient or would you prefer the ~ ~ of Apri I? Loveless: He was willing to get it done within the next week but I have had to push him, sa 2 weeks is fine. Corrie: Any further questions? Anybody else from the public that would like to issue testimony at this time? We will continue it to the March ~ 8t" I am sure. James Morham, 295a Franklin Road, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Morham: I am the next door neighbor to this property on the east side of, well his property is on the east side of my property. I have no objections that this be rezoned and annexed to the City. I can see that it will not hinder me in any way or my property and will not be a detriment to it. Therefore I would request that the City Council do approve this when the time comes. Corrie: Thank you, any further comment or testimony from the public? Council, I will close the public hearing and Rountree: No leave it open. Carrie: I will leave it open. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we continue the public hearing on this item until our next regularly scheduled meeting March ~ 3~". Morrow: Second Meridian City Council March 4, ~ 9~7 Page ~~ Carrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Morraw that we continue the public hearing request for this annexation, all those in favor? Gpposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea FIVE MINUTE BREA#~ ITEM #11: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TO I-L BY PROPERTIES WEST INC.: Corrie: At this time I will open the public hearing and ask the representative of Properties West to speak first. Gary Lee, ~5~ youth Beechwoad, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lee: I am the representative far Properties West an this application before you this evening. Vlle also have a second Morrow: I am sorry Mr. Mayor l am in error here, I have done business and purchased Lots from Mr. Barnes the last one was probably 3 years ago. I do need to ask the Council if there is the perception of a conflict of interest there and if sa If I need to stand down during this hearing. Carrie: Mr. Morrow, you are not involved in this particular piece of property are you? Morrow. In no way, shape or form, but I have been involved in prior business (inaudible). Rountree; Did you get a goad deal? Morrow: I paid through the nose. Rountree: I don't see a conflict Corrie: Mr. Morraw you can stay. Lee: As l was saying, of course the first hearing tanigh# is for the annexation and zoning and the second hearing is far the preliminary plat is being submitted. I will probably go through this presentation and speak to both issues and they generally come up during the discussions. I will be glad to go over any points you may have. Again the applicant is Properties 1Nest, the project is a 2B acre piece of land situated an Franklin Raad west of Locust Grove. Vile are seeking an annexation and zoning of l~ L which is Light industrial. The project will consist of 1 S business lots, buildable Iots along with 5 common Iots that will be held in common ownership by the business Meridian City Council March 4,1997 Page 23 owners association. The lots size will range from about 41,Og0 feet to approximately 76,D40 feet is the largest lot in that development, It is of course situated in the County right now, it is contiguous with corporate city limits of Meridian, The current zoning is RT or rural transition. Surrounding uses, it is a mixture of City and County zones. There is light industrial to the north, across Franklin Road. There is commercial general of C-G to the southwest. There are some Ada County zones that are RT to the west side of the property south and east. There are a couple of smaller areas zoned R-1 in the county, one at the nor#hwest Garner and one at the southeast. There are six single family homes on acreages adjacent to a portion of the easterly boundary. There are two single family homes at the west boundary on the north end. one of those is a rental. Same of the adjacent land uses consist of light industrial, agricultural and residential. The developer intends to prepare and develop an upper end type light industrial use type park with this project. If I may I will put up another exhibit. This particular rendering should set the tone of haw we envision this project developing. This is a view from Franklin Road into the entry, V11e will have some landscape along Franklin Road and also some landscape medians. VVe will be requiring some heavy landscaping within the development itself. In our application we have identified that the allowed uses within this development will conform to the City's current zoning ordinance for I-L with the exception of 8 uses we have identified in our CC&R's as not being an allowed use. Those are asphalt and concrete, automobile wrecking yard and storage, fuel yards, junk yards, mobile home manufacturing, rail road yard and shops, recycling plants and solid waste transfer stations. All of those uses will be excluded from this development. in addition, we have presented this application with support document requesting that the property be annexed and zoned I-L but not be tied to a requirement for conditional use permit on the uses. I will discuss that a little bit later in here. The services available, of course transportation is Franklin Road, a major arterial. Fire protection will be an extension of the existing city system. The water will also be included with that. Vllastewater facilities are available for the site. Irrigation an this property on the landscaped areas and each individual lot will be provided through a privately held pressurized irrigation system. This particular rendering that you see there, I don't know if you can see the water amenity on the left hand side or not but our intent is to develop some ponds in the front in that 35 foot landscape strip to store some of our irrigation water. It will probably act as some storm water retention as well. But there will be a water amenity on bath sides of the entry as you came in. Vile will be using that source for providing our irrigation through the system. The roadways of course are all public and we have gone to ACHD through their review process. They have made a few suggestions on right of way widths which we have accommodated in our mast recent plat submittals to you. They will all be public collector style streets 41 foot back to back. There will be a landscaped buffer lot along the easterly boundary. Proposed a ~0 foot wide landscaped area with a mixture of inaudible}. This will be set up with kind of a staggered tree placement. VVe propose to use an easily maintainable pasture type grass something that doesn't grow real fast but will stay green and require less mowing during the growing season. ~f course it will be irrigated off our same system. There were a couple of neighborhood meetings held with the adjacent Meridian City Council March 4,1997 Page ~~ neighbors. V1le sent out notices to everyone within 309 feet of the property and solicited their involvement. 1Ne met at one of the neighbors homes, the Preseley's and entertained their questions and concerns. End of Tape} that is a concrete ditch now but it is cracked in numerous places and it leaks pretty badly. So this development, Properties West will be installing a piping system that will provide them their irrigation water and at the same time eliminate some of those leakage problems. I did make response to the City's staff comment letter which we had received on January 9th just prior to the Planning and Zoning Commission. I believe that is probably in your packet somewhere. I believe we have addressed most of their concerns or will in future design phases. One of the main items of discussion was the conditional use permit requirement and subsequent to that we developed a draft copy of a proposed development agreement and we have also prepared an amended draft for the City's review. Vlle have attempted to address what we felt are the concerns that the City has with these types of projects. We have done it in such a way that we believe we have addressed types of uses, the look of the building. The landscape requirements, inaudible}within the CC~R's and also as an exhibit in the development agreement and it is criteria for landscaping requirements for all lots. Ulle have required that there be a ~0 foot landscape strip along all streets and that there be a 3 inch caliper tree planted at a maximum interval of ~0 feet. So as you go through the project there will be a sense of continuity in the way the project appears. There will be controls on the types of buildings that will be allowed within the development. So we have a common look and a common feel of a coordinated neighbarhovd. I believe that probably concludes what I have to say this evening, if you have any questions I would be glad to entertain those or speak to them after to the other testimony. Corrie: Thank you Gary, anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony at this time? Jim 1Nitherell, X15 South Locust Grove Road, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. ~lllitherell: My elocution and voice are terrible. At the last Planning and Zoning meeting where this was discussed I had the same flu that Mr. Crookston did, so it sounded even worse. We picked up a copy of the transcript from that meeting and whoever transcribes that managed to get through all of this and missed only two words in my entire testimony and they were Latin. We would like to publicly give some recognition to the transcriptionist far doing an excellent jab on this, it is not an easy jab. Vllith one exception the new Councilman, you know this praperky quite well it was previously going to be a trailer park, Aspen Groves, It was going to be a manufactured home, high density park, Preston Aspen Groves. And then it was going to be a mixed light industrial and general commercial. The later two were turned down, the first one was withdrawn. Most of you have walked the property I believe, you know that it is a residential area that keeps being described as industry here and a few homes there. 1111e11 yes, there are 6 of there and then across the road there are bunch more and then after that is Springwood Subdivision. The biggest problem we have with any r f Meridian City Council March 4, ~ 99l Page ~5 development behind us is this is also right on top of our potable water table and our only source of water. The other problem we have is the corner, because the Garner is wetland and we have some very strong issues an that. But in this particular case this application does not include it. We were told by your director of planning while not included in this development, the developer has purchased or has an option to purchase that corner property far conversion of a house to a commercial building ar an office building which is going to require C-G so really we have the same plan we have had before, There is nothing new here. As far as our comments are concerned at this hearing, if anybody is looking far fire works I am sorry, we pretty well did that at Planning and Zoning and they are all incorporated into the findings of fact. There are six affected parties on the east , we have, fins of those have a financial interest in the development. The four that do not put in a faint letter back in December which was incorporated into the findings of fact and which we also testified an far the most part. We think the findings of fact are very goad but they have left out a few things which we have raised which weren't addressed. The first one, well they did address it. They said the findings of fact did find that it was a residential area and they put severe restrictions an this development. Far example even though it is industrial cannot produce more light, more sound, more pollution than the current residential use. But there are no measures, if we are going to proceed further with this we would ask that the City ofi Meridian establish what the measures are that we are generating. Now this can be done simply by having yaur engineer set up controlled studies about how much dust we generate, how much noise we generate, haw much pollution we generate and have the developer pay far the City to do these studies then we will have a measure. Otherwise it is going to be an issue where a machine shop is going to go behind me and I am going to say that makes more noise than I do and they are going to say no you don't. And it could end up being a whole series of lawsuits as to who is making the most noise. The second thing again is our water, this is, we have raised this a couple of times but it has never really been addressed. I don't know if the City doesn't consider this its problem or what. But the simple solution, there are three solutions to this. He is proposing to put just gravel parking and of course the truck fleet will sit in this space, and drip oil and so forth. Our water table, we have 95 foot wells but my water is down only ~0 feet so we are very close. We can expect same kind of damage it is foreseeable: The first thing is he can either offier us water and sewer , l don't think there is much chance of that. He can drill out our wells deepen them down to the same level as the City of Meridian where it is dawn below a pollution level ar he can simply pave his parking areas. What we are looking for is the water not to seep into the ground. Third is the issue of landscaping, the findings of fact from Planning and zoning just simply say that the landscaping the transition is inadequate. What we asked for in our letter is very simple. We want a 35 fact transition. There are two reasons far that. Thirty five feet is what is being offered to the public with no interest in the property. 1Ne live by it, we think we have as much right. More practically these Scotch pines he is talking about will grow to be ~ 5 to ~g feet in diameter. Then the five feet, at that point we want a masonry fence fluted an the inside, that will deaden a lot of the sound. That fence will be 6 feet high on a 2 foot berm that is S feet which is what is allowed far light Meridian City Council March 4, ~ 99l Page ~6 industrial under the plan. IVaw I know that your ordinance section ~ ~ -9-5g5 G specifies ~g foot minimum and what we are looking for is mare than the minimum. This is an industrial park going into an R~~ residential area. Finally, it didn't came up in this meeting but it did came up in Planning and Zoning. There are a set of utility pales that services these existing houses and there is an easement on thane. It has been bantered around by the developer or by the inaudible} well it may be or it may be scriptive ar he can't find one. So we went dawn to Idaho Power and gat a copy of it and it is in your packets. Naw it is in specific width, Diana Pan is the right of way and the easement specialist far Idaho Power, who simply said that easement was filed in ~9~5 but not to a specific width. Now at this time, Idaho Power should be contacted and they have not yet been contacted to came out and say okay there is going to be a permanent barrier put here in the way of landscaping. Sa they can now choose haw many feet they want. I suppose that is really it again, the findings of fact as prepared by Planning and Zoning pretty much have covered our issues except these. Any questions? Morrow: Yes, Mr. Witherell, and you can give me a real brief explanation. I am not real clear in my mind in terms of the paver pole easement with the service power poles that service apparently south on Locust Grove are at a distance back from Locust Grove and do they access down Franklin Road ar came across the back of your property? witherell: They came across the back of the properties. Morrow: So they would bisect this particular property that we are talking abaut'~ 1l11itherell: They would be between our properties, my pole, the pole from my hawse is about ~ feet over into the development, the area to be developed. They are strictly for those houses, there are power lines on Franklin Raad. These were put in there when that area was subdivided by, I can't remember the name of the Family, Frost I believe back in the 6g's. That is why we checked to see if there was an easement. Marrow: UUhat you are desiring to protect is that easement apparently the easement doesn't spell out a width for the easement for those power poles. 1Nitherell: Right, it is an unspecified width but it is a specific easement, in other words it is a filed legs! easement. That means the power company reserves the right now to come out there. 11~e are asking for this landscaping and we want trees that are grow aver, you know up to 30 feet. They have to be able to get a truck in there to take those poles out, they are getting old. Perhaps that will be next year or perhaps it will be in ~0 years when the tress are good size. Sa they want the right to came out and say okay we want this ~ D feet first before the landscaping starts. That is all that easement really is. f Meridian City Council March 4,1997 Page 27 Rountree: Have you had an opportunity to review or even see the proposed development agreement? witherell: No, we have seen the CC&R's, we are flabbergasted by the CC&R's. These CC&R's have a clause in there that they will preserve every mature tree on the property as far as practical. Now there used to be one there but they cut it down before they wrote the CC&R's. So [don't think, as far as they have same legal validity but we would not want the developer to decide without any conditional use or design review what he thinks is appropriate behind us and leave it up to the CC&R's. we asked the City to set the standards we are doing that because the CCB~R's have no standards either. They simply said it is prohibited that you annoy the neighbors but what does this mean? Corrie: Any one else have any questions? Thank you Mr. witherell. Robert R. Smith, 335 South Locust Grove Road, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Smith: well I would like to clarify one thing, I understood Mr. Lee to say they would like a conditional use on this property and if I understand that properly that we would never have another say so on whatever business comes in on each lot that might affect us. I think we need that to be, in case we would object to what facility is ever put in there we need that for our own use to protect us. Secondly, there is a big issue going an right now in Boise with Home Depot with noise levels because the customer didn't meet the cvnditians of the agreement there and I can see that this could happen to us very easily if we don't have as Mr. witherell said either a barrier fence or more than just trees. The trees that they are proposing are going to be about probably 5 to 6 feet in height, they are evergreens, their growth period is going to be 25 to 3o years before we really have a barrier between our properties at this time. That isn't going to be a sound barrier in any way, shape or form during construction and during the times that that businesses or whatever happens at that time goes into place. I would just like to voice our concerns and hope you take them into consideration. Thank you. Corrie: Any questions of Mr. Smith? Anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony? Ann witherell, 215 South Locust Grove Road, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. witherell: Mr, Lee mentioned the neighborhood meetings where he believed he had addressed our concerns. He did discuss the landscaping at the second meeting after he discovered that a 5 foot sterilized strip as a transition is not quite good enough. He offered us a 19 foot strip with some pine trees and asked which one of us is going to mow it. we complained about the chain link fence because it is not a barrier far sound or light or dust or noise. He told us it had to be a chain link fence so that when our Meridian City Council March ~, ~ 99l Page 28 power poles need to be serviced that our power pales could be serviced through the chain link fence. It is easier to take that dawn. Completely ignoring the easemen#. Also, on those Scotch Pines, if you ever have any pine trees in your yard, as they grow one of the first things you do is chap off the Iower branches so you can mow under them so it is not such a fire hazard and rake out the needles. That will leave us looking at tree trunks and a chain link fence if it is left as Mr. Barnes proposes. Also, I would like to Shaw you something an the plat that was hastily covered up. Gn this area map it Iooks like the nearest housing is here at Locust Grove Heights Subdivision ar over here the Greenhill Estates Subdivision. It looks like that is the nearest housing, it is light industrial along here, R•1 housing here down to here, here, almost to the freeway. Also, completely down this side of South Locust Grave Road as well. Gn the other side it is R-~ ail the way to the cemetery, so it is surrounded by R-1 housing. It is not light industrial area, it is a residential area. The Tamura property here that has been recently annexed is buffered on Franklin Raad by C-G. It is not all I-L so it is basically a residential neighborhood. I also want to reiterate haw important it is to realize that on our water right, we are not sure exactly where the easterly boundaries area, we know it was awarded to us here and the westerly boundary was the cemetery. So all of this water here is used by the people along Franklin Road, Locust Grove Road, possibly beyond as our sole source of potable drinking water. if that gets polluted and with light industry especially with these CC~R's which are developed far an industrial area and not on top of someone's water our properties would be worthless. Uvhen we mentioned this to Mr. Barnes at the neighborhood meeting he told us it was not his problem that we should take it up with the City. So that is why we are mentioning it, he wanted nothing to do with it. When we mentioned any other concern other than the landscaping and what we wanted on the irrigation ditch he didn't respond. So the meetings, it is good that we had the meetings sa that we could at least get a feel far what he was proposing but we do not feel that he addressed our concerns, Any questions' Cowie: Any I have one, we talked quite a fewtimes about properties our there, and I am not being facetious and you know I am not. You talked about the chain link fence and the Scotch pines, da you have anything that you would like to see there since the chain line fence and they cut the trees. Vllhat would be apropos if we approve that, what would be your idea? Witherell: If it is going to be light industrial , we need a sound barrier, a light barrier something to keep the dust out. There are two directly affected parties who have chronic asthma. Mr. Lee has, in Planning and Zoning addressed the dust issue by saying that during the construction phase he will have water trucks out. But after construction is, there has to be something long term. So we need a masonry fence. We believe it if was a ~ foot berm with a masonry fence an tap it would blend more with our back yards. Gur property, my roof line is gash ~ Z or ~ 5 feet from the property line. Same thing with same of the others, they are right up there, right there. That is awfully close to have living next to an industria! complex. Gne more thing, we have contacted a couple of Realtors. our residences if this is approved will drop in value between ~g°/o Meridian City Council March 4, ~ 99l Page 29 and 4g°/~ and that is if we are lucky enough to find a buyer who just can't wait to live next to an industrial area. So our property values will ga down if this is approved. Corrie: Anyone else from the public that would like to testify? Jim Bayd, 9~7~ Shalan, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Boyd: The Commission, I would like to address just a few issue and I will let Gary Lee address issues regarding the issues because I think the intent is to be sensitive to the neighbors and the concerns that they are raising. I have been in the industrial real estate business for aver ~ 9 years and I have seen a Iot of different types of developments throughout my career. I have to say that the development that is being proposed is certainly one of the higher caliber projects in the area. !know, one ofi the things that work has gone into is the covenants and the restrictions that are going into do the development. As was stated earlier having a ~a foot landscape buffer behind the sidewalk on the street in the project. Having a requirement that the buildings not exceed 5fl°Io of the lot on the build out, Also, the requirement that buildings even though a metal building can be allowed but not be 1 gg°/~ metal buildings so we don't get what we see in same of the industrial develapments, just a minimum type development in terms of the building. But that there be mixed exteriors beside the metal. Some of the prohibited uses trying to establish a project that fi#s well within the community. Gur emphasis should be to establish parameters that are reasonable far all of us to live within bath on the government and the private enterprise side of things. That would be ail that I have to say. Currie: Are there any questions? Any further testimony firam the public at this time? Bonnie McKague, 885 South Locust Grove Raad, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. McKague: I live right behind the police academy and we have a sound barrier of a chain link fence. If you are sitting in your house and you have about five ar six police cars with sirens, lights going round and round far hours there is no protection. vVe hear it, it scares you half to death when it first starts because you think my gad there is a horrible accident. And you get up and Iook all around and it dawns an you, it is the police academy. Sv far them to say that a chain link fence and trees are going to stag noise we don't even have the trees we just have the chain link fence, very much mistaken. Thank you. Carrie: Anyone else that would like to issue testimony? Council, questions of Staff? Gary would you like to answer any questions that were brought up tonight? Lee: As we discussed, these things pretty much came up at the P & Z meeting during the public testimony. we are sensitive to their concerns about contamination to their Meridian City Council March 4, ~ 997 Page 3~ drinking water. This development will proceed under the guidelines of the State and Local regulations far water quality and protection of those items. UVe did include in our CC&R's and also in our development agreement language concerning lighting, concerning sound and times of operation for the facilities. Vlle are trying to accommodate some of the neighborhood concerns. The dust issue was discussed as well and we talked about after development the gravel parking lots requiring yearly maintenance and a dust abatement programs to maintain that dust level. ~f course during construction water trucks are available to take care of roadwork as it commences. Vllhat is interesting about the utility poles, the easement didn't show up an the search and on the title report. I guess I would like to see what that easement says, if it is an easement or just a work order. The vicinity map was discussed, I guess take exception to it being surrounded by R-~ uses. There are only two small R-~ zones on the county map and one of them is at the northwest corner of the development. The other properties are zoned RT and the current use is agricultural and pasture lands. Of course you have ail been out there and are probably aware of what is there. V11e did talk about the irrigation ditch, I guess I didn't unders#and Mrs. V1litherell's comment . We met with Bob Smith and Mr. Pressley on the site and walked that ditch, talked about their concerns. Talked about how the piping system could be used to enhance their water delivery. ~f course that is certainly our intent. If you have any ether questions about the testimony I would sure address them. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I have a couple of questions. The first question is that have you dune core drilling to see if there is an impervious layer of sails at some level that would protect the water supply? Lee: UVe have done some excavation pits there to analyze the soil types. There is a layer of hard pan that is in those excavations. In fact Mr. Smith brought that to our attention at our first meeting that there is a fairly dense hard pan layer fairly close to the surface. That is one of the reasons it has caused them some flooding problems in the past in their basements. The water that has been placed an the pasture land of this development migrates to the east because it is downhill, lands an that impervious layer and then moves straight east into their crawl spaces and basements. That is what has been causing that problem. So there is a limiting layer between this surface area and their 95 foot level. Morrow: I guess part of the question is, is it sufficient enough to protect the domestic waters at the 95 foot level Lee: I don't know that I could answer that without doing some water quality testing to see what the quality of the water is now. Morrow: The next question is that in my packet there was a letter and I believe that Chairman Johnson had an identical letter from the States who apparently live to the western side of this development and it is indicated that Mr. Barnes has agreed to Meridian City Council March 4, 199 Page 31 install a B foot chain link fence with gray vinyl slating to buffer a home and has agreed to do this for the length of lot 3. This fence buffer with the vinyl slating is satisfactory to us. we understand that Mr. Barnes will provide a 1 ~ foot landscaping strip on the east side of the fence when he develops lot 3. Is that agreement actually in place between Mr. Barnes and the States'? Lee; Yes it is. Morrow: I did not see it alluded to in any place in the findings of fact and conclusions nor the development agreement of the CC&R's. Lee: I don't believe it is in the development agreement, it certainly can be if the City desires. Morrow: Thank you I have no more questions. Bentley; Mr. Lee, you spoke of this hard pan layer, if that is going to be the case throughout your parking area haw are you going to contain your run off water? Lee: well they will have to use some sort of surface wells, maybe some biaswales there area number of ways they can do that. !twill percolate to a point, but there will have to be some special consideration given to that along with sand and grease traps. Rountree: I am going to give you my trick question, define upper end? Lee: well I guess when John and I first started talking about this project his vision was to build some facilities in there himself, have them be built in such a way that it could be partitioned off and leased to small businesses that require somewhat of a store front maybe same light retail far their business maybe like a plumbing business, And also have room in the building for storage of their wares or maybe a chap, something of that nature. But it was intended to be more geared to a smaller user at least on the ones that John is entertaining and that will be the ones along Franklin Raad. But the sense is with the restrictions that we are imposing upon ourselves that we would solicit purchasers who are looking for a little more value in what they are buying and hopefully have a higher sense of ownership to get a better quality business in there. That is certainly the intent of the CC&R's and the requirements that we have placed for landscaping and setbacks and types of buildings and that sort of thing. Rountree; There was a comment made about a rumor that was out there with respect to the earner lot on Locust Grove and Franklin that in fact the developer had an option an that property and envisioned some type of commercial activity. Lee: well as you know Monty McClure owned all of that property and still owns the piece that has his house on it, it stretches over to Locust Grove. I am not entirety r Meridian C ity Caunci I March 4,1991 Page 3~ certain on what John's option agreements read other than the fact that he has purchased part of it, but not ail of it. I do know that he was skeptical about buying that other piece from Monty because of the wetland issues that Jim Witherell had mentioned that ran along Franklin Road. Plus the fact that it lies pretty law and would be a difficult piece to develop. But I certainly don't think at this point he has any desire to buy that ground. You can ask him that l suppose yourself. Rountree: He looks like he might answer. Thank you, there have been several mention the possibility of a berm primarily for sound it appears but it also could provide same visual buffering. What are your thoughts an that? if you visually buffer the development then one would wonder why the extensive landscaping would be required, is that something you have thought about? Lee: (Nell certainly it has been discussed, we talked about masonry walls and at one time there was mention in one of our neighborhood meetings that they would like to have 5v foot masonry wall with flags on top of it. But I took that in jest. It was talked about it and there were discussions about varying sizes of landscaping and we ended up with the 2v feet and the Scotch pines to meet the City ordinance. A certain amount of berming I suppose could be done but those types of things create cost problems obviously and maintenance problems too. Rountree: I have a copy of that easement for you. l have na more questions. Morrow: I would like to da a fallow up question with respect to the landscape areas. Are those common areas and Iots that are owned by the proposed owners association and maintained by that association? Lee: They are to the extent of the piece along Franklin road the 35 foot strip and the Zg foot strip along the east boundary. Although along the fronts of the fats where we have required in our CC&R's that they maintain a ~D foot wide landscape strip that will be maintained by the business user. Although, l might point out that we intend to require a certain type of planting along there sa that the look remains the same, the same type of tree and the same caliper. Morrow: So your proposal has the perimeter landscaping #hen around this as being owned by the users or the owners association and the individual lots would be landscaped to a spec provided by the CC&R's? Lee: That is correct. Corrie: Any further questions of Mr. Lee or the developer? Lee: I was just looking at this easement, the only comment l have about this is it says E /~, NE, NE /~ Section 18 for location. l don't know where that is, it covers a big piece of Meridian C ity Counci I March 4, ~ 99l Page 33 ~. ground which is typical of Idaho Power back in those days, a lot of #hem were that way. Just wherever the pole goes is where our easement is. But we will take care of whatever requirements they may have. Carrie: Thank you, I will close the public hearing at this time. Council any questions of staff or comments? Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I would like to ask Shari if she has had time to review the updated draft of the proposed development agreement and what her comments are on that`s Stiles: Councilman Bentley, Mayar and Council l did Iook at it briefly just tonight. I didn't want you to think because it said it was updated per our meeting that it indicated had been through this and reviewed it and that this reflected all of my comments. believe that it is possible to set up a development agreement that would be restrictive enough to cover all of our concerns. I guess I would prefer that those uses adjacent to the residential use would be restricted to the conditional use. But again this is just a draft of the development agreement. if you will note on exhibit B, page S of the development agreement, the second paragraph says that the developer acknowledges and agrees that the lot owner will not be required to submit to the City an application for conditional use permit. That should be stricken in its entirety because there may be some uses that would require a conditional use. Other than that as far as going through this entire agreement, I have not dune that. Morrow: Follow up question Mr. Mayar, Shari on page 2 of the proposed development agreement, item 2 B, it says "further for those Tots identified as lot B, ?, 8 and 9 of block 3 the following permitted uses within the I-L shall be allowed only with an approved conditional use permit by the City." Are these the lots that in fact border the residential uses'? Stiles: On the east side yes. Morrow: And for those two, if I am interpreting this correctly for those two uses, then they are proposing to do conditional uses for those two uses, then the City would set the conditions of approval for whoever might have one of Chase two uses or a variation of those uses. Is that correct? Stiles: That is what they are proposing. Morrow: Mr. Crookston have you seen these proposed CC&R's and development agreement? Crookston: I have not reviewed them, l believe that I have seen them but I have not reviewed them. Meridian City Council March 4, ~ 99?' Page 34 Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would have one final question. Mr. Crookston is there a substantial difference in terms of testimony and the presentation of the proposed development agreement and CC&R's which would have occurred after the P ~ Z meeting that would require new findings of fact and conclusions to be written? Crookston: No there are not. Morrow: So P & Z had the opportunity tv review this concept of development agreement? Crookston: I don't know about the development agreement, I am just talking about the testimony. Morrow. And CC&R's? Crookston: l don't know that the P & Z reviewed the CC&R's or not, they may have 1 just don't know. I would also say that it is rare that Planning & Zoning sees the CCB~R's they may have seen them. Generally they do not, they may have in this case however. Morrow: The point of my question is that the findings of fact from the P & Z talk about conditional uses for the lots and these have been presented spelling out conditional uses for certain lots. As a means of identifying prohibited uses such that conditional use wouldn't be needed for the remaining lots that seems to me to be substantially different than the P & Z findings that are prepared far us. Crookston: That is true, it is my understanding this property is in a mixed use planned area which does require conditional uses on all proposed uses. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, follow up question for Mr. Crookston, on item 1~ on page ~g of the findings of fact and conclusions, it says that it is concluded that the City could annex the property and zone it I~L light industrial. Once the property was zoned I-L ligh# industrial the applicant inaudible} without additional approval from the City. Sa I am confused, by virtue of that statement does that mean conditional uses wouldn't be required? Crookston: Mr. Morrow, I did not prepare those, John Fitzgerald prepared those. So I can't specifically indicate what his referencing was or the language that he used. Vllhat I stated about it being in a mixed planned use area was just my understanding of what it was, where the property was located and what the requirements were in our comprehensive plan and our zoning and development ordinance. Morrow. I have no further questions Mr. Mayor. I guess not having any further questions and no one else (inaudible) Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 3~ Rountree: I had a question, you pointed out the mixed use comprehensive classification of the area and it would require a conditional use far this area. End of Tape} what bearing does that have on it? Crookston: Councilman Rountree, it is my understanding that the comprehensive plan designates that area as a mixed planned use area. we don't have that designation in our zoning ordinance. But we have followed the guidelines of the comprehensive plan for other developments. V11e did that with Eagle Partners, we did that with Fred Meyer, not just Fred Meyer but that whole development. And I believe several other areas. Because it is in the comprehensive plan, the comprehensive plan is a guideline. It is not like a zoning ordinance which is a mandatory controlling device. It is up to the Council as to haw much they want to follow the comprehensive plan. I would just say that in the past and in the recent past the City has done that. Technically you do not have to do what the comprehensive plan states. Rountree: Thank you, go ahead Mr. Morrow. Morrow: I guess for paint of discussion, it seems to me in light of, I would like to have the staff and the City Attorney review both the prapased development agreements and review the CC&R's, have their input back before us. If in fact that is going to be acceptable to the Council it seems to me that it ought to be part of the findings of fact and conclusions and I see if those are incorporated substantial difference between the findings of fact that we have before us and what they aught to be addressing those other issues that P & Z didn't have an opportunity to address. Sa, I guess from my perspective I would like to see these issues reviewed ar proposals reviewed by our staff to see if they are doable. Both within the ordinances and from a legal standpoint. And address the questions of conditional use on the designated fats. I would like some input back from the development team in terms of the soils and the protection of the domestic water. So, I think that from my perspective we need to do a little more work here or our staff does and kind of clean up same of these issues that are hanging out there. Rountree: To carry that a little further, I know in previous planning discussions that we have had specific to design review, one of the options that we have considered is development agreement to establish criteria for design review. This is really the first instance where we have seen that prapased. I would like to explore it a little more in the way you suggested ~lllalt. It gives us an opportunity to look at it, Tolsma: I agree with both of them. Corrie: Council, would you like to continue the public hearing under these auspices or do you want to have it still (Inaudible) Meridian City Council March 4, 199 Page 38 Morrow: I think that my preference would be to continue the public hearing sa that we can have the input back from our staff from the City Attorney, the development team's response and certainly for those within the neighborhood far any issues that they may bring up that would be appropriate to the things that we have talked about and we are laboring with tonight. So my preference would beta continue the public hearing. Bentley: Mr. Mayor, I would agree, I think we need to continue on with this so we can get better input from the staff and the legality from the City Attorney. Corrie: Mr. Crookston, do we need to vote on it or da we just continue it? Crookston I think it would be appropriate to have a motion an it and vote on the continuance. Rountree: Mr. Mayor, I move that we continue the public hearing an the proposed annexation and zoning to I-L by Properties West Inc. Bentley: Second Rountree: To March 18t". Carrie: Motion made by Mr. Rountree, second by Mr. Bentley to continue the public hearing on the request far annexation and zoning to I-L by Properties West Inc, to March 18t" meeting, any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Gpposed'? MGTIGN CARRIED: All Yea Crookston: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Lee indicated in the first portion of his presentation that he was treating the item 12 as being part of item 1 ~ . I think that the Council needs to probably open the public hearing and see if that is what is desired to be done and see if there are any comments from the public. And to see if either group wants to incorporate what they stated in the annexation far their testimony in the preliminary plat public hearing. ITEM #12: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MEDIMONT SUBDIVISION BY PROPERTIES WEST, INC.: Corrie: At this time l will open the public hearing, Gary. Gary Lee, JUB, 250 S. Beechwood, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Lee: As stated earlier in the annexation public hearing I think we addressed the items with the plat. Talked about the subdivision in quite a lot of detail. I will confirm to the r l,. Meridian City Council March 4, ~ 99l Page 3l Council that we will make every effort to get some soils information on that limiting layer and also any potential ground water impacts. We did have a soils engineering firm evaluate that soil initially and hopefully with the information they have they can give us a recommendation. So if there are any other questions about the plat I can answer I will be glad to at this paint, Crookston: I just have one, do you desire to incorporate your testimony that you gave on the annexation and zoning into this public hearing on the preliminary plat? Lee: Yes I da. I would like to make one other statement before !leave. Yau discussed the development agreement and how it addresses Conditional use permit. The section that talked about requiring conditional use permit for specific uses are two items in the current zoning ordinance that is an allowed use in I~L zone. Sa what we have done is included these two thaf felt were probably mare objectionable to be, to require a CUP. But the intent on the rest of the development is to comply with City zoning ordinance, if a conditional use is now required it is still required under the development. And if the draft didn't came across quite that clearly it was certainly the intent. Corrie: This is a public hearing, anybody else like to speak on the request far preliminary plat? Crookston: Just as a question tv those that testified an the annexation and zoning is there anyone that does not desire to have their testimony incorporated from the annexation and zoning public hearing into the preliminary plat public hearing. I see no one stating that they do not want that done, is that correct? Thank you. Bentley: Mr, Mayor, I would make a motion that we continue the public hearing far the request for preliminary plat for Medimont Subdivision by Properties 1!1lest Inc. to 3-~ 8- 9l. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Bentley, second by Mr. Rountree to continue the public hearing an the preliminary plat until March 1 Sty meeting, any further discussion? Hearing none, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: Ail Yea ITEM #13: MARTY GOLDSMITH: DISCUSSION OF SALMON RAPIDS SUBDIVISION: Corrie: Mr. Attorney? I Mer~d~an City Council March 4, ~ 99l Page 3~ McColl: Mr. Mayor and Council and for the record and for any members of the press who happen to be here, my name is Brian McColl, I believe we have now reached a resolution of the issue that is one the issue that is on the agenda for discussion purposes. Just briefly when we last addressed the issue of the plat for Salmon Rapids No. 3 we were seeking some direction from the City Council before submitting a revised final plat as to how to deal with the lots in the southwest section of this plat. At the last meeting we had a sense that the Council was not in favor of installing a lift station in that southwest corner. But rather would prefer that the final plat be in accordance with the preliminary plat to wit that several ar that section of the plat be left for development until the Ten Mile trunk was extended on. And the question that was before us was how many Pots would have to be left out of the final plat. we had a meeting, the engineers and the developer met with the City Engineer. Wlle had originally on the preliminary plat that perhaps as many as 37 lots would not sewer in the Ten Mile. Gur engineers having done the mathematics on it came to the determination that all but ~ 6 lots could sewer into the Nine Mile. The City Engineer has came to the conclusion that it would be better to leave out as many as 23 lots. Accordingly, although we don't need the City Council to take any action on it, it is our proposal that we will now submit an amended final plat, platting of the total original 75 lots only 52 of the lots. Leaving unplatted at this time 23 of the lots in the southwest corner. The other issue that I think that was raised, should we proceed in this fashion until the Ten Mile trunk is extended making the southwest corner developable what really would happen to that property. That property of course has been annexed, it is subject to a preliminary plat that calls out for its development when and if the Ten Mile Trunk get pushed down there. So when we submit the final plat we will submit a proposal that land of course be continued although not platted continued to be awned by the developer. The developer would be there for responsible far the maintenance of it. vVe would propane that the property undeveloped property be imposed with the restriction that the maintenance be such that the property be seeded, such that the property would be irrigated and such that the property would be covered by the perimeter fence of the platted area. !n other words the perimeter fence would ga around both sections of the property. To the extent the subdivision in all of its phases wanted to have some sort of temporary use of that property it would be made available but it would be clearly spelled out that it would be on a temporary basis. If anybody has any questions I would be happy to answer them. Rountree: I have none, I think that answers the questions I had in terms of lots and the City Engineer's concerns. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, my only question is far Gary Smith, you are okay by this proposal? Smith: Councilman Morrow and Mayor and Council, I think based an what we have done north of this piece which is referred to as Salmon Rapids No. 3 that we are probably consistent even though we spilled over in#a the other drainage area. I think that you can tell from the contour lines that where I have drawn the yellow highlighted line approximates a bit of a ridge there where it drops off pretty fast to the southwest. I `, ~. Meridian City Council March 4, 1991 Page 39 guess there is still a bit of a question on capacity and the Nine Mile trunk, but it is really hard to put any kind of a technical number against that what might happen scenario. I think the thing that we need to continue to keep in mind is that we protect the specified drainage areas. That we don't take land out of these areas and allow them to drain into adjacent drainage. Because of capacity in the pipes and because of future extensions of the interceptors. V11hen you take that land out basically you have just subtracted that much passible commitment to extend the interceptors into that drainage area. But I think with the 23 lots dawn there it is a sizable piece of property that the developer would still have interest you might say in seeing that the Ten Mile trunk is extended. 1111e da get away from the lift station situation as Mr. McColl commented an. Corrie: Thank you very much, we appreciate it. ITEM #14: WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES: Corrie: delinquency far turn off schedule 3-4~9?. This is to inform you in writing if you choose to you have the right to apre-determination hearing at ?':34 P.M. Tuesday, March 4,1991 before the Mayor and City Council to appear in person and be judged on the facts and defend the claim made by this City that your sewer, water and trash bill are delinquent. You may retain counsel, this service will be discontinued an March 1 Z, 199? unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present that wishes to contest their water, sewer and trash delinquency. Seeing none you are hereby informed that you may appeal to have the decision of the City reviewed by the Fourth Judicial District Courk pursuant to the Idaho Code. Even #haugh they appeal their water will be shut off. The amount of the turn off list is $34,11 x.56. Council, I wi11 entertain a motion for the delinquency list. Talsma: Sa moved Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Tvlsma, second by Mr. Rountree far the delinquency list turn off schedule to be approved, is there any discussion? A11 those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #15: APPROVE BILLS: Marrow: i would move that we approve the bills. Bentley: Second Meridian City Cauncii March 4, 9 99~ Page 40 Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Bentley that we approve the bills, any further discussion? A[I those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #~ 6: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: Carrie: Gary? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council, da you have, I hope you have copies of the bid document ar bid results for our clarifier project at the waste Uvater plant. Morrow: we do. Smith: Mlle had an excellent bid response, nine bidders. The bids were opened at 3:~D P.M. on the 27th of February. The bid ranged from a low of $5g6,g~0 to a high of $191,66. The low bidder is Turnkey Inc. from Ontario, Oregon and the low bid is $6g6,gBU. As a matter of interest or an item of interest Turnkey also was a contractor for us to construct the pump and pump house at well No. 16. They did a very good job on that project. Tolsma: All of the bid numbers are correct (inaudible) $190,000 difference between the top and bottom. Smith: Yes sir they are. The only phone call i fielded was from Richard Jordan who wanted to know if our recommendation was going tv be to you to award the bid to Turnkey. I told Mr. Jordan that is what our recommendation would be. Marrow: Mr. Mayor, in terms of an Ontario, Gregon contractor, is there a differential involved there? Smith: I don't know if there was one ar not. Marrow: Is one required because it is an out of state bidder? Crookston: It sticks in my mind that the statute states that they have to be as low as they would be in their awn state or it makes na difference, with regard to these bids i don't believe that there is a problem at all because they are so much lower. Smith: Is that a percentage difference that they have to be at feast sa much a percentage lower than an in state contractor in order to be the low bid, is that what you are saying? Meridian City Council March 4, ~ 99l Page ~1 Crookston: It is something like that Gary, I can't recall it specifically. There is a deal, what it amounts to is if they would be treated as a low bidder in their own state and they are still low bidder they can have the job. If the way inaudible} if the bids are computed differently in their state and they would not be low then they can't have the contract. I will have to call and get it out for you to take a look at it. But there is a vast difference between the low bid and the next bidder is there not? Smith: $32,800 which would be a little more than 5%. Marrow: I think we need to check that because far same reason in the back of my mind it sticks that there is a 5°/o differential cap that goes on out of state bidders. The question in my mind is if Gntario is determined to be out of state far purposes of Idaho bidding. Crookston: Uvhat would be the point there is where Turnkey Corporation is incorporated, not necessarily where they have their office, da you know where they are incorporated by chance Gary? Smith: I don't know right of hand not. Griginally when they bid the 1Nell No. ~ G project they were in I want to say Emmett and they were in the process of moving to Gntario at that time. So I really don't knowwherethey are incorporated. Crookston: Gary, the name Turnkey Construction I believe was a Boise corporation. Smith: Years ago it was, but this is a different fellow. This fellow is from Trammels in fact he is a Trammel employee from several years ago. Corrie: Well it looks like we had better make sure. Morrow: I think I want to make another comment here is that Ran talked about the spread from low to high as being $~ 90,BOa and that is true. But I think the thing that is a testimony to a jab well done by the City staff in terms of writing their specs is that essentially the first 5 bids, really the first B bids are incredibly close and within the normal ~ D deviation guidelines when you have that many bids on that amount of dollars and that narrow deviation it tells you that the contractors all saw the project pretty much the same way. It means your architects and engineers and staff did a hell of a jab of putting it all together sa that it came out that way. So I think that I would like to give that group of folk that are our employees kudos for doing a nice jab there. The second thing is that with respect to the differential I want to make sure that we have that issue ironed out before we award the bid. If the counselor was still here I would ask him if we could award the bid subject to resolution of that differential question. Rountree: So let's defer this and move on to something else. Meridian City Council March 4, ~ 99l Page 4~ Marrow: I think that is a good idea, !et's press onto something else. Smith: Just one other item, I put together same information and ruses for picnic shelter use in the park. I meant to get this to you before the resolution was adopted. This is something that we want to include as part of the reservation form for associations, individuals and groups when they reserve this shelter. I would like to pass a copy of this out to each one