Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1996 01-16
~ • MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1996 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JANUARY 2, 1996: (APPROVED) TABLED DECEMBER 5, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR 74 ACRES BY E.L. BEWS: (REMAND BACK TO P ~ Z) 2. TABLED DECEMBER 5, 1995: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MIXED, PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL USES BY E.L. BEWS: (REMAND BACK TO P $~ Z) 3. TABLED DECEMBER 19, 1995: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT, LOUNGE, AND MICRO-BREWERY BY SANDPIPER RESTAURANTS: (TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 6, 1996) 4. TABLED DECEMBER 19, 1995: AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR SALMON RAPIDS NO.3 SUBDIVISION: (TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 6, 1996) 5. TABLED DECEMBER 19, 1995: ORDINANCE #718 -SALMON RAPIDS NO.3 SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION: (TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 6, 1996) 6. TABLED DECEMBER 19, 1995: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 SUBDIVISION BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: (TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 6, 1996) 7. TABLED DECEMBER 19, 1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SALMON RAPIDS N0.3 SUBDIVISION: (TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 6, 1996) 8. TABLED DECEMBER 19, 1995: AMENDED ORDINANCE X81 -VAN AUKER ANNEXATION - I-L: (APPROVED WItH CONDITIONS) 9. TABLED DECEMBER 19, 1995: AMENDED ORDINANCE#686 -VAN AUKER ANNEXATION - C-G: (APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS) 10. TABLED DECEMBER 19, 1995: FINAL PLAT FOR THE PLAYGROUND SUBDIVISION BY THE PLAYGROUND INC.: (APPROVED) • 11. TABLED DECEMBER 19, 1995: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR AND BRAKE ALIGNMENT SHOP BY DENNIS ~ JANET BUTTERFIELD: (APPROVED) 12. PRELIMINARY PLAT (AMENDED) FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO.5 BY INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT; TABLED DECEMBER 19, 1995: (TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 6, 1996) 13. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR LENGTH OF CUL-DE-SAC FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO.5 BY INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT: (APPROVED) 14. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REQUEST FOR A VACATION OF AN EASEMENT BY JEFF COFFER: (APPROVED) 15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 1 ACRE TO C-G BY ELLIOTT INDUSTRIAL CO.: (APPROVED; CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE) 16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE .PERMIT FOR BUTTE FENCE BY ELLIOTT INDUSTRIAL CO.: (APPROVED) 17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 1.35 ACRES TO R-4 FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION N0.6 BY JOHN EDDY: (APPROVED; CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE) 18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION N0.6 BY JOHN EDDY: (APPROVED) 19. PUBLIC HEARING: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE FOR PARKS: (CONTINUNED TO JANUARY 23, 1996) 20. DAVID TURNBULL: REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF APPLICATION FEES FOR VARIANCE ON BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION: (APPROVED) !, 21. REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF THE HOLLOWS PRELIMINARY PLAT: (APPROVED) 22. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER: 1. EASEMENT APPROVAL - VOIGT SEWEa LINE EXTENSION: (APPROVED) 2. EASEMENT APPROVAL -VAN AUKER SEWER LINE EXTENSION: (APPROVED) B. WALT MORROW: 1. GOTCHA CHALLENGE UPDATE: (CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE LETTER) 2. ACHD GAS TAX RESOLUTION: (PREPARE LETTER) • MERIQIAN CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 16, 1996 The regular meeting of the Meridian City Council was called to order by Mayor Robert D. Corrie at 7:30 P.M.: MEMBERS PRESENT: Walt Morrow, Glenn Bentley, Charles Rountree, Ron Tolsma: OTHERS PRESENT: Wayne Crookston, Gary Smith, Shari Stiles, Jim Johnson, Bill Gordon, Anna Doty, Moe Alidjani, Grant & Lavon Kingsford, Max Ye~rington, Becky Bowcutt, John McCreedy, Gary Fletcher, Mike Littlefield, Glenn Rufus, Forest Kerns, Marty Goldsmith, Brian McColl, Dennis Butterfield,. Dave Collins, Glenn Blaser, Bruce Blaser, John Wardle, Walt Casey, Marshall Baker, Tom Eddy, Robert Morrison, Richard McCuhey: Corrie: I would like to make a presentation tonight if I might. Mae Alidjani., would you came up here please? Moe, thanks, this is a plaque, it says Mohammed A. Alidjani, Planning and Zoning Commission presented in appreciation of your (inaudible) as Planning & Zoning Commissioner, 1983 to 1995. Your volunteered time and effort as a public servant (inaudible) January 16, 1996. Alidjani: Mr. Mayor, it has been a privilege to serve the City and citizens and it has been a great time for as many years as you said with all of my colleagues. (Inaudible) thank you very much. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JANUARY 2, 1996: Corrie: Are there any corrections, additions or deletions? I will entertain a motion for the acceptance as written. Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move that we accept the minutes of the previous meeting held January 2nd. Morrow: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we accept the minutes as written, all those in favor say Aye? Opposed? MOTION CARRIEp: All Yea ITEM #1: TABLED DECEMBER 5, 1995: ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR 74 ACRES BY E.L. BEWS: Corrie: With the Council's approval I would like to switch those two around and do the public hearing first on the second one (inaudible) and then come back for the annexation and zoning and maybe do those two at the same time. Does anyone see any problem- with that at this time? Okay. • r: Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 2 ITEM #2: TABLED DECEMBER 5, 1995 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MIXED, USES BY E.L. BEWS: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL Corrie: I will open the public hearing, is there a representative here, Becky? Becky Bowcutt, Briggs Engineering, 1111 S. Orchard, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Bowcutt: As I was saying it is nice to be here this evening, welcome to the new members and new Mayor. Our firm has been retained by Mr. Bews to represent him in this matter. We got this project a few weeks ago, I have been doing a considerable amount of research and trying to come up to date on what has transpired over the past year, year and a half. I have met with Jeff Hull of St. Luke's hospital yesterday and spent two hours discussing problems, conflicts, issues of communication, transportation, planning and so forth. We had a nice meeting and 1 think we can work out a plan that would compliment that particular area and add to the City of Meridian as far as commercial and residential development is concerned. Basically, it is my understanding this is the plan which was submitted this sketch plan. This is what was considered in the application and was presented at the previous hearings. Some of the input that I received. from the hospital, I also met with Shari the planning staff and got input from her, was. that they would like to see some additional information. A bubble concept just basically shows you what could potentially happen there. The public streets were shown ,but as-far as visually what this would look like that information wasn't provided and it appeared that was one thing. that. was lacking here. So basically what I did is I took this particular plan that Mr. Forrey set up and reading through all the documentation; staff reports and reading through the comp plan, reading through previous findings of fact and conclusions of taw I kind of came up with a concept showing what the internal transportation patterns would look like. This particular area, this is Franklin Road you are looking north. This particular area he had designated as office uses. This is pretty much consistent with medical offices, wehave done quite a few of them, we have done quite a few on Mr. Bews: properties. The Milwaukee and Ustick portion at Bayhill Springs has turned into medical office. We see dentists, oral surgeons: We-also had a corner that a restaurant was looking at. These particular foot prints were done by an architect and basically what I did was took these pad sizes and we put them on this particular drawing. As you- can see the intent here is interconnected office areas so that you don't have multiple accesses we have shared approaches. And then we interconnect these parking areas so you can basically go from this office and all the way out to this office here. So you create a little office .park that is interrelated not spot type commercial development. When we come down into this area he had this designated as more business. This is consistent with what you would find in a business park, small businesses. We worked on projects like with- the Century Landmark Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 3 Center which is a mix of office and retail. He had additional office and business on this perimeter in through here, so this is basically consistent with this. The collector concept was maintained with 60 foot right of ways all the way around. When we come in through here we try to minimize any approaches so that you get a nice flow of traffic. In here he had nursing care centers, retirement suites, elderly care facilities, what I would envision when we start getting into details some type of group facility with parking along the exterior for substantial amount of landscaping within the interior if they wanted to put (inaudible) such ~s pools, gardens, etc. Also I have maintained the 30 foot setback all along Franklin and a 20 foot perimeter so that we could get a nice landscaping corridor as you enter the park. Along this exterior of this parcel right here, I maintained a 30 foot setback from all residential structures and I went 40 foot offset from the freeway. That would give you enough room to have nice berms and landscaping. This area down in here he had like a restaurant, motel type uses. If one were to put that type of facility that is probably what it would look like. He had mini storage in here. This particular area was. laid out in his plan as types of residential uses. I believe he had patio homes, garden apartments and so forth. That particular area I didn't layout, I kind of ran out of time. So, but based on your comp plan when we look east you find that it is designated single family and so what I envision is you are going to have to transition in. The Edgeview Estates subdivision which we did' on the other side of the Ridenbaugh Canal, single family residential and then you would probably come in with single family residential. And as you move west you would start transitioning and you transition from single family to multi family and then typically you will transition into office and. then the more intensive commercial or uses that you wouldn't want in somebody's back yard would be on the perimeter or next to the interstate. This is kind of, if you were to put it on paper this is what it would look like. I showed a draft to Jeff Hutt yesterday, it wasn't completed on the CAD system as of yesterday. I have not met with the neighborhood to discuss the plan at this time. Like I stated earlier I have only been. working on this project for just a short period of time. Some of the issues as far as transportation I think the Highway District they have done their staff report, the Commission has adopted it. There are controversial issues in that staff report Mr. Hull and I discussed. I feel that on the issues of transportation 1 think that is going to have to be tackled when you go in and have a particular use. To give you a good example we worked on this project here since about 1988 which predates my time with Briggs Engineering: Billy Ray Strite architects did this concept. This project is also by Interstate 84. It is on Overland and Maple Grove, here is Maple Grove, I-84 and here is Overland, it is called the Century Landmark Center. We did this for Chuck Winder and Dwayne Wolf and LB Industries. He did this concept, as you can see he had office, they had some retail, had motel and then they also had an auto related industry. It was going. to be the new Boise motor village. Well as time wore on, the tole interchange happened, they took a big chunk out of it, ITD did, we platted this property and recorded two plats. on it due to changes. The client passed away, Dwayne Wolf and it was build and set vacant for years. Now the first users are coming in, the Bureau of Land Management is building approximately 175,000 ~ ~ Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 4 square foot office building and Wal-Mart is coming into this project: But my example is the fact that conceptually this is what it looked like and this is how it was approved by the City of Boise. They put the same condition that the Planning & Zoning. Commission placed upon Mr, Bews' project that no use would go in here without a conditional use. There was a substantial amount of neighborhood opposition to traffic, traffics was looked at and a conceptual traffic study was done based on this plan. What happened is we had to turn around when the first use came in and we had to db another traffic study. It cost $1.0,000 the district paid for it but they get reimbursed, as each user goes in. The reason being by the time something happened with the property the old traffic study was obsolete. Since the uses had changed it no longer was going. to be the second Boise motor village that kind of went out the window everything was moot. We went in we did a modification of the PUD that was originally approved. We came in with site specific conditional uses with landscaping. We have done traffic studies, this is an example of a very similar type parcel in location and size. The best laid plans don't always pan out that way. One nice mechanism is that conditional use because if a use is inappropriate too intensive, generates too much traffic than this body and the Planning and Zoning. Commission have the ability to basically say that is not an appropriate use for your project. It has worked out quite well and like I said we are finally getting off the ground and we are excited. I kind of see Mr. Bews property as being very similar. We can come up with all kinds of different concepts, what could happen, what it would look like and things change. Do you have any questions that I can possibly answer? Corrie: Council? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, does this new plan that you are envisioning- does that include- an access a vehicular access to tha St. Luke's property? Bowcutt: What I did was I put stub streets in based upon ACHD's site specific requirements. They asked for a stub street to this parcel here, they asked for a connection here and then they asked for a connection to the Holloway and one to the St. Luke's property here. These as you can see I put culdesacs. If they were to be extended you have the ability because the right of way would come out here. If they were never extended you have a proper turn around area. That is an issue that like I said depending upon the use that is when that will come to a head. The Highway District in my experiences with them lately have been very concerned about interconnection of streets and collectors. On a majority of the projects that I have. done I did a 55 acre residential single family subdivision just a few months ago and they required nine stub street connection to my project and they required that we construct a collector. We did convince them to come down from the nine we ended up with about five, we did get stuck with. the collector and one of the issues I brought up with the Highway District is they said you are the first one to go in so you have got to provide the connections to the other parcels. I said Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 5 well we end up building the collectors while the other parcels just basically hook and take advantage of that facility. Have you ever looked at maybe assessing other parcels when they come in and hook into someone else's collector that they spent a considerable amount of money constructing.. They said that is a good idea in theory, I don't know if it would work and it would be difficult to implement. But stub streets and interconnections where people can go in multiple directions is the way they are moving. We have been fighting it because it is expensive, every time I do a stub street (lose a lot and when I build collectors they take a big swath out of a parcel, I can't front any lots on it. So typically you are building a lot of street with no lots fronting on it. Now they won't even let us put little islands so that we can create little knuckles off the collectors, they are not allowing, that. So times are changing, they say that things like this the interconnections the multi directions are necessary to cut down on the volumes of traffic because they need to give people as many routes as they possibly can for ingress end egress into their businesses or their homes. So that is kind of the situation that we have been facing. Jeff Hull and I kind of talked about that and said it depends on which side of the fence you are. on whether you want a collector or you don't. Like I said this would work either way the way it is laid out. Rountree: Could you show on your concept the break between the Holloway parcel and the closed campus of St. Luke's. Recognizing that both are owned by St. Luke's. Where does the property break? Bowcutt: The Holloway parcel, it lays right in through here. Rountree: To what point? Bowcutt: 1 think it came down, because this traverses I believe the southern portion. I think it comes up through here. I think it is about right in through here approximately based on the location of this Chaffin Drain. Rountree: You indicated that the concept is not complete that you are still doing drawings on it. Bowcutt: The residential area here. Rountree: What is your projection to complete that? Bowcutt: Basically to lay it out it takes me a few days, the technician; it takes a couple of days for her to lay it out. tt would take probably less than a week. Rountree: You would be done by Friday. Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 6 Corrie: Any other questions of the Council to Ms. Bowcutt? Rountree: I have an additional question about the stub, (inaudible) lay of the land look like it would go into the closed campus. Is that at the guidance of ACHD or at the desire of the property owner and developer? Bowcutt: This right here, I took that off of the staff report. They had site specific requirements, it did not specify exactly where it had to be. Rountree: Did they indicate in the staff report that there needed to be vehicular access or (inaudible). Bowcutt: Yes, it stated, this was the longest staff report I had ever seen, provide a stub street to the east to the (inaudible) property line. Provide a stub street to the east to the Thomas/Tullis property line. This stub street shall be south the street connection to Eagle Road. Provide two stub streets to the west, one for the street connection to Eagle Road. one into the Holloway property north of said street connection. Rountree: Is there an indication in that report that ACRD is going to pursue a connection to Eagle Road? Bowcutt: They basically went into a discussion on the impact on the neighborhood, the opposition to the connection by St. Luke's and the way it read they stood by their recommendation that there should be some type of a westerly connection. Corrie: Other questions of the Council? Tolsma: Becky, what is that street that goes to the closed campus (inaudible) is that classified as a collector street in your property? Bowcutt: This particular street here, this one right here? That is just a 60 foot right of way, I didn't classify it as a collector and I have approaches on it like it was a local. If it was designated as a collector I would have to have a substantial, amount of distance on my approaches. If ACHD determined it would have to be a collector standard than obviously I would have to change that. Tolsma: So basically what they are saying is you need a (inaudible). Bowcutt: It didn't state that it had to be anything other than your standard 60 foot right of way found in commercial and office complexes. Idow when somebody comes in with a particular site specific conditional use at that time then they may comment with specifics. • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 7. Corrie: Other comments? Thank you Becky. Anybody from the audience that would like testify? John McCready, 1275 Shoreline Lane, Boise was sworn by the City Attorney. McCreedy: Like I said my name is John McCreedy I am a lawyer I work for the office of Jim Jones and Associates I wrote a letter to you last week and I spoke with Shari Stiles after faxing that letter over. She indicated that she had gotten an opportunity to copy that and submit it to you. So I hope you have had a chance to review that. I won't repeat the. letter verbatim but I would like to highlight a few points and make a few comments based on what Ms. Bowcutt presented to you tonight. First, I represent 17 of the families that live in Montvue subdivision. Their purpose in retaining me was to try and bring some consolidation to their comments not to hire a hired gun or to try and shoot the project down but rather to present their comments in a consolidated and a well reasoned fashion so that you have an opportunity to listen to them to hear them and digest them and make what. you will. I did have an opportunity to participate in all of the ACHD meetings that went on with this project. Did have an opportunity to meet with Mr. Bews, Mr. Davis, Mr. Forrey on a couple of different occasions. I am pleased that Ms. Bowcutt is part of the group at this point and look forward to meeting with her and trying to find some solutions to the problems that are presented with the application. I do briefly want to let you know what the interests of the Montvue residents are and they are basically threefold, they are very concerned about public roads in and adjacent to their subdivision. They are concerned about the maintenance of the views and the amenities that they .have with their subdivision which is a bit older than most of the commercial developments in the area. And they are very concerned with the maintenance of their rural lifestyle, the irrigation, the opportunity to raise livestock in their area. If you take a look at the comprehensive plan it looks like they will be surrounded by commercial development in the near future. Their purpose is to prevent the degradation of that lifestyle and their rural property during that process. And to prevent it to such a point where their property is so devalued that they can: be bought out for much less than what their property is at this point. So they intend to participate in all of these commercial developments and proceedings and protect their property rights. There are a couple of key facts that I think. are very important not only to the conditional use application but also the rezone and the annexation that is before you. First the comp plan is clear it requires mixed planned use in this area and it is clear that it requires that process be done by a planned unit development. That is not the type of application that you have before you. You do not have a planned unit development application that has been submitted. So it appears right at the- get go we are running a little bit of a problem with the comprehensive plan process. There are a couple other requirements in the comprehensive plan that don'f see to be met by the application. First it does require some specific project plans and that is one of the concerns we have had throughout the entire process. It is very difficult to comment on what the impact is going • • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 8 to be to these folks if you don't have a specific plan. We haven't had a Becky said an opportunity to look at her new plan. We have not had an opportunity to meet with her. I think as a matter of due process we would be allowed to do that to have an opportunity to look at that plan so it would seem extremely premature to approve that plan or any other plan tonight. We have had an opportunity to get through the P & Z findings on the annexation and the zoning request and the conditional use permit and we support two or three key fact that are set forth in those findings the recommendation that was made to. you. First it appears that we don't have a specific use that has been stated. That may have been changed with Becky's presentation tonight and with her plans for the future but again the process wold seem to require that we either deny the current application, withdraw it, remand it or defer it or table it do something other than approve it tonight to give the parties an opportunity to look at the specific plans if in fact some had finally been presented. Two a development agreement is required, we specifically requested an opportunity to look at that development agreement because it will control the development of this property and it will have an impact on our clients on my clients. So when and if Becky does get a chance to put a development agreement together that is another piece of the puzzle that we would like to have an opportunity to comment on to present our comments to you on. Again a development agreement is not prepared and it would seem premature to approve the project until we have got those specifics. Again, as the Planning & Zoning Commission found, development in this area needs to occur only as planned unit development. We think this Council has an obligation to go a little bit further Phan the Planning and Zoning Commission and find someway out of the box that we have got right now. We don't have the specifics on the plan and on the project that are necessary for us to know what the impacts are going to be and for this Council to be assured that any approval is going to protect the existing citizens. So again it seems to me that we have got three or four different options. We can table it to give Becky an opportunity meet with the parties and to put some more specific plans together and see if we can reach some common ground that is our preferred approach. We are not against development we are not anti-growth, we simply want an opportunity to protect our property rights. Tabling it or deferring it would accomplish that goal. Two, it could be remanded back to the Planning and Zoning Commission which under a couple of different cases that are out there and under your own planning and zoning ordinance would appear to be one of the preferred approaches. If there is a new plan in order, if there are some specifics for the project that have been finally put together it seems appropriate to give the Planning and Zoning Commission and opportunity to comment on that and to make new recommendations fo you based on that. You can certainly deny the application as being incomplete at this point and we have written to you requesting that you do that because we were not aware at that time that Becky had been retained and we were not aware that new plans were. in the works and that seemed appropriate at the time. And finally you can approve the conditional use permit the annexation and the rezone. Of the three the most reasonable for approvable seems to be the annexation. We would submit that does appear to be a • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 9 reasonable step as part of Meridian's growth. But approving the conditional use permit and approving the rezone at this point is simply again premature. There aren't enough specks and the problems simply haven't been worked out enough to warrant approval. Becky did make one comment and that is that it seems appropriate to tackle the transportation issues when we have a speck use. One of my clients that was sitting next to me elbowed me when she said that because that is exactly what we have been saying for about a year now. And that really is the just of our comments. We need to have a specific plan in front of us whether that is piece meal and our preference certainly would be that the plan is one that is presented in totality. It really doesn't make a tremendous amount of difference but there needs to be some specifics with the project. If we do have a new more detailed plans that satisfy some of the planning and zoning conditions we want an opportunity to look at that and we haven't had that opportunity yet. It is clear that we do need additional information in order to make comments on the project. As Becky said the best laid plans certainly can go awry but nevertheless they are plans. They are binding they are enforceable, as a planned unit development we would have the opportunity to see those plans were enforced after we had an opportunity to comment on them. And as the example she gave if they needed to be modified well then so be it there are legal procedures to get that accomplished. But at this point I would reiterate simply it is premature to approve the project so we would request that you find some other alternative that gives us the opportunity we have consistently requested and that is to know what the heck is going to go on out there and comment on it. I will certainly stand for any questions. Corrie: Thank you John, Council any questions? Rountree: I have one Mr. Mayor, Mr. McCreedy, what or how would you define a specific plan? McCreedy: Well the plans that were attached as attachments to the conditional use permit I would not define as specific and would not define as in compliance with the comprehensive plan. They suggested anywhere between 7 to 12 different uses it was a very rough sketch. We did not see detailed landscaping plans, we did not see detailed road plans, we did not see building heights or restrictions or colors. We did not see traffic circulation patterns that had any detail tb them. So 1 would not call those specific plans. Those are the only ones that I feel have been formally submitted to the City and those are the only ones that would being binding upon (inaudible) you did approve it at this point. So I don't believe those are specific. The types of plans that we are interested in examining are exactly the type that were recommended by the Planning & Zoning Commission. And specifically the issues that were set forth in the development agreement that the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended. I detailed those in my letter they include 14, I won't recite them, but they cover the gamut of good planning. • ! Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 10 Corrie: Any further questions from the Council? Mr. McCreedy thank you. Gary Fletcher, 1249 Hart Court, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. Fletcher: Mayor Corrie, members of the City Council, I appreciate being here this evening to be able to testify on these applications. I wrote to you on the fifth of January a letter as well as supporting exhibits and I assume you have copies of those and if you would like to have additional copies I would be glad to distribute those if you need them. Again it would not be my intent to go through the detail of that letter and those exhibits but rather to highlight some points that we would like to make relative to the E.L. Bevvs applications for zoning and annexation and conditional use permit for the property south of Franklin Road and north of I-84 in Meridian. We do appreciate Becky Bowcutt's comments this evening and although she did have a meeting with Jeff Hull who is our facility architect a# St. Luke's this last week, I think it was yesterday we really haven't had an opportunity to look in detail at the additional work that they have done and so it is difficult to comment relative to what the implications of that might be. Although we do stand ready and look forward to doing that. Should you make a decision that allows that opportunity as you proceed with these projects. I do want to make a point here that I think is important and that is that the Council be sure and understand the recommendations are being made by ACHD and unless I misunderstand and if I do I would stand to be corrected. But as I understand it they have offered 3 options not necessarily a specific recommendations. The three options are number one to deny the applications and we are not here to advocate that but that is one option that they have offered. Second would be to approve a less intense use that would have implications with respect to the roads and traffic and so on. And third would be to approve the application as proposed, applications if you will in which case the trafFc and roadway designs and recommendations that they have offered would be ones that they would advocate namely the latter with the latter option of the road from the east to the west and vice versa accessing Eagle Road. So, I just think it is important that everybody understand what the recommendations has been from ACHD and they have offered options not a specific recommendation. Again as I understand it. Let me point out to begin with quickly that St. Luke's does generally. agree with the staff reports that have been offered by the Planning staff here at the City and also ACHD with one exception. That being the public road that would run from the applicant's property through across St. Luke's property to Eagle Road. And although St. Luke's as previously supported the application, the application for annexation and frankly continues to, we do have some concerns regarding these applications that we need to express this evening. By way of summary and again highlighting. the information that we have submitted previously. I think first and foremost you need to know that we have had several and I think several may be an understatement, but I think it is close, several meetings with the applicant and his representatives and certainly the neighbors in the Montvue- Subdivision. I think we have worked very well with the neighbors in the Montvue Subdivision in terms • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 11 of trying to be sure that we had a compatible development, St. Luke's that is. But our discussions with Mr. Bews and his representatives have been generally unproductive. We think that is unfortunate and frankly it is almost embarrassing to be here to be raising any concerns or opposition to the applications because I would have hoped and I still hope that we can work out a compatible relationship as it relates to their development and ours. I would hope the process as we go forward would offer that opportunity to do that whatever that might end up being. But at this point and again not having the benefit of seeing the front of the material that Becky presented it is difficult for us to comment relative to the compatibility for our project and we would frankly just need more time to look at that and again offer a Legitimate concept. So at this point we can't be supportive of it. I think secondly and very important is the closed campus concept that we have advocated since the beginning of our project. The St. Luke's campus has been master planned to create a closed campus that is compatible for both pedestrians and vehicular traffic. The applicant has suggested that a road be suggested through the S#. Luke's Meridian campus to provide access to the applicant's property from Eagle Road. The applicants proposal would bisect the St. Luke's property and I think there is some lack of clarity here in terms of whether we are talking about a two lane road or a five lane road. The horror story that we are concerned about is whether it be an access back and forth or whether it be a multiple lane road that introduces significant traffic through our campus onto Eagle Road. If it were a multiple lane road with significant traffic it would for sure destroy the St. Luke's interior campus traffic patterns access and everything else. The southern stub road from the applicant's property is not compatible with the St. Luke's Meridian campus approved plan. It concerns us that after 18 months from the approval of this project and 12 months from the beginning of construction and 3 months from the conclusion of the construction that we are not being asked to go back and look at the totally restructuring traffic patterns, access and everything else on and off the St. Luke's campus and we think that is incompatible with what has been approved previously and what our plans have been as we have articulated them all along. One must remember that the applicant does have access to and from Eagle Road potentially in more than one .location. Our experiences when people are seeking medical facilities and medical advice they are consumed more by the medical issues and emotions of what they are dealing with than they are with traffic. Again we think this would, the introduction of a significant roadway, public roadway through the property would compromise what we have tried to design all along as we have been working on this almost three years now and have had discussions with the City on and off about this for that period of time. In terms of the compatibility of the proposed applications with the comprehensive plan-that is clearly up to the Council and the City to decide whether or not it is compatible, one could raise the question as to whether or not the .plan should be revised and then appropriate applications should be submitted but that is really the Council's business and the City's business in terms of how that is governed and adjudicated. I think in terms of roads and traffic there are a diversity of opinions relative to what is adequate and not adequate as far as the roads. I think we can introduce • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 12 all of those this evening but I think it is simply important to understand there are a diversity of opinions. We think there are some questions that need to be answered as we go along here I mean all of us in terms of the development of this area. One would be how many lanes of trafFc there ought to be on Eagle Road and Franklin Road for the future. Secondly when will the grade interchange that ACHD talks about when would that occur and who would pay for it. We think those are significant questions and frankly it may be that they need to be decided as we go along. There are certainly challenges that we have ahead of us that we all need to address. I think to be fair to it I think ACHD would say that those questions need to be answered and we don't think there has been adequate study to really conclude what ought to be done with the size of the roads and the traffic patterns for Eagle and Franklin and the related area. Impact on St. Luke's and let me conclude in a couple minutes here. We clearly support responsible planned development and from the beginning have supported the annexation of this property and still do. In 1994 St. Luke's proposed its medical campus concept to the City of Meridian and requested annexation and based on your approval of both the annexation and the zoning have proceeded with the development of our campus. What we are in opposition to here tonight to is the imposition of a public road through our property. The congestion, noise, cost and safety risks with a public road through the property are simply not acceptable to us and we think are intolerable relative to what we have tried to do and what we continue to do in the future. There are substantial costs associated with this both in terms of redesign and reconstruction that we would hope you would consider as you contemplate this. Beyond that in terms of business interruption we have a facility that we have made a significant investment about half of which is doctor offices the other half of which is urgent care, outpatient surgery, laboratory, X-ray, pharmacies and so on. I have a difficult time appreciating at this point what the disruption would be to all of those businesses and those up to 200 employees and so on as we proceed in the future if in fact it is decided in any way that there would be a road through the St. Luke's property as it currently is designed. So the questions come up who is going to pay for it who is going to compensate for the business interruption and things of that nature. ft would clearly be in our estimation devastating for us to go back and introduce that now at this Late date. I think in summary and in conclusion again we would not oppose the annexation or development of this property however because we don't have an appreciation of the specifics in terms of what is really proposed to be done and can't make a judgement in terms of whether or not it is compatible with what is .being done generally in the area. we too would support the Cquncil's efforts to develop a process that would allow these things to be worked out as we go into the future. Clearly we oppose this road, there are other things that access back and forth that have been discussed that haven't been fully explored and that we would be receptive to and willing to consider what the City and the adjacent neighborhood and the developers and any others that should be involved in those discussions. I appreciate the opportunity to present our views. And you have a more complete version of what we have put together and be glad to try and answer any questions you might have. • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 13 Corrie: Thank you Mr. Fletcher, Council any questions? Rountree: Mr. Fletcher, you alluded to the fact that you had been asked or directed or asked to consider access through your property is that true? Or is that something you read through ACHD's staff report? Fletcher: Mayor Corrie and Councilman Rountree and members of the Council, this project or these applications have gone on for a long time and there have been multiple people involved in terms of commenting and approvals and almost from the beginning of the time that St. Luke's acquired the property we were sensitive to the neighborhood and everybody around us. We initiated meetings early on to talk about what we were going to do or proposed to do in fact if you recall we had public meetings here in Meridian about this and entertained comment from the public. (End of Tape) Tolsma: You stated in there that ACHD you didn't have any (inaudible) for roads but your concept out there right now was just for closed campus basically. But the concept we approved at Council many months ago is for (inaudible) it was a closed campus concept there was no application for road or no desire to have a road. F don't know haw many multi-million dollars that project is but it seems ludicrous to me after the fact ACHD comes back and (inaudible) multi-lane road in there (inaudible) the time your project came before us. When you alluded to they didn't know (inaudible) I don't think that is anything that (inaudible) when this project was considered the first time. I can't speak for the rest of the Council but myself I (inaudible) closed campus concept when we approved St. Luke's (inaudible). Mr. Fletcher anything else? Anyone else from the public that would like to testify on this? Mike Littlefield, 325 East Montvue, was sworn by the City Attorney. Littlefield: We have still not seen any plan and have not seen the plan that Ms. Bowcutt has brought in again this evening. She had made references to as you look to the east, we need to step this down into a residential setting and where I stand as a Montvue Resident with 24 other homes I consider that a residential area and we are to the, west of this development, are we going to have any sizing down to the west as well. We still have no site specific plans and as a Council member I believe it is your responsibility to after nearly 2 years of this if you can't come in with a specific plan we cannot approve your application. I don't think it is right for you to say okay we are going Xo give this developer the green light to go ahead and build whatever they want without any specific development. We are referring back to the road again, well where is this road going to go, do we need this road. Well Wayne Forrey who used to represent the Bews development had one meeting with us out of 45 meetings that we have had and he stated that Ada County wasn't requiring that road, the Highway District wasn't requiring that road but that • • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 -Page 14 the people who might come in and buy some of that property are requiring that road and I think that is one point that has been left open. Here we go again putting the cart before the horse, if we don't have, if there is not a need for that specific road or we are saying we might need that road those are two different things. I don't believe that you should approve this application. I personally am opposed to annexation anyway, we moved to a county setting a rural setting where we can have children and we can have horses and cattle and now we are completely encased in City. I am actually opposed to the annexation as well. If you have any questions from me I would be happy to answer them. Corrie: Thank you, Council, any questions? Anybody else that would like to testify? G enn Rufus, 3295 North Montvue Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Rufus: As my neighbor Mike has reiterated, our main concern is the subdivision here is we don't oppose per se the application of this development. We don't feel as private property owners we have that right. I think this issue needs to be looked at as a private property issue here, we have two entities of private property owners if this application approved by ACHD standards that this public road has to be forced through either our subdivision or St. Luke's. It has never been proven to us by the Highway District that this road is needed. Maybe in the future but at this point even with the first development I don't feel this road is needed. We are less than a mile from the freeway from Franklin intersection. We already know what traffic is like on Eagle Road it is a given. We put a public road through to the south of us it is helter skelter traffic all around us. That isn't conducive to a nice private rural setting for a family life. It would in my opinion depredate our property value. I don't oppose the application personally if it is approved without the public road. I think they can still have their development and make it a good development is this is approved without the public road. Corrie: Council, any questions? Thank you, anybody else wish to testify at this point? Forest Kerns, 230 South West. Montvue, was sworn by the City Attorney. Kerns: I just have a couple of comments. One is as I read through the traffic study, ACHD's proposal generally stated that the bottleneck was at Eagle and Franklin and that it would have to be a separated grade crossing at some point in the future and that would alleviate the problem of the traffic out of both St. Luke's and Bews. We have heard Mr. Fletcher state that St. Luke's will not sell the property that means if ACHD wishes to put a toad across there they are going to have to condemn it. To condemn you have to prove a public need. I don't think that a public need can be proven because Bews has sufficient right of way or sufficient frontage along Franklin to have 2 or 3 accesses onto Franklin if the need is proven. Therefore I think they would have a hard time proving public need for • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 15 condemnation across St. Luke's or Montvue Subdivision. I think that probably if this is approved the next step is to decide who is going to pay for a separated grade crossing at Eagle and Franklin and that should be the next process rather than look for side roads here and there to alleviate the problem for 2 or 3 years or to put it off -for 2 or 3 years. My personal feeling is that the people who are causing this need the developers should be the ones that pay for the separated grade crossing and collectively or however. No further comments. Cbrrie: Council, any questions? Thank you, anybody else wish to testify? Seeing none I shall close the hearing. Council, since we have heard the public hearing on the conditional use we can also take the annexation and zoning request discussion at the same time I suppose if you want to. Or we can have the discussion on the public hearing right now. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I think it would be my preference before I have any discussions concerning this to see if there is any additional testimony with respect to the annexation and zoning request. I would like to hear that if there is any additional. Corrie: Mr. Crookston? Crookston: I am not sure where we actually stand on the annexation and zoning. The agenda does not say that there is to be a public hearing tonight,. I think we need to determine where exactly we are on that before we go back to the annexation and zoning. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, that being the case then, let me throw out for Council thought or conversation or debate my thoughts her with respect to what we are hearing. I think first of all that we have seen significant changes in the presentation from what was originally presented to us some months ago: And so I think that requires some further action. I think also that from my perspective I will not support any compromise of the St. Luke's site. And so I agree with Mr. Tolsma that when we originally were part of that annexation we visualized that site to be a closed site. I would site in case the V.A. Center in Boise, the St. Alphonsus Center in Boise and then the St. Luke's facility that is in Boise that has several public roads transacting that campus. It seems to me here that we approved it as one lot with a campus concept not to dissimilar that will be coming before us as a Council and it needs to stay one lot. With respect to past actions we have basically required that things that come before us with respect to annexation and zoning have some sort of plat plan or some better defined plan of how that project is going to be developed. We are not seeing that here. Obviously with the change in representation from Mr. Forrey to Briggs, it seems to me that it makes sense at this point that we take a step backwards perhaps remand this project to P & Z and in a sense maybe start over. I think that there is a lot of confusion certainly in my mind and the public's mind and the neighbors mind and I think • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 16 that we need to start addressing those issues and bring some clarity to this. So, those are my thoughts as I see this project where we stand now. I would offer that to my fellow Councilman and we will determine what direction we want to go. Bentley: Yes, in the short time I have had to review the documents I see this has been dragging Tong for at least 18 months that I can document. As the testimony has shown tonight we have got we finally got some ideas of some specific plans but there hasn't been any all along. I too agree with Mr. Morrow that we should remand it back to Planning and Zoning for complete action in starting over including all the fees. Corrie: Mr. Rountree, any comments? Rountree: I just state that I don't think that would be a step backwards. Corrie: Mr. Tolsma? Tolsma: I agree with my fellow Councilman, I think it has changed dramatically since we have first seen it, like he said it has been 18 months. We would have to go back and review the findings of fact and conclusions of law (inaudible) there are just so many things that have been brought up and delayed so long that we might as well start over. Corrie: Mr. Crookston, what would your suggestion be, well let's open this up. Do we hear any motions. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we remand the request for a conditional use permit for mixed planned business and residential uses by E. L. Bews back to P & Z. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded to remand back the request for a conditional use permit back to Planning & Zoning, any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion signify by Aye? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: How about the annexation and zoning request? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we remand the annexation and zoning request for the 74 acres by E.L. Bews back to P & Z also. Rountree: Second • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 17 Corrie: Motion is made and seconded that we remand the annexation and zoning back to Planning & Zoning, any further discussion? Motion on the floor, all those in favor say Aye? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #3: TABLED DECEMBER 19: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT, LOUNGE AND MICRO-BREWERY BY SANDPIPER RESTAURANTS: Corrie: Council, we have the findings of fact and conclusions of law on that, any discussion? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, that was originally tabled awaiting a presentation by a representative, I still want to hear that presentation. Corrie: Very well Mr. Morrow, is the representative of Sandpiper here? Shari? Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I had a conversation with Landon Exely of the Sandpiper this afternoon. He is in Laguna Beach and is unable to be here. However he indicated they have had traffic study which ACRD has basically prepared however we don't have their, ACHD has approved it we do not have their report. Part of it was for McDonald's to move a ,curb cut. Presently the approval for that curb cut removal or moving is stuck at McDonald's Headquarters. Mr. Exely would like to wait to make a presentation so he makes sure what you see as a conditional use permit is what is going to be there. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move to table to our first meeting in February. Bentley: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded that we table this conditional use .permit until February 6th meeting, all those in favor say aye? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #4: TABLED DECEMBER 19, 1995: AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 SUBDIVISION: Corrie: Council, you have those findings in front of you, any discussion? Hearing none I will entertain a motion if you so desire. • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 18 Rountree: I have some comments here. On page 14, item 12, it indicates that a variance was granted for tiling the Eight Mile Lateral in phase one, provided the ditch is fenced and I assume that should be in the past tense, was fenced. But my question is does this lead us to requiring a variance for this subdivision as well for tiling the Eight Mile Lateral or was that variance through this whole project? Crookston: It is not through the entire area, each individual plat or whatever was being done with the property has requested a variance so that they do not have to the the Eight Mile Lateral. Rountree: So that will have to be done? Crookston: That will have to be done. Rountree: And that will have to be stated in the conclusions and findings? Crookston: It probably should be yes. Rountree: Item 13, sixth Fine, "of annexation, applicant shall be required #" the pound sign should be an e, required to enter into a development agreement" I have a question about development agreement are we still doing development agreements. Crookston: We have been, there has been a request that we .not do them any longer but our ordinance now still does require it. But what we have done is we have required the development agreement to be done at the time of the final plat approval before there are any building permits issued. Rountree: Still a requirement. Morrow: Mr. Rountree, if I might, part of what is going #o go on or is in the process of going on with the development agreement to simplify the process substantially. I don't think we visualized dropping. the requirement to a check list. Rountree: Thank you, page 15, the continuance of item 13 on page 15, ten lines down, "applicant shall obtain approval from the City for all equipment". I would suggest that we put in beforeequipment "monitoring equipment" for clarification. Six lines down from that point I suggest that we add a statement that the results of the monitoring be reported to either the City Engineer or the ordinance enforcement officer. That would follow the semi- colon "wells shall be monitored;". Corrie: And insert after that I am sorry again? Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 19 Rountree: Results of the monitoring should be reported to the City Engineer or the ordinance enforcement officer. On page 16, item 14, the third line in item 14, makes reference to homes that would be within 500 feet of homes in Meridian Greens subdivision. I believe later on it talks about being within 500 feet of Meridian Greens Subdivisions. That should be clarified one way or the other whether if is homes, lots or the boundaries of Meridian Greens subdivision. I suggest here that we change homes to lots or Meridian Greens subdivision boundary. Crookston: What has been done in the past it is not 500 feet of the subdivision it is 500 feet of the homes. Rountree: Okay, well later on it needs to be specified as such. I believe in another sub that was approved that was adjacent to Meridian Greens also had a stipulation that the roofing material be consistent with the type of roofing required in Meridian Greens and I would suggest that we include that as well. Crookston: Within the 500 feet? Rountree: Yes Crookston: That is up to you people. Rountree: Further down on item 14, the last line before item 15, Meridian City Clerk for 110% of the value of the work, insert after work as determined by ACHD to compete the guardrail. Those are all my suggested changes. Corrie: Shari (Inaudible) Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council I would like to clarify that 500 feet should be within the boundary of Meridian Greens Subdivision not homes. Rountree: Well I am hearing two things and it has to be one or the other. Corrie: The attorney says it should be homes and you say it should be something else. Stiles: What if there were no homes built on those lots yet? What if they had exceptionally deep lots that had not 500 feet deep but the intent in the past has always been the boundary of the Meridian Greens Subdivision. • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 20 Crookston: As I recalled it Shari I thought it was within 500 feet of the homes and if there are no homes than the only way I can see to handle that is to make it 500 feet. Rountree: About the only thing you can put as a descriptor on it would be lots. Crookston:. That would probably make sense. So then you don't have the restriction going half a lot. (Inaudible) Corrie: So you are saying the wording is lot boundary, the boundary of the lot? Crookston: Well we can't, is that, I understood the restriction was that it was within 500 feet of Meridian Greens. So that there were places that you have that restriction applying and there would be places where it does not apply within the Salmon Rapids Subdivision. If it was within 500 feet of any home within Meridian Greens than they had to comply with the restriction. What we are measuring is the 500 feet in Salmon Rapids. Rountree: To the footprint of the home site in Meridian Greens. Crookston: Right, isn't that how you understood it Shari? Stiles: Excuse me, it is really a moot point, the applicant's counsel has pointed it out that none of Salmon Rapids No. 3 comes within 500 feet of Meridian Greens. Crookston: So did you want to change it to a 1000? It is not a problem if that is in fact the case. Rountree: Than just leave it non specific to homes, lots or boundaries, just say Meridian Greens Subdivision for both items 17 as well as item 14 I believe it was. Morrow: Mr. Morrow I wish to return to page 15, and essentially I am still back here where we were a month or so ago with this particular page and this particular format. I am still troubled by some terminology and I think that we need to tighten it up from two standpoints. I believe at our last meeting in December I made the point that this document and this Council and the developer needed to get past the issue of just the developer. What I wanted to see spelled out in here and in the development agreement was a clear format of what the Homeowners Association was to do all the rest of the years coming in terms of laying out how this procedure was to take place with respect to the monitoring. The developers involvement within this subdivision is a minuscule amount of time given the life of the subdivision. I don't think that we have done a very good job spelling. out Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 21 what it is the Council's desire to give future Councils, homeowners associations the guidance of what we intended to happen there and how that association was to proceed. Case in point would be the applicant shall not be required to monitor adjacent wells if permission cannot be obtained. Well what is the criteria for gbtaining permission or showing that it can't be obtained. My