of you and have you look at it and make you comments if you have any and send them back to me and we can regenerate this thing and kind of finalize it. Rountree: llUhat is an astrojump? Bentley: (Inaudible) Smith: It is a little enclosure that has an air compressor that pumps air into the floor and it is a bouncy thing for the kids. I will go over to my office and grab a copy of the bid documents and see if there was anything specific in there. Bentley: I have a question, it says use of alcohol is permitted by permit. Carrie: They can get a permit by the City. Smith: You have to get a permit. Crookston: Mr. Mayor, I believe that I have the statute that references the out of state bidders right here. I can make sure that it hasn't been changed in the supplement, which it has not. V11hat the statute states is to the extent permitted by Federal laws and regulations whenever the State of Idaho or any department, division, bureau or agency there of or any City, County, School District, Irrigation District, Drainage District, Sewer District, Highway District, inaudible} road District, Fire District, inaudible} district or other public body shall let or bid any contract to a contractor far any public works the contractor domiciled outside the boundaries of Idaho shall be required in order to be successful to submit a bid, the same percent less than the lowest bid submitted by a responsible contractor domiciled in Idaho as would be required for such an Idaho domiciled contractor to succeed aver the bidding contractor domiciled outside of Idaho on a like contract being let in his domiciliary state. I thought it was a little bit confusing. Rountree: It is a penalty if you are from out of state and your state has a penalty for us then. Crookston: Let's say a bidder from UVashington can be bidding against an Idaho contractor can out bid him by ~°la then when the vVashington Contractor bids in Idaho he has to be 4°/0 lower. Morrow. (Inaudible) 1 Meridian City Council March 4, 1997 Page 43 Smith: And at this point if Gregon has such a restriction. Crookston: Right now I do not know. {,. I Marrow: I don't know either Gary. Mr. Mayor, Mr. Crookston can we approve the bid authorizing the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest pending verification that it is in fact a bid that meets the statute? Crookston: Yes you can, but you need to state what happens if it is not a good bid. Morrow: If it is not a good bid then I think the provision of the statute is that it goes to the next low bid. Rountree: Is that a motion? Morrow: I will make it one if you wish. Mr. Mayor, l would move that we award the bid for the primary clarifier addition to Turnkey Construction Inc. in the amount of $BgG,DOB pending verification by the City Engineer that the bid does in fact meet the Idaho State Statute far out of state bids and should this bid fail to meet that statute then the award would be next to the next low responsive bid, and authorize the Mayor to sign and the Clerk to attest upon the execution of either one of those two conditions. Rountree: Second Carrie: Mvtian made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree, any fiurther discussion of the motion as given? Hearing none, all those in flavor? Gpposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council. Rountree: Gary, an this list I would add the hour at which the restrooms would be closed and we talked about that, that they would be closed probably ~ 1:OO. So I think that would be a good note an the information sheet. That is the only thing I can think of. Morrow: I guess my response is I agree with Charlie, everything else is fine sa we can get this in that packet that Will and Bob are putting together for that stuff. So that you guys can press ahead. Rountree: So with that response Mr. Berg can we expect likewise? Berg: (Inaudible) Meridian City Council March 4,199 Page 44 Corrie: Ms. Stiles Stiles: Rea! quick items, the ,dim Carrie property, you remember they applied for a variance for the planting strip setback on the property just east of the Texaco on Fairview at Fairview and Barbara Drive. The variance was denied, I have had same discussions with the owner and apparently Walt has had some discussions with the architect, he feels that he has been blind sided and I would like to know if there is any direction at all that I can give them. The findings indicated that you felt the five foot was too much of a variance but could you give me any ideas of what you might consider or do you strictly want to stick with the ~g feet. It is a very restrictive piece of property to develop, Walt and I went out and measured the site. I think as far as some of their parking off Fairviewwe felt that was probably not a doable deal so they probably would have to reduce their building sire. But I was wondering if there was anything at all that could tell them as far as what you want to see there. Carrie: Council pleasure? Mr. Morrow? Morrow: Well, Shari and I took the plans, we went out and laid out the building as proposed and then looked at the project. !have to tell you that from my standpoint as a contractor the proposal would be really difficult technically to build. Not only it is close to existing homes but there is a substantial elevation differential along the site with those homes. So there is case inaudible} but setting that aside from the technical aspects is that really they were asking for variances from about three things, the front setback, the rear setback, side setback and landscaping requirements within those setbacks. When you look at the property the property is definitely one of those properties that is a bastard piece of property and if we are going to see something develop there we are going to have to give some breaks an what it is going to take to get something there other than semi-trucks parking on it each night. But I am not prepared to support the project as was put forward in terms of their deal. It just doesn't work. Having said and Shari and I discussed if it was our project and our property what would we do. I don't have any gaol answers for it, I don't know. I don't know howta get from point A to point B. Tolsma: I went down there and walked around it and kind of paced it off. I don't know if there is any configuration that he had there that is viable. Even if you took all the landscaping out of there and granted all the setbacks there is nothing that is going to work on that piece of property, As a matter of fact I went down after the hearing and looked at it again because I thought I missed something. But it is the same piece of property. So I don't knowwhat the answer is either. Bentley: i have been out there too, I went out ane time by myself and one time with Wait and there is a huge elevation difference between them and the trailer park back there and they have only got a chain link fence. I don't know what they are going to do ~; t Meridian City Council March 4, ~ 99~ Page ~5 with that, what they are going to be able to do with that piece. If the canal wasn't there you would be in business. It is definitely too big to try and throw a pipe in. l don't know what the answer is, but nothing I see is going to work there right now. Rountree: I guess my question not being in the building trade but is it prohibitive to look at same kind of concept that would elevate the building proper and provide some parking underneath it and utilize more of the lot by having the canal underneath? Morrow: l think #hat is viable, the problem is the parcel of property is pretty small and the configuration is add, if you had a rectangle ar square you could da something with it. I really think that the salvation of the property probably is that some paint the concession by Nampa Meridian to cover the ditch as the highway is covering it which is big enough for a person to walk through certainly easy enough to service in that manner and in other locations of the City of Boise at least. I am thinking right off the top of my head of the Franklin Shopping Center and Meadow Gvld wiry those institutions are built totally an tap of canal systems. Glenn is right the mall has a portion where there is a water way that goes underneath that. I am somewhat curious about Nampa Meridian's reluctance to !et that happen. Naw having said that if you cover it does that make it economically unfeasible to do a project there? Parking under drive through, parking under typically means that you have a ~ ar 3 story building to make it work. You have got to have some useful inaudible}. !t is certainly a concept that can be looked at. At the current time it is a real tough piece to da something with. If somebody came along with a suggestion that Shari thought might have some merit to it and if there were some concessions we could make to get the thing developed and get it out its current state I would be all for that. Rountree; [ think as it sits now it is an eye sore. Stiles: I will give Mr. Carrie a call and see where we go. Next item, I just wanted to let you know that I will be meeting with Marty Goldsmith and Jim Carberry over at the Schaoi District on Thursday discussing the Los Alamitos schaollpark site. If you remember that was the roughly ~.~ acres that the school district has an option for a certain number of years. I will let you know what happens after that. The third item I just wanted to report my conversation with Eric Mondel at Idaho Department of Health and Welfare regarding these intermediate care facilities that Mr. Halley was concerned about. He indicated that there is na nationwide recruiting to get them to come to Idaho. That they are primarily Idaho residents. That he indicated the same thing that Walt had said is that the attraction is the cast of the ground, the cost to build the facilities aver here. Also indicated that they will act an any complaint that they receive. He said that they immediately investigate any of those complaints. The maximum is a total of eight residents and that also the school district receives Federal funds for the education of those children, I don't know if there is such a disparity between what they get and what it actually casts them. I just wanted to clarify that a little bit for you. That is it. Meridian City Council March 4, ~ 997 Page 4B Rountree: Da we know where all 13 of those are in the community? Stiles: I have asked for a list they are available from the Health and Welfare Department. Rountree: So we can at least keep them at the required level, Stiles: Yes, thank you. Gordon: (Inaudible) Crookston: Chief of Police Bill Gordon and I had a discussion today that involves a difference between what he desires and what the City Attorney's office is doing and it revolves around a personnel matter somewhat and I would like to have the Council gv into Executive Session. Marrow: Sv moved Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded to go into Executive Session, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea EXECUTIVE SESSION Corrie: We are returning from the Executive Session it is not ~ 1:3U in the evening. Mr. Crookston? Crookston: Did you want to take any action an the Executive Session. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to research the City's procedures with respect tv the handling of infractions and citations that may be issued by our police department. Tolsma: Second Carrie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Tolsma, any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea r,. c Meridian City Council March 4, ~ 99l Page 47 Crookston: The last thing that I have is i have been asked by Jim Jones who is the attorney far Voigt, I can't remember Mr. Voigt's first name, Gary. Vaigt. He has asked that the City sign a form which indicates that Mr. Vaigt and Mr. Wolf I think, excuse me Mr. Graves that they donated some land to the City. They have the form here and we are not stating an the farm that it was of a certain value, we are just signing to state that they did donate the land to the City and I am requesting that the Mayor and the Clerk sign this. It is an IRS form, form 8283 for anon-cash charitable contribution. I wil! present this to the clerk because he is the keeper of the record and ask him to present it to the major for proper execution. Morrow: And the question is you need a motion for the Council to authorize. Crookston: I believe that we do. Morrow: All right, I will make the motion that the Council authorize the Mayar to sign and the Clerk to attest the document far the donation by Gary Vaigt and Craig Groves in terms of lands to the City of Meridian. Rountree: Second Currie: Motion made by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree, any further discussion? All those in favor? Gppased~ MGTIGN CARRIED: All Yea (End of Tape) Carrie: Mr. Morrow? Morrow: The only thing that I have is on the rough draft, I would like to add in terms of departments assessor space, recorder space. I do think that the fiscal space aught to be far the next ~0 years. Inaudible} I don't know that I, on the rough draft for requested proposal for space inaudible}. The time line seems fine with me, it is probably a bit aggressive but we can try and beat that. The next issue that I have, have we ever received a letter of resignation from Becky Petersen with respect to the Air Quality deal, we gat that letter of resignation. Inaudible}from her to resign from the Air Quality Board. Corrie: l was thinking there was another you mentioned. Marrow: She is on the transportation task force. Corrie: Did she resign from that? Meridian City Council March 4, ~ 997 Page 48 Morrow: Well if she is outside the City and outside the impact area she would be required to resign from that also. And in the fallow up to that is we have that letter of resignation then it is appropriate to present her with a plaque thanking her for the service at the next City Council meeting and have something engraved and make that presentation thanking her for her service. The response, your response to Bab Mc~uade concerning his setter, we briefly have discussed that and the response is great. The next issue is that have we gat the information back yet from Jo Bolen concerning my desire to see $25 or $3D to the employees from the insurance savings and the handling of that? Berg: Yes l did talk to Ja briefly about that before she went onto another audit. She said whatever you give to the employees, taxes all taxes would have to be taken out of it. So this whatever amount you thought you would give would be reduced. She made some other suggestions, she wvuid like to task to us when she is here for vur audit and maybe give you some of those suggestions of what other places do. But she says that other entities usually don't give that because you have to take the takes out sa the gift isn't as rich as it is meant to be. Morrow: But anyway we have an avenue now that we can discuss that and follow up and make a decision as to what it is we want to do and when will she be here for the audit, it is the end of March is it not? Berg: Yes, the ~4t" of March. Morrow: The next question is did you talk with Jo Bolen about the meeting that we need to have between you, I, Jo and Wayne in terms of (inaudible) Berg: Yes I did and the only closest or the soonest dates would be the 17t" or ~ 8t". Morrow: Sa set's pick one of those based an her convenience and then we can do that meeting. That meeting Bab to refresh your memory is working with heron the proposed ordinance to create the building and planning and zoning department basically as an enterprise fund issue. While we are discussing that just for your information by virtue of the Building department report that we received in our boxes today we are running 29°/° below a year ago today in terms of building permits. That is going to have some financial impacts far you and your departments if there has been funds used from that revenue source, you need to start making preparations or be aware that those funds may in fact not be there. Sa start watching very closely, we are now five months into the building year and we are 29°/° besowwhere we were last year at this same point in time. Sa that is kind of a word of caution and it behooves us to stark paying attention to that number because it wile be a substantial revenue drop if that number holds out. That is it. Carrie: Mr. Bentley? Meridian City Council March 4,199 Page ~9 Bentley: I have a long list but I forgot to bring it. So I have nothing. Rountree: I will follow suit. Carrie: Ran? Tolsma: (Inaudible) I was wondering about this letter we got from Hawley Troxel about the traffic signal (inaudible) St. Luke's (inaudible) or Jackson's Texaco. Morrow: I think Ron !can answer part of your question is that based on the proposals that we have had from ACHD trying to force the frontage rand across inaudible} that existing traffic signal and the inaudible} in terms of putting the frontage road on those people's back doors that it is probably in our best interest to encourage the moving of the traffic signal to that location so that those lots don't get double fronted by anybody's proposal or what ACHD's desire is Tolsma: (Inaudible) Morrow: St. Luke's bought off on this (inaudible) no objection to it as long as they don't have to pay (inaudible) because they paid for the first one. (inaudible) Morrow: And that may very well be the case and we may have to make that. Carrie: Two things, one thank Charlie that maybe you didn't realize this yet but a deal was just made tonight that Councilman Morrow will act as the contractor overseeing the Generations plaza free of charge. He gave that to us and that was very nice of him. The position of Planning and Zoning Commissioner, I have talked with Mr. Ron C. Manning about the position. You all have the application that I gave in your box. I talked to him also Mr. Jim Johnson has talked to him and said that he would approve of his application. He was also recommended very highly by our Gary Smith, Gary gave me a letter and I don't know whether I gave that you or nat. Ran is a single gentleman, he is B1 years old, he is retired, well I don't need to go over that, you see that. I would like to get this thing moving here and he is an active citizen in the community. So I would like to recommend Ron C. Manning as a Commissioner for the Planning and Zoning. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, da we know the seat number that is filled. Vlle were going to number the seats so that we could kept track of them and so that if somebody opts to retire earlier than we appoint the remainder of the term to the seat. Da we have a seat number so that in my motion to approve inaudible} Meridian City Council March 4,1997 Page 50 Berg: We da not because I have researched the old minutes and it is so should I say, I can follow bread crumbs better than l can that. I have not (Inaudible} Morrow: Ullhat I would like to do is we just appointed one here not too long ago that could be seat one and its rotation started then and this could be seat ~ and its rotation starts now and then the next ones that expire could be 3 and 4 and then 5 and you have your two year rotation going on inaudible} B year terms. Corrie: So Seat ane would be Keith Borup he was the last one. Morrow: That would be correct. Rountree: You can go back as far as Greg, you have a record on that one. Berg: My only cancers was that Jim Johnson's expired this year too along with Jim Shearer's and I do not know why we have two people expiring during the same year when you have a 5 year term and you have 5 Commissioners. That is what I was trying to research also with how we got the same year. Marrow: The issue is haw we correct that then is we have one far last year, we have one for this year and then the next ane that comes up for expiration or to be filled we get back on the scenario so that you are having, you shorten one or you da something to have one expire each year so that your rotation works. Then no matter what body fills it the seat still continues on a six year cycle once you get it straightened. Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the appointment of Ran Manning for Seat #2 to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made by Mr. Marrow, second by Mr. Bentley that we approve Ronald C. Manning for Seat #~ to the Planning and Zoning Commission, any further discussian'~ Hearing Wane ali those in favor? apposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: I have nothing else, do you have anything? Berg: The meeting for ACRD joint commissioners, you got the memo. We need to get agenda items or topics to them right away. So if by tomorrow if you have those to Gary yr myself. Meridian City Council March 4,1991 Page 51 Marrow: Let me ask you this, are you buying the bicycle built far two so the oldest guys of us can get there on our bicycles ar what is the deal. Berg: The meeting is here. Marrow: It doesn't matter. (Inaudible) Corrie: (Inaudible) don't want to have bicycle lanes (inaudible} I will entertain the famous motion. Morrow: So moved Tolsma Second Corrie: All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:43 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ERA D. CORRIE, MAYOR ATTEST: c• '~~~i~rt~~ ~~ tf ~ ~~~ j~'~~, r~4~~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ +:~ ~ ~~fi ~ r~ "' ~ .s lAM G. BERG, JR., CITY LER ~ ~~~L .. ~. ~' ,~ ~; ~~~ MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, MARCH 4,1997 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 18, 1997: r,~~~ro~~ MINUTES OF SPECIAL MEETING HELD FEBRUARY 18, 1997: Gcp~ol-a/~- 1. TABLED FEBRUARY 18, 1997: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR ASHFORD GREENS SUBDIVISION BY BRIGHTON CORPORATION: ale i~~~ ~r~~ ~'~Y~~ 2. TABLED FEBRUARY 18, 1997: CC&R'S FOR TROUTIVER BUSINESS PARK BY JIM BALLANTYNE: Cl~~arotr~ CC~P-`J ~ ~lf~ ~~~"~` ff`~'r{s ~~ ~ 3. TABLED FEBRUARY 18, 1997: TED CUNNINGHAM: REQUEST FOR HOOK UP TO CITY SEWER AT 125 BLUE HERON LANE: a~~rd~-e- 4. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST BY BUILDERS MASONRY: a,~oP~-o~e ~ accept ~~-e- /e~~h off' Wiz~-~2 df-a~ 5. ORDINANCE #753 -LID 97-1: 6. AMENDED RESOLUTION #161 -PARK FEES: ~c~~rove ~ s ~--e c~ c~ 7. FINAL PLAT: CROSSROADS SUBDIVISION NO.5, 37 LOTS BY CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT: aP~orov~v 8. FINAL PLAT: SUMMERFIELD SUBDIVISION NO.5, 39 LOTS BY GARY VOIGT: ~~p~aroN-ems 9. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR USE OF MODULAR BUILDINGS BY MERIDIAN ASSEMBLY OF GOD: Gz~i/Jrv~P ~r~r~a:ea° ~l~ ~~% ~PrO~/'Q GC~C~~'iir~ 10. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION/ZONING TO I-L BY MICHAEL AND MICH LLE MURASKO: ` Cen7~~.e~ ~f~l,~~:~ /~'~,~z cam: l~~!~ ~~. 11. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION/ZONING TO I-L BY PROPERTIES WEST INC.: r` 12. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR MEDIMONT SUBDIV~I~S ION BY PROPERTIES WEST INC.: G~O~2 ~~7~Ytue Q~~1 ~~i:C~ h/~i~.c~ `8 13. MARTY GOLDSMITH: DISCUSSION OF SALMON RAPIDS SUBDIVISION: 14. WATER/SEWER/TRASH DELINQUENCIES: ~L,p~~~~-~ 15. APPROVE BILLS: G~~J~i~~~~ 16. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER: 1. BID RESULTS: PRIMARY CLARIFIER PROJECT: B. SHARI STILES, PLANNING & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR: 1. JIM CARRIE PROPERTY: 2. LOS ALAMITOS SCHOOUPARK SITE: 3. INTERMEDIATE CARE FACILITY: Ll"1'Y UN' ML~'K1ll1A1V PUB';fiC MEETING SIGN-Ll_ SHEET ~-Flfi i~4/ i~~~i,'I v~ ~ ~.,~,.,rn•l~ /I/o/(oa /~>eu~f PHONE NUMBER ~srSr-~,Fs ~.~ u- ~% 5 l `7 v ~~_ I~GN ~, ~~G cc P~ ~~6-7~~ r a~ m s N O 0 L U 'C m a 9 h m~ m ~, m~ c ~, ~p m~ ~m or~~'u~o~nrnooco a~ m av~r~rn~na~~ooh o 0 ~c .°~ mc~irN•vvcovcDa~o~o~ ~ c'~oi~orivaitiuio~ W ~[LNCONh{')'~rNNld *' 6F} 6~} r r G9 r- 6F} d'} b3 fO ~ c a3 dg ~ 4A O Q V ooo~oooooo mm ~°v~~°o°o°v°v°o°o c~ oov r~ooovv cc ~ $vooooo000 ~ ~ ~, ricvoo~i$o~oc °c °c oooaoooov c v, NmNOh o oc~ ~, mooooovoooo o,c~, mhrncoooa~-vcaNw ~' c ~~rio~tiuiovviuic~~ Uw"c .Uaihc~cvuitiooricati ~ CNOOh~(''7't1'b9Nr~ L. ~~ `'Nr('7l~}N006P}Nr4y 0- bF} 6F} r r f}3 r ff? d} rG q N a d~ r r (y Lf} r' 4f} FA I~ b9 b9 d°} d~ C Q d~} bg H9 b9 i~ ~ ~U F- U dS oo^^oooooa mm ooooovoooo mm 0oooooaovv cc o000ooooov cc riaoviai~ior:ooc~ ~ = ooooovoo©c ~ ~ rnorr~rnu~mou~ o000oooooa o~ yfDl~(DN~1'NrL'~N~ o+, mvooooooaoo ~.~oMriuiaioaorio~ ~, c.moouiooovaniviaoc~ ~U ~=~'7h~(+~Nh~(gNd' ~'U Cll7Ni1)Q'(']fANr~-~t 7 = a d~ d3 r~ e~-~ d} r~- d3 d4 !D ~ O ] Q. 6f} r r r !f3 r df} ff3 ~} h C N b°! ff} b'} f~ N N bF} Eli !A ~f! 4f} C C C C O p l~1 O UU U)U c o^oa^ooooo mm oooooaoa o $o ro ooovvvo^oo cc ~, ooovoooo 0 0 ~ o~ocvrioaiori ~ ~ c r~~Nr~tiaico~m~ o~'r~ooNmo~~ m hNNQI'~!'("1('1~7'C~} v o0 ~ p±_ m^rQ7('') QrrQ~CO C' .w ~o0NNC71~hcDti7oDi''f p°^ J C UI,nNfrJ(r]i~~l]Q1htn W G C,UhcDhN©0!^NhC~ ~('? ~ ~, 4~} d°} b4 6~ ~ d~} 69 d~} 6F} il} L N C U C [~ U w '~ ~ ooovovoooo mm ~ 00 0ooooov mm vooovoooov c:~ ~ ao~aoooooo cc ~ aoo~niuivoor:o ~ c ~ ~$aovvoaoa ~ ~ c hoNMO~c~ooho o ~ $ooovo^o ~- ~ mN^lf]4NN^o~-o (] O„ moo oornovoa~ ;, c.~~=oooc~raoc~ca _~ c.UooovNtiv~uiui ~ ~ `-C~71f1(+7rNr~'NrG C ~] `NNrNNd't-Nrd1 d' Er} bt! r r Lf} N 6p! lf} d3 ~D ~ i ~ 1f3 r N r H3 r" ffl !$ fA tD d'} ER 4f} ih ~ ~ fR 1~} 6~} b9 4R C F- ~ U ~~JJJJJJJJJ~ ~iJJJJJJJJJ plrrrr~^-rrrrl ~rrt-~-rrrrr a a a o N ~ N ~ ++ ~ _ ~ ~ ++ C ~ CC Y ~~ ~ ~~ ~ Y 7 ~ G m=c a ~ cQ .~ m ~ '~ ~ N ~ ~+ O ~+ mcc a o ,~ .v ~ '~ ~ N ~ cQ O ~+ ~ ~ N ++ Q l0 C ~ d ~ ~ ~ rn ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ tE1 C ~ ? w ~ ~ ~ ~ v ro ~ ~ a'aQ~U a ~ ~~~ ~ ~ O~~ a'aa~U a Q ~ , a c c c rn~ ~~ o c~ ~ ~ c O ~ m ~ ~ . ~ = rna'~~ p ~~ ~ C 3 ~ a ~ ~ C l _ C ~ +' ~Y ~W~'+m-+ N G1fC O~ *'' N p~ q m m- C •V m p d _ ~N'Y.O'WQ',a; (O I71~ N p [L U p 41 ~ .U ~[1. q} 41 U = 3 ~ D1 ~j m :r ~, 4, D} U N ~ m "Q 'F:. ~ C U ~ U 'C 'Q ~ w U ~•?~ iw CA ~j 4~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ .,. ~ O V C U w ~~ ~ D1 '~ ~ UU c~ [1 o~i~~vu~U~d nU~a ~N~Ur 3 ~•--NC~~cnwhcoo~ ~ T fN('rl~tt'7(~ho0Q1 ornh•-ornooa~n cnr~NO~rar~hovu~ vc~~titioc~oooni (DhrGD~}ot")QV(D N o h Q CA N 00 N (D s- oorvcomv~ioc~titi Nh4('7(~(Dr-NrC~7 r~ +- r f0 b9 tf3 4R b4 64 to H°l d} d9 ~} ~- m rn i i /"eCei~re~ 3-~-~7 ~j~ ~~ ~ Information arld Rules for Plc~ic Shelter Use - A drinking water outlet and 110 volt power outlet are at or adjacent to each picnic shelter. - The use of alcohol in the pazk is allowed by City PERMIT ONLY. - Volleyball is allowed but user must supply the equipment. - Horseshoe pits are available for use near Shelter No.l. User must supply the horseshoes. - Barbecuing is allowed. User needs to furnish the barbecue equipment. - Astrojumps are allowed. - A pay telephone is available at the swim pool entrance. - A restroom is located near each picnic shelter as shown on the location map. Please help us keep these restrooms clean and functioning. - The following restrictions apply to all areas of the park: • No horses. • No unleashed dogs. • No glass beverage containers. • No loud music. • No vehicles on grass. • No dunk tanks. MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk ~~ Dade: March 3, X997 RF: Joinl Meefing wifh A CHD Ccmmissr'cners Friday, Marcf~ 14f1~, X997 3:40 PM City Council Chambers Meridian Cify Hall Please submit a lisp cf agenda items cr topics to me yr Gary Smifh by Wednesday, Marcf~ 51h, ~ 99 T. ~. ~.. ~; MERIDIAN CITY CGUNCIL MEETING: March 4 9997 APPLICANT: ITEM NUMBER; 94 REQUEST: WATERISEVI~ERITRASH DELINQUENCIES AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: CITY ENGINEER: CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: CITY POLICE DEPT: CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: /~ MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: Y-~ 1/ ~~/ V" ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US WEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All I~laterials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of IVleridian. RECEIVED MAR - 4 1997 G'fY OF AiERIUTAN DELINQUENCY FOR TURN OFF SCHEDULED FOR 03/04/97 MAYOR: This is to inform you in writing, if you choose to, you have the right to a Pre-determination hearing at 7:30 P.M. Tuesday MAR. 4,1997 before the Mayor and the City Council to appear in person to be judged on the facts and defend the claim made by this City that your water, sewer and trash bill in delinquent. You may retain council. This service will be discontinued on MAR.. 12,1997, unless payment is received in full. Is there anyone present wha wishes to contest their water, sewer and trash delinquency? No response. MAYOR: They are hereby informed that they may appeal ar have the decision of the City reviewed by Fourth Judicial District Court, pursuant to Naha Code. Even though they appeal, their water will be shut off The amount of the turn off list is, 74-2744 KEVIN ABBOTT 67.31 1254 ~ CREST~VDDD DR 74-274 JOHN FRENCH 45.16 1295 V~' CRESTV~(~DD DR 74-2914 GARY YaUNG 106.1 ~ 13 51 ~ GREE~DDD DR 74-3072 CHAD & STACEY LYTLE 50.62 992 VV LEON ST 74-3076 FRANK STDPPELLD 52.96 103 5 E LQ~N ST 74-3096 DAVID KDPET 87.41 1075 ~ EGRET DR 74-3248 RICHARD GARNER 56.46 495 S PELICAN IVY ., 74-3300 DONALD MUDRE 67.31 1244 VLF GREENHEAD DR 74-3 3 3 6 KENNETH ILG 82.63 1525 '~V GANDER R 74-3342 HOME ART BUILDERS 47.76 1463 V~' GANDER DR 74-3 5 5 8 ERIC BRAENARD 5 5.52 969 ~' '~VALTMAN DR 74-3 802 NBKE DUNN 5 5.82 93 0 W~VALTMAN DDR ' 74-3524 BARBARA BULLIS 66.12 703 S PELrCAN'L~Y TOTAL SHUTOFFS ~-f -~----------- AMOUT $--~~ l1a ~ ~s~ y------------- 14100/95 235 $26,917.96 64 $6,695.95 11/15/95 181 $21,043.18 35 $4,211.14 1?J13195 261 $25,859.42 54 $12,519.57 2111196 246 $18,874.51 68 $5,347.35 3113196 258 $19,934.89 38 $3,154.20 4110196 262 $21,055.55 58 $4,101.91 5115196 196 $16,980.06 38 $2,113.32 6112196 263 $19,521.28 45 $3,291.16 7110196 21l $16,444.58 64 $5,610.89 811196 137 $13,860.07 98 $9,750.21 914196 142 $16,315.14 96 $10,800.14 1011196 1 l3 $20,416.27 138 $16,339.93 1116196 225 $26,517.15 65 $?,815.25 1213196 364 $40,442.27 81 $9,014.00 11719? 254 $14,513,21 114 $10,116.82 214191 309 $21,739.14 81 $1,711.21 31419? 377 $34,112.56 ~'~f'I~~C~r~Nt~3~~~~C~'}~~7N1~ o~I~~c~N~MI`aDl`~N~oDC~I ^ ^ r ^ ^ ^ ~ ^ ^ r a ^ r r r ^ C~ N ~ ~? r !~- ~ N ~ h~ OQ C'~ CO ~ e- ~r 'Aw n w w /~w y+ w n M.~ ~ ~ ~ `- CDt'~~~~?~}~`ct~f3~4~q?~i~00rGd ~ ~ ~U ~4 ~l 1~ ~ ~ ~D GQ 00 ~ ~` I~ ~D I~ r ~t tD ~t~etOdCO~?~?N~?Dr"NT'NN~~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . t~ r~ o~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~] ~ cD t~ CV c~ 4~ N r ~' CLa (` i'7 L~ 00 N'~ ~ T` e"" r ~' e"" (r7 r w w w w w w w w rh w n w n w w F w NN~t-rNrr"rrr(1Jtti1 r-CVM ~~~~~~~~f~~~ ~~~~E~ C~CDi~~#'~"}tDC~ LQr~~rI~N~~C]M ~Vt^.NNNNr~tVN~-r~c~-NC~NM~3 ~+ ~ t"' ~~r'N~IN?'~~~~ ~ r ~ r MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 18 1997 The Special meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Robert D. Corrie at 7:95 P. M.: MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Marrow, Charlie Rountree, Glenn Bentley, Ran Tolsma: OTHERS PRESENT: wi11 Berg, Wayne Crookston, Dan Howell: Carrie: I will open the special meeting for City Council. This is a public hearing far LID 91-1, Cherry Lane Village Subdivision No. 1 fence improvement project. I will open the meeting, is there a representative of the LID here? I will have you come up, I think the Council has all of the information and they have reviewed. Does the Council have any questions? Crookston: Since this is a public hearing he does have to be sworn. Dan Howell, 1541 Interlachen Way, Meridian, was sworn by the City Attorney. Corrie: Council, any questions? Marrow: Far the record could we have him give us an overview of where they have come from and where they are headed, those types of things. Howell: okay, where we have come from, obviously there is a problem with the fence deteriorating on the south side of our subdivision which borders there an Cherry Lane. UVe have been trying to work on trying to improve that. The conclusion that we came up to was to establish an LID so we can get a common fence that looks alike. The LID gave us the means of financing it to establish that fence line. So the specifications that we came up with and sa forth was mutually compatible with at least our minimal amount of number to establish the LID. We got the information that we thought we were going to need and established that, got the information and presented it to the City Attorney and Clerk. They have initiated things from there and we are just here in response to that. Corrie: Comments or questions Council? Is there anyone else from the public that would like to issue testimony in this special meeting? Seeing none, Counci! any questions of staff? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, for the record Mr. Craokstan could you review, you have reviewed the resolution and all of those and everything is in order? Craokstan: Yes it is Meridian City Council Special Meeting February 18, 1991 Page 2 Corrie: Any other questions, hearing Wane I will close the public hearing. Council, pleasure? We will need an ordinance drawn up by Mr. Crookston. There are no findings far this hearing is that correct? Crookston: Na there are Wane. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance for LID 91-1. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we instruct the City Attorney to draw up an ordinance for LID 911, any further discussion? Hearing Wane, all those in favar'~ apposed? MUTI~N CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: So we wil! get the ordinance up and get it started far you. (Inaudible) Haweil: So peripheral issues dust to expedite the implementation of this in regard to the exact fence location. I would like to work with the contractors that you procure and establish exactly where that goes and coordinate that with the Nampa Meridian Irrigation District sv the owners might have maximum space given to them. Then as far as establishing the property lines I would coordinate that with the property owners. If the two property owners can mutually agree an a property line then, because there is supposed to be a fence post on the property line. If the two mutual property owners can agree on that point and establish that should be adequate as far as I am concerned. I am asking that as a question. If not then the said property owners could have someone survey it at their expense to establish that point. Then there are also issues to be asked as far as regarding the, how to put the fencing around the entrance ways where the brick is already there. UVe would like, the homeowners would like a little bit of input on how that is installed, Like I said, I didn't include these things in earlier because I didn't want to encumber the document but I do want this shared as to clarify to help with the implementation of it. Thank you Rountree: Dvn, I have one thing you might pursue, ACHD or their contractor should have re-established property pins after the construction an Cherry Lane. If they didn't you probably ought to coordinate with them and see if they won't do that. t,. Meridian City Council Special Meeting February ~8, X991 Page 3 Howell: okay, that is valuable information. Inaudible} 1J~ell there are already existing fences if we just extend those it shouldn't be a problem, but just to keep it official if we need to. Crookston: Just far the Council's record, # have worked with the committee trying to establish this LID because i am a resident within the Cherry Lane Subdivision. i think it is a very good idea to have a common fence line that hopefully will look like it is dare very well and that has been my involvement in this project. I am not an owner of property that will be within the LID because I am back in Cherry Lane Subdivision Nv. ~ rather than No. ~ . But I wanted the Cauncii to be aware of that, that I have worked with Dan and the committee that was created and adopted and I think it is very good of the Council to go ahead and create the LID because I think it will significantly improve the fence would significantly improve the appearance of the Subdivision and far that matter Cherry Lane. Thank you Corrie: At this time I will close the special hearing meeting at 7:14 p.m. Crookston: You need a motion to adjourn. Corrie: That is correct so I will leave it up to you. Marrow: I move we adjourn the special meeting. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion made that we adjourn the special meeting, all those in favor? ~ppased? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 7:15 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: ERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR }. ~. l Meridian City Council Special Meeting February ~ S, ~ 997 Page ~ ATTEST: r LL~AM G. BERG, JR., CI CL ~ ~~. +r- ~ .r. ~ a` ~~~ ~ .~ w K Y ~ ~ ~- ~ ~~~~~ ~ i ~~~r~4 ~tf ~~~1~l~1 tlii~L~tiE~~ t ~ AMENDED RESOLUTION NO. lfil A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN PROVIDING FOR A FEE FOR RESERVATION OF AND USE OF MERIDIAN PARK PICNIC SHELTERS AND SETTING THE HOURS OF OPERATION OF CITY PARKS; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Pursuant to Idaho Code, 5~-30~, the Cit of Meridian y is required to make, and may make, all such ordinances b ~- y laws, rules, regulations and resolutions not inconsa.stent with the laws of the state of Idaho as may be expedient, in addition to th e special powers in Title 54, Idaho Code, granted to maintain t - he peace, good government and welfare of the City and its trade commerce and industry. WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City of Meridian to establish reasonable fees for the reservation of the icni p c shelters in the parks of the City of Meridian to reserve the ease p p and tranquility of the parks, prevent overcrowdin of the icnic g p shelters, and to provide funds far the maintenance of the arks p which reflect same of the casts that the City incurs as a result of processing the a licatians far rese pp rvation of the picnic shelters and some of the maintenance of the parks. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED SY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, IDAHO: 1. That the fees set f o~rth herein and adopted are reasonable and reflect, as closely as reasonably possible, some of the costs of the City to process the various applications and a ortion o p f the maintenance costs of the picnic shelters and the arks of the p City of Meridian and the hours of operation as set forth in FEE RESOLUTION Page - 1 paragraph FOUR below. 2 . That there is hereby adapted the fees set forth below f or the reservation of a picnic shelter in the Cit arks for the Y p period of time set f arth, as follows A. USE FOR 0 to 50 PEOPLE $ X5.00 B. USE FOR 51 to 100 PEOPLE $ 40.00 x$75.00 MAX. FOR ALL DAYS C. USE FOR 101 to 300 PEOPLE $ 75.00 x$100.00 MAX. FOR ALL DAYS The above reservation fees are for a four ~ 4 y hour eriod of time. Additional ti P me shall be charged at the rate of $10.00 per hour with a maximum reservation fee amount as set forth above. 3. That persons, associations, corporations, and other entities, desiring to use the Meridian park picnic shelters shall apply at the Park Superintendent's office for the use of a icnic p shelter, reserve a time of use of a picnic shelter if their r requested time is available, and shall pay the appropriate fee at the City Clerk's office. The City Clerk's office shall kee a p record of the scheduled times and fees paid for reservations. 4. If persons, associations, corporations, and other entities, using a picnic shelter have not reserved the time have not paid the appropriate fee, and or are using a picnic shelter at a time that has been reserved for another person association r ~ corporation, and other entity, they shall be removed from the shelter, either by City of Meridian park emplo ees or b the Y y Meridian City Police Department and they may be cited under 8-16 l8 FRAUDULENTLY AVOIDING PAYMENT OF ADMISSION FEES, of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian, for failure to a the pY FEE RESOLUTION Page - ~ ~. reservation fee which is hereby declared to be the admission fe e far the use of a picnic shelter. 5. A list of reservations for a particular icnic shelte p r shall be maintained at that particular shelter to inform the ub ' p lic who has reserved the picnic shelter and the time or times - - for which the shrelter has been reserved; if the reservations ha ve been removed from the picnic shelter the list maintained b the Parks y Superintendent and the City Clerk's office shall still be controlling. 6. The parks of the City of Meridian shall be o en and P available for use from 7:00 o'clock A.M. to 1Z:00 o'clock midni ght and all people shall vacate the City parks no later than 12:0 0 o'clock midnight . Picnics shall end at 11:0 0 0' clock P . M. which gives picnic users of the parks one ~ 1 ~ hour to clean u and va p cate the park. PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND APPROVED BY THE MAYOR QF THE CITY DF MERIDIAN- this 4th day of March 1997. APPROVED: r RT D. CORRIE- MAYOR ATTEST: ~~ ~ ~~~ ~ ,. ~ • .~ X WILLIAM G. BERG, JR.- G TY CL~I{ ~ ~ r '* ~~L ". r "'* A+ ~ r ~ w r ~r FEE RESOLUTION Page -~ 3 { .~ ~ yam= ~~~~~ ' ~y~~R~~ ,r~~ffFF~~f fii~lti~;~~~ Y.... _ 4.: F' j/ MERIDIAN CITY CDUNClL MEETING: March 4,_~ 99~ -. liY --ili Ill IIIl iiii•liiil•I • i ~ APPLICANT: ITEM NUMBER; 5 REQUEST: GRDINANCE #l53 - LiD 97"-1 AGENCY COMMENTS CITY CLERK: ~ ~ J CITY ENGINEER: ~~ CITY PLANNWG DIRECTOR: CITY ATTORNEY: ~/~ CITY POLICE DEPT. ~/Pt," 1' CITY FIRE DEPT: CITY BUILDING DEPT: MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT: MERIDIAN POST OFFICE: ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT: ADA COUNTY STREET NAME COMMITTEE: CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH: NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION: SETTLERS IRRIGATION: IDAHO POWER: US (NEST: INTERMOUNTAIN GAS: BUREAU OF RECLAMATION: OTHER: All Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian. ORDINANCE NO.~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, RE- ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING FINDINGS FOR THE CREATION OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, CREATING LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 97-1, PROVIDING FOR AND SETTING FORTH THE IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE, SETTING FORTH THE BOUNDARIES of THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, STATING THAT THE ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS IS $49,000.00, OF WHICH AMOUNT IS TO BE FUNDED BY ASSESSMENTS ON PROPERTY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, THAT THE $49,000.00 SHALL BE ASSESSED BY THE FRONT FOOT METHOD AND SHALL BE ASSESSED ON ALL PROPERTY INCLUDED WITHIN THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT HAVING FRONTAGE ON CHERRY LANE ROAD, AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ENGINEER AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING, UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, THE ADVERTISEMENT AND NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR BIDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION WORK; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION OF THIS ORDINANCE AND PROVIDING, PURSUANT TO 50--1?27, ID C_aDE, FOR A PERIOD TO CONTEST -THE LEGALITY OF THIS ORDINANCE AND THE PROCEEDINGS, AND AUTHORITY HELD AND GRANTED UNDER THIS ORDINANCE, WHICH PERIOD SHALL EXPIRE THIRTY ~ 34 ~ DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THIS ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, over 60~ of the owners of property within the District and fronting on Cherry Lane Road have petitioned the City Cauncil to create a Local Improvement District for the construction of a wood fence along the south boundary of those lots within the District which have frontage along Cherry Lane Road, and placement of gravel and a weed barrier along Cherry Lane Raad lots; and WHEREAS, the City Cauncil. and the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of said City to create a Local Improvement District along Cherry Lane Road, Meridian, Idaho, to be known as Local Improvement District No. 97-1, CHERRY LANE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION NO. 1 FENCE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, and established far the purposes stated above. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT pRDAIN ED BY THE MAYQR AND CITY CO UNCIL OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ADA COUNTY, IDA.HO: Section l: The Cit Counc' Y Il of the City of Meridian h ' aving held the hearing for the c ' reation of Local Improvement D' ' istrict pursuant to 50~1709, zd-~ Code a -~-._.~ nd the Council Navin heard g and considered all testiman and e ' y vldence submitted at said hea ' ring and the Council having found a nd hereby states its findi ' ngs In this Ordinance, that the creation of the Local Improvement Dist ' rict, the Clty Council hereby ado is ' p and offarms said findin s g and makes those findings again herein ~ as follows; 1} That Local Im rovement ' CHERRY P District No• 97-1, known LANE VILLAGE SUBDIVISION NO as the PROJECT, far the const 1 FENCE IM,PROVENiENT ruction of a wood fence ra portion of land between the - g veling the lacement fence and Cherry Lane Road A of a weed barrier, will b ' ' and the property affected a in the best Interest of in the District, and in t ' he Ca.ty. 2~ That there is reasonable ' of the Local probability that the obli at' Improvement District will be g Ions paid. 3 } That ,the value of the ro ' is sufficient p party within the proposed Distr' for all purposes, and s eci Iet .improvements which will be p f ically to fund the included wit ,paid by assessments on the ro hin the District, p party That the City Council furthe ' r finds, herein, that no ro e o p p rty wner presented testimony, evidence o ~ r cause sufficient to exclude his or her propert from t Y he proposed Local Im rove p meet District, or that his or her ro art p p y would not be benefited by the improvements, and the Council finds that the District boundarie s should be established as se ' t forth In Resolution 133 t - he Counca.l further finds that in excel s of 6 ~ $ of the propert owner ' ~' s within the proposed Local Im roveme p nt District petitioned the Co ' until for the creation of the Distr' ict and that such evidences that the District is desireable and ' In the best interest of the Ci ty and the f' 4 f residents within the District. Section 2: That the Local Improvement District is hereby created and shall be known as "Local zmpravement District No. 97-1 for Meridian ~ Idaho" ; that the boundaries of said District shall be described as follows: The boundaries of the district are located within the corporate limits of the City of Meridian and include lots and parcels abutting and fronting on Cherry Lane Road and shall be: Lots fronting Cherry Lane Raad on the lot's south side from, and including, Lot 6, Block 2, Cherry Lane Subdivision No . 1, to Lot 11, Block 2 , Cherry Lane Subdivision Na. 1, and including Lot 4, Block ~, Cherry Lane, Subdivision No, 1, to Lot 4, Block 6, Cherry Lane Subdivision No. 1, all Lots described, and including the full width and depth of said lots, Section 3. The City Council is of the opinion that said description is sufficient to adequately inform owners of the property proposed to be assessed. Section 4: That Local 2mprovement District No. 97-1, created above, is formed for the purpose of improving a portion of the fence which is in Cherry Lane Village Subdivision and which runs along the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District Eight Mile Lateral and the Settler's Irrigation District irrigation ditch and which are located north of Cherry Lane Road, and improving the ground adjacent to the lateral and irrigation ditch mentioned above, with the following improvements to be made on the lots within the above description as follows: A. Construction of anew fence to be constructed of six ~ 6 ~ foot Dog--eared Cedar #2 fencing with concrete set steel posts and an access gate for each lot except corner lots . There shall be a post located on the property line separating each lot from neighboring lots. The fence shall be stained to match the color, as it is on the date this Ordinance is passed, of the fence on the opposite side of the street, the south side of Cherry Lane Road. B. The area between the fence and the sidewalk on Cherry Lane Road shall be covered with a weed fabric, plus three ~3~ inches of river rack, after clearing and fine grading. Section 4: The estimated cost of the project is FORTY- EIGHT THOUSAND AND ND/104 DOLLARS ~$48,000.OOy. It is estimated that the LID No. 97--1 will raise $48,000.00 for the total project cost. The entire FGRTY-EIGHT THOUSAND AND NU/100 DOLLARS ~$48,000.00~ of the project cost is proposed to come from this LID and no cost will be paid by the City of Meridian. Section 5: All property within the boundaries, as defined above, will be assessed on the front foot method, that is per foot of property which fronts upon Cherry Lane Road and is within the boundaries of the LID District. The costs and expenses of the project to be paid from special assessments shall be assessed against the abutting, adjoining, and adjacent lots and lands according to the front f oot method ~ per foot of fencing ~ , as provided by Section 50-1707, Idaho Code, against all benefitted property abutting, adjoining, and adjacent Cherry Lane Road, Meridian, Idaho. Section 6: The estimated cost of the project is FORTY-- EIGHT THOUSAND AND NQ/100 DOLLARS ~~4s,ooo.ooy, but not to exceed SEVENTEEN AND 54/100 DOLLARS ~$17.50~ per lineal foot of fence, which shall be paid by the owner, or owners, of the lot being assessed, at the option-af the owner of the lot at the time of the initial assessment, either in one payment, on an annual, or monthly basis. If the cast of the project exceeds SEVENTEEN AND 50/l00 DGLLARS ~ $ l7 , 50 ~ per lineal foot of fence, the cost of the project shall be subject to the approval of the property owners but if the cost does not exceed that amount the total cost of the project shall not be subject to approval of the property owners. Section 7: That the Mayor and City Engineer are hereby authorized to proceed with negotiations for the appointment of an Engineer, if necessary, and far the drawing of the plans and specifications for the improvements; that upon preparation of plans and specifications the City Clerk and the City Engineer, or the appointed Engineer, are hereby authorized to advertise for sealed bids for the construction of the improvements. Section S : That pursuant to 5 0 ~-17 Z 7 , Idaho Code, provision far publicatian of this Ordinance in the official newspaper of the City is hereby made, as required for all ordinances, and for a period of thirty ~30~ days after such publication any person in interest shall have the right to contest the legality of this ordinance, or any action ar proceeding authorized by this ordinance; that upon the expiration of said thirty ~30y days no contest or proceeding to question the validity or lega~.ity of this ordinance or any action or proceeding authorized by this Ordinance shall be brought in any court by any person for any cause whatsoever, and upon the expiration of said thirty ~30y days after the publicatian, the validity, legality and regularity of this Ordinance or any action or proceeding authorized thereby shall be canclusi.vely presumed. Section 9: EFFECTIVE D~iTE: This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its pas sage and approval as required by law. ~.. PASSED by the City Council and approved by the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, this day of 1997. APPROVED: {~ MAYOR -- ROBERT D. CORRIE ATTEST: --- __ __ CITY CLERK -- WILLIAM G. BERG. JR. STATE OF IDAHO, ss. County of Ada, ~ I, WILLIAM G. BERG. JR., City Clerk of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true, full and correct copy of an Ordinance entit~.ed, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO, RE-ADAPTING AND AFFIRMING FINDINGS FOR THE CREATION OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, CREATING LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 97--1, PROVIDING FCR AND SETTING FORTH THE IMPROVEMENTS TC BE MADE' SETTING FORTH THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, STATING THAT THE ESTIMATED TOTAL COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS IS $49,D~D.O~, CF WHICH AMOUNT IS T4 BE FUNDED BY ASSESSMENTS ON PROPERTY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, THAT THE $49,Q~O.OD SHALL BE ASSESSED BY THE FRONT FOOT METHOD AND SHALL BE ASSESSED ON ALL PROPERTY INCLUDED WITHIN THE LOCAL IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT HAVING FRONTAGE ON CHERRY LANE ROAD, AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ENGINEER AND AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, AUTHORIZING, UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS, THE ADVERTISEMENT AND NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR $IDS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION WORK; PROVIDING FOR FUBLICATIaN QF THIS ORDINANCE .AND PROVIDING, PURSUANT TD 50-1727, IDAHO CODE, FQR A PERIOD TQ CONTEST THE LEGALITY OF THIS ORDINANCE AND THE PROCEEDINGS, AND AUTHORITY HELD AND GRANTED UNDER THIS ORDINANCE, WHICH PERIOD SHALL EXPIRE THIRTY ~30~ DAYS AFTER PUBLICATION OF THIS GRDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE." passed as Ordinance Na. , by the City Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the day of , 1997, as the same appears in my office. DATED this day of 1997. City Clerk, City of Meridian Ada County, Idaho STATE OF IDAHO, ss. County of Ada, ~ On this day of , 1997, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and far said State, personally appeared WILLIAM G. BERG. JR., known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. SEAL NOTARY PUBLIC FDR IDAHO RESIDING AT MERIDIAN, IDAHO MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL CF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN APPLICATION OF BUILDERS MASONRY PRODUCTS FOR A VARIANCE FROM ORDINANCE 5124 FINDINGS 4F FACT AND Ct~NCLUSIONS GF LAW The above entitled variance request having come on for consideration on February 4, 1997, and again an February l8, 1997, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said dates, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, and the City Council having heard and taken oral and written testimony, the City Council of the City of Meridian makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: FINDINGS CF FACT 1. Notice of the public hearing on the variance was published for two consecutive weeks prior to the scheduled February 4 , 19 9 ? hearing, the first publication of which was f ~,f teen ~ 15 ~ days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the February 4, 1997 hearing; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. The notice of public hearing is required to be sent to property owners within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the land being considered pursuant to 11-2-416 E . ~ 11-2419 D. ~ and 11-- 9-612 B. 1. b. of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and that this requirement has been met. 3. Ordinance 5.124, WATER MAIN EXTENSIONS, provides in relevant part: FINDINGS DF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW -~ Page 1. BUILDERS MASONRY PRODUCTS All proposed extensions of the municipal water system to serve undeveloped areas within the existing corporate limits, newly annexed areas or areas outside the corporate limits shall comply with existing water system extension policies and with the overall master plan for the City's municipal water supply system. Costs for all extensions to any property shall be the responsibility of the owner or his agent. When it is necessary to install oversized mains as part of an extension, the cast of all oversized lines wi~l be the responsibility of the owner or his agent. Such water line extensions, public ar private, shall be extended to the farthest boundary of the property. It shall also be the property owner's or his agent's responsibilities to install all necessary fire hydrants and City water service lines for all extensions of the municipal water system at no expense to the City. Unless a special permit is granted by the City, all municipal water system extensions, including the City water service lines, to newly developing areas shall be installed prior to the construction of any new streets. 4. The Applicant requests the grant of a variance from the above ordinance requirements, and not be required t~o extend the water line to and through the .Applicant's property. 5. The entire property in question is described in the variance application anc~~ is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 6. The property where the variance is requested has been annexed by the City of Meridian and is zoned Light Industrial. 7. The Applicant owns the property. 8. The Applicant's representative, Stephanie Churchman, testified at the public hearing. She testified substantially as follows. Applicant requests a variance from the "to and through" ordinance. She has reviewed the comments submitted by the Meridian sewer department, the Meridian public works department and FINDINGS CF FACT AND CoNGLUSI4NS DF LAW - Page ~. BUILDERS MASGNRY PRaDUCTS .. f .. . Properties West, and she has addressed, in writing, each of their concerns. With regard to the comments of the Meridian Sewer Department to hook up to the sewer system, the Applicant understands and agrees to pre-treat the processed water prior to discharge into the sewer system. An oil separator tank will be utilized in accordance with the City of Meridian's pre-treatment policy. The Meridian Public Works Department's comment that the Applicant did not participate in the cost of the extension, nor was it willing to aid in routing the 1995 sewer main installation as part of the Five Mile Trunk extensian to St. Lakes comes as a surprise to the Applicant. The Applicant was not notified of a requirement to participate in the cost for the sewer extension. The Applicant's representative met many times with consultants retained by St, Luke's and with the former Mayor, Grant I{ingsford, to find the best possible solution. During one of their first meetings a consultant suggested running the sewer line directly across the Applicant's property under the asphalt. The Applicant agreed to this suggestion if the construction wauld be completed prior to the beginning of the Applicant's busy season. Howeverr they [the consultants] stated that the construction could not be completed within the set time frame. The construction would have been extremely disruptive to the Applicant's business. The consultants apparently agreed and re~-muted the sewer line. The Applicant feels that the coordination of the prior sewer line installation should have na bearing upon the approval of this application. The Meridian public works suggests that the Applicant FINDINGS DF FACT AND CGNCLUSICNS 4F LAW - Page 3. BUILDERS MASONRY PRODUCTS be allowed to continue the use of the existing well for the production of masonry products only and that the Applicant convert the office/warehouse and block plant areas to the City water system. Under this application for the variance, the Applicant's plan is to have the office/warehouse area remain on well water and existing its septic system. The Applicant would make a decision to connect to the City's water and sewer systems far the office/warehouse area at a later time if that need exists. Demanding that the Applicant connect to the City water when it already has an existing well for the facility is unreasonable, and places an undue financial burden on the Applicant for services which are not needed at this time. Meridian's Public Works Department's comment that the Applicant would not realize a great benefit from the City's water system but would reap the benefits of the City's sewer system is accurate the very reason that the Applicant is requesting the variance. By connecting to the sewer system the Applicant would be able to wash its trucks on site and discharge processed water through the sewer system. The alternative would be to design a treatment and disposable system on site. There would be no benefit for the Applicant to extend the water main across the property since it already has an existing on site eatable water well which is in good operation and for which capital investments have already been made. With regard to~- Properties West, Inc.'s comments, the Applicant has stated that the hook up to the City water is not necessary for its purposes at this time. FINDINGS DF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 4F LAW - Page 4. BUILDERS MASONRY PRgDUCTS 9. The Applicant's representative, Stephanie Churchman, submitted written comments by letter dated February 4, 1997, which comments are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. ln. Properties West, Inc, submitted written testimony by letter dated January ~8, 1997, which letter is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. Propert~.es West, Int.'s testimony included that as a neighboring property owner and developer, it is not in favor of nor can it support the Applicant's request for the variance; that as a local developer it has always been required to extend services such as water and sewer as a condition of approval of any project which it has undertaken; that the Notice of Hearing far this application did not mention sewer line and whether the Applicant is extending the sewer line; that if the Applicant is not extending the sewer line, why not; that it is currently beginning a development process on property directly across from the Applicant's property on East Franklin Raad; that the extension of the sewer and water services will certainly be conditions of approval far my development; that it would be onerous and unfair to grant to Applicant a variance of this standard condition and subsequently require Properties West, 2nc. to incur the entire cast of extending the services; and that it requests denial of the application for the variance. ll. At the request of Councilman Morrow, the City Engineer, Gary Smith, presented his comments concerning the application. Mr. Smith commented as follows. He believes the request is to hook up to the sewer only. The City Engi.neer's concerns in past in FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 5. BUILDERS MASONRY PRODUCTS particular where just a request far sewer is made is how is the amount of material entering the sewer monitored in terms of quantity. He believes in this particular case, a suggestion was made that the Applicant connect at least part of the facility to the water system, because of the ordinance requirements existing today which permit the City Council to require a development or property that is within 304 feet of a City facility to connect within 15 days after notice. They do not have a problem with the Applicant using its well for its production of water. He does not know how much water the Applicant uses. He cannot recall who specifically was requesting to connect to City water, maybe Mountain View Equipment wanted to because they had an on site well, but he did not have a problem with that particular request; they are in the County. l2. 1n response to a question from Caunci~.man Morrow concerning whether a City ordinance allows for the monitoring of the actual flow or out flow from the industrial entity, City- Engineer, Gary Smith, stated that he does not think the City's ordinances are specific to the type of monitoring that would be installed, but there are electronic devices available to monitor flow on a recorder. 13. In response to a question from Councilman Marrow concerning whether the owner would maintain the monitoring device and the City would read it, City Engineer, Gary Smith, stated that a provision would have to be made and there is not such a monitoring device on the system at this point, none exists. FINDINGS DF FACT AND CCNCLUSICNS 4F LAW ~- Page ~. BUILDERS MASUNRY PRODUCTS ~ f. ~; 14. In response to a question from Councilman Marrow concerning whether the City has any numbers which relate to capacity demand from the Applicant and the type of discharge that the sewer would receive, City Engineer, Gary Smith, stated that he had no such information. 15. Jahn Schwartz,~an engineer for the Applicant testified substantially as follows at the public hearing. He was led to believe that there were other ways to quantify the flaws which are actually going into the sewer treatment system. Cne way would be for the Applicant to give its best estimate of and average how much water was generated from the industrial processes and from the wash racks, and be billed on that type of basis. The other mechanism is to place a flow meter that would measure the amount of flow over time, and from that one could calculate the volume that would be going out through the sewer lines. His concern is in addition to the question of the amount of flaw into the sewer system. The Applicant desires to hook up the block plant building which is probably 500 to 600 feet south of where the main line runs across Franklin. The Applicant is not considering hooking up the build~.ng which is up front, which is where the warehouse and office facilities are located. To best serve the Applicant's needs, it does not make a whole lot of sense to run the water line through the full length of the property and then run 500 to 600 feet to the south to the block plant because it wants to run a sewer line~to that particular facility. The sewer line runs to the east. It is about 400 to 500 feet to make the connection to the building. The.. FINDINGS 4F FACT AND CGNCLUSIQNS 4F LAW - Page 7. BUILDERS MASONRY PRGDUCTS requirement of running water across the full length of the facility and then all the way into block plant to accommodate relatively small flows is a pretty heavy requirement. The estimated flows are probably in the order of 15 to ~0 gallons an hour going into that facility. The flaws are pretty insignificant. The issue is that the Applicant wants to use the vehicle rack and run some other industrial drains into the sewer system. In his opinion it is best to estimate the flows to the system. Because of the nature of the use of the water supply, to use a flow meter on the supply lines to calculate the usage of the sewer lines is an injustice as far as the actual quantity of water going into the sewer system. Either a flow meter in line or estimating the quantities per month would be agreeable to the sewer district, which he thinks would be the best approach for the Applicant. 16. Councilman Morrow commented that the flaw meters of which he is speaking are actually an the sewer line, not the supply line. Mr. Schwartz stated that he understood the City Engineer's comments were to monitor and charge the .Applicant based upon flow into the facility. Gary Smith, the City Engineer, stated that Mr. Schwartz was correct and that is the requirement of the City's ordinance for a commercial business. Mr. Schwartz responded that monitoring and charging based upon the amount of f low into the facility is not representative of the amount of flow into the sewer system, as it would be in the case of a restrovm facility where the water into the facility generally matches the water going into the sewer system. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS DF LAW -~ Page S. BUILDERS MASONRY PRODUCTS r~ f., f S 1T. Councilman Morrow commented that certain processing facilities supply themselves with clean well water and then discharge major volumes into the sewer system, A city has na way to monitor that except by virtue of a flow meter an the sewer discharge line. In this case, he is suggesting the opposite; where the Applicant uses a lot of water in its processing facility, using that water usage as a means of calculating the sewage usage is unfair. In the Applicant's case using flow meters on the sewage discharge i.s the best and fairest way of monitoring the usage. 18. Mr, Schwartz agreed with Councilman Morrow's approach; however ~ he stated that to require the Applicant to comply with the to and through policy and run a water line the full length of its property because it wants to canned with the sewer system is excessive when they are willing to pay a hank up fee of $6,000.00 to $7x000.00 to defray the cost of running the line and building the f aci.lities . He stated further that to make the Applicant hook up to water when they do not need to is also excessive. l9. Councilman Morrow commented that the use of individual septic systems are rapidly coming to a close; that the issue here is if the hook up to City water is not required at this time it will be soon; that the to and through policy is a fair policy for the development of land down the liner that when this facility hooks up to City water after the water line is laid and paid for by someone else causes unfair enrichment to the Applicant, which he does not believe this Council or future Councils will allow to happen. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 9, BUILDERS MASONRY PRODUCTS 20. Councilman Rountree commented that what is being asked for in this application for a variance is only part of the equation; there needs to be an application for a variance from the City's ordinance requiring the hook up to City water. The City Attorney, Wayne G. Crookston, Jr., responded that if the Applicant is within 30 0 feet of City water ~ it is required to hook up to both sewer and water under the City's ordinance. The City Engineer, Gary Smith, commented that this is the case with the Applicant; the Applicant is within 300 feet of city water. 21. The City Attorney, Wayne Crookston, Jr., stated that the to and through applies to both the sewer ordinance and the water ordinance. In response to Councilman Morrow's question, Mr. Crookston stated that the Applicant would need a variance for both ordinances if they are within 300 feet of the City sewer and the City water. 2 Z . The City Engineer, Gary Smith, stated that the sewer line exists along the eastern boundary of the Applicant's property. The Applicant's only involvement in the sewer hook up would be to construct the service l~.ne from its facility to the interceptor. In response to a question of Councilman Morrow, Mr. Smith stated that the requirement to hook up to water is two fold, to hook up and construct the lines to and through the property. Mr. Smith stated further that the sewer line will cross Five Mile Creek, which he believes will require a permit from the Corp of Engineers . 23. The City Engineer, Gary Smith, requested that a metering device be required to measure the discharge to the sewer, and that FINDINGS GF FACT AND CCNCLUSICNS OF LAW - Page 10. BUILDERS MASONRY PRODUCTS the comments from the City's Waste Water Superintendent be required as part of the agreement if the application is approved. 24. In response to questions of Mayor Corrie concerning development on the east side of the Applicant's property and the. responsibility for installation of the water lines the City Attorney, Wayne G. Crookston, Jr., stated that who has responsibility depends upon the direction from which the water flow is coming; that if the Applicant installs the line to and through its property it has to pay for it; and that if the Applicant is granted the variance a condition of the variance should be that if the landowner adjacent to the Applicant's property wants to develop the adjacent propertyr the City would require the Applicant to extend the sewer and water lines to and through its property. 25. Councilman Morraw commented that there is a development application before the City Council for property to the east of the Applicant's property. The City Engineers Gary Smith, stated that the development to the east is the Tamura Berry project which is coming off of Lanark and Locust Grove extension of the water line for the first phase ~ and ~ that it will eventually extend down Locust Grove and Franklin, and then west along Franklin. In response ta` Councilman Marrows Mr. Smith stated that it is correct that this extension of the water line would complete the loop. 26. Councilman Bentley commented that the comments of Fire Chief Bowers is directed to the issue of completing the loop far the City water line. FINDINGS QF FACT AND CQNCLUSI4NS 4F LAW '- Page l1. BUILDERS MASONRY PRODUCTS ~7. Stephanie Churchman stated that there is a development directly across the street from the Applicant's property on Franklin, and that project would close the loop, and there are options in which the Applicant could share in the cost of that completion of the loop in an equitable manner. In response to Mayor Corrie's question concerning whether closing the loop through the development of the property directly across the street from the Applicant's property wo~,ld work, the City Engineer, Gary Smith, stated yes . .. _ ~.. 28. The Meridian Fire Department submitted comments which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. These comments included that it needs this line run to tie into the loop system to have water flows brought up in other areas; and that it needs fire hydrants. 29. The Meridian Sewer Department submitted comments which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. These comments included that inorganic material needs to be removed before discharge to sewer; and that provisions will be required far sewerage metering. , 3D. The Meridian Public Works Department submitted comments which are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. These comments included that the Applicant desires to connect to the City's sanitary sewer system which traverses along the east boundary of the subject parcel; that this sewer main was instal~.ed in 1995 as part of the Five Mile Trunk line extension to Saint Luke's; that the Applicant did not participate in the cost of the FINDINGS CF FACT AND CCNCLUSIGNS GF LAW ~ Page 12. BUILDERS MASONRY PRODUCTS -. extension nor was it willing to aid in routings that Rick Clinton in the office of the Meridian Public Works Department informed the Applicant's representative, John Swartz, P.E. with Century West Engineering, that in order for the Applicant to receive sewer service from the City, it would have to extend the water main and connect to City water as well. The Meridian Public Works Department's comments further provide that it reviewed the evidence presented in the application and weighed it against the provisions of Ordinance Z-419-C, to offer the following comments as to why this application should be denied: a. With regard to the provision of Ordinance 2419-C which provides "That there are such special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that the strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would clearly be impracticable or unreasonable;" the Meridian Public Works Department commented as follows. "The applicant has stated in their application that they have an existing on-site potable well that is in good operation. I would propose that the applicant be allowed to continue the use of the existing well for the production of masonry products only, and that all domestic use be converted over to the City's water system. Both the office/warehouse and the block plant could be connected to the City's sewer system after appropriate applications and fees are received by the Public works Department. As stated in their application,- 'a monthly sewer fee could be calculated based upon fixture counts and estimated flaws from floor drains' , or perhaps a metering device could be installed on the proposed sewer service line at the point of discharge into the City's sewer system."' b. With regard to the provision of Ordinance 2-419-C which provides "That strict compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the owner, subdivider or developer because of unusual topography, the nature or condition of adjacent development, other physical conditions or other conditions that make strict compliance with this Ordinance unreasonable under the circumstance, or that the conditions and requirements of FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW ~- Page 13. BUILDERS MASONRY PRODUCTS this Ordinance will result in inhibiting the achievements or objectives of this Ordinance;" the Meridian Public Works Department commented as follows. "There are no physical characteristics of the subject property that would prevent compliance with the requirements of ordinance 5-124. As stated in their application, the 12~" diameter water main would need to be extended approximately 663 feet across the frontage of the Builders Masonry Products site. In terms of diff~,culty of constructian~ this would be a simple installation,. There are no curbs, gutters or sidewalks across the frontage. There is only one driveway access that is approximately 55 foot wide into the Builders Masonry Products parking area. With the current horizontal alignment of the existing water main, it is quite likely that the extension would be outside of the asphalt of Franklin Rd.. The granting of this variance requiring the construction of the water main will result in inhibiting the achievements or the objectives of. Ordinance 5-124. c . With regard to the provision of Ordinance 2-419-C which provides "That such variance will not have the effect of altering the interest and purpose of this ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan." the Meridian Public Works Department commented as follows. "The granting of this variance would go against the purpose of ordinance 5-124 and the Meridian Comprehensive:.. Plan. The requirements of ordinance 5-124 have worked well since implementation. The City of Meridian hasn't had to bear the cost of main line extensions that benefit new developments and business. The ones that benefit the most, are the ones that finance such extensions. Although Builders Masonry wouldn't realize a great benefit from the City's water system, they would reap the benefits of the City's sewer system. 31. There were no other comments by the public regarding this application. C~NCLUSIaNS OF LAW 1. All of the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the ordinances of the City of Meridian have FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF L.AW - Page 14. BUILDERS MASONRY PRODUCTS been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 30D feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. The City has authority to grant variances pursuant to Section 11-2w419 of the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to Section 11-9-612 of the Development Ordinances. 3. The City Council has judged this application by the guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in the Subdivision and Development ordinance upon which it may take-~~ judicial notice. 4. The Council may take judicial notice of its own proceedings, those of the Commission, governmental statutes, ordinances, and policies, and of actual conditions existing within the City and the State. 5. The following relevant provisions of ordinance 5-124, WATER MAIN ExTENS2ONS, are noted which are pertinent to the application: All proposed extensions of the municipal water system to serve undeveloped areas within the existing corporate limits, newly annexed areas or areas outside the corporate limits shall comply with existing water system extension policies and with the overall master plan far ,. the City's municipal water supply system. Costs far all extensions to any praperty shall be the responsibility of the owner ar his agent. When it is necessary to install oversized mains as part of an extension, the cost of all oversized lines will be the responsibility of the owner ar his agent. Such water line extensions, public or private, shall be extended to the farthest boundary of the property. zt shall also be the property owner's or his agent's responsibilities to install all necessary fire hydrants and City water service lines for all extensions of the FINDINGS OF FACT ,AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page l5. BUILDERS MASONRY PRODUCTS { {, municipal water system at no expense to the City. Unless a special permit is granted by the City, all municipal water system extensions, including the City water service lines, to newly developing areas shall be installed prior to the construction of any new streets. 6. The following provisions of Section ~.1-2-419 A GENERAL, of the Zoning and Development ordinance pertinent to this application are noted: 11--2-419 A. GENERAL, The Council may authorize in specific cases a variance from the terms of this Ordinance or from the Subdivision and Development Ordinances as will not be contrary to the public interest where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. No non-conforming use of neighboring lands, structures or buildings in the same district and no permitted or non-conforming use of lands, structures or buildings in other districts shall be considered grounds for issuance of a variance. Variances shall be granted only where strict application of the provisions of this Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. A variance application does not go ~~ to the Commission unless directed by the Council. 6. Pursuant to Section 2--419 C FINDINGS of the Zoning and Development ordinance, the specific requirements far the grant of a variance which must be evidenced and found by the City Council are as follows: -..~ 11-2-419 C. FINDINGS A variance shall not be granted unless has a result of a .~ public hear~,ng} the Council makes a statement of supportive reasons based directly an the evidence presented to it which supports conclusions that the mentioned standards and conditions of this Ordinance have been met by the applicant and unless all of the following ~ Y " exist: 1. That there are such special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that the strict .-.--~ application of the provisions of this Ordinance would clearly be impracticable or unreasonable; FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIGNS OF LAW - Page 16. BUILDERS MASONRY PRODUCTS ~~~~~~ 2. That strict compliance with the requirements of .. this Ordinance wau~.d result in extraordinary hardsh~.p tc~ the owner, subdivider or developer because at unusual topography, the nature or condition of adjacent development, other physical conditions or other conditions that make strict compliar~ce with the Ordinance unreasonable under the c~.rcumstarices, or that the conditions and requirements of this ordinance will result in inhibiting the achievements or the objectives of . this ordinance; 3. That the granting of the specified variance will not be detrimental tv the public's welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the property is situated; 4. That such variance will not have the effect of altering the %nterest and purpose of this Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 7. There does appear to be a specific benefit, profit, economic gain and convenience to the Applicant if this variance is Granted. S. With regard to Section ~~124 WATER MAIN EXTENSIONS and Sect ion 2 ~ 419 C k'INDINGS of the ~ aping and Developme~~t ordinance , it i s specif ical~.y concluded as f allows: a. There exist no special circumstances or conditions `vhich affect the Applicant's property which makes the strict application of the provisions of Section 5-124 and the ex~.sting water system extension policies clearly impracticable or unreasonable; b. Strict compliance with the requirements of Section ~-~124 and the existing water system extension policies does not resu~l~t in extraordinary hardship to the owner because of ~~nusual topography, the nature or condition of adjacent development, other physical conditions or other conditions that make strict compliance with Section 5124 and the existing water syste~a extension policies unreasonable under the circumstances presented; c. The grant of the requested variance may be detrimental to the public's welfare anal injurious to, FINDINGS 4F FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ~F LAW - Page 170 SUTLDERS MASONRY PRODUCTS other property in the area in which the Applicant's property is situated; and d. The grant of the requested variance will have the effect of altering the interest and purpose of Section 5- 124 and the existing water system extension policies. 9 . It is concluded that the Application for a variance from 5-124 should be denied. 10. The reasons put forth by the Applicant for the variance of the requirement for the extension of water main to and thrau h g its property are based upon it not presently needing City's water ,. y, service but desiring access and use of the City's sewer system. Such reasons are insufficient. To grant a variance requires that the Council makes a statement of su ortive pp reasons based directl y on the evidence presented to it which supports conclusions that the mentioned standards and conditions of Ordinance 5.124 for extension of water mains have been met by the Applicant. The standards and conditions of Ordinance 5-124 would not be met by the Applicant not extending the water main to and through its property. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW - Page 18. BUILDERS MASONRY PRODUCTS APPRgVAL qF FINDINGS qF FACT AND CONCLUSIgNS qF LAW The City Council of the City of Meridian hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. ROLL CALL: COUNCILMAN MORROW VOTED COUNCILMAN BENTLEY VOTED COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE VOTED COUNCILMAN TOLSMA VOTED MAYOR CORRIE ~ TIE BREAKER ~ VOTED ~--~--~- DECISION Based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is decided that the Application far a variance from Ordinance 5 124, WATER MAIN EXTENSIONS is denied. MOTION: APPROVED: DISAPPROVED: FINDINGS GF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS CF LAW - Page 19. ~~~ BUILDERS MASONRY PRODUCTS AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of , 1997, by and between the City of Meridian, hereinafter referred to as the "City," and Builders Masonry Products/Builders Marketplace Inc., an Idaho corporation, hereinafter referred to as "Builders;" W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, Builders owns certain real property located within the city limits of the City, Ada County, Idaho, hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Real Property," and more particularly described at Exhibit "A" attached hereto; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ordinances and policies of the City, the City possesses the authority and power to cause Builders to connect to both the City's sanitary sewer system and municipal water system, and, pursuant to ordinances and policies, the City possess the authority and power to cause Builders to extend the water mains and lines for the City's municipal water system to and through the Subject Real Property; and WHEREAS, Builders desires to connect to the City's sanitary sewer system, but does not presently desire to connect to the City's municipal water system; and WHEREAS, the City desires Builders to connect to both the City's sanitary sewer system and the City's municipal water system; and WHEREAS, its is the purpose of this Agreement to set forth expressly the understanding and agreement by and between the City and Builders under which Builders shall connect to both the City's sanitary sewer system and municipal water system; NGW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by the parties, the parties hereto, for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, do hereby agree as follows: 1. Builders shall forthwith and with due diligence undertake the installation of and connection with the City's sanitary sewer system in accordance and compliance with any and all applicable AGREEMENT - Page 1 ordinances of the City, and the requirements and policies of the Meridian Sewer Department, the Meridian Public Warps Department and such other departments of the City, and all other governmental agencies having jurisdiction. 2. The City and Builders hereby agree that, at Builder's cost and expense, Builders shall install a monitor or device on the sewer outflow line to measure the amount of effluent, or any other sewage discharge, from Builders' facilities, and/or the Subject Real Property, for the purposes of calculating or determining the monetary amount to be charged by the City to Builders far the sewer service provided by the City. 3. The City and Builders hereby agree that the City shall not presently require Builders to connect to the City's municipal water system; PRQVIDED, HaWEVER, at such time hereafter that the City determines, in its sole and absolute discretion, that the City's municipal water system should be, or needs to be, extended to and through the Subject Real Property to provide the municipal water system and service to real property adjacent to or surrounding the Subject Real Property, Builders shall forthwith, and with due diligence, connect to the City's municipal water system in accordance and compliance with any and all applicable ordinances, regulations., or policies, of the City, whether presently enacted or hereafter enacted, including the provisions and requirements of the City's Ordinances relating to WATER MAIN EXTENSIONS which are in Sections 5-124, 5-124A, and 5-124B, the requirements and policies of the departments of the City, and all other governmental agencies having jurisdiction. 4. Nothing herein shall be construed as, or deemed to be, a waiver by the City or estop the City from its authority and power to enforce any of its laws, ordinances, policies or regulations, or any other law, statute, rule, regulation or policy, which the City has the authority and power to enforce. The City and Builders hereby acknowledge and agree that the City reserves any and all rights, power and authority granted to or bestowed upon it to enforce its laws and Ordinances, and any other laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations and policies, which it has the authority and power to enforce. 5. The parties hereto agree that time is of the essence of this Agreement. 6. The provisions of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. 7. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties hereto with respect to the matters contained herein, and no prior agreement, or understanding pertaining to any such matter, AGREEMENT - Page 2 shall be effective far any purpose. No provision of the Agreement may be amended or added to, except by an agreement in writing signed by the parties hereto, or their respective successors-in- lnterest. IN ~TITNESS WHEREDF, the parties hereto have set their hands the day and year first above written. City of Meridian Robert D. Carrie, Mayar Attested: City Clerk Builders Masonry Products/ Builders Marketplace Inc. By Its AGREEMENT - Page 3 ,. r ~. AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 1997, by and between the City of Meridian, hereinafter referred to as the "City," and Builders Masonry Products/Builders Marketplace Inc., an Idaho corporation, hereinafter ref erred to as "Builders;" W I T N E S S E T H: WHEREAS, Builders owns certain real property located within the city limits of the City, Ada County, Idaho, hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Real Property," and more particularly described at Exhibit "A" attached hereto; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ordinances and policies of the City, the City possesses the authority and power to cause Builders to connect to bath the City's sanitary sewer system and municipal water system, and, pursuant to ordinances and policies, the City possess the authority and power to cause Builders to extend the water mains and lines far the City's municipal water system tv and through the Subject Real Property; and WHEREAS, Builders desires to connect to the City's sanitary sewer system, but does not presently desire to connect to the City's municipal water system; and WHEREAS, the City desires Builders to connect to both the City's sanitary sewer system and the City's municipal water system; and WHEREAS, its is the purpose of this Agreement to set forth expressly the understanding and agreement by and between the City and Builders under which Builders shall connect to both the City's sanitary sewer system and municipal water system; NSW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by the parties, the parties hereto, for themselves, their heirs, successors and assigns, do hereby agree as follows: 1. Builders shall forthwith and with due diligence undertake the installation of and connection with the City's sanitary sewer system in accordance and compliance with any and all applicable AGREEMENT ~ Page 1 (_.: . 4 ordinances of the City, and the requirements and policies of the Meridian Sewer Department, the Meridian Public Works Department and such other departments of the City, and all other governmental agencies having jurisdiction. 2. The City and Builders hereby agree that, at Builder's cost and expense, Builders shall install a monitor or device an the sewer outflow line to measure the amount of effluent, or any other sewage discharge, from Builders' facilities, and/or the Subject Real Property, for the purposes of calculating or determining the monetary amount to be charged by the City to Builders for the sewer service provided by the City. 3. The City and Builders hereby agree that the City shall not presently require Builders to connect to the City's municipal water system; PRQVIDED, HQWEVER, at such time hereafter that the City determines, in its sole and absolute discretion, that the City's municipal water system should be, ar needs to be, extended to and through the Subject Real Property to provide the municipal water system and .service to real property adjacent to ar surrounding the,Sub~ect Real Property, Builders shall forthwith, and with due diligence, connect to the City's municipal water system in accordance and compliance with any and all applicable ordinances, regulations., or policies, of the City, whether presently enacted or hereafter enacted, including the provisions and requirements of the City's Ordinances relating to WATER MAIN ExTENSIONS which are in Sections 5-124, 5--1~4A, and 5--124B, the requirements and policies of the departments of the City, and all other governmental agencies having jurisdiction. 4. Nothing herein shall be construed as, or deemed to be, a waiver by the City or estop the City from its authority and power to enforce any of its laws, ordinances, policies or regulations, or any other law, statute, rule, regulation or policy, which the City has the authority and power to enforce. The City and Builders hereby acknowledge and agree that the City reserves any and all rights, power and authority granted to or bestowed upon it to enforce its laws and ordinances, and any other laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations and policies, which it has the authority and power to enforce. 5. The parties hereto agree that time is of the essence of this Agreement. 6. The provisions of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. ,7. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the parties hereto with respect to the matters contained herein, and no prior agreement, or understanding pertaining to any such matter, AGREEMENT - Page 2 shall be effective for any purpose. No provision of the Agreement may be amended or added to, except by an agreement in writing signed by the parties hereto, or their respective successors-in- interest. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands the day and year first above written. City of Meridian Robert D. Cowie, Mayar Attested: City Clerk Builders Masonry Products/ Builders Marketplace Inc. By Its AGREEMENT -Page 3