point would be that we need a written affidavit from next door neighbor saying that he doesn't want to be monitored and that should serve as a guideline not only for us to date but to folk in the future. And so I am troubled by this entire page that references how we are going to handle this monitoring so that we let everybody know what it is that we are after. Now Mr. Rountree's comments and remarks I agree with all of those but 1 am still having a major problem with what it is we are trying to do here to where we want to be. Rountree: Walt, your concerns go beyond the issue of having some kind of a written documentation of permission or no permission to monitor wells to the future liability of the system. Morrow: I think that what we need to have in this document is some clear cut path that we want to get to so that everybody understands what our intent was. I see the conflicts or the problems coming at some point in the future. For point of conversation let's go back into a drought situation where this particular well causes neighboring adjacent wells to shut down. Now that might be ten years from now, obviously the development team is gone probably everybody on this digs is gone and we have not given those folk any guidelines as to what is going to happen in the event this irrigation well for which there is surplus surface water according to Nampa Meridian. Its impact on the neighboring wells if we don't spell out somewhere what is to happen so when that event does happen and everybody says so what we dried up the next door neighbors wells. We haven't told anybody or given anybody guidelines as to what is to transpire. It is my difficulty with how this written at this time. Does that answer your question? Rountree: Yes, I am just trying to think of what words (inaudible) to do that. I am not sure that we can Morrow: I think that we need to reference in the body of this the, for example the well monitoring the, the monitoring shall be preformed by a bi-weekly or during the months of April through October. And that we need to insert some terminology that if the results of this monitoring show an impact on the neighboring wells then this well is to be shut down. And that perhaps the homeowners association at that point in time approaches Nampa Meridian for surface water to be tied into the system. Qr a second alternative would be this system can be run by either the homeowners association or by N-amps Meridian. Maybe the monitoring and the system better in this case where a well is being used ought to belong to Nampa Meridian so that if there is monitoring to be done may accept that • • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 22 monitoring and take the necessary action should it be impacting the neighboring wells. I think, we need to think this through to give some sense of direction. Rountree: I agree but I think we have some boundaries that we need to put on ourselves with respect to the monitoring. The well has been granted so many units of water on an annual basis, to me the monitoring should only address that. If it draws more water than it is currently allowed by law than maybe the City has some power to say stop using the well. But if they don't and there is an impact on adjacent wells I think that water right issue lies at the State level. Morrow: I don't disagree with what you are saying, what I am driving to is to get to that scenario of some step, some method that should the monitoring show that is over and it impacts the wells than this is the procedure that starts, whatever that might be. Bentley: Walt, in regards to that, do we also have to define what the impact is. Or would that be up to the State? Morrow: I think obviously that if a neighbor comes into the City and says the well at such and such is drying my well up than that begins and what are you going to do about, than that begins to trigger something on our part that says well what are we going to do about it. If we have some sort of language in here in the development agreement that notifies the homeowners association and the City that there is this potential and that perhaps these are the solutions or points to go to Department of Water Resources. I mean I can see this document as a potential buyer of a lot in there that doesn't give. me any sense of direction as to what my remedies might be. Rountree: I think that is a good point that the remedies in one aspect lies with Water Resources and if we have an over uae of the well than there may be remedies at the City side. Morrow: Well, the other thing is Nampa Meridian has told us that there is surface- water available for this site. That is obviously another remedy. So I just throw that out as thought, I am uncomfortable with this portion of the document. Corrie: Well we can send it back for new findings of facts and conclusions if you so desire to be re-written based upon the discussion. Rountree:. Mr. Mayor I would move that we table this item and have the findings of fact re- written to address the issues pointed out by Mr. Morrow and myself. Tolsma: Second w • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 23 Cowie: Council you have heard the motion and further discussion? Hearing none I will call for a roll, all those in favor of the motion? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #5: TABLED DECEMBER 19, 1995: ORDINANCE #718 -SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION: ITEM #6: TABLED DECEMBER 19, 1995: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SALMON RAPIDS N0. 3 SUBDIVISION BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: ITEM #7: TABLED DECEMBER 19, 1995: DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 SUBDIVISION: Cowie: Counselor, those would also have to be tabled because of the findings of fact that represent for the variance and also the ordinance. Crookston: I will entertain a motion to table items 5, 6 and 7 until the following meeting. Bentley: So moved Tolsma: Second Cowie: Motion has been made and seconded, all those in favor say aye? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #8: TABLED DECEMBER 1995: AMENDED ORDINANCE #681 -VAN- AUKER ANNEXATION I-L: Cowie: AN AMENDED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING ANA ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH ARE DESCRIBED AS PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SQUTH 1/2 OF SECTION 9, THE SE 1/4 OF SECTION 8, T. 3N, R.1 E, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Is there anyone from the audience that would like to have this ordinance read in its entirety? Hearing none I will entertain a motion from the Council? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve amended Ordinance #681 with the suspension of rules. • s Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 24 Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded that we approve the amended Ordinance #681 with the suspension of the rules, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley, Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Smith: Mr. Mayor, I have a question on the easement which is to be discussed under Department Reports for the sewer line. There is still a question that I need to have your input on. I don't know if that affects this annexation in any way. It was tabled at the last meeting because of this easement that had not been completed yet. Corrie: It has not been completed yet? Smith: I have an easement in my hand to present to you this evening but I have a question on a portion of the easement that t need your input on. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, my preference would be to hear an maybe take this out of sequence because Mr. Smith is absolutely right. This was tabled last time because the easements were not prepared and done and it was the Council's desire that this annexation not take place until that easement structure had been accomplished. And at our presentation on January 4th it was indicated to us that easement would be taking form and that Mr. Smith would get that put together with Mr. Wright and Mr. Bews and Mr. Van Auker. So my preference would be to hear his presentation concerning that because it will affect obviously how 1 vote. Corrie: Gary do you want to go ahead and make that presentation now. Morrow: On advice of Counsel it seems that what we need to do is to move to take the vote back from 681 and then have Mr. Smith make his presentation because my desire is that both of these are affected by what this easement is. Corrie: Is that your motion? Morrow: That is correct. Mr. Mayor I will make the motion to withdraw the vote. Tolsma: I withdraw the second. Corrie: The motion has been withdrawn, the second has been withdrawn, all those in favor w Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 25 of the withdrawal say aye? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea r~ Smith: I will pass out the copy of this easement now and on page 2 is the item that I would like to have your input on. (End of Tape) Smith: My concern is the last paragraph on page 2 of the last sentence. Grantee, which is the City of Meridian, covenants and warrants that Grantee's use of this easement including the extension of sewer facilities through this easement and beyond shall not in any way diminish or adversely affect the amount of capacity in Grantee's sewer system available to serve Grantor's property. Grantor is Gemtone Incorporate. Basically the way I read this sentence is that the City of Meridian is guaranteeing capacity in that line for their property. The reason that I asked for your input is that in the past the City Council's position or the City's position has been sewer capacity is based on a first came first serve basis. That if anyone wants to reserve capacity in a sewer line than it is appropriate for that developer or applicant or that person to pay up front sewer assessment fees that would in turn guarantee their capacity in the sewer system. Also, creating some difficulty on this is that in a commercial zone we don't have a good picture of what could develop anal how much sewage flow could be generated from the commercial area. I understand the Grantor's desires they are granting an easement for extension of a sewer to serve other property besides theirs. They do not need this extension that is requiring this easement to develop their property. So basically they are covering their bases their development of their property by saying what is included in this last sentence. Morrow: Mr. Smith, how does that affect the Van Auker annexation of Van Auker properties. This doesn't have anything to do with their property this has to do with Gemtone who has that interval between where sewer ends now and what use to be the Club Wholesale property. Smith: Councilman Morrow, the development of Van Auker's property at this point in time is based upon an extension of a sewer line through a portion of Gemtone's property. Without this extension I am not sure what other routing will be available for Van Auker to pursue for development of his property. So, the sewer easement through Gemtone is an avenue for Van Auker to develop his property by routing the sewer line. Tolsma: Is this the property that is past the Crossroads subdivision? Smith: This property that contains this proposed easement is on the south side of the • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 26 property developed as Treasure Valley business center no. 1 where Yellow Freight is located, Ida-Tran Track system, Food Service of America those properties. It is due south of that development. Morrow: Mr. Smith, from a technical standpoint how much property of Gemtone's does this distance, what is the distance 600 feet? Smith: It is somewhere around 500 to 600 feet. Morrow: How much property of Gemtone's does this 500 or 600 feet serve? Smith: It wouldn't serve any of Gemtone's property, none of Gemtone's property would, it would not be necessary for them to sewer into any of this extension that Van Auker is proposing to build. they can be sewered by what is existing in the ground. Morrow: So I guess, 1 am confused then what does this phrase mean what capacity are they trying to serve? Smith: Well, that is the question, I don't know. They are saying, what they are asking for, what they are asking is that they be guaranteed capacity in the sewer for 80 acres of property that is undeveloped at this point in time. Thirty four acres I believe is to be purchased by Blue Cross which was announced last week. Morrow: But it doesn't come into this line is that correct? Smith: That is correct, it doesn't serve into this line that Van Auker is proposing to build. This line extension that Van Auker is proposing extends south from an existing manhole in Gemtone's property in a proposed roadway in Gemtone's property. None of Gemtone's property will need to access this short extension sewer line. All of Gemtone's property can be served by construction of other lines within their subdivision. The Gemtone plat has been presented to us but it has been sometime since you have seen it, the new councilman have not seen it I doubt. But, the just of my concern is that we don't' know what is going to develop on those commercial properties. I can't tell you tonight what the capacity is out there if all the property developed to its fullest capacity as commercial property. If it all developed into warehouse space than t can say without too much concern that yes we have capacity in that sewer line. If we developed some kind of a high water using. facility out there than maybe not. Morrow: But the issue is here is that it doesn't, I think what Gemtone is asking for is for us as a City to guarantee capacity in other lines for other properties. And that is clearly not the issue in my mind here. • • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 27 Smith: Well, this extension of this sewer line that Van Auker is proposing to build will impact the capacity of a sewer line that is presently existing in Gemtone's property. Morrow: Because it flows into that line. Smith: Correct, it flows into the existing sewer line in Gemtone's property and then flows to the west out of Gemtone's property. If for some reason all of the property to the south and the east develops ahead of Gemtone's property and it develops to a capacity such the sewer line is full than Gemtone's property in which this sewer line exists cannot hook to the sewer line. Gemtone is asking that they be guaranteed capacity in this sewer line regardless of what happens south and east. I don't know that we can say that, that we can say yes you have guaranteed capacity in the sewer line. At least the City Council has not said that in the past. Now that is a decision that I am asking input from you on. Morrow: If we guaranteed that capacity as a City Council would we not be then indebting ourself to expanding that line if that was necessary to service whatever they developed. Smith: Yes sir. Morrow: And we would expand that line from that point how far? Smith: Down stream to Five Mile Creek, I can't tell you how far that is but it is several thousand feet I would guess. This is all very hypothetical right now because I don't have any figures to tell you as far as what the capacity is on the line. What capacity would be required if all that commercial property out there developed. But my, because I don't really know what that capacity is going to be required for that property to develop. There are so many uses that can be placed on the property as a commercial industrial property. Morrow: Let me ask you one more question here was this one of the points was this one of the points that you spoke with Mr. Wright concerning and was it his desire to leave this in, because I think in his conversations with us he indicated that whatever was to be adjusted as long as it wasn't the signature page was fine with him. Smith: It was not one of the questions I asked him, the primary question is the first sentence in that paragraph that had to do with extra ordinary expenses which relate to latecomer fees. The applicant Mr. Van Auker and his representative has said that they don't have a problem with this. That being a latecomer fee assessed to Van Auker's sewer line extension would not be paid by Gemtone properties if they connected. Morrow: To this line. • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 28 Smith: To this line, and they Van Auker's group representative said that is fine with them. They don't have a problem with that. Morrow: Do you have a proposed solution to this terminology I think that the first come first serve is the only answer here. Smith: My only proposal would be to strike that sentence because I just feel uncomfortable in saying that yes you have the right to connect. Corrie: Gary, have you asked him if we can strike that? Smith: No I have not. Corrie: We might need to ask him, I was under the same impression that Mr. Morrow was that he said he didn't have any problems with making changes as long as it wasn't that signature page. I think maybe we should ask him and he might cooperate on that point and say strike it out. Smith: I wanted to get your input as to what you wanted to do policy wise based on what we have been doing. Morrow: Well from my perspective my preference here would be that we strike the sentence and that we press ahead with the Van Auker annexation ordinances because there are some other issues t hat are involved there also. And' so that those things can be moved forward I don't agree that the City ought to be guaranteeing capacity. Those are my thoughts. Rountree: I agree with that in principle, but what has been the practice in the past, is this a similar situation to what has occurred before or is is a situation where the easement has been with an entity or a developer that is developing the property at that point in time? Smith: Typically the easements, Councilman Rountree, are written in favor of the City because the City inherits the line. And so rather than transferring easements from a developer between two developers to the City they simply agree to write the City in as the grantee. Then the easement is given to the City along with the line, sewer or water line as it is constructed. Rountree: And that is the case with the extension of the line to the east to service St. Luke's? Smith: Yes that is correct, the City became involved in that project for basically easement Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 29 purposes. Corrie: Okay does that answer your question Gary, (inaudible) strike that out. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, do we need to craft a motion here so that Gary has some formal direction from the Council? Corrie: I think so. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we strike the last sentence of paragraph five on page 2 of the sanitary sewer easement document. Bentley: Second Corrie: You have heard the motion; any discussion? All those in favor say aye? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: So we are striking the last sentence in page two, furthermore the grantee covenants and warrants to the grantees use of this easements etc. to serve grantors property. I guess Counselor, I guess we can go back then on this amended ordinance, is that correct we can go beck and do the motion. on that one now if the Council so desires. Crookston: It would be appropriate to if you want to pass both of these ordinances so you don't have to come bads say in a week or two weeks and do it again. I would suggest that you pass the two ordinances or each one of them because they are on separate agenda items, pass each ordinance subject to receipt of the easement agreement signed by Tom Wright and Mr. Bews. Corrie: Alright, let's go back to item #8 the ordinance and we will do it one more time. AN AMENDED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH ARE DESCRIBED AS PARCELS- OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION 9, SE 1/4 OF SECTION 8, T. 3N, R.1E, BOISE, MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Anyone from the audience wish to have this read in ifs entirety? Seeing none I will entertain a motion. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve Ordinance #681 subject to the necessary signatures with the suspension of rules. Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 30 Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded, any discussion? Roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow: Excuse me Mr. Mayor, Counselor informs me that my motion should have said subject to easement signatures. Crookston: It just didn't stick into my mind that he referenced the easement maybe he did. Morrow: I don't think so but that was my desire does that count. Mr. Mayor I would move to amend the motion that it should reflect the easement. Corrie: Subject to receipt of the easement. Morrow: Signatures of the easement with the new language. Corrie: Alright, is there a second? Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion for the amended ordinance subject to the new language, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #9: TABLED DECEMBER 19, 1995: AMENDED ORDINANCE #686 -VAN AUKER ANNEXATION - C-G: Corrie: AN AMENDED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SW 1/4 OF SECTION 9, T.3N, R.1 E, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.. Anyone from the Council wish to have it read in its entirety? Hearing none I will entertain a motion on amended Ordinance #686. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, it should be noted that last affably was caused by a U of I graduate. Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 31 Corrie: Do I hear a motion that we accept this with the same subject to? Morrow: Let me start over. Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve amended Ordinance #686 subject to the necessary signatures of the easement agreement. Bentley: Second Morrow: Withdraw your second please? Bentley: I withdraw my second. Morrow: My new motion is, Mr. Mayor I would move that we approve the Amended Ordinance X86 with the deletion of the last sentence of the fifth paragraph on page two on the sanitary sewer easement agreement subject to the necessary signatures. Rountree: Second Corrie: Moved by Mr. Morrow, second by Mr. Rountree, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Tolsma -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Morrow -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #10: TABLED DECEMBER 19, 1995: FINAL PLAT FOR THE PLAYGROUND SUBDIVISION BY THE PLAYGROUND INC.: Corrie: Council, what is your pleasure? Morrow: The reason for table was? Corrie: Good question, I guess we will have the Playground people. Hutchinson: Mr. Mayor, members of the Council, first of all, welcome to the new members and congratulations Mr. Mayor. The issue that was for which this was tabled had to do with the lighting and the conditions of approval. I have spoken with Dr. Clark regarding the lighting on the driving range. Dr. Clark has been working with the neighbors that live on the north side of the freeway in fact he visited their backyards and saw that there was a problem with the lighting and those lights were previously adjusted to that public hearing the lights haven't been on since about mid-October. They have been adjusted so that the center of the cone of the light does not shine beyond the 150 yard marker so that those have been adjusted and should no longer be a problem. Dr. Clark has also advised those Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 32 residents on that north side that if they have any problem at all to let him know and he will certainly work with them to make sure this is not an ongoing problem with those lights. But other than we have no problem with the other conditions. Corrie: Council any questions? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the final plat for the Playground Subdivision subject to all staff conditions and the resolution of the light problem. Tolsma: Second Corrie: The motion is made and seconded for the final plat of the Playground Subdivision to be approved subject to staff approval and resolution of the lighting, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #11: TABLED DECEMBER 19, 1995: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR AND BRAKE ALIGNMENT SHOP BY DENNIS AND JANET BUTTERFIELD: Corrie: Is Dennis or Janet Butterfield here or a representative here please? Butte~eld: The reason that this didn't happen last meeting was we Spaced it, Christmas. Corrie: Any questions of Mr. Butterfield? Morrow: Mr. Butterfield, have you read the staff recommendations and the staff conditions both from City Engineer Smith and City P & Z Director Stiles? Butterfield: Yes, there were a couple of things I was concerned with. I thought we probably better bring up. That parking lot was rebuilt in 1994 and here we are talking about getting an engineering report and that is all said and done. So there is, but I do have an as built of how it was built and it was put together but Rushman Sand and Gravel and Capital Paving. We had come down for a building permit on the thing and we were informed by somebody in the office that you don't do building permits on parking lots. Which surprised us but we proceeded. So that is done. It hasn't been striped yet, I think we would rather wait for some better weather.. We talked a little bit about the inside drainage for grease trap use and we have plugged off the inside floor drain so there is no floor drain now. In lieu of using a grease trap at this point. That seemed to be acceptable to the sewer people. • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 33 Morrow: One other question Mr. Butterfield, you are also aware that in the document it calls for a certificate of occupancy which is a fairly standard procedure. And to do that you would have to have compliance with these issues and issues for example such as the striping of the parking lot might require a temporary occupancy until that is accomplished or something along those lines. Butterfield: Who do we get with, the City Engineer on this? Morrow: It would be a combination of P & Z and the City Engineer. Butterfield: Okay, well why don't we meet with them tomorrow then. Morrow: Thank you Corrie: Shari does that meet with your approval? Stiles: Excuse me Councilman Morrow for them to meet with us and make sure they meet all of staff and agency conditions and get at least a temporary occupancy? Morrow: Yes that is the general just of what I am after here so that Mr. Butterfield can meet or his representative can meet with you and Gary's representative to make sure the site specific requirements are covered and that item #4 with respect to the paving and striping that issue is resolved and issue a temporary occupancy should this be approved by the Council. So that they can be up in business and walking through that process is what I am asking fora Stiles: Yes we can do that. Morrow: Thank you, 1 have no further questions Mr. Mayor. Corrie: Any further questions from the Council? Rountree: I have a question of staff, Shari, with respect to signs. There currently is a sign on the front lot that advertises. The last time I went by there were some additional signs at least there was an additional sandwich board type sign in the planting grass strip along the sidewalk. I believe it was a Penzoil sign, is that consistent with our ordinance, would we expect to see those kinds on things in this area? Stiles: Councilman Rountree and Mayor and Council, no that would not be a permitted sign and our ordinance enforcement officer will be taking care of it: • • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 34 Corrie: Any further discussion? Entertain a motion on the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we accept the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared for P & Z. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion is made and seconded to approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: The decision? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the conditional use permit requested by the applicant for the property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion is made and seconded, all those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move we take a five minute break. FIVE MINUTE BREAK ITEM #12: PRELIMINARY PLAT (AMENDED) FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 BY INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT: TABLED DECEMBER 19, 1995: Corrie: This had some problems with the Fire Department, Pofice Department and the road width. I guess we can have Mr. Collins, let's have the Council, any discussion with the Council first? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would like to hear Gary Smith has made some comments as well as Chief Gordon and Chief Bowers. I would like to have Gary Smith the City Engineer respond to those comments and as I recall in our last presentation here this was a concept • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 35 that was fairly new, I am not clear in my own mind what ultimately happens with this drainage water where it all comes from, how much we are talking about. I seems to me like it was tabled pending some more information concerning these items. So if Mr. Smith could enlighten us I think that would help. Smith: Thank you Councilman Morrow, Mr. Mayor and Council members. There are two issues with Haven Cove No. 5 that we talked about at the last Council meeting: First of all as Councilman Morrow mentioned the developer's engineer has proposed a new concept to us in the urban area for the drainage control off of North Maura Avenue on the east side they are proposing a barrow ditch concept. You are probably familiar with borrow ditch concepts in the rural areas, it has been used extensively for years and years. Drainage runs off of the paved area into the barrow ditch and then drains in the direction of the grade of the barrow ditch. Pipes are placed under driveways into the residential units and the water drains through the pipes and as it drains it percolates into the ground. For the most part under our normal rainfall you see very little water running in the barrow ditch areas. tf water does, if the intensity of the storm is great enough than you will see water draining in the barrow ditch areas and onto a point of disposal. Part of the Central District Health's requirements are that the developments take care of the first half inch of rain I believe it is from a storm in a method other than direct disposal into the ground water. This is an attempt based on the amount of drainage that they have concentrating toward the northeast portion of the subdivision to dispose of a portion of that water in a barrow ditch scheme in a grass swale area scheme in the form of a barrow ditch prior to it entering into a retention pond. Engineer Collins is here for the applicant and he has a pretty strong hydrology background and can probably do a lot better job explaining that process to you than I can. I think basically that is the concept. We raised a couple of questions, one is how much pipe is installed in the driveways, who is responsible for installing the pipe under the driveways. Whether or not the Highway District is going to maintain that drainage are or if it is up to the Homeowners, those sorts of things. Those are details that I think can be worked out. In my own mind I don't have a particular problem with the barrow ditch or the grass swate concept. I think one of the things that we are faced with continually faced with in subdivisions is point discharge. This helps us get away from a point discharge. Someday I expect that EPA is going to come back and beat on us about water quality from point discharge and we will have to address that or someone will have to address that. The other issue that we talked about was the width of the right of way for a short culdesac street known as West Wave Place. The applicant is proposing a 42 foot right of way with a 29 foot back to back street section, back to curb to back of curb street section. My initial thought was to get some response from police, fire and school district. concerning the width of that road. We have not been in to my knowledge we haven't had a narrow section built in the City of Meridian. So I wanted the other departments input. The school district came and said initially they were not in favor of it and then Jim Carbury called my by telephone and said that looking back at it they • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 36 realized they weren't going to be busing in this area therefore it is not a problem for them. Both police and fire had concerns. If a section of the road, one side or the other was posted for no parking to ensure a clearer pathway for fire trucks the Police Chief said he does not have personnel, man power available to enforce that. So in effect it would be the people living on the street it would be up to them to police themselves. They would either ignore the no parking signs or they would abide by them. From the fire truck standpoint the Fire Chiefs standpoint they had some concerns about access into that street into the culdesac and you can only assume the worst case and that would be if they had a garage sale going on or some kind of a party going on and people were parked on both sides of the street. It would be very difficult for a vehicle to transmit themselves to one end or the other. Just a few minutes ago the developer indicated that they would on the 42 foot right of way they would build their street section wide enough to fill up the right of way width. And with a five foot sidewalk on each side of the street that means they would build a 32 foot back of curb to back of curb street section and that would be in comparison to a 36 foot standard that we have had for years. Which by the way the Highway District has changed to 37. Which is what it used to be 10 years ago, but anyway. Thirty two foot versus thirty sjx feet that we had a year ago so they are four foot shy of having a standard street section or what was our standard street section. If you look at the travel lane width and the parking lane width typically a parking lane is nine feet in width and the travel lane is 12 feet in width. You would have on a 32 foot back of curb to back of curb section you would have a net of 31 feet face of curb to face of curb basically parking/travel way area or width. So if you parked one side nine feet you would have 22 feet left over. And you could theoretically squeeze two vehicles through there. If you parked on both sides 18 foot off of 31 feet you would have 13 feet in the middle. Which you could access one lane. I guess those are my observations and I think that the developer has stepped what they were proposing originally. It is still a little shy of what we had been accepting as a residential street. I guess one of the caveats to those is a dead end culdesac streets that serves I don't know how many lots, ten lots maybe 12 lots. So your traffic count is going to be quite low, as you know we do require two off street parking areas plus a double car garage. I think one of the things that you run into culdesac streets and you may or may not be aware and that is parking in a culdesac is generally difficult. Especially for large gatherings at a home in a culdesac. You will find you have people parked out in the middle of the culdsac because there just isn't enough frontage in front of a house to park. So the culdesac area itself sometimes creates more of a problem than the roadway leading to the culdesac. I am not saying that to confuse you but it is just an observation that I have made. I don't know that the 32 foot section would create a significant hardship. I can't say for certain from the fire department stand point. I can only say that from the police department standpoint I don't think it would be necessary to post it for no parking because they could park both sides and still have one lane available. Do you have any other questions that I could try and answer or perhaps you might want to question the applicant's engineer on the hydrology aspect of the grassy swale. I think there are some • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 37 questions there that need to be answered. Particularly on the piping, the length of pipe under the driveways and who maintains that swale area. It is still within the right of way is the Highway District going to maintain it. Is it going to be landscaped by the lot owners and maintained by the lot owners as a grass area. It is an area between the edge of pavement and the sidewalk but it is a swale. I think the intention of the developer is that it is a grass swale which will contribute to the treatment and disposal of storm water. Rountree: Gary, I have a question, just to point out one of my concerns, but on evening like tonight, if I were to go into this street and park on the side street how deep would I be stuck in the grassy swale? Smith: If you pulled off the pavement? Rountree: Yes Smith: I don't think you would want to pull off the pavement. The side slopes on the swale are 2 to 1, proposed to be 2 to 1 side slope. Rountree: Very uncommon in an urban setting. Smith: Yes very uncommon, you expect that type of section in a rural setting but it is very uncommon in the urban section. Part of the Fire Departments comment evolved around their access of fireman across the Swale packing a hose accessing the structure. Morrow: I guess is the question here as to what we want to see for a community standard is that really the bottom line here? We have no place else within the City that these two proposals Smith: Well right Councilman Morrow, there isn't anything that was done on an intentional basis, I can think of a couple of private lanes where a barrow ditch section exists. But it is more of a rural setting even on the private lanes with the City of Meridian. I didn't think I would forget the name of it but it is right off of Cherry Lane out there next to where the new library is going to be, Leisure Lane. Is a good example of a 22 - 24 foot side paved section with a barrow ditch on each side. But we have larger lots there, they are kind of rural pasture land, typical rural setting even though it is within the City. Here we have 80 foot wide lots, paved street, by the way this street has a cross slope i# doesn't have a crown section in it. The cross section drains entirely to the grassy swale area. The other side is what they call a reverse gutter, the water actually drains out of the gutter and it crosses the pavement into the Swale area. So all of the street drainage on the street section is draining to the swale. • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 38 (Inaudible) Corrie: It is not a public hearing, any further questions or discussion by the Council? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would have a question of Counselor as where we table this pending input from our fire department, police department and City Engineer's department. The public hearing portion is over is that correct? Corrie: That is correct. (Inaudible) Corrie: If the Council wishes it, it is entirely up to them. Rountree: I have a question I guess to the status (inaudible) talks about an amended plat has this plat previously been before or has it been continually amended since it came from P & Z? Crookston: I believe that this is a new plan. Haven Cove Subdivision N0. 5 to my knowledge at least had been approved for the preliminary plat by the Council. Rountree: This is an amended version of that approved preliminary plat. Crookston: It is, but they have requested the amendments. (End of Tape) Crookston: Since the developer has requested-the amendment you can deal with it just as if it were a new deal for you. Rountree: That was my question was it an amendment of an approved plat or was it a new plat. Crookston: I believe it was, there was an approval for the preliminary plat on Haven Cove No. 5. Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, Haven Cove No. 5 was approved as a preliminary plat by P & Z and City Council it was also approved as a final plat by the City Council. At that point the developer met with the adjacent property owners and. worked out a. configuration on a portion of Haven Cove No. 5 that would allow a better development of properties in that area. So, this meant a change to a part of Haven Cove No. 5 and that Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 39 has come back as an amendment, an amended plat of Haven Cove No. 5 of which the top half is the same as the final plat that was approved with the exception of the right oi' way width on North Maura Avenue which has gone from 50 feet to 60 feet to accommodate this drainage swale. That was the only change from the original final on the northerly portion of Haven Cove No. 5. The southerly portion has been changed significantly to accommodate ~ .connection with Tom and Betty Eddy's property to the west to work a better traffic circulation and connection to Pine Avenue. There are two 20 acre parcels there one developed by Blaser and one proposed to be developed by the Eddy's to accommodate a single access to Pine Avenue. This southerly portion of Haven Cove No. 5 was reconfigured to connect with Eddy's parcel. Does that, did I clear as mud? Rountree: That gets me back to where I was. Crookston: Gary, this swale type barrow ditch that was not within Haven Cove No. 5 initially was it? Smith: No it wasn't. Crookston: Is there not any of that type of ditch in No. 6 that there is in No. 5. Since we are dealing with No. 5 subdivision I assume that was going to be in No. 5 subdivision also or at least a portion of No. 5. Smith: It is No. 5 right. The swale drainage is in No. 5 Crookston: Would you call that a big change from what was initially was approved? Smith: Well, it is a change, it is no# a big change no, the number of lots did not change, the only thing that changed was they. added ten foot of right of way to the east side of Maura Avenue and basically took it off the depth of the lots along the east side of North Maura. Maybe it was five feet on that side and five feet on the other side, five feet on each side of Maura to make the 60 foot. The problem apparently was in being able to control the drainage because all of the subdivision is draining from south to north concentrating in the northeast corner of the subdivision. Part of the problem here was to because of the length of the subdivision was to pick up that drainage and do something with it before it got and I think the Highway District limits the length of open curb that you can flow into a 1000 feet or 750 feet or something like a 1000 feet. That is all the farther you. can run curb and gutter drainage before you have to do something with the drainage. You either put it into a storm drain system in the street or this is an alternative that is being proposed to the Highway District. Let me read you part of a second paragraph that came from the Highway District. They are talking about this special roadway cross section for North Maura Avenue. "This represents an unusual solution to a difficult drainage control situation. Although staff • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 40 supports the technical aspect to this solution it violates district policy 7204.4.2 which calls for standard roll curb or vertical curb with gutters and sidewalks on urban streets. Please inform us about your policies or preferences regarding the proposed street section. If you have no major problem with it than we will present it to our Commissioners for special approval." That letter was written to me from the Highway District. Glaser: We are re-platting this at our great expense to accommodate the neighbors. It really makes better traffic circulation. But by changing the streets new problems were presented (inaudible) and I think instead of having a whole lot of culdesacs now we have street to tie onto the neighbors property which makes much more sense. Smith: Mr. Mayor, one of the things that I am wondering and maybe the applicant's engineer or the applicant can address this, I haven't received answers to how much pipe is going to be installed in the drive way crossings. We know it is going to be 12 inches in diameter. Who is going to be responsible for installing the pipe, the developer or the home builder. Who is going to maintain the swale area, if it is in the right of way is the Highway District going to do that or is the property owner going to do that. Maybe the answers to these questions would help in your decision making process. Blaser: Your question specifically then was what please? Smith: We know that the pipe under the driveway is proposed to be 12 inches in diameter, how long of a piece of pipe is going to be installed under the driveways? Blaser: Probably 20 feet to go across a double driveway and that is all covered in the restrictive covenants. We will write that in the restrictive covenants and it will be the property owners responsibility on those particular lots to take care of that drain pipe and to install it. That is the common way to solve that problem. Smith: Who maintains the swale? Blaser: Over in Boise my house is, there is ten feet of City property from the sidewalk line and I mowed it for years. and that is exactly what they property owners will do out here. The swale is not going to be a deep ditch but it is going to be ten foot wide and rounded and cover with grass. It will just make a beautiful front lawn. The houses will set back ten feet farther than usual, we are going to try and keep those curves rounded as much as we can. It seems like a very logical and common way to dispose of water. I just returned from a section in Washington D.C. where they don't allow curb and gutters they want the excess water to soak into the ground and these swales are not unsightly at all. We will make every effort to see that it is beautiful and landscaped and we will expect right in the restrictive covenants will be the duty of the homeowner that buys that property to maintain Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 41 it out to the edge of the sidewalk. Smith: May I ask another question Mr. Mayor? In the process of building this roadway section, prior to construction of the homes, the sidewalk will be built, the swale will be built and then when a developer builder comes in to construct a home the first thing they will do is put their pipe in the swale and build their driveway across the sidewalk across the swale is that the process that would be followed and the will be responsible for keeping that swale a Swale. Blaser: I believe it is your prerogative to state how big the pipe it, I believe you already said it is to be 12 inches. We will, whenever they put in their driveway they will have to install the pipe. It will be in the restrictive covenants it is their duty to keep that pipe clear and to keep the Swale grass in the swale mowed and taken care of. I think it will add beauty to the lot rather than just detract. It is a little unusual but in our effort to try to accommodate the neighbors and to make better traffic flow for the entire west side of Pine Street or that side of Pine Street from the High School down we could See the advantages of the new design tying all the properties together instead of a series of culdesacs and so we are going through this great expense and we are losing time by trying to accommodate and make better traffic flow for the police, for the fire department for everyone else. But there are one or two small problems. Now we have agreed and we are willing to make that street in question wider. The drawings that the engineer submitted to your office and Rick today looked them over the drawings set number 2 and 3 showed the wider street. It was Ada County Highway District that cut it down to 29 feet. We want to do the proper thing and we would like to, and I have agreed, I agreed with Rick this afternoon and we are perfectly willing to build the street wider. We just want to know what you want and what you will allow us to do. Ada County Highway District is the one that from set 3 to set 4 of the engineering drawings they wanted to cut the size of the street down. We are sort of pawns in the middle. But we will make them wider and I perfectly agree with your, I think you made a very fair presentation of what the facts were. I think that I have gotten old in this subdivision business and the time is going to come when we can't drain all our streets into the public rivers. We have got to let more of the run off from the streets soak into the ground where we catch it instead of piping it miles away and dumping it into the Boise River and other places. Those times are not far off and I think this is just kind of a start, it isn't very long and we sure would appreciate favorable consideration of our preliminary plat this evening. Corrie: Thank you, Gary anything else? Smith: I might just say Mayor and Council that it is still all within the Ada County Highway District right of way. It is still their street section, according to Mr. Stuart Rich's letter that I just read, from which I just read to you a portion they are willing to take that section to • • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 42 their Commissioners for a special approval. They apparently see. some positive aspect to it. As Mr. Blaser stated and I have been of the opinion for some time that perhaps we need to look at this grassy Swale concept. I know in Canyon County and talking to the developer that did Rod's Parkside Creek, they developed several subdivisions over there of an urban subdivision with a wider paved section street and grassy swales on each side. They had a crown street section in that case. They had good success with it. I can't give you any real details other than that is what he said. But perhaps the Highway District is still holding the key as far as approval of this different street section. (Inaudible) Corrie: Council, any further discussion? Rountree: Mr. Mayor, my comment is that if we allow this we establish a community standard that I don't think we can live with in the City of Meridian. l personally don't agree with the concept. Technically it does have some merit but I think the execution will be very difficult to do. I think it will be very difficult to maintain. You will have people stuck in it, you will have people parking cars in it, you will have a lot of nightmarish things that are not taken care of readily in an urban setting. Particularly when you have 80 foot frontages. Personally I can't, I have a real difficulty with the concept.. Corrie: Any further comments? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I think that 1 see this as probably something that in the future maybe comes to pass. But I think it has to be done if you are going to do it in a major project where the whole project has continuity. I think that there are certainly better ways to dispose of surface drainage water. I know that these concepts work fairly well in some areas back east that have substantial rainfalls but in most cases those are 1 /2 acre to acre lots. I have a major problem here with this concept within a very small portion of a subdivision for all the reasons that Mr. Rountree alluded to. One of the others things with respect to ACHD its been several years ago but they switched from roll back curb and gutter on radius to just a straight back curb and gutter simply to respond to citizen complaints about slide offs onto their lawns in the winter time.. Now this particular concept although interesting and given our winter types of things can create several of those same kind of situations. Particularly in a small compact residential environment. I agree with Mr. Rountree also that I am not willing to do a new community s#andard for this when basically everybody else within our community has been given direction of standard size streets, curbs, gutters, drainage situations and so on. And so I also think in reference to the street width the input from Chief Bowers and Chief Gordon is well founded. A few years ago we tried some T-culdesac concepts, I have personally lived in one of those areas and very candidly it didn't work very well. I don't see this as a lot different. I think that on both of • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 43 those issues it is not something that I would be in favor of. Corrie: Any further comment from Council? Hearing none I will entertain whatever motion you so desire. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move to deny the amended plat. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion is made and seconded that the amended preliminary plat be denied, is there any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #13: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR LENGTH OF CULDESAC FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 5 BY INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT: Corrie: You have those findings of fact in front of you Council, any discussion? Rountree: I guess I have a question, does this deal with both the final plat as approved for Haven Cove in the amended plat? Crookston: All you are dealing with in this agenda item is the variance to allow a longer than 450 foot culdesac. Rountree: But is that in the amended plat or the final plat? Crookston: I am not sure Charlie/ Rountree: I am trying to find the street names referenced here. Corrie: Shari, do you have any idea what that is, if that is the preliminary plat or the amended plat or maybe Gary. Is this variance for the preliminary plat plat or the amended one? S#iles: Mr. Mayor and Council that would be on the amended plat. Corrie: It was the amended plat? Stiles: Yes • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 44 Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members, do you have a print of the plat, it is the dog leg culdesac on the lower right hand section of the plat, it is labeled North Maura Court. The length of that culdesac exceeds the ordinance of a maximum of 450 feet. Morrow: Guidance from the Counselor with respect to this? Crookston: It is a 478 feet length I think on the culdesac. The way I did the findings was to go ahead and approve it because it is not that large of a variance so it is up to the Council whether they want to approve it or not. Morrow: Well, my question is it is a culdesac that has no impact on the two areas that we didn't want to see happen. So we can approve the variance in spite of that is that correct? Crookston: Yes Morrow: Okay, thank you. Mr. Mayor in the absence of other discussion by fellow Councilman I would move that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the variance of the length of the culdesac for Haven Cove Subdivision No. 5 by Interwest Development. Rountree: Second Corrie: Motion has been made and seconded, any further discussion? Call for the vote, ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree-Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: Decision? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that the decision is decided the application should be granted as to the culdesac length on I believe it is not West Pine Street. Crookston: Right, the decision under the findings is wrong it should be West Maura Court. Morrow: So my motion was the application should be granted as to the culdesac length on West Maura Court, west and north, West State. Mr. Mayor let me rephrase. my motion. I move that the decision is that the application should be granted as to the culdesac length on West State and North Maura Court. Rountree: Second Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 45 Corrie: The motion has been made and seconded that the decision of the application should be granted as to the culdesac on West State and North Maura Court, all approved say aye? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I apparently overlooked Ms. Stiles. Rountree: How could you do that. Corrie: Did you wish to ask her a question Mr. Morrow? Morrow: Yes I did, Ms. Stiles you had a comment for me? Stiles: Councilman Morrow and Mayor and Council, I didn't mean to interrupt your action on this item but because this is a variance on a plat that has been denied I am just wondering where we are at. Are we back to the original plat, the final plat? Crookston: What I did ask Walt was that if it was out of the area that we had dealt with on the plat. If it is in the area that where the plat was denied basically it is anon-issue. Stiles: I guess my question is since this plat is denied the amended plat, which, and some changes were made in what was not. presented as part of an amended plat to the Planning and Zoning Commission since the amended plat they submitted was supposed to be for the southern half they then made changes since going to P & Z to the north half is the entire whole thing null and void or is the original preliminary and final plat that was approved by Council is that still approved in its then configuration or its what, where are we? Crookston: We go back to the situation before the amended plat was requested. You go back to the, so the plat that was approved preliminarily and finally. So then this variance is not even needed. Stiles: Thank you Morrow: So let me, Mr. Mayor, Counselor let me ask you from a practical standpoint where are we at? Crookston: In terms of this it stands as if the variance had not been requested and i# approval of the amended plat had not been requested. It is as if nothing had happened on the plat, on the amended plat or on the variance. They are in the same position they were ~ ~ Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 46 prior to those applications. Corrie: So item #13 is null and void, how do we get out of it. We can't just null and void it. Crookston: No, you correctly denied it. Corrie: We denied the preliminary plat amended, how about item 13 findings of fact for the variance. It was moot point so does that mean that we just ignore it? Crookston: Yes Corrie: So in other words we didn't vote on it or anything else? Crookston: You voted on it, the same thing happens whether you vote or not, you end up with the plat as they had it before they had even filed for the approval of the amended plat or for the grant of the variance. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I think part of my, I understand what the Counselor is saying and I agree with that. But I think part of the intent in terms of approving the variance at least on my part is to say that I don't have any problem with this plat configuration that helps traffic flow, helps circulation, helps neighboring properties. I am in favor of the culdesac length being taken care of. What I am opposed to is the width of the road and the grassy swale. Those items it appears to me within this configuration can be easily changed and press forward. I think my purpose in wanting to see the approval of the culdesac variance is to get that message to the developer and his engineer. I don't see any reason to trash the. entire concept for those two areas is what I am suggesting.. (Inaudible) Corrie: Your amended plat has been denied period you can't do that one, you are back to your original plat. What we are saying here is we like the, as far as your plat is concerned on the originals fine, the variance for the culdesac is fine but not the concept that you presented with the swales and that type of thing. Blaser: If we took out the swale and (inaudible) Corrie: You have to go back to your original, we have denied your amended plat. Collins: The swale was not proposed in the amended plat nor was the 42 foot right of way culdesac change. It was (inaudible) on the amended plat. The only thing modified was the south half, both the issues in question were in the north half and they were construction Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 47 documents they were worked out with the Ada County (inaudible). This did not show any change to the 60 foot right of way nor did it change the culdesac of Wave Place from the originally approved 40 foot. Corrie: Well I guess we would still have to go back to the, Counselor, what is your opinion? Crookston: With what Councilman Morrow stated I see no problem with going ahead and tabling so that the changes can be made so that they are in conformance with what has been previously approved for the preliminary plat and the final plat. It would still have that 478 foot culdesac. So it would be appropriate to approve of the variance on the culdesac length. Corrie: Which we did, what are you saying we can table? Crookston: You table the plat, are there no changes to the plat if the variance is granted? Corrie: I guess the question is are there any changes to the plat on the variances you are asking for on the amended plat. What changes on your amended plat from the preliminary that you had? Smith: Mr. Mayor and Council members. The thing that changed on the northerly portion of this plat was the width of the street it went from a 50 #oot to a 60 foot right of way. That was it on the northerly portion. Corrie: So you changed so there was a change from a 50 to a 60 foot wide. Smith: Yes (Inaudible) Crookston: The owner has just indicated to me that it would be just as good and it would be preferable to them to table it so that they can make the changes and then bring it back to the Council. Corrie: Without the swales and ali this other. Morrow: Okay, now your procedure to get to that point? Corrie: Go back to twelve and table twelve to come back with the changes. • • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 51 Elliott: Right, actually there was, I guess Gary is gone, but I found out from Pinnacle Engineering that we can't go along the north side of Fairview to connect to sewer but we are not going to have to along the south side according to the easement requirements, but we don't have a problem with that either. Corrie: Any further questions of Council? Anybody else from the public that would like to testify in reference to items 15 and 16? Hearing none I will close the public hearing? Counsel, do we need findings of fact and conclusions of law? Rountree: I have a question Mr. Mayor, is it customary to adopt findings of fact from P & Z? Crookston: Yes Rountree: Mr. Mayor I move we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as prepared by Planning & Zoning for both items 15 and 16. Morrow: Second Corrie: Motion is made and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law by the Planning and Zoning on items 15 and 16, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma: Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that the City Council that the property set forth in the application be approved for annexation and zoning and the issuance of the conditional use permit under the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. Tolsma: Second Corrie: The motion is made and seconded all those approve say aye? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we instruct the City. Attorney to prepare an ordinance of annexation and zoning for the property that we have just approved. Rountree: Second • • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 52 Cowie: Motion made and seconded that the City Attorney draw up and ordinance for the property just approved, all those in favor say aye? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #17: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 1.35 ACRES TO R-4 FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO.6 BY JOHN EDDY: Corrie: I will open the public hearing on number 17. Is there a representative for Haven Cove No. 6. Tom Eddy, 2630 West Pine, was sworn by the City Attorney. Eddy: Mr. Mayor and Councilman, this is a 1.3 acre subdivision consisting of five 8,000 square foot lots and one smaller lot that is a nonbuildable lot that will connect to Haven Cove No. 5 when it is platted (inaudible). It is adjacent to Haven Cove No. 5 and No. 4 and services (inaudible). I don't have anything else. I would be glad to answer any questions if you have any. Morrow: You are in agreement with, you have indicated in writing, but for the record. you are in agreement with the staff questions and conditions. Eddy: Yes Corrie: Any other questions from Council? Thank you Mr. Eddy. Anybody else from the public that would like to make a statement in the public hearing? Hearing none I will close the public hearing on the annexation. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I move that we adopt the findings of fact and conclusions as prepared for us by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion is made and seconded that we approve the findings of fact and conclusions of law by the Planning and Zoning, roll call vote. ROLL CALL VOTE: Morrow -Yea, Bentley -Yea, Rountree -Yea, Tolsma -Yea MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow: I move that the City Council of the City of Meridian approve the annexation and • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 53 zoning as stated for the above property described in the application with the conditions set forth in the findings of fact and conclusions of law. That the applicant and owners be specifically required to the all ditches, canals and waterways and the applicant meet all of the ordinances of the City of Meridian specifically including development time requirements and enter into the required development agreement and meet the conditions of these findings of fact and conclusions of law and that if the conditions are not met the property be de-annexed. Rountree: Second Corrie: You have heard the recommendation, and second, any discussion? All those in favor say aye? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare an annexation ordinance for haven Cove Subdivision No. 6 by Tom Eddy. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion made and seconded to direct the City Attorney to draw up an ordinance for Haven Cove Subdivision No. 5, all those in favor say aye? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #18: PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION NO.6 BY JOHN EDDY: Corrie: I will open the public hearing, Mr. Eddy would you like to say anything on this one? Tom Eddy, was sworn by the City Attorney. Eddy: Mr. Mayor and Councilman I would repeat my testimony in the of the previous item. If you have any questions I will answer them. Rountree: Is there a note on the plat that indicates the one lot is not buildable? giddy: Yes Rountree: Okay • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 54 Corrie: Any further questions of the Council? Anybody else from the public that would like to give testimony on the preliminary plat for Haven Cove No. 6? Hearing none I will close the public hearing, entertain a motion. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we approve the request for preliminary plat for Haven Cove Subdivision No. 6 by Tom Eddy. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion is made and seconded that we approve the request for preliminary plat for Haven Cove Subdivision No. 6 by John Eddy, all those in favor say aye? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #19: PUBLIC HEARING: DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE FOR PARKS: Cowie: I will open the public hearing, and invite anybody from the public that would like to give testimony on the ordinance, impact fee ordinance for City parks: Robert Morrison, 3841 Woodmont Drive, was sworn by the City Attorney. Morrison: I have gone to the City offices and I have tried to get level pay for the water which they say it is not available in Meridian and nobody has offered it and they'd say they'd get back to me. I have mentioned it to Mr. Cowie and I would like to mention it to the whole Council even though it isn't on the impact fees. If you can't consider a level pay Like lights, gas and so forth for not only senior citizens and some of the people that can't quite afford it and people that travel if they could send in a direct amount without having the problem with the City of Meridian on a level pay on the water. Surely you can do something in this computer age that we can get a level pay on the water systems which is here in the City of Meridian. I don't know where you want to put it in but like I say on this one number 19 this was my last opportuni#y I could see a public hearing so I thought I had better say something before you guys close me out. Cowie: Okay, does anybody have any questions, this is not part of the, not particular to that public hearing but does anybody have any questions for Mr. Morrison? Morrow: Well, Mr. Mayor I might offer to Mr. Morrison I understand and I am sensitive to the concept, I think it is an issue that we have see if our current computer programs allow that to work and if not what it takes to make it work. • • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 55 Morrison: Well I have asked in the City Offices previously and they said they would` get back with me and (inaudible) and every time I have tried to bring it up I haven't been able to get through to it. So I figured if I got all of you at one time at least you would know that there is some request for this. Then as long as we are on this number 19, do any of these impact fees go to the golf course? Corrie: No, these are for all parks, these are earmarked to pay back the $1.2 million of the regional park that is at Meridian Road and Ustick Road plus the interest back to the City. Morrison: I have no objection to that I just wanted to make sure it wasn't the golf course going in on that too. Corrie: That is not classified as a City park. Morrison: Can I expect an answer or anything on this here water setup. Morrow: Well maybe we will help you from this standpoint, the direction from the Council to the City Staff might very well me that they explore that possibility and get an answer back to us in writing and then we-can forward that on to you if that is the agreement of the Council to direct our staff to do so. Morrison: Okay, I thank you. Corrie: Anybody else from the public that would like to talk about the development impact fee? Richard McCaughy, 2045 .North Fastwater, Boise, was sworn by the City Attorney. McCaughy: I should first identify myself, I am the governmental affairs director for the Building Contractors Association of Southwestern Idaho. I didn't have a great deal of time to review the ordinance, I only first looked at it, I got it about noon today. But I did extensively review the draft ordinances that were originally developed approximately the middle of 1994. Our concerns about the police impact fees, the fire impact fees have ben addressed in that they are no longer contained in the draft ordinance. We did notice that the amount of the fee has increased considerably and I noticed that is primarily due to the identified cost of developing an acre of land. I don't think we can necessarily dispute those costs, I would say franklin in 1994 you probably tow balled them. So, but it does put you with administrative costs at roughly $530 per single family house and in comparison Boise is $655 for a single family house. Our association essentially is in support of park impact fees. We don't necessarily like impact fees but given certain alternatives we understand Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 56 your need for land acquisition and development of parks here in the city of Meridian and we are willing to support this ordinance. That is the good news. The bad news is my understanding of the enabling legislation is that the requirements in the law supersede the normal posting of agendas in advance for your normal ordinance procedure. I am not sure that you met the requirements of the enabling legislation and that this must be posted no less than 15 or no more than 30 days prior to the public hearing in order to comply with the enabling legislation. So, and also given that in that we did not really have much time to sit down and discuss the specifics of this ordinance and for me to sit and look at your comprehensive plan, your capital facilities plan and just make myself comfortable with how you came up with the numbers. We would request and in compliance with the enabling legislation that you do not consider the adoption of this ordinance at this meeting. I will answer any questions. Rountree: When did you first hear about the ordinance and how? McCaughy: Frankly I heard about the ordinance when a reporter from the Statesman called me and mentioned he had heard it in the pipeline.. I called Ms. Stiles and I also talked to Councilman Morrow who was kind enough to inform me that he would get me a draft copy of the ordinance as soon as possible. Which I received a call from the City Clerk today and came over and picked up a copy of the draft ordinance at approximately noon today. So that was the first I had seen. As I said my understanding of the enabling legislation which was a product of the Building Contractors Association we sponsored that bill the public hearing requirements are very specific and very strict. So we would just request that the formal notice be given in compliance with the 15 day advance notice and we conduct a public hearing according to the enabling legislation. I think we will be able to come back, I don't see any serious concerns with the ordinance. On principle we accept it, we would be more comfortable if we had a little more time to look at it, that is all we are asking. Rountree: Is it your understanding that formal notice be published in the newspaper of record for the community? McCaughy: It is my understanding that is what the enabling legislation requires. Crookston: What do you think the problem is with the notice? McCaughy: That you didn't meet the 15 day requirement? Crookston: How? McCaughy: When was the notice for this public hearing published? Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 57 Crookston: I don't know I didn't do it. McCaughy: The first I had seen was this agenda notifying that there would be a public hearing was today. That was the first time I saw it. Corrie: My question was it not published in the paper fifteen days before this meeting. Morrow: In the Valley News. Corrie: In the Valley News which is the legal publication. McCaughy: Was it 15 days, did you meet the public hearing notification? If that was done than this is a legal public hearing. Although we did request a copy of the ordinance at least 2 weeks ago and I was not made, the copy of the ordinance was not made available to me until today. Corrie: I guess we can apologize for that, that it was not given to you. I was not aware of that. Any other questions of the Council? Crookston: I have a question, who did you ask to receive the copy of the ordinance from? McCaughy: I first made a call to Ms. Stiles and I subsequently received a phone call from Mr. Morrow and he said that he would make a copy available to me as soon as possible. I received a phone call today saying that the ordinance was available. I came over and picked it up posthaste. Crookston: I am not criticizing you, I am not after you for what happened, I just want to know what did happen. Do you recall that Walt? Morrow. Well he is absolutely right, I talked to Richard I believe on Friday indicating that the proposed ordinance would be part of our package and as of yet when I talked to them on Friday we didn't .have the package. 1 picked up the package on Saturday and then called him today because I forgot yesterday and say the proposed ordinance is available. And that was matter of fact, I don't know, did I talk with you today or did the staff gal? McCaughy: Staff called me. Morrow: I talked to the staff gal and had them send, I talked to Anna also and indicated to her that they would be sending a runner for that ordinance so that they could review and present the testimony tonight. And that was prior to noon today. And thin Anna paged me back and 11:30 or so thereabouts so that is correct. • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 58 Crookston: And was the runner that came out, did the Wanner come directly after say noon. McCaughy: I talked to Anna and I offered to come over and pick it up forthwith, I would say within a half hour of receiving her phone call I was here. Corrie: Any further questions? McCaughy: Thank you Corrie: Anybody else from the public that would like to offer any testimony? Seeing none and hearing none I will close the public hearing. Mr. Crookston, comment please? Crookston: With regard to what? I would have to ask Shari to answer that, I have not had anything to really do with this. Corrie: I certainly would like to have their blessing. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, let me ask a question here. Obviously we have met the statutory things in terms of publication through the Valley News and the 15 day issue, but to be sensitive to some input and adequate time to review and I don't think in fairness even if I would have called yesterday that maybe a day and a half is adequate time to review. Could we maybe not hold a public hearing at the first portion of our strategic planning. meeting a week from tonight and offer a second hearing, a second reading if you will of the proposed ordinance. I know that we normally suspend the rules for the three reading. requirement that is required by or is given us option by State Code. So, if we had, if we could notice and have a second hearing at that point that would give the BCA and any other interested party an opportunity to offer testimony if there is no negative testimony than we can adopt the ordinance that evening than adjourn and go into our strategic planning meeting. Is that possible? Crookston: I am not sure that we can meet the Valley News publication time line. Rountree: Why wouldn't we just leave the public hearing open until that date. Morrow: Well that is a second possibility Charlie. Rountree: And then just advertise that the hearing is still open for comment at that meeting rather than close it and you have met the requirement of hearing notification. Crookston: I don't know that it cannot be done but I don't know that it can. We have never done it before, we can go ahead and do that and get the notice to the paper. • Meridian City Council January 1 fi, 1996 Page 59 Morrow: We have continued public hearings before. Crookston: Yes we have Rountree: And have we noticed them? Crookston: No we haven't. Rountree: So I think that answers it doesn't it. (Inaudible) Morrow: But Ron we haven't had to notice them, we have continued public hearings before when somebody hasn't tike when we noticed a public hearing for an event and the folk come to testify but the applicant isn't' here to testify so we have taken the. testimony and we have continued the public hearing until our next meeting whenever that may be and then the applicant testifies we conclude our business and move to the next agenda item. Could we not do that here? Crookston: I think that you could do that but I also would suggest that you, if you can get it published to do it. If you can not get it posted in three places like we do for our special meetings. Morrow: Well, I don't have a problem with that, what you are saying then is that if we don't meet the publishing requirements than we post it in the same three places like we do for our strategic planning meeting and that satisfies our obligation. Crookston: I believe that it does because you have got to continue this public hearing until what is that the 23rd at a specific time. Corrie: Could we vote on it at that time since we or do we wait until the 5th of February for the third reading. Morrow: We don't have to have a third reading, under that scenario we are just continuing the public hearing and then we can vote on it and adopt the ordinance as written if there were no changes in the ordinance or the proposed ordinance. Corrie: In other words I have to call a special meeting. Crookston: You have going to have to ~ i Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 60 Corrie: At the strategic planning meeting we couldn't make any decisions. Morrow: It would be a special meeting prior to the strategic planning meeting, we have done that before also. Corrie: I would call a special meeting. Is that the Council's wish, I need to open up the public hearing again then. Rountree: I think they are a major customer of ours and I think it would be valuable to have their input. Corrie: I have no quarrel with that. I guess then my (inaudible)1 would re-open the public meeting. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that you re-open the public hearing for the development impact fee ordinance for parks for further testimony. Rountree: Second Corrie: The motion is made and seconded, any further discussion? All those in favor say aye? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: I will call for a special meeting on the 23rd at 6:30 P.M. (Inaudible) Corrie: That is what we are saying we are noticing it in three places as we couldn't make it in the Statesman. It requires if we don't do it that way than we have to notice it in three separate areas is that correct Counselor? Crookston: That is correct. (Inaudible) Crookston: Yes (Inaudible) Crookston: No we don't, if we can get it published we want to do that also. • s Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 61 Crookston: I think it is very likely that we cannot meet the Valley News' publication requirements but if we can I think that we should. Corrie: If we have it published in this Thursday's paper would that do it? Crookston: Yes Corrie: He has asked me to meet him at 8:00 before he has to make his statement to the paper so why don't I give him that at the same time. Crookston: If it can be done that way that is fine. Anyway that we can get it in the newspaper we need to definitely try end do and if we don't get it in the newspaper we need to try and post it in the three places that we always post. special notices. Corrie: We will know tomorrow morning whether we Crookston: So you need to keep this hearing, you can adjourn but hold it open until the 24th or the 23rd excuse me. Corrie: So I have done that correct, with the voting that we have done. Morrow: Yes accept we haven't adjourned and Mr. Rountree has some comments. Rountree: I have some editorial things that may or may not need to be addressed. I don't know if this is the appropriate time to address them being as it is late. Morrow: It can be done tonight or on the 23rd. Rountree: It can wait. Corrie: We will do that the 23rd. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I would move that we adjourn the public hearing for the development impact fee ordinance until 6:30 on the 23rd of January, 6:30 p. m. the 23rd of January. Tolsma: Second Corrie: You have heard the motion and the second, any discussion? All those in favor say aye? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea • • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 62 ITEM #20: DAVID TURNBULL: REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF APPLICATION FEES FOR VARIANCE ON BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION: Corrie: Is. Mr. Turnbull here? This letter was to Mr. Gary Smith, PE City of Meridian, Bedford Place Subdivision. Mr. Gary Smith, Brighton Corporation requesting a reimbursement of the fees paid for the variance on the above subdivision since a variance was not required. Sincerely, David W. Turnbull. Council, discussion? Bentley: Mr. Mayor, has the City incurred any expenses in this? Corrie: Yes I believe we have. The Planning and zoning incurred some expenses, publication of legals, certified mailings. Tolsma: But it wasn't required. Rountree: Mr. Mayor who made the determination it wasn't required or was their a change in the subdivision that resulted in not requiring the variance? Corrie: I believe that was the Council's decision that was not part of the, it wasn't required because the ditch was not on their property and they weren't adjacent to it. Is that correct? The City has incurred some expenses on that one however. Rountree: Has there been precedent in other situations like this? Corrie: Not to my knowledge has there been? Crookston: There was a request by the developer or Crossroads Ramon Yorgason and it was denied. Morrow: Was his a request for variance that wasn't needed though? Crookston: He just requested that the well fee a reimbursed to Crossroads, well development fees. The application fees is a different type of issue. Morrow: I think part of what the issue here is Charlie is that our staff had required a variance to be done- based on their interpretation on what constituted adjacent to and the covering of a natural drain. The finding of the Council was that clearly the benefit of that would fall on the property owner to the west and that the property nor the easement for that drain fell on Mr. Turnbull's property or project at one point it appeared by a matter of inches. There might have been some encroachment onto his property so the Council unanimously indicated that a variance was not needed. So, there from the staff level there • •. Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 63 was some real strong emotion and still is to this day that what is the definition of adjacent and so I think if I remember correctly in that particular issue it didn't survive the test of the reasonable improvement person. Clearly enhanced the neighboring property owner at the expense of someone whose property it doesn't fall on. Clearly the easement line and the maintenance through Nampa Meridian fell to the other side. The issue of a lateral and adjacent support indicated that the actual bank of the ditch was some four or five feet from the property line and so the determination by the Council was that we could support the position of requiring a variance or requiring them to the the ditch from any stand point. Rountree: So the process did result in the benefit of the applicant? Morrow: Well it resulted in a benefit to the applicant to the extent that he shouldn't have been there in the first place. It verified the fact that he shouldn't have been there. I think from the City's standpoint to protect that from happening in the future we need to give our staff some sense of direction on what adjacent means. Rountree: Well, what are we talking about in fees? Carrie: Do you have any idea Shari what the amount is, $300 approximately? (Inaudible) Crookston: 1 don't know whether that total fee includes mailings or not. I think they pay a cost on top of it. Rountree: Well I guess in principle if I was a customer and I paid the money and didn't need to pay the money I would want the money back. Morrow: I think that is fair. Rountree: We have to I guess accept our error. Morrow: Well I think it is clearly one where we as a City Council have to accept the responsibility of giving the staff in the first place. I don't think that staff made an error here and calling it to our attention and their interpretation it is easy to understand how they got there. So the thing is we are the ultimate folk in terms of responsibility. The staff did the work the right way that they should have, the staff was right to send us a letter after the decision requesting clamcation on what adjacent meant. So we have a customer here that basically called our attention to a wrong so essentially the way I see it, I would like to move that we refund the fees paid for the variance application. ~ ~ Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 64 Rountree: Second Corrie: The motion has been made and seconded we refund the fees paid by Bedford Place Subdivision, any further discussion? All those in favor say aye? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #21: REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF THE HOLLOWS PRELIMINARY PLAT: Corrie: A letter from Mr. Bond Campbell, I do respectfully request that the preliminary plat for the subdivision of the Hollows be extended for one year. I expect to record the final plat on or before July 1, 1996 if this extension is granted. Thank you. The extension of the Hollows, filing fee of $100. Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would ask the staff both Shari and Gary if they have any problems with this extension? (Inaudible} Stiles: Mr. Mayor and Council this is on Ustick Road, it is about a 1/4 mile west of Summerfie(d. This is the one that was zoned R-2 I believe and had the larger lots and it was a real small subdivision and maybe 9 to 11 lots total. It was done by Bond Campbell if you recall. I didn't, I couldn't find any major problems with it and I don't believe Gary had any. Corrie: Any further discussion? Morrow: Mr. Mayor, I would move that we grant the extension of one year for the Hollows Subdivision preliminary plat. Tolsma: Second Corrie: Motion is made and seconded for a one year extension of the preliminary plat be made, any further discussion? All those in favor say aye? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea ITEM #22: DEPARTMENT REPORTS: Corrie: Chief? • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 65 Gordon: Nothing your honor. Corrie: Gary, oh, I'm sorry, I was looking for you and you are there upfront. Smith: Mr. Mayor and members, we have already discussed the Van Auker sewer easement and you have given me direction on that thank you. The second item that I have on sewer easements concerns the proposed sewer line extension for the G. L. Voigt Sundance Subdivision property on the south. side of the Interstate. I think that property is more or less located across the street from the truck and trailer project that was recently annexed and conditional use permit next to the Playground driving range. There are actually 3 pieces of property involved in this sewer line extension from the existing sewer line that was previously built to serve St. Luke's property. This extension by G. L. Voigt would be due south under the interstate to Overland Road. That extension will serve the G. L. Voigt property known as Sundance subdivision. It will also serve the pgwer mall project that has been annexed and zoned and conditional use permit approved. I will pass out copies of two of these easements, I just got the third one this evening sq I don't have copies for you. One, I don't know which one is on top but Wanda Buckert is one and B & F Enterprises is one, these are, the language. in the easement has basically been taken from the previously approved easements that we used on the St. Luke's sewer line extension. The only thing that after I reviewed the easements provided to me by the developer on the Buckert easement, back on Exhibit C which is page 5, paragraph A, they are asking for 2 four inch diameter sewer service lines opening into a manhole base. We don't do that in bases, we will provide an eight in opening or the sewer service is, the (inaudible) are connected to the trunk line and that seems to be agreeable with the developer. On the last page Exhibit B, page seven, item #D, the very last sentence in parenthesis, they are referring to a furnish connection here. The word furnish means two fee paid sewer stubs with no future connection fees involved. I have advised the developer that we need to have either we need to make a decision, I would request a decision from the Council tonight that the two fee paid sewer stubs or connection fees would be for us equivalent to 2 single family dwelling units. And that I have advised the developer that their payment of these fees needs to be approved by the City Council because this property is not within the City limits. And that it is a double assessment fee. All of the language in both of these easements is written around the City of Meridian as the grantee and the property owner as the grantor. As I mentioned earlier with the Van Auker easement these easements are written in favor of the City so there- isn't a transfer tq the City at later date. The sewer line will be transferred to us after it is completed and approved. The easements will be in our name at that point and recorded. So those were the only two issues I had with the Buckert easement. Corrie: Gary, what is the eight inch plastic drain tub? • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 66 Smith: That is a misprint Mr. Mayor that should be eight inch plastic drain pipe or the rather than tub. I questioned that one also. Morrow: Let me see if I understand you correctly, this parcel of ground is not within the City limits. Smith: That is right. Morrow: And it would require double fees or annexation into the City and the same with these and they are aware of this? Smith: Yes, I think they grimaced a little bit. The second one B & F Enterprises, Buffington and Fuhrman, is the property, Buckerts property, we negotiated with Wanda for an easement for the St. Luke's sewer line construction. It got the sewer line out into a public right of way and then it was extended to St. Luke's. She has a sewer line along her north boundary, this sewer line would be along her west boundary. Buffington and Fuhrman has the lot to the South of Buckert, it would be along their west boundary. There is a little exhibit A on both of these easements that shows the location of the lots and the sewer line easement. This is a permanent easement as well as a temporary construction easement. the temporary easement goes away after the construction is complete. The 20 foot permanent easement remains in place. The only thing that I found on the B & F Enterprises was we need to change for Mayor to Mayor Corrie and on the very last page exhibit C, item C they talk about during construction of the sewer line project the property owners livestock will be allowed safe access to Five Mile Creek for stock water.. They don't have access to Five Mile Creek right now, they would have to cross Wanda's property to get to Five Mile Creek so I think we can draw a line though that one. The third easement that is on the south side of the easement passes through the Peck property, Peck was part of the annexation chain that went from the Playground to St. Luke's Hospital. It is kind of an irregular shaped property that has about 100 foot frontage on Overland Road and as it goes back it widens out to the Interstate. He is proposing to I guess someday build a storage complex on, Storage unit complex on that property. By anyway, once this sewer line comes across under the interstate it will apparently be on the-Peck property extending to Overland Road. So an easement has also been furnished to me this evening for that piece of property. Again it has similar language or the same language as what is contained in the other two easements, the main body the exhibit on the end of the easement is pertinent to that property only. I read through it, I didn't have a problem with it, there wasn't anything in there that jumped out at me at first reading anyway. So I guess my request to the Council unless you have some questions would be your approval of these easements so that these folks can get started on the construction drawings for extension of the sewer line. Do you have any questions that I can answer? ~ ~ Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 67 Rountree: On the B & F Enterprise, the last page you have item I highlighted would you speak to that? Smith: I don't think I have the last page, what does is say Councilman Rountree? Rountree: The City will provide a 6 inch sewer stub out for the property owner, the end of the 6 inch sewer stub out shall be plugged in accordance with. the City of Meridian standards and specifications. Smith: I don't know that is a problem,. we normally don't provide six inch service stubs but I guess we can talk to them and see if that is what they have to have. Morrow: Mr. Mayor Smith: I think one thing we need is your specific approval to allow connection of the Buckert residence because it is outside the City limits and a double fee. It by ordinance requires the Council approval for that connection. Morrow: Mr. Mayor I am prepared to move that we authorize the Mayor to sign and the City Clerk to attest the easements presented by City Engineer Smith for Wanda L. Buckert #o and including the double fee and recognize that it is outside the City Limits, for B & F Enterprises, subject to review by City Engineer Smith and an agreement from him and also the Peck property on the south side of the freeway. Rountree: Second Corrie: You have heard the motion, it is made and seconded, any discussion? All those in favor of the motion on the floor signify by saying aye? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Smith: Thank you Mr. Mayor and Council. Corrie: Shari do you have anything? Wayne Crookston? Crookston: Nothing Corrie: Mr. Morrow? Marrow: Yes, 3 or 4 things. One is that I wanted to know a status report in our last meeting we had a letter from Jim Rabbitt, Daunt Whitman and Fire Marshall Voss ~ ~ Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 68 concerning the Gotcha Challenge paintball facility. 1 would Like to hear an update as to where our staff is with solving those problems. (End of Tape) Stiles: Councilman Morrow, Mayor and Council, the memo that you have is the last action that has been taken. Council is well aware of past actions that have been taken and the fruits of those labors. I guess we would defer to Council on what do we do. Mr. Rabbitt is going to be writing a letter to Mr. Amyx regarding the junk vehicles back in the alley but as far as our ability to enforce compliance with the conditional use permit we are well away from Ding able to do that right now. tf we were going to enforce the conditional use permit they would be closed b~ now. Morrow: Well, so then the sense of direction from the Council to the staff might very well be that you need to turn this all over to City Attorney Crookston and have him pursue it from whatever legal aspect because there has been no attempt on the Gotcha Challenge's part to meet these conditions set forth by Mr. Rabbitt, Mr. Whitman and Mr. Voss. Stiles: Nor were there ever, there was never an attempt on his part to meet the conditions of the conditional use permit. He was just in operation the next day. Tolsma: I am just saying, we have had problems with this in the past and I think the judge gave us a ruling over in Boise on this and he made an injunction against him for $300 a day for everyday that he wasn't in compliance. That was with the salvage cars that they had out in back at that particular time. Crookston: That is true and that was with Mr. Amyx and I believe that pertains to the building also and not just Mr. Amyx's keeping of the building. Tolsma: (Inaudible) Crookston: Yes quite same time it was probably 7 to 10 years old. Tolsma: But at this point in time if he is not in compliance with the conditional use permit do we have the right to shut him down? Crookston: Yes you do. Tolsma: Then I think we should that will get his attention really quick. Corrie: What if he doesn't shut down, what can we do? Crookston: You have to sue. Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 69 Corrie: We have to go through court anyway. Just for the Council's edification two of the people from the fire department their pick ups were shot with balls here within two days ago. Morrow: Well quite candidly I am to the position here now that where the staff has done what they can, we have given the necessary time I think that a motion is appropriate to instruct the City Attorney to begin constructing all legal recourse to correct the situation and to press forward with that. Tolsma: I think post haste on that. Corrie: Is that a motion Mr. Morrow? Morrow: Yes Tolsma: I will second Crookston: Go ahead I will say something during the discussion period. Corrie: The motion has been made and seconded, discussion? Crookston: The way I understand it you are not just talking about Mr. Covino it is anybody that is in that building particularly Mr. Amyx if he has any business in it, anybody that is doing anything in that building you want to bring proceedings against is that correct. Morrow: I think from my perspective that is certainly correct. If Mr. Amyx has some liability here with this Gotcha Challenge that is fine, if the junk cars are out of balance again then that issue needs to be pursued on a regular basis. Obviously we have a situation here where no one wants to change their act. And so we just keep hammering: away at it. I don't see any other way of doing this. Tolsma: There are a lot. of businesses that are operating in various parts of the building under different names and different people. Morrow: Well I guess the issue would be then Ron if those businesses are there and- they are not under a conditional use or certi#icate of occupancy or whatever then they ought to be out of there. Tolsma: They are not, they have paint shops and everything else out there. Morrow: I think the intent of the motion was to correct whatever ills are there. Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 70 Corrie: Is the Council all in favor of the what that reads? All those in favor say aye? Opposed? MOTION CARRIED: All Yea Corrie: Counselor, I guess you got the wishes of the Council there. Crookston: Yes I do. Morrow: The second is that we received a letter from. the Ada County Highway Commissioners and essentially the letter is asking support for their position with respect to a resolution to the State Legislator talking about and I will read. It is whereas Ada County has as estimated funding deficiency of $30 million for transportation infrastructure. The State of Idaho has $5.4 billion. The bottom line here is they would like support for the local option registration fees and road impact fees havo been adopted in Ada County but such measures failed to raise adequate revenue to properly fund transportation infrastructure. Whereas the State Transportation Committee recommended an increased in State fuel tax at 4 cents per gallon and an increase in motor vehicle registration fees of approximately 30% and a 50/5Q allocation of new funds between local highway jurisdiction and the Idaho Transportation Department. The recommendaltion of the Transportation Committee if adopted would result in an additional $2 to 3 million per year being available for transportation projects in Ada County. And so in a sense what the ACRD Board of Commissioners is asking us it to sign on and with this letter to the State Legislators endorsing that concept. I might suggest to you an additional part from our standpoint might be that we keep hitting on the change in the distribution funding formula to let those folk know that we are still thinking about that and the unfairness of it. And so I guess I would throw that open to comments as to what you want to do if you want to endorse the concept as a City, fine if not fine. If you want to talk about changing the distribution formula that is fine also. Tolsma: What I would like to see is all this money and revenue going to be taken in is going to used for road construction or hiring personnel. If it is for hiring personnel I think kick it out the door. If we are actually going to do road construction projects with it than let's go for it. But there is nothing in this resolution that defines whether it is going to be used for hiring personnel or it is (inaudible). And where the road construction projects are going to be if they are going to be in Boise or in our area over here. Morrow: This is the State. Tolsma: Granted but it is allocated back to the counties again. • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 71 Morrow: I guess what I am suggesting to you here is that we don't' have to sign on to this particular resolution as adopted by them we can certainly craft our own letter endorsing the concept and the conditions that we would like to see put on there as an information to our Ada County legislation delegation and send that on down to the Highway District and say this is the endorsement from us as a City. It can be signed by the four of us and the Mayor or if someone has a strong emotion that they don't support that, that is fine also. Tolsma: It seems like to me that every time we have a resolution for raising funds it (inaudible) Corrie: I think you are right in this, I don't know what the State legislature how they are going to put this together I have not seen the bill. But, like Walt said you can say anything you want to in this letter to the legislature and you can endorse that. They are just asking that everybody endorse it so they can get it to the legislature. Rountree: The intent of the interim committee with their recommendation is those dollars will hit the road. The failure in that is that there is no control over local jurisdictions to see that is done. They could very well take that money and equipment, add more staff buy buildings or whatever. So I kind of agree with Ron, I know from our position at the State level we are being mandated that it will go to roads. That probably is how the legislation will read and we will have to demonstrate that. But the local jurisdictions do not: So I think if we do endorse something in terms of increased fees and taxes that we have to keep in mind that yes it ought to come back to the infrastructure. I had a question for Walt when he started talking about the distribution formula. You are talking about how it is distributed by ACRD or are you talking about the State distribution? Morrow: State Rountree: Okay, then I get into a situation where I get into a conflict of interest. Morrow: You get in there and have a conflict of interest because if you sign on the dotted line the guy two steps above is going to say Mr. Rountree what are you doing here. Rountree: We have a couple of Board members that happen to live around here., Morrow: To bring up your guys points I think that maybe we ought to go with a separate letter. I think we Aught to make it abundantly clear to ACRD that we endorse this concept but we endorse the concept for the monies to come back to be spent on arterials and collectors and so we quit getting shafted by these speed bumps and bridges and whatever. We have a tremendous problem in Western Ada County in terms of getting funds for our arterials and collectors that has developed within the last year. So I think maybe that we ~ ~ Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 72 craft our own response and send that off and include those concerns. Tolsma: I think that would be a good idea. Rountree: And I think that would be better sent to our local legislative folk with a cc to ACHD. Morrow: I agree, your thoughts? Corrie: I agree an if you would like, who would you like to write the letter up, make it up and have all the Council sign it? Rountree: That depends on how it is written with respect to the distribution formula. But as far as, I like my job. Corrie: We can write a letter to the legislative people and copy to ACHD that we agree with their agenda but we also want it to come back to infrastructure and arterials and collectors and such. Morrow: I think it ought to go to all the representatives and Senator in Ada County not just the three that represent us. I think this is a County wide issue. Rountree: Two of those folks were instrumental. Morrow: It would be my suggestion that we have somebody within staff craft up the letter based on what we want, we review it and if it is acceptable amongst- the five of us we sign it and go on from there. And I think I know the gal that can do that. The last items are the items for the strategic planning meeting on Tuesday which now starts at 6:30 with a special meeting. As soon as we conclude that we go into the strategic planning meeting. It will be a continuation of the job descriptions, we also will need to be start talking about the sewer and water hook ups and fees. Reducing from 90 days to 60 days on the delinquencies. Conversation about trash charges that are automatically being charged to unoccupied newly constructed homes that don't prevail or don't use the service. And proposed ordinance to define a method to comply with the statutory requirements to oversee City spending and funds and budgeting of those funds. So those would. be the five items that we would be talking about at the strategic planning meeting on Tuesday. And that is it. Rountree: Question, will we get some background information on at least a couple of those? ~ ~ Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 73 Morrow: Well I think that where we are at, and the Holiday thing has kind of got us confused but where we are at is from our staff we should be receiving the job descriptions that we will review and if everything is fine we will put them in the format to be adopted as an appendix to our personnel manual. We will also be assigning salary ranges to those jobs and so it may be a continuing process where we get some of the information this Tuesday for this strategic planning meeting and maybe the final information the next meeting depending on. We have already had two meetings concerning the issue and I noticed in tonight's box that there was the first one from the fire department. I think some of the rest of those things already exist out there. Some of them were prepared last year and the staffs are reviewing those for update. So then we would look at, the police department has their own entire job description manual. Some of them wilt be very close to being done. With respect to the sewer and water hook up things that would be a presentation that Gary would make. They were last raised or adjusted I think 2 1 /2 years ago, like in August or something like that of 1993. Tolsma: Wayne Forrey put all of that stuff together. Morrow: The 90 days to the 60 days is an item that we discuss amongst ourselves and decide if that is what we do. My thought there is that where we are getting. these shut off lists of an excess of $20,000 now we are leaving too much money on the table for too long. The trash changes, I have had some complaints from various contractors that they are automatically being billed for trash service that doesn't exist because they have a completed spec house they also snivel about the sewer and water but those are legitimate charges. So, in no other entity are you billed for, in Ada County, are you billed for trash services on a spec house that is completed just sitting. there: So we need to talk that through and think it through and if the desire of the Council is to make an adjustment fine and if it is not than so be it. Cowie: Also Mr. Morrow we will go into an Executive Session that may take a little time to on a personnel problem next Tuesday. Morrow: Is that part of the special meeting, can we do an executive session in strategic planning meetings. Crookston: Yes Cowie: I need to make you aware of a situation. Morrow: That is everything? Cowie: Mr. Bentley? • • Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 74 Bentley: I have a question, can we take up other agenda items that may arise between now and the time of the meeting, can we add them at that time? Corrie: As an agenda item for the February meeting. Crookston: Whatever you are adding should be added as early as you can get it. Morrow: He is asking about the strategic planning meeting. Bentley: If I was to think of something between now and then how do we get that added or do we have to do it beforehand? Morrow: Well usually Glenn what we do on a strategic planning meetings these are conceptual in nature and so like if we are going to, at some point in the future we are going to be addressing other items as we work our way through the City. The concept of the strategic planning meeting was to design a City infrastructure for a town of 50,000 people and so we are trying to get those things crafted. So when we as a Council accomplish at one of these we will add another one in terms of that infrastructure. Corrie: Mr. Rountree? Rountree: I think Walt pretty much took care of my with the exception of what is the deal with the Internal Revenue Service? Corrie: Good question, they are still, we have not supposedly answered all of their questions yet. We are in the process of doing that but maybe the counselor can give us a little more information on that qn where we are? Crookston: I am not sure of where we are, what the IRS is doing is they initially did what they call a friendly audit. What they said specifically was that the City cannot be paying say the City Attorney, Building Inspector, Plumbing Inspector any of those kinds of things that the City cannot be paying those people as if they were an employee and then also a portion of as if they were not an employee. The tRS's position is if you are paying them some money because they are not employees then your FICA and taxes are not withheld and they are saying you cannot do that. They are telling the City that is what they cannot do. It is my understanding that the City of Eagle is fighting it, the City of Payette apparently has fought it. That is all I specifically know about it. Rountree: So they are saying they are either contract or they are employees and you have to treat them one way or another. Meridian City Councif January 16, 1996 Page 75 Morrow: There is no intermix and what we have been doing is like all of our building inspectors are separate incorporated employees they all are under contract. Initially they were questioning that, we have shown them that is the way it has been done historically that is the way it is done now and that they are all employees of their corporations and so on and so forth. I think now we are down, where the questions arises with respect to retainers that we pay the legal company as well as billings and there seems to be some questions about that cross over that we have to pick one way or another. Corrie: The City of Eagle is taking this to court. The fine I think is $18,000 if they lose. I am talking to Janice and Will and we are trying to see if we can't get this thing wrapped up as soon as possible. I don't want to play games with the IRS really. That is where we are now and I will let you know as soon as we get the final on what we are going to do and bring it to Council. Rountree: Thank you Corrie: Mr. Tolsma? Tolsma: 1 would like to thank Anna for her very excellent brownies. Morrow:. By the way I don't want to upset Will or anything but it is a marked improvement in terms of a visual enhancement to that end of the table. Corrie: I guess I had one other thing if you want to put it on the agenda Wayne, do you want to put that on the planning meeting. Would you see that all the Council gets a copy of your proposal. Crookston: I have it here to deliver them when the meeting is over. Corrie: Anna? Doty: Nothing Corrie: I have nothing else I will entertain a motion. Bentley: So moved Rountree: Second Corrie: Moved and seconded to adjourn, all those in favor say aye? Opposed? Meridian City Council January 16, 1996 Page 76 MbTION CARRIED: All Yea MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:55 P.M. (TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS) APPROVED: O ERT D. CORRIE, MAYOR ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CLERK MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL AGENDA TUESDAY, JANUARY 16, 1996 - 7:30 P.M. CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS MINU~ F1PREVIOUS MEETING HELD JANUARY 2, 1996: 1. TABLED DECEMBER 5, 1995: AN RATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR 7~~ CRES.BY E(,.L. BEW$: ~ ~,~ ~-~-c~ QMN 6~ ~ ~ ~ 2. TABLED DECEM R 5, 1995: UBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR MI~FD, PLANNED BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL USES BY E.L. BEWS: ~ ~ ~~~ ~C~YV'"''` 1`~ 3. TABLED DECEMBER 19, 95: CONDITIO AL USE PERMIT FOR A FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT, LOUNGE, AND ICRO-BREWERY BY SANDPIPER RESTAURANTS: ~J,,L~,~ 4. TABLED DECEMBER 19, 1995: AMENDED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING REQUEST FOR SALMON RAPIDS NO.3 SUBDIVISION: ~~~ G~~~ 5. TABLED DECEMBER , 1995: ORDINANCE #718 -SALMON RAPIDS NO.3 SUBDIVISION ANNEXATION: yi~~.,(~~ ~~;^c~,a,,.,~--- ~ ~ ~ 9 (,o U 6. TABLED D~CEMBER 19, 1995: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SALMON RAPIDS NO. 3 S DIVISION BY FARWEST DEVELOPERS: ~~~~~ ~~ ~~ 1~9 C~ 7. TABLED DECEMBER , 1995: DEVEL~MENT AGRE~~T FOR SALMON RAPIDS N0.3 SUBDIVISION: c~L~ ~- 8. TABLED DECEMBER 19, 199 AMEND D ORDI~I ANCE #681 -VAN AUKER ANNEXATION - I-L: ~ A ~/1 C~~z-c~~~~, 9. TABLED DECEMBER 19, 1995: AMENDED ORDINANCE #686 -VAN AUKER ANNEXATION - C-G: U~.-~j~ ~~-~~~`~~ 10. TABLED DECEMBER 19, 1995: FINAL PLAT FORTH^EAP~LAYGRO/UND SUBDIVISION BY THE PLAYGROUND INC.: v~11~~ti-~Ue-c~f 11. TABLED DECEMBER 19, 1995: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR AND BRAKE ALIGNMENT SHOP Y DENNIS ~ JANET BUTTERFIELD: ,.~~ ~~~~ ~~u~ ~~ ~~~~ • • 12. PRELIMINARY PLAT (AMENDED) FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVISION N0.5 BY INTER~WEST DEVELO MENT; TABLED DECEMBER 19, 1995: 13. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF~~FOR VARIANCE REQUEST FOR LENGTH OF CUL-DE-SAC FOR HAVEN COVE SUBDIVI ION NO.5 BY INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT: 14. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR REQUEST FOR A VACATION FAN EA EMENT BY JEFF COFFER: 15. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF APP OXIMATE~Y 1 Al CRE TO C-G BY EL IOTT INDUSTRIAL CO.: ~:~~j9~t~,~-e-c. - 1.,~ Ct; ~v j~~-'~ cam-` C~-t~'~`~`-~c:~ 16. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUESOR A COND ZONAL USE PERMIT FOR BUTT FENCE Y ELLIOTT INDUSTRIAL CO.: 17. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION AND ZONING OF 1.35 ACRES TO R-4 FOR HAVEN COVE UBDIVISIO N0.6 BY JOHN EDDY: - ~; - ~ ~C~-~LQ 18. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY P AT FOR H VEN COVE SUBDIVISION N0.6 BY JOHN EDDY: v--l,~~ 19. PUBLIC FARING: DE E~ENT IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE FOR ARKS: 20. DAVID TURNBULL: REQUEST FOR REI URSE ~ NT~PLICATION FEES FOR VARIANCE ON BEDFORD PLACE SUBDIVISION: ~~~~ 21. REQUEST FOR ONE YE EXTENSION OF THE HOLLOWS PRELIMINARY PLAT: 22. DEPARTMENT REPORTS: A. GARY SMITH, CITY ENGINEER: 1. EASEMENT APPROVAL - VOIGT SEWER LINE EXTENSION: ~'~'~°`~ j 2. EASEMENT APPROVAL -VAN AUKER SEWER LINE EXTENSION: ~'~~~.~-~,9 CITY OF MERID ~~ PU IC MEETING SIGN- SHEET NAME PHONE NUMBER -rho, f - - ~ ~ s-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~ CITY OF MERID N UI3LIC MEETING SIGN- SHEET ~,o ~°,4, . ~ .~ : Q - ~r~~, ~.~,~ ,~ ~ _ 11~ . 1991 ~ - ~ .' 3d P. /n _~ 1'V1 ~R-SP ~ ~~'1~ ~- X81 ~ ~ ~ S`-~_ ~~_ z~~ NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian,ldaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., on January 16, 1996, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the adoption of a development impact fee ordinance for parks within the City of Meridian. A more particular description of the proposed ordinance is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Dated this 22nd day of December, 1995. 1 WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CI CL RK ** TX CONFIRI~ION REPORT ** AS OF DEC 2~5 1405 PAGE.01 CITY OF MERIDIAN DATE TIME TOiFROM 23 12122 14 04 8881097 MODE MIN~SEC PGS CMD# STATUS G3--S 00'40" 001 164 OK NOTICE OF HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and the Laws of the State of Idaho, that the City Council of the City of Meridian will hold a public hearing at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian,ldaho, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., on January 16, 1996, for the purpose of reviewing and considering the adoption of a development impact fee ordinance for parks within the City of Meridian. A more particular description of the proposed ordinance is on file in the City Clerk's office at Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, and is available for inspection during regular business hours. Any and all interested persons shall be heard at said public hearing and the public is welcome and invited to submit testimony. Dated this 22nd day of December, 1995. WILLIAM G. BERG, JR., CI CL RK • AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. 686 AN AMENDED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of said City to annex to the said City real property which is described in Section 1 below: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City, Council of the City of Meridian, Ada County, IdahQ~,n t~ c~ rn V ? ~ c., ~,. Section 1. That the real property descries asT'z~ ~ ~ ~' ~~~ cc rr, cx~ ~, a ~,,, ~" ~ 'Cri :.i cr ~ i,:,~',r , .:.•~ SEE EXHIBIT "K" AND "L" °' °^';'= '~ ~ which are attached hereto ~ ~+ -,~, ~~a and incorporated herein ~ ~' ° ~ as if set forth in full ~ ~ ° =u ~ ,~„~, is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian, and ~' zoned C-G, - 'ce Commercial• that the annexation and General Retail and Servi , zoning is subject to the conditions referenced in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as adopted by the Meridian Council on the Van Auker request for annexation and zoning. Section 2. That the property shall be subject to de- annexation if the .owner shall not meet the following requirements: a. That the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer. and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land. b. That the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted January 4, 1994., AMENDED ANNEXATION ORDINANCE - VAN AUKER/C-G Page 1 c. That, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, K, L of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and other matters; that the property may be de-annexed if the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement are not satisfied. d. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, 11-9-605 M. which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways, and 11-9-606 B 14. which pertains to pressurized irrigation. e. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the Applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns. f. Meet the requirements and conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the Van Auker Annexation and meet the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. g. That a Development Agreement is required prior to final plat or issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Section 3 . That the City Clerk shall cause one ( 1) copy of the legal description, and map, which shall plainly and clearly designate the boundaries of said property, to be filed with the Ada County Recorder, Ada County Assessor, and the State Tax Commission within ten (10) days following the effective date of this Amended Ordinance. Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: There being an emergency,. which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Amended Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval as required by law. City 1996. PASSED by the City Council and approved by the Mayor of the of Meridian, P,da County, Idaho, this 16th day of January, i C.e ~ j~.)~',~''~~3 Y~ "~'' ~' ~~ 'Q` ~ryl ,SAd~~S~ ~r 57 e .r n b,I ~'~~~~0 ~r,rr`; n~lll`~~~~\\\ APPROVED: r OR -- ROBERT D. CORRIE AMENDED ANNEBATION ORDINANCE - VAN AURER/C-G Page 2 s ATTEST: W AM G. BERG, JR - CITY CLERK 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 entitled "AN AMENDED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 9, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.."; passed as Amended Ordinance No. 686 , by the City Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the 16th day of January, 1996, as the same appears in my office. DATED thi~,~~Y '~~ ~~~~~ !~ %Af January, 1996. v~ y ~ ~~ _ = ity Clerk, City of a idian .~.a . Ada County, Idaho 9t'G~ ti3o~ `~ STATE OF IDAH~ ~C°Qt,,~-~~( ,~~,.~`~~~\ J~~~~~~F~-~it~N~~~~ County of Ada, ) On this ~~~~ day of January, 1996, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for 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 offica written. SEAL AMENDED WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my 1 seal the day and year in this certificate first above cn ® ~pT~Ry S • * ~~°Ue t~G ~ ~ ~T ~~ `R°~ ~1 /~///11114111i 9 ANNEXATION ORDINANCE N~~¢¢ a Public for Idaho /I~es' ing at Meridian, Idah My ommission Expires ~g D - YAN AUKER/C-G Page 3 _.. • 1'AC1F1C LAND SURVEYORS 290 North Maple Grove Road Boise. ID 83704 (208) 378-6380 FAX (208) 378-0025 PROJECT: 527230 DATE: M:tr~ch 7,1995 E~TT K RONALD W. VAN AUKER GENERAL CO1vII~ItCIAL ZONING LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST 114 ,SECTION 9 TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO A parcel of land located in the Southwest 1/4, Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a brass cap marking the Southwest corner of said Section 9; thence North 89°11'46" East 2,706.25 feet along the Southerly boundary of said Southwest 1/4, Section 9, said Southerly line also being the centerline of Franklin Road. to a brass cap marking the Southeast corner of said Southwest 1/4, Section 9, said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence leaving said Southerly boundary of said Southwest 1/•1, Section 9, North 00°39'59" West 295.00 feet along the Easterly boundary of said Southwest 1/4, Section 9, to a point; thence North 89°56'30" West 1,663.42 feet along a line parallel to the Southerly right-of--way line of the Union Pacific Railroad to a point; thence South 06°54'57" East 321.86 fact to a point on the Southerly boundary of said Southwest 1/4, Section 9, said point also being oa the centerline of Franklin Road; thencx North 89°11'46" East 1,628.25 feel along said Southerly boundary of the Southwest 1/4 to a brass cap marking the Southeast corner of said Southwest 1/4, said point being the point of beginning, comprising 11.61 acres,-more or less. .'-i. 1 ~l'" ~ PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS 290 North Maple Grove Road Boise. ID 83704. (208) 378-6380 FAX (208) 378-00'_5 pROJECT: 527230 DATE: March 7, 1995 EXHIDIT L FRANKLIN-EAGLE JOINT VENT[JRE GENERAL COI~11vIEItCIAI. ZONING LOCATID IN TIC SOUTHWEST 1/4 ,SECTION 9 TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN aDA coUNTY, >Daxo A parcel of land located in the Southwest 1/4, Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and more particularty described as follows: Beginning at a brass cap marking the Southwest corner of said Section 9, said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 89°11'46" East 1,078.00 feet along the Southerly boundary of said Southwest 1/4, Section 9, said Southerly boundary also being the centerline of Franklin Road, to a steel pin; thence leaving said Southerly boundary of the Southwest 1/4 North 06°54'57" West 1,090.38feet to a steel pin on the Southerty right-of-way line of the Union Pacific Railr°ad; thence North 89°56'30" West 946.60 feet along said Southerly right-0f-way line of the Union Pacific Railroad to a point on the centerline of Eagle Road; thence leaving said Southerly right-of-way line of the Union Pacific Railroad South 00°00'00" West 1,098.53 feet along said centerline of Eagle Road to a brass cap marking the Southwest corner of said Section 9, said point being the point ofbeginning, comprising 25.35 acres, more or less. :; .. ~--' I ~' . I I I I -Y ~I ~ -'----- I I I i t ' I I r~11 i ' - 1 i 1 i '-' i ! I' ,3 ~~h~l; ~ I_,In 11 ~ 11 ~ I _.. L=eh i I I I 1 I I "I L'!ih I 1 ~.1'.I. Shih ~ I I 1 1I %Z 8L// 'M,yz fo,io N ~1: t_'t li ~ ~ j I qJ ~ I ill ~_ I I RW 0 ~ i 1 •. ~ 1 ,-h _- N ~ , I cr., r, \~ e~1' S 1 ~... ~L F. ` l~., I II Q i I .. I h 1 O\ I ~I i 1 i I~ 4~ ~ ..SS I ` ~ ~~ /]I i I 'C \ .11 i I 1 I I I un11 ~ Ih ~ ~ \~ li i I . ,,'h I L \ ~ \`1~ II II fyYL-1 S~~v,pQ ~ 11f i i i I C I ~. ~:I, I I,oh ~ ~ I I ~ ~~ 1 ~ ~i ~ I ho I ~ ,Lb'Z67i ~~% A' ; Z9L 'M 65,6E 0 g' M b 61f',dN ,w~ W ,b9Y~E/ 3 b96E,oo'8 ,k4' ~ p`pl ~~g ~I~ \~ I i 1 ~~ II I r I ~ II r ' I ~I: _. J) I r ~ N ~P, I I I 1 ~ 1 I ~ ~~ I 9 1 I ~ V 1 I I I J Q ~ ~ ~I ®.. .~ ~\ ~~~ '/ I (jl COI 1 ~ ~ ~ NI \ ~i ~~ a ~ ' ~ i pN~l I ~` ~I N ®:.. O /, i i I Bpi IS pl ~ ~) \ I NN '~I ®~;: \ 1 /I I I ~ t ~ Cll II 13 ~ ~ z ~ ~ _ ® ®'~ I ,.© III i ~ h ~=gO. h~ Z ~J ©° o ~ a ~( 2 Z ' ~n i i ~ I m ~_ 111 ' ~ i t i 2 I O ®t: i i I .l i,~ III I. O I I ~ r I ~; ~ ~ R + ~' `I, ' I I 7i N ' 1 ~ a I t: ~ ,III °~ > :n I 1 ~ ., ®~. I '. o ; ~ I ~' ¢ . W ~ I 25 B9l '3., .v9: y~_~ '~ 9 ~ I~ ~ I I N w ~i d' O I ' ',B~:Q~, ~ Mo~Y/09~/~ I N ~ it ~ I - --- __~ W o ! - - - - I ~ I ~ U I I I ~~ I tf i i I I I ~ I , o 1 O I I I~~q yn~ ~ Q 1 00 II I ! 113 ~[ ~ I I I .1L II " I v .. ~ II = ~ .~' 11 ~ x I II I l i I I I I I IIx ~ I 1 + ------- 3 aVOH ------------- I I I ~ \n 3l'JVd -------------------- ' I -------. ' ~`-- --- -------------- ~ Oc'o,.v .~, ~e~ r~~ ~F 4~ F~ti i Yn 4q ~~ ~~~ ~~ a~ ~' I \~ J I ~ 1 I I I 1 ~ 1 + I 1 I 1 1 I I I I I I I I ~ I I 1 I 1 '~ ~ I I 1 1 I I I I I 1 I I I II II I I I II I II I I 1 1 I i 1 1 I I 1 1 I I 1 I I I j 1 ; I I I I I I I1 1 I 1 II I I I j I I I I I I 1 1 I I i II I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ~ I _.._ -- ------------------ --- EAGLE----`-- ROAD r \~~ I ~~ ;~ i I I ~ `~ a Z ~ I I I I I A ~ i u I 0 ` ~ 'YRU I $~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~P ~ ~~ ~ I ~ ~ 'Z 1 o I' ~~~~ ~~ ' , o ' ~ o - - - n; ~---- -- ~ ~~ ~ '; ~ 0,38 w 06°54~ ~ ~°E. 168.52 i i~j " ~ ~ m m II~ ~ o `\ ~~ ' ®ee a ~.L'/ S Bti 9 E. s• I I ~' F'' ~ C ~~ ` `` `~~ I~ '` I i ~ 1 W - II 'P ~ I I''I I U ~_ ICf ' II "- Va I ~ i' 10 I I I I I u `Ji .°. I I IZ O a e +; ~- € Io I I ~ ~~ II ~z N y III ~' ~® ~ 1 li 2 i I I I1~ _~ ~y® ;~ i~ • III O •~ n ~. ~ ~~~ ? ~'I ~~ IT ' ORS I ,® ® ~-~-. U I ,*, I ~ III I I ~ ~ n ~i `~ Z ~ S I B ~ O~ I I I O ~~'~ I \m ~ m ©:' p 2 ~ I. I > ~ '~flw all ioo ~~ ~~ z5 `~M `°~ ~®~c® N I °~ z I ' I j , I ', I, I 1 ~~ •~ I I j I I I III ~ i I I' 8 I~ o I I I I 1 ~ ,~ J. 0°d9$9" I ,4: D°,99'5'7°W. 762. f~l ~ I ~ d 1571 s, 00'39 69 E /,347.49 ~ !ti ~ "'` I 295.10' j 11 ~ III y -. I I ~ II luo3 ~tr.r I ~ III ~ W Oq I I II ~ I ~ CSI 40'.1 i 'I:,[n I _ O _ I ~ I - ~ ~D 4r Sv ~ 4~~"^ ' I ~ 1 z m W ii A` \ Z ~ ,a1 4015 (3~{ 4C. .-1 I it "1 ~ \~ ~ R ` l -~I ,~~.;~, I I i I!I .V ~ n 1 I I ~ ~ ~ I i 4llc I w ~O°yo°~~ _ _ I '' ^O~a ~I= ~N @ \\ Ill ss:~ IIi S'~ ` ! I I ~ ~! y m ~ ~ ~ 41'li Iq. p ~. I I~ z i viz - r j s ~ ~. ~\ I 111 ~' m ~ 4 4' 1 ~ I /z `~ I 44-, r, I ~ ~ / a~ I ~ 4, . r ,. ,~ 03 Zf"W. //78. ZG I I I 4345 `I'-Iti j 43e"I 1 '{:l I I 1 I II C I ~ i C 44z, II44z- I I I ~ /' 4,4 j~ ,Itl ~ Vr4C I /I UVt'j I j U4'C9 I I ~ n - - 1 ~.nc m~ I I, ~ 's,~ 1 1 44'73 ~ ~~~u~9d 1 I I LI; ~~ , u;I~ I I I I I I -~~ I I ~ _ ',m~~,~_ I j~ _ _ - .III' ~- I I ~ I i , ~~; :_ AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. 681 AN AMENDED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH ARE DESCRIBED AS PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION 9, AND SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City Council and the Mayor of the City of Meridian, Idaho, have concluded that it is in the best interest of s~id City to annex to the said City real property which is described in Section 1 below: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Meridian, Ada County, Idaho ~„~ ~ Section 1. That the real property describes as ~ ~ ~, ~°' ~ ~° ~~ ~ rn { * ~ Y . cJ'1 ~, SEE EXHIBIT "A" THROUGH "J" -. c. r~7s ~ rn -,, which are attached hereto and ;~~' '"'' ~ o incorporated herein by this ~ ~~ ~ rn c,n reference ~; F--~ ~' ~ rn ,~ 4..,, . is hereby annexed to the City of Meridian, and is zoir°e I-L, Light Industrial; that the annexation and zoning is subject to the conditions referenced in the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law as adopted by the Meridian Council on the Van Auker request for annexation and zoning. Section 2. That the property shall be subject to de- annexation if the owner shall not meet the following requirements: a. That the Applicant will be required to connect to Meridian water and sewer and resolve how the water and sewer mains will serve the land. b. That the development of the property shall be subject to and controlled by the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and the Meridian Comprehensive Plan adopted January 4, 1994. AMENDED ANNEBATION ORDINANCE - VAN AUKER/I-L Page 1 c. That, as a condition of annexation, the Applicant shall be required to enter into a development agreement as authorized by 11-2-416 L and 11-2-417 D; that the development agreement shall address inclusion into the subdivision of the requirements of 11-9-605 C, G., H 2, R, L of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian and other matters; that the property may be de-annexed if the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement are not satisfied. d. That the development of annexed land must meet and comply with the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and in particular Section 11-9-616, which pertains to development time schedules and requirements, 11-9-605 M. which pertains to the tiling of ditches and waterways, and 11-9-606 B 14. which pertains to pressurized irrigation. e. That these conditions shall run with the land and bind the Applicant, the titled owners, and their assigns. f. Meet the requirements and conditions of the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on the Van Auker Annexation and meet the Ordinances of the City of Meridian. g. That a Development Agreement is required prior to final plat or issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Section 3 . That the City Clerk shall cause one (1) copy of the legal description, and map, which shall plainly and clearly designate the boundaries of said property, to be filed .with the Ada County Recorder, Ada County Assessor,-and the State Tax Commission within ten (10) days following the effective date of this Amended Ordinance. Section 4. EFFECTIVE DATE: There being an emergency, which emergency is hereby declared to exist, this Amended Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage 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 16th day of January, 1996. \\~~~N~stinni~rr~~~ .~~~``~'~~ ~f ME~y~~'A,~~i'% ~~ ~O .~~~ ~~~~'pb~~''L~T tS~ . ~.~J``~. APPROVED: R -- ROBERT D. CORRIE AMENDED ANNE%ATION ORDINANCE - VAN AUKER/I-L Page 2 • • ATTEST: WILLIAM G. BERG, J - CITY CLERK 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 entitled " AN AMENDED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MERIDIAN ANNEXING AND ZONING CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY WHICH ARE DESCRIBED AS PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED IN THE SOUTH 1/2 OF SECTION 9, AND SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN, ADA COUNTY, IDAHO; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE."; passed as Amended Ordinance No. 681, by the City Council and Mayor of the City of Meridian, on the 16th day of January, 1996, as the. same appears in my office • \\ \,``ll~llul~lrllll/~~~'' ` F ' O DAT~D s 16th` y Cif ~~~~ ~~ ~o~ %~''90,~ SST ts~ , ~~ P.~,~.~' ,111111111I11111~`~\ STATE OF IDAHO,) ss. County of Ada, ) January, 1996. City Clerk, City of idian Ada County, Idaho On this /~~~' day of January, 1996, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for 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.` .~`'''1t11"'''~• :~ p r QS~P~y n s1. ~~ .~ e=. ~~ SEAL ~ Sjs -. i ~ _ 1, ~A r3 ~6. ` ` ~,; :5 J` r` Public for Idaho ing at Meridian, Ida o ommission Expires ~ AI~iBNDED ANNEBPITION ORDINANCE - VAN AURLR/I-L Page 3 .. / / 290 North Maple Grove Road Boise, ID 83704 (208) 378-6380 Fax (208) 378-0025 PROJECT: 527230 DATE: March 7, 1995 REVISED: December 18, 1995 E7CHIBIT A G/D PARTNERS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 9 TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO A parcel of land located in the Southwest I/4, Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada Counn~. Idaho. said parcel also being the West 1/2 of Lot 2. Block 1. Commerce Park Subdivision as filed for record in the office of the Ada County Recorder in Book -15 of Plats at Pages 3721 and 3722, and more particularly described as follows: Begimiing at the Southwest corner of Section 9, Township 3 North. Range 1 East. Boise Meridian. Ada Counn~. Idaho: thence North u0°00'00" East 1.298.13 feet along the Westerly boundary of s<~id Section 9 to a point: thence South 89°16'30" East ~U.OU feet to an iron pin on the Northerly right-of-~vay line of the Union Pacific Railroad: thence continuing South 89°56'30" East 438.75 feet along said Northerly right-of-~vay line of the Union Pacific Railroad and the South boundary of said Commerce Park Subdivision to the Southwest corner of said Lot 2. Block 1. said point being the REAL POINT OF HEGWNING: thence Nortlt 00°00'UO" East 479.99 feet along the Westerly boundary of said Lot 2 to a point on the centerline of Commercial Court: thence South 89°16'24" East 212.00 feet along said centerline of Commercial Court to a point; thence leaving said centerline of Commercial Court, South 00°00'00" West X79.98 feet to a point on said Northerly right-of-~~~ay line of the Union Pacific Railroad: thence North 89°56'30" West 242.00 feet along said Northerly right-of--way line of the Union Pa~c Railro~;etrd the Soytherly bourdary of said Lot 2 to the Southwest corner of said Lot 2. said point being,the point of beginning. comprising 2.67 acres. more or less. _ _ 290 North Maple Grove Road Boise. ID 83704 (208) 378-6380 Fax (208) 378-0025 PROJECT: 527230 (DJAT(~E: March 7, 1995 R..LI-~ ~Ci i 6 j ! ~ S.lliliDll B DONALD J. AND KAREN NELSON LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 9 TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE I EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO A parcel of land located in the Southwest 1/4, Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada Count), Idaho, also being Lot 3, Block 1, Commerce Park Subdivision as filed for record in the office of the Ada County Recorder in Book 45 of Plats at Pages 3721 and 3722, and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East. Boise Meridian. Ada Count~~. Idaho: thence North 00°UO'00" East 1,298.53 feet along the Westerly boundary of said Section 9 to a point: thence South 89°56'30" East ~U.00 feet to an iron pin on the Northerly right-of--way line of the ' Union Pacific Railroad: thence continuing South 89°56'30" East 922.75 feet along said Northerly right-of--way line of the Union Pacific Railroad and the South boundary of said Commerce Park Subdivision to the Southwest corner of said Lot 3. Block 1. said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING: thence North 00°00'UO" East X79.97 feet along the Westerly boundary of said Lot 3 to a point on the centerline of Commercial Court: thence South 89°SG'2~" East 386.00 feet along said centerline of Commercial Court to a point; thence South 00°00'00" East X179.96 feet along the Easterly boundary of said Lot 3 to a point on said Northerly right-of--way line of the Union Pacific Railroad, said point also being the Southeast corner of said Lot 3; thence A1oFth 89°56'30" West 386.00 feet along said Northerly right-of--way line of the Union Pacific Railroad and the Southerly boundary of said Lot 3 to a point. said point being the point of beginning. comprising 4.25'acres. more or less. s ~ 290 North Maple Grove Road Boise, ID 83704 (208) 378-6380 Fag (208) 378-0025 PROJECT': 527230 DATE: March 7, 1995 f,~~~~ ~.w '-'~ bi^5 EXHIBIT C RONALD W. VAN AUKER LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING LOCATED IN THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 9 TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO A parcel of land looted in the Southwest 1/4, Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian. Ada County. Idaho. also being the East 1/2 of Lot 2, Block 1. Commerce Park Subdivision as filed for record in the office of the Ada County Recorder in Book 45 of Plats at Pages 3721 and 3722, and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Section 9. Township 3 North. Range 1 East. Boise Meridian, Ada County. Idaho; point: thence North 00°00'00" East 1.298.53 feet along the Westerly boundary of said Section 9 to a thence South 89°56'30" East -40.00 feet to an iron pin on the Northerly right-of--way line of the Union Pacific Railroad: thence continuing South 89°56'30" East 680.75 feet along said Northerly right-of--way line of the Union Pacific Railroad and the South boundary of said Commerce Park Subdivision to the mid-point of said Lot 2. Block L said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING: thence North 00°00'00" Easi 479.98 feet along the centerline of said Lot 2 to a point on the centerline of Commercial Court: thence South 89°56'24" East 242.00 feet along said centerline of Commercial Court to a point; thence South ()0°00'00" East 479.97 feet along the Easterly boundary of said Lot 2 to a point on said Northerly right-of--way line of the Union Pacific Railroad. said point also being the Southeast corner of said Lot 2: thenoe=North 89°56'30" Wcst 242.00 fat along said Northerly right-of-way line of the Union Pacific Railro~and the Southerly boundary of said Lot 2 to its mid-point, said point being the point of beginning. comprising 2.67 acres, more or less. • i'ACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS 290 North Maple Grove Road Boise. ID 83704 (208) 378380 FAX (208) 378-0025 PROJECT: 527230 DATE: March 7,1995 EXI~TT D 4M LEASIl~IG/~ LIGAT IIdDUSTRIAL ZONII~IG LOCATED IN THE SOUTfiWEST 1/4, SECTION 9 TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EASE, BOISE MERIDIAN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO A parcel of land located in the Southwest 1/4, Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, also being Lot 5 and Lot 6, Block 1, Commerce Park Subdivision as filed for record in the office of the Ada County Recorder in Book 45 of Plats at Pages 3721 and 3722, and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Southwest corner of Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; thence North 00°00'00" East 1,778.53 feet along the Westerly boundary of said Section 9, also said Westerly boundary being the centerline of Eagle Road, to a point; thence leaving said centerline of Eagle Road and along the centerline of Commercial Court South 89°56'24" East 1,184.74 feet to a point, said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 00°00'00" East 451.28 feet along the Westerly boundary of Lot 5 to a point on the Northerly boundary of said Commerce Park Subdivision, said point being the Northwest corner of Lot 5; thence South 88°28' 18" East 275.10 feet along said Northerly boundary of Commerce Park Subdivision to the Northeast corner of said Lot 5; thence continuing South 88°28' 18" East 96.71 feet along said Northerly boundary of Commerce Park Subdivision to a poim on the Northerly boundary of said Lot 6; thence South 79°29' 17" East 181.13 fat along said Northerly boundary of Commerce Park Subdivision to a poi, said point being the Northeast corner of said Lot 6; thence leaving said Northerly boundary of Commerce Park Subdivision South 00°00'00" East 408.90 fat abrrg the Easoerly boundary a~f said Lot 6 to a point on said centerline a~f Commercial Court tlr+eaoeNorth 89°56'24" West 549.77 feet along said centerline of Commercial Court to a poi, saidmiattieinrt the real~poiat ofbegimsiag~oompziang 5.55 ages, more err less. i +~ PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS 290 North Maple Grove Road Boise, ID 83704 (208) 378~i380 FAX (208) 378-0025 PROJECT: 527230 DATE: March 7, 1995 F,XXHIBTT E RONALD W. VAN AUKER LIGHT IlIDUSTRIAL ZONING LOCATID IN THE SOiTI'FIEAST 1/4, SECTION 9 TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO A parcel of land located in the Southeast 1/4, Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of the Southeast 1/4, Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; thence North 89°10'38" East 1,342.37 feet along the Northerly boundary of said Southeast 1/4 to a point on the Westerly boundary of the East 1/2 of said Southeast 1/4, Section 9; thence leaving said Northerly boundary South 00°51'42" Ea.~t 190.00 feet along the Westerly boundary of said East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 to a point, said point being the itEAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing South 00°51'42" East 1,173.50 feet along said Westerly boundary of the East 1/Z of the Southeast 1/4 to a point on the Northerly right-ofway line of the Union Pacific Railroad; thence North 89°56'30" West 12.22 feet along said Northerly right-0f-~vay line of the Union Pacific Railroad to a point; thence leaving said Northerly right-0f--way line of the Union Pacific Railroad North O1°03'25" West 199.92 feet to a point; thence North 89°56'30" West 60.80 fees to a point; thetue North 01°03'25" West 972.47 feet to a point; thence North 89°10'38" East 7'7.01 feet~to a point, said point being the point of beginning, comprising L74 acx+es, mote or less. '~. t ; PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS r PROJECT: 327230 DATE: March 7.1995 ,~~r_- .. ITT F .- VJ JOINT VENTURE, ~ IDAHO JOINT VENTURE `~ ~ ,~ INDUSTRIAL ZONIIIG LOCATID IN'II~ 1/4, SECTION 9 SOUTHWEST 1/4 AND SOUTHEAS"I' 'TOWNS 3 NORM 0[JNTY, ID '~ OISE MERIDIAN A parcel of land located in the Southwest 1/4 and the Southeast 1/4, Section 9, Township 3 North, Range Ada County, Idaho, and more partiailarly descnbed as follows: 1 East, Boise Meridian, Beginning at a brass cap at the Southwest corner of Seaton 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 Fast, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; thence North 00°00'00" East 2,650.18 feet along the Westerly boundary of said Section 9, said Westerly also being the interline of Eagle Road, to the Northwest corner of said Southwest 1/4, said point being boundary' ~ gE,~L POINT OF BEGINNING; thence North 89°10'47" East 2,675.43 feet along the Northerly boundary of said Southwest 1/4, Section 9, the Northeast corner of said Southwest 1/4; to a brass cap marlang thence laving said Northerly boundary of the Southwest 1~4 North 89° 10'38" East 1,342.37 feet along the Northerly boundary of said Southeast 1/4 to a point; thence leaving said Northerly boundary of the Southeast 1/4 South 00°51'42" East 190.00 feet along the Westerly boundary of the East 112 of said Southeast 1/4 to a point; thence leaving said WeS~ly boundary of the East 1/2 of said Southeast 1/4 South 89° 10'38" West 77.01 feet to a steel pin; thence South 01°03'25" East 972.47 feet to a steel pin; them South 89°56'30" East 60.80 feet to a steel pin; thence South 01°03'25" East 199.92 fit to a seed pia on the Northerly right-0f--way line of the Union Pacific Railma~ . .. n „~ way line of the Union Pacific " North 89°56'30" West 149.38 foot along said North~Y 8~ . Railroad to a pow tltaoe leavinS said No~a1Y n8M"0T"~ ~ of the Union Patdfic ~~ North 01°03'2S' West 1,178.26 ~ to a p~ a radios of 2,455.00 feet, a aattal angle ~ 19° 17'32", thence along a ~ do the left, said carve ltavin8 81°10'48" West 822.46 fit to a point on a line pazalld ~ of 417.26 feet and whose long chozd bean Nom ]I4, Section 9; m aad 45.00 feet Southerly of the N°rt>~er1Y bo~Y of said Southeast ors, a division of POWER Engineers, Inc.. an Idaho Corporation ' pacific Land Survey 290 North Maple Grove Road ~~. ID 83704 .~ . (208) 378.6380 FAX (208) 378-0025 ~~ thence South 89°10'38° West 385.98 feet akurg said parallel lice to a potnK fiance leaving said parallel line South 00°39'59° East 655.88 feet Oo a point; thence South 89°ZO'4T West 458.83 feet to a point; thence North 66°38' 18" West S11.ZS feet toasted pia marking the Nfoctherly boundary of Commerce Park Subdivision as filed for record in the office of the Ada County Recorder in Book 45 ofPlats at Pages 37ZI noel 3722; thence along said Northerly boundary of Commerce Park Subdivision the following courses and distances: thence North 79°29' 17" West 181.13 feet to a steel pin; thence North 88°26'02" West 801.72 fen to a steel pin; thence South 88°23'29" West 220.34 feet to a steel pin; thence South 42°55'20" West 12.25 feet to a steel pin; thence North 87°54'48" West 435.58 feet to a steel pin; thence South 82°52' 10" West 21.94 feet to a steel pin; thence leaving said Northerly boundary of Commerce Park Subdivision South 89°10'47" West 70.01 feet to a point on said centerline of Eagle Road; thence North 00°00'00" East 413.38 feet along said centerline of Eagle Road to the point of beginning, comprising 36.48 acne, more or less. e~7 Tn 1T!!rT' TA. .~d ..= ,yys a~ . PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS 290 North Maple Grove Road Boise, ID 83704 (208) 378-6380 FAX (208) 378-0025 PROJECT: 527230 DATE: March 7,1995 EXfIIBIT G RONALD W. VAN AUKEIt LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING I.OCATID IN TAE SOUTHWEST 1/4 ,SECTION 9 TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO A parcel of land lordted in the Southwest 1/4, Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a brass cap marking the Southwest corner of said Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; thence North 89°11'46" East 2,706.25 feet along the Southerly boundary of said Southwest 1/4, Section 9, said Southerly boundary also being the centerline of Franklin Road, to a brass cap marking the Southeast corner of said Southwest 1/4, Section 9; thence leaving said Southerly boundary North 00°39'59" West 295.00 feet along the Easterly boundary of said Southwest 1/4, Section 9, to a point, said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing North 00°39'59" West 762.89 feet along said Easterly boundary of the Southwest 1/4 to a steel pin marking the Southerly right-of--way line of the Union Pacific Railroad; thence North 89°56'30" West 1,747.08 feet along said Southerly right-of--way line of the Union Pacific Railroad to a steel pin; thence leaving said Southerly right~f--way line of the Union Pacific Railroad South 06°54'57" East 768.52 feet to a point; theatx along a line parallel to said Southerly right-of-way line of the Union Pacific Railroad South 89°56'30" East 1,663.42 feet to the point of beginning. comprising 29.86 acrrs, more or less. PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS • 290 North Maple Grove Road PROJECT: 527230 DATE: March 7,1995 • Boise, ID 83704 (208) 378-6380 FAX (208) 378-00: 5 E7Q~1T H . RONALD W. VAN AUICER AND OREN C. MAYES AND CARMEN J. MAYES LIGHT Il~IDUSTRIAL ZONING LOCATED 1N THE SOiTTHEAST 1/4 ,SECTION 8 TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE 1viERIDIAN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO A parcel of land located in the Southeast 1/4, Section 8, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, also being Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 1 of the Olson and Bush Industrial Park as filed for record in the office of the Ada County Recorder in Book 44 of Plats at Pages 3581 and 3582 and portions of adjacent public right-of-way, and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a brass cap marking the Southeast corner of said Section 8, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; thence North 00°00'00" East 798.55 feet along the Easterly boundary of said Section 8, said Easterly boundary also being the centerline of Eagle Road, to a point, said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; . thence leaving said centerline of Eagle Road North 89°56'38" West 460.00 feet along the centerline of Lanark Street to a point; thence North 00°00'00" East 299.95 feet to a point on the Southerly right-of--way line of the Union Pacific Railroad. said point being the Northwest corner of said Lot 3, Block 1, of Olson and Bush Industrial Park ; thence South 89°57'00" East 460.00 feet along said Southerly right-of--way line of the Union pacific Railroad to a point on the centerline of Eagle Road; thence leaving said Southerly right-of-way line aaFthe Union Pacific South 00°00'00° West 299.98 feet along said centerline of Eagle Road to the point of beginning, comprising 3.16 acres, more or less. I'AC1F1C LAND SURVEYORS 290 North Maple Grove Road Boise. ID 83704 (208) 378-6380 FAX (208) 378-0025 PROJECT: 527230 DATE: Mauch 7, 1995 EXIIIBTT I UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-0F-WAY LIGHT IlQDUSTRIAL ZONING LOCATID IN THE SOITTHWEST 1/4, SECTION 9 AND IN THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, SECTION 8 TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, HOISE MERIDIAN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO A parcel of land located in the Southwest 1/4, Section 9, and the Southeast 1/4, Section 8, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a brass cap marking the Southwest corner of said Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; thence North 00°00'00" East 1,298.53 feet along the Westerly boundary of said Section 9, said Westerly boundary also being the centerline of Eagle Road, to a point on the Northerly right-of-way line of the Union Pacific Railroad, said point being the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence leaving said Westerly boundary South 89°56'30" East 2,691.35 feet along said Northerly right-0f--way line of the Union Pacific Railroad to a steel pin on the Easterly boundary of the Southwest 1J4, Section 9; thence leaving said Northerly right-of--way line of the Union Pacific Railroad South 00°39'59"' East 200.00 feet along said Easterly boundary line to a point on the Southerly right-0f--way line of the Union Pacific Railroad; thence along said Southerly right-of=way line of the Union Pacific Railroad North 89°56'30" West 2,693.68 feet to a point on said Westerly boundary of the Southwest 1/4, Section 9; thence continuing along said Southerly right-of-way line of the Union Pacific Railroad North 89°57'00" West 460.00 feet to a point, said point being the Northwest corner of Lot 3, Block 1, of the Olson and Bush Indusaial Par1c as 51ed for r+xord in the office oaf the Ada County Recorder is Book 44 a~f plats at Pages 3581 and 3582; tlKnoe leasing said Southerly right~f' way line a~ tle Union Paafic Railroad North 00°00'00" East ZOO.OQ. £eet m a point on the Northerly right~way line ad the Unman Pacific Railroad; thence abng said Notthedy tight~al'way line of the Union Paaf c Railroad Sonth 89°57'00" East 460.00 ~ m a poi on said oeaLerline of Eagk Road, said poi being the point of beginnin& comprising 14.47 atxes, m~e ar less. Pacific Land Surveyors. a division of POWER Engineers, Inc., an Idaho Corporation 1 PACIFIC LAND SURVEYORS 290 North Maple Grove Road Boise, ID 83704 (208) 378-6380 FAX (208) 378-00'~ PROJECT: 527230 DATE: March 7, 1995 EXH®TT J VJ JOINT V'Eld'I'[JRE, AN IDAHO JOINT VENTURE LIGHT II~1DUS'TRIAL ZONING LOCATED IIJ THE SOUT7iWEST 1/4 AND SOUTHEAST 1/4 ,SECTION 9 TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 1 EAST, BOISE MERIDIAN ADA COUNTY, IDAHO A parcel of land located in the Southeast 1/4 and the Southwest 1/4, Section 9, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho, and more particularty described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Southwest I/4, Section 9; thence North 89°10'47" East 2,675.43 feet along the Northerly boundary of said Southwest 1/4, Section 9, to the Northeast corner of said Southwest 1/4, Section 9; thence South 89°10'47" West 20.01 feet along the Northerly boundary of said Southwest 1/4, Section 9, to a point; thence South 00°39'59" East 45.00 feet along a line parallel to and 20.00 feet Westerly of the Easterly boundary line of said Southwest 1/4, Section 9, to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING; thence continuing South 00°39'59" East 1,347.49 feet along said parallel line to a point on the Northerly right-of--way line of the Union Pacific Railroad; thence South 89°56'30" East 714.34 feet along said Northerly right-of--way line of the Union Pacific Railroad to a point; thence North 00°03'30" East 50.00 along said Northerly right-of-way line of the Union Pacific Railroad to a point; thence South 89°56'30" East 490.35 feet along said Northerty right-of-way line of the Union Pacific Railroad to a point; thence North 01°03'23" West 1,178.26 feet to a point; tribe along a wive to the left having a radios of 2,453.00 feu, a central angle of 19° 17'09" and whoa long chord bears North 81°10'48" West 822.46 fcet to a point on a line parallel to and 43.00 fen Southerly of the Nott>taly bamdary of said Southeast 1/4, Saxton 9; thence along said patalld line South 89° 10'38" West 383.98 feet to the point of beginning, comprising 36.00 aces, mtme or less. Pacific Land Surveyors. a division of POWER Engineers. Inc., an Idaho Corporation ---~ a ~---------- - ` -- ~ i i i , N. 89°io'38"E /33;39'--,.; _ ._ --- - _ -~_ _ NW GgatirB~, o -~- ~~~~ ~(/,89go'38E jj 77.0' -'~ ~~~ ~~~- --- ~/ == ~' \~ ~~ _. ~ ~ ~ ~ \ !~ ~> `~` W o~ N o~ .~ ~' $ ~ 4ri ~~: ,~-~~ ,~t~ PeivT of ~GINN/NC, z .\ 3 o~ 2 '<. N. 89°5'30 "W. /2.22' 1=-t= ~- - ~---_-----...._._..--- ^ ---- ,. ~-„ 3~ .....~. _ _ _ -__-__ Settlsra _ _ `_ _ _ _ _ ~j~`~. 275, /p ' R fl C MMER E ~ .~. ~' y _ = N. 84'56 ~ "W, 6~l.77i-~ JrU~`L. hW, Go~N~12~ ~G.GI - - ~ ~~~~~~~ ~K ~Core~af~Bnatb~~ a- ~_ ~~1~lalm-Al~orrl~ilsWbiof~6l~r±aq' ~~ ~~_ _ _____-____~~~_~_J I Is 1 -------------------- UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD l 1 _ -_ _ -~~~ voaYOf~ \ _ _ t i ~ - --- \~~I~ ~~\\\~~ a n C~ a ~ ti z ~ SUBDNISIO -----------------------~====>-----------------____-- UNION PACIFIC --- -RAILROAD /vV~~ ~r ~ ~~ ~AG~~ ~ =~ . ', COI2NEt2-~ ~,~ . ~~ u t I - ~alPim~d~bm~dbyAd~Ca~ege ~ih~Bnotb~~ ms~rira ~d _, aNyo- A1~pit b~flHi d6al~8~r nw~ `.~ , 1.' i - - - $6!l101~ ~ -- __- --- 1~\~~ \\ \; p ~~ `lS d V ~ ~ ~ ti SUBDNISIO - ------------------ .,,,~ 89'3 a0 E. 922.75 -------------------- --------------- ---' =====,---------------___--- UNION PACIFIC --- -RAILROAD ---- _------------------M--------------------~--- ------------~---------..---------•~__------------------------------- -----_ 1 4 1 I ~6 ~9'~/ { ~ ' I -~ .I I ~ ~ ~ I ~~~~ .I MOI~TVUE ~aP1~n~iom~aoa~dbyAd~Co~ohc ~ah~Bnotbs~ mrsdra ~wd a'pAl~prb~d~N~bM-+~y e c r r, a set^ i v ~ ;_ ~ ~' ~ ~T/ t SOlZIOf~ ~ -- ___ ~~\ ~;~~ __________~~___J RZ~ ~ R ~, ~ '3o"E. 4438,7` UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD 1~4f2T7/ , ~~. , , I r ~ ~f~L~c ; ~ rr ~ 7-~Q ~ Go t2fJE~ ~ h~G, ~ 4 0 E ~~ ~a ~~~~b~~ RECEIi/ED ~ ~. 2 8 1~~ EASEMENT AGREEMENT i'baE~;l~l~t _ `.~BTY ENCINI=EF` This EasementAgreement is made and entered into this d,~ day of _ December , 1995, by the undersigned Wanda L Bucket ter referred to as "Grantor" for the benefit of the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation of the state of Idaho that maintains a mailing address of 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho 83642, and its successors and assigns (the "City") and for the benefit of the Grantor and present and future owners of all or any portion of the Five Mile Drain Property (hereafter described) for the following reasons: A. The City desires to construct a sewer line through the Grantors Parcel, as depicted by Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. B. The Grantor recognizes that the presence of the Sewer Line and the availability of City sewer service to the Grantors Parcel is a material benefit to the Grantor and such Grantor's Parcel. Now, therefore, in consideration of the foregoing premises and for Dire Boc.u9-fit, and other good and valuable cons~eratior~ the sufficiency of which is hereby ac~mowledged by the Grantor, the Grantor, for his heirs, successors and assigns. hereby grants the easements hereinafter described and agrees as follows: Grant of Easements• The Grantor hereby grants to the City and its successors and assigns the permanent Sewer Line Easement and the temporary Construction Easement, each of which is more particularly described below: a. The oemranent Sewer Line Easement. The Sewer Line Easement hereby granted consists of the permanent and perpetual right to excavate, grade and backfill for the installation, repair, maintenance, alteration, support, ~wering or raising of, and to install, repair, maintain, alter, support, lower or raise, and utilize the Sewer Line in, into, upon, over, across, and under a strip of land being the westerly (20) feet of Lot 20, Amended Magic View Subdivision; being a portion of the E 1l2, Section 17, T.3N., R.1 E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, and as recorded in the office of the Ada County Recorder at Book 52 at pages 445 and 446, as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and utoorporated by this reference; additionally, Grantor grants to the City the right of permanent access, ingress and egress, to and from the easement, sewer line and , to perform the acts stated in this Easement Agreement. In furtherance of the foregoing, the Sewer Line Easement includes, but is not Limited to, as well the following - U) the+fograde the strip of land described above and to extend cuts and fills for such grading into, on and along such strip as the. City shall deem necessary and the right to use the permanent easement for cones purposes, as set forth in this EasementAgreementdnring the construction and placement of the sewer fne; (r') + ~ of construction of the trunk fine across the Grantor's Parcel and the construction easement has expired, the City of Meridian, and its assignees, have the right to access the Grantors r'~rcQl for the purposes of inspection, repair, ~r.~ ~ - ~ ~. , ~ _ other .hca through the easement 'viiill uc iiy permission only anti pe in ~sionnmust be obtained pnor to access. i~OVVEVE~ Grantor shall not unreasonably withhold permission; if an emergency exists and it is necessary to proceed through Grantors property to gain access to the easement and grantors permission has been attempted to be obtained, but permission has not been obtained, City shall have the right to access fhe easement through Grantor's parcel. (iii) the right from farce to time to trim and to cut down and clear away any and all trees and brush now or hereafter on said strip of land or that may be a hazard to the Sewer Line or interfere with the exercise of the City's rights hereunder, EASEMENT AGREEMENT - 950904 Page 1 (iv) the right to install, maintain, and use gates in any fence that now or hereafter crosses said strip of land; (v) the right to mark the location of said strip of land, its centerline or the Sewer Line by suitable markers set in the ground; (vi) the City shall have the right to place manholes ~, and/or on, the surface of the easement and shall have the right to access the permanent easement and the sewer line and to maintain and repair the sewer line, either before or after the development of Grantor's parcel. The City shall have reasonable access to the manhole and sewer trunk by using the existirg residential driveway, except heavy equipment which could damage the existing driveway pavement (vii) when, and as, Grantors property is developed, Grantor grants to the City the right of permanent access to the easement, the sewer line therein, ark the manholes, as stated in the first paragraph of this section 1.a b. The Construction Easement The Construction Easement hereby granted consists of the right to pertorm work necessary or advisable for the construction ol'the Sewer Line, including but not limited to surveying, excavation, installation, repair, maintenance, alteration, support, lowering or raising, and inspection or testing of the Sewer Line, and related incidental excavation, grading, roadwork and the like necessary or advisable to complete construction of, and to place in operation, the Sewer Line and related service road (the "Construction World, which Construction Work shall be performed, occur in and be confined to the space that is upon, over, across, and under a strip of land being the easteriy (55) feet of the westerly (75) feet of Lot 20, Amended Magic Vew Subdivision, being a portion of the E 1/2, Section 17, T.3N., R.1 E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, and as recorded. in the once of the Ada County Recorder at Book 52 at pages 445 and 446, as shown on Exhibit A. Since the construction easement is fifty-five (55) feet and the permanent easement is twenty (20) feet, the City shat[ have seventy-five (75) feet within which to perform construction. The Construction Easement shall expire when the construction contract terminates. c. Exercise of Riohts through Third Persons: The Grantor understands and agrees that the City shall be . entitled to exercise the rights hereby granted by the employment or other arrangement for employees, agents, consultants, independent contractors and other persons engaged for any potion of the Construction Work or, in connection with the permanent Sewer Line easement, to excavate, grade and backfill for the installation, repair, maintenance, alteration, support, lowering or raising of, and to install, repair, maintain, alter, support, and lower or raise the Sewer Line. 2. Grantors Title and Authority The Grantor hereby covenants, represents and warrants to the City that such Grantor has fee title to Grantors Parcel, described in Exhibit "A" and full powerarrd authority to grant the Sewer Line Easement and the Construction Easement 3. General Terms and Intervretation a. Existence and Course cf SF~ per Line. The desciN`.iu~~ of the proposed Sewer Line is f•iai d promise by the City to build such a sewer line. b. Benefits and Burdens to-Run with the Land. The banefits and burdens of this agreement shall run with the land. The City is authorized to record this Agreement in the records of Ada County, Idaho. c. Entire Agreement- Modifications. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the Grantor and the City covering the subject-matter hereof, replacing and superseding all prior .and other contemporaneous discussions, representations, understandings and agreements. This Agreement shall not be modified except by a written instrument execul~d by the party or parties to be bound. EASEMENT AGREEMENT - 950904 Page 2 • • d. Other Uses within the Ea ements. The Grantor reserves the right to use the land within either easement (the Construction Easement and the Sewer Easement) tier any use that does not intertere with the full enjoyment of the easements hereby granted; provided, however, the Grantor covenants, for himself, his successors and assigns, not to build, erect or construct any structure, improvement, well or other obstruction or either strip, or to diminish or substantially add )o the ground cover over the Sewer Line, or to excavate within the bounds of either easement; provided, further, the Grantors covenant not to build, erect or construct within the Construction Easement shall cease when the Construction Easement expires. e. Consideration for Diminution in Value. The Grantor agrees I the consideration recited herein is for the rights granted and includes as well full compensation tour any damage to or diminution in value of the Grantor's Parcel. Gender and Number. Unless the context specifically requires otherwise, the singular includes the plural, and vice versa, and each gender includes every other gender. In particular, but not by way of limitation, the term "Grantor" includes jointly and severally each and every person or legal entity who executes this Agreement in that capacity. g. Special Provisions. In addition to the foregoing, this Easerieent Agreement incorporates herein Exhibits A, B, C and D, and particularly those special provisions set forth in Exhibits C & D, all of which Exhibits are attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. Bindino. This agreement shall not be binding upon the parties until all of the parties have signed and the Meridian City Council shall have authorized, or ratified, tl~e signatures of the Mayor and City Clerk. In witness whereof, the Grantor has caused this Easement Agreement to be duly executed and delivered on the date first above written. Granter: Wanda 1_ Buckert City of Illteeridian: BY ,Mayor By William G. Berg, Jr., City Clerk Developer. By: EASEMENT AGREEMENT - 950904 Page 3 • STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) On this ~3 day of ~p.~, 1995, before me ~ >A'Q,•(2~'1' S La i~ S~Epersonally appeared Wanda L. Ruckert ,known or identified to me (or proved to me on the oath of ~, to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me 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. ~, Notary Public for I o _ Residing at_.~...r~,~~.•-~---,. My Commission Expire~_ 1 ~ ~ 1 S -r-, J STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) On this _ day of .1995, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, personally appeared and William G Berg Jr known to me to be the Mayor and City Cleric of the City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the within instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. Notary Public for Idaho Residing at My Commission Expires STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) On this _, day of , 1995, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, ~,.. , personally appeared _ , known to me to be the Ma or and Git~,~ ~, ° --- - Meridia-?, Idaho, and ~.vho executed the within instrument, and acknowledged +.o r^~ that ±fie.City of Meridian 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. Notary Public for Idaho Residing at My Commission Expires EASEMENT AGREEMENT - 950904 Page 4 .~ • • EXHIBIT A LOTS 19 & 20 O~ THE AMENDED ~C[AGIC yZEW SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN BOOK 52 OF PLATS AT PAS ¢~, ADA COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE CENTER 1 /4 Ct3RNER SEC. 17 REAL POINT OF BEGIN ~ NING LOT 20 ~ ~ '~! m ~' cn ~~ __ 20 PERMANENT SANITARY SEWER EASEMEN ~ . I (INCLUDES EX1SiTiNG 10' EASEMENT) ~~ cn I 2 J _ ~ J ~ O SCALE 1 " a 200' W _. _ ~ MPORARY CONSTRUCTION ' EASEMENT I _ l~ ~ I ~ 1 w } -_ 10~ PUBUC UTIUTfES. DRAINAGE do IRRIGATION EASEIAENT f REAL POINT OF BEGINNING LOT 19----~ ':_ - - c~n I U ~ _ ° 19 11 Jr I _~ i ,. i :~ ~ ~' OWNERS OF RECORD LOT 20---WqN~,~ L. BUCKERT LOT 19---8 & F EBVTERPRISES ~' ~' ~.~ # CRY iON E~3al~}19 Rt'1AStON B R t G G S : s+s~mtrrs `>:a rocs ~ >~ :sa rk Zo zat nrmmrm ~u~oc ~ >la~otrr sNt~-r roc~~ >~ ~ s~sr s/s atr ~c.~ rr r.~.. au., aY. (soe~..9~00 1111 S ORGIARD, SUITE 000 DE9gV DRAFT SCALE DALE DWG.NO. ~ OF ~ ' ~. wA-IO a~ MM RS 1=200 12/OS/s5 ~ nF ~ • • EX~IIBIT "B.. 20 FOOT PERMANENT SAN~ARY SEWER EASEMENT 55 FOOT TEMPORARY CO~iISTRUCTION EASEMENT December 7.1995 An easement being a portion of Lot 20; Amended Magic View Subdivision, lying in the SE 1/4 of Section 17, Township 3 North, Range ~ East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho. Commencing at the northwest corner of the SE 1/4 (center 1/4 corner) of the above said Section 17 being the northwest corner of Lot~fI of the Amended Magic View Subdivision as recorded in Book 52 of Plats at page 44.!5 at the Ada County Recorders Office, the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Thence S 00°21'02" W 795.89 feet along the west line to the southwest corner of said Lot 20; Thence S 89°1T17" E-20.00 feet along the so~~Cn line of said Lot 20 to a point; Thence N 00°21'02" E 796.12 feet to a pointer the north line of said Lot 20; Thence N 89°57'16" W 20.00 feet to the REAL Ia0lNT OF BEGINNING of this description. This easement contains 15,920 square feet (0.157) acres, more or less. 55 FOOT TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT A 55 foot temporary construction easement witae~ is described as follows: The east 55 feet of the west 75 feet of Lot 20 of tl~ Amended Magic View Subdivision as recorded at the Ada County Recorders Office. Michael E. Marks, L.S. - No. 940815 • REVISED EXHIBIT C ADDITIONAL EASEMENT LANGUAGE FOR THE WANDA L. BUCKERT EAS~IENT AGREEMENT ~. ~~ (a) Two flinch diameter sewer service lines opening in a manhole base will be provided at no cost to the property owner. These sewer line manhole openings will allow future sewer connection for the properly owner into fhe Sewer Line. Selection of whit manhole location to be designed for the sewer service ~e opening will be determined by the property owner with confirmation by the City Engineers office. To expedite design of this sewer service manhole opening, the property owner needs to select the preferred manhole fogtion within ten (10) days after signing this easement agreement. The 4 inch sewer service manhole openings wdt be plugged in the manhole. A drawing will be provided eo the property owner showing the field l®cation and appropriate elevation of the sewer service manhole opening. Sewer service connection fives for the two sewer stubs shall be considered paid in fud. (b) During construction of the Sewer Line project, all property comers within the construction area will be established or re-established with appropriate survey pins and markers. A drawing will be provided b the property owner showing field location and appropriate dimensions of all property pins and marlaers. (c) To provide fbr routine sewer maintenance by the of Meridian, the property owner must allov.~ the City perrttanent all-weather access to each manhole that is constructed on the grantor's property. Access to each manhole that is constructed on the grantors property must be available to the City - as follows. Center re~nhoie to be located in the area of the Marge shop and 3/4 road mix gravel in the area adjacent to and between the two shops. a. Prior ~ Fu~rre ~Develooment or Current Prooertv Silfttation: By signing this easement agreement, the property~rreer agrees to allow the City of Amman reasonable access to the center manhole by u~g ~e existing driveway with exception of heavy equipment which could damage the eaastirq pavement. The Grantor of the easerraa~agees to City access across and through the ~ t~operty for City owned sewer mairnterra$aoe equipment to access the manhole locations. City agrees to corrtact grantor by phone or mail fJO coordinate access arrangements prior to actual use. ~ wr11 take precaution to close all gates arod minim¢e property disturbance to livestock and ~rrre~g facr7ities. b. Future prooertv Development or Redevelopment Situation: By signing this agreement, the property owner agrees to incorporate permanent al!-weather access to each manhole that is constructed on thQ nm ,bF ~~• ~~; ; -= „ <ony ~~ development or redeveloprn~~r4 -~': properly. As part of this 3grQement, the City w~~ orzoperate with the property_owner to deterrnine worhlble aced reasonable permanent access ~ as part of the future development plans for this property. (t) The City of Nt~idian and the property owner mutuasg- understand and agree that permanent all- weather access to each manhole is absolutely required for sewer line maintenance. The City of Meridian and tt~e property owner mutually understand arat agree that permanent all-weather access to each neanhoie must be incorporated into any futtme redevelopment plans or subdivision design of the grantors propecty. EASEMENT AGREI=MEENT -850904 Page 5 • i (g) A 20 foot by 20 feet area surrounding each manhole, within the permanent easement, will be improved duitlt a 10" thickness of compacted 3!4" (-) road mix gravel on a stable subgrade to support City owned sewer maintenance equipment in all-weather field conditions. (h) The properly owner fully understands that sheds, buildings, fences, trees and other types of improven~nls cannot be placed within the permanent easement as specified within this easement agreement. After construction of the Sewer Line project, the Grantors property will be returned to its current state, design, and elevation including removal of any sufidce rock raised by constructing the sewer line and the area reseeded with pasture grass as reasonably specified by the Grantor, except as provided in paragraph 1.a. (vi) of the Easement Agreement EASEMENT AGREEMEiYT - 950904 Page 6 • EXHIBIT D • ADDITIONAL EASEMENT LANGUAGE FOR THE WANDA L. BUCKERT EASE~lIENT AGREEMENT The items listed below are the sole responsibility of the devekaper of Sundance Subdivision, Gary L Voigt and Craig Groves, or their successors. (a) All existing topso7 to be removed from the pemiarrent and construction easements (except the area alongside and between both shops) and replaced after the line constructed. Any excess topsoil created shall be left on the property in the form of a smckpile on the upper and lower lots. The owner will make use of the extra fill material from the line construction by having it placed on the lower lot to raise the grade level of the same. (b) Locate the center manhole at the rear or alongside the large shop (the distance being approximately 380 feet form the south property comer to the rear of the large shop) and using 3/4 road mix around the manhole and covering the strip alongside each shop and the area between the shops and the asphalt (c) Create an open ditch drainage between the sewer five and next to the westerly property boundary line of the upper and lower lots except for an area 30 feet beyond the rear of the large shop (south end) to the crest of the hill located at the rear of the small shop (north end). This area will need an ~; r.-L ~'` ~"v 8" plastic drain tub (approximately 200 feet) to be instaNed. (d) Replace the existing 6" sewer stub on the lower lot wfth a 4" sewer stub located in the center ofthe - lowerlot and furnish a 4" sewer stub in the area near the small shop to serve the existing house and - shops. Since the R/V dump station will probably meted to be removed or will be damaged during construction, the tmnttactor shall replace the same by connecting to the 4" stub that is to serve the ~ ~.'' house. (The word furnish means (2) fee paid sewer stubs with no future connection fees involved.) ~" ~~~:4, -- +~ ~^i, +-'' (e) Assuming that there wrl( be some need to use the exisli~g asphalt driveway during construction and ~~'"' f - ~ } %`` ,,;:, maintenance, care should be given not to damage tlae asphalt with heavy equipment In the event it is damaged. ft shat! be repaired or the property owner being reimbursed for the cost of repairs needed. (~ A six foot cedarboard fence currentty exists along a portion of the west boundary of said parcel. The contractor may demolish said fence and if demolished, the fence shall be replaced to the same condition prior to construction. (g) An existing shop is hAatfr~rl ~aproximatefy 25 feet east of the west property -s'n - '~~ ~- °- ~~- •~,~~~r shall use care and reasonaoie measures to protect the shop from any damage or disruption. In the event the shop is damaged or is required to be moved, the contractor will be required to take what ever measures necessary to return the structure and its sundings to the pre-existing condition. (h) Gary L. Voigt and Craig Groves shall pay monetary corr~ensation to Wanda L. Ruckert for the permanent and temporary easements and the aforementioned items in the amount of $10,000.00, ~~ '1'o be ~aiD Wif'hsN S ~A•~rg f~-~E~• h'IERiDIA~ Ci~' CoCA.NCi l.. ~iRS Ra f i~'ti eo s~rtD `gc~ReeM~E'I~T', ~~ EASEMENT AGREEMENT - 950904 Page 7 ~ ~ ~~c~e~~~~ ~ ~ z $ ~~~~ ME~s~t~;t~ EASEMENT AGREEMENT :~'tTV EtvGtNE` This Easement Agreement is made and entered into this _ day of December , 1995, by the undersigned B & F Enterprises an Idaho General Partnership ,hereafter referred to as "Grantor" for the benefit of the City of Meridian, a municipal corporation of the state of Idaho that maintains a mailing address of 33 East Idaho, Meridian, Idaho 83642, and its successors and assigns (the "City") and for the benefit of the Grantor and present and future owners of all or any portion of the Five Mile Drain Property (hereafter described) for the following reasons: A. The City desires to construct a sewer line through the Grantor's Parcel, as depicted by Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. B. The Grantor recognizes that the presence of the Sewer Line and the availability of City sewer service to the Grantor's Parcel is a material benefit to the Grantor and such Grantor's Parcel. Now, therefore, in consideration of the foregoing premises and for and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby ~owledged by the Grantor, the Grantor, for his heirs, successors and assigns, hereby grants the easements hereinafter described and agrees as follows: Grant of Easements: The Grantor hereby grants to the City and its successors and assigns the permanent Sewer Line Easement and the temporary Construction Easement, each of which is more particularly described below: a. The permanent Sewer Line Easement. The Sewer Line Easement hereby granted consists of the permanent and perpetual right to excavate, grade and backfill for the installation, repair, maintenance, alteration, support, lowering or raising of, and to install, repair, maintain, alter, support, lower or raise, and utilize the Sewer Line in, into, upon, over, across, and under a strip of land being the westerly (20) feet of Lot 19, Amended Magic Vew Subdivision, being a portion of the E 1/2, Section 17, T.3N., R.1 E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, and as recorded in the office of the Ada County Recorder at Book 52 at pages 445 and 446, as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by this reference; additionally, Grantor grants to the City the right of permanent access, ingress and egress, to and from the easement, sewer line and manholes, to perform the acts stated in this Easement Agreement. In furtherance of the foregoing, the Sewer Line Easement includes, but is not limited to, as well the following -- (i) the right to grade the strip of land described above and to extend cuts and fills for such grading into, on and along such strip as the City shall deem necessary and the right to use the permanent easement for construction purposes, as set forth in this Easement Agreement during the construction and placement of the sewer line; (ii) upon completion of construction of the trunk fine across the Grantor's Parcel and the construction easement has expired, the City of Meridian,- and its assignees, have the right to access the Grantor's Parcel for the purposes of inspection, repair, a.n~ ma.in#enance of the Sewer Line as required; any access other than through the easement will be uy p~r,~usa+~,~~ ~unly and. permission must be obtainev ~.~t ': access. HOWEVER, Grantor shall not unreasonably withhold permission; if an emergency exists and it is necessary to proceed through Grantor's property to ga'si access to the easement and grantors permission has been attempted to be obtained, but permission has not been obtained, City shall have the right to access the easement through Grantor's parcel. (iii) the right from time to time to trim and to cut down and clear away any and all trees and brush now or hereafter on said strip of land or that may be a hazard to the Sewer Line or intertere with the exercise of the City's rights hereunder; EASEMENT AGREEMENT - 950904 Page 1 • • (iv) the right to install, maintain, and use gates in any fence that now or hereafter crosses said strip of land; (v) the right to mark the loption of said strip of land, its centerline or the Sewer Line by suitable markers set in the ground; (vi) as long as the Grantors property remains undeveloped, the City shall have the right to gravel all of the easement, or portions thereof, for access purposes, and the City shall have the right to place manholes in, and/or on, the surface of the easement and shall have the right to access the permanent easement and the sewer line and to maintain and repair the sewer line, either befc,re or after the development of Grantors parcel. The Grantor shall have the right to remove the gravel as his property is developed but City shall still have the right to access for maintenance and repair; and (vii) when, and as, Grantor's property is developed, Grantor grants to the City the right of permanent access th the easement, the sewer line therein, and the manholes, as stated in the first paragraph of this section 1.a. b. The Constnx~on nt: The Construction Easement hereby granted consists of the right to perform work necessary or~advisable for the construction of the Sewer Line, including but not limited to surveying, excavation, installation, repair, maintenance, alteration, support, lowering or raising, and inspection or testing of the Sewer Line, and related .incidental excavation, grading, roadwork and the like necessary or advisable to complete construction of, and to place in operation, the Sewer Line and related service road (the "Consirucction Work"), which Construction Work shall be performed, occur in and be confined to the space that is upon, over, across, and under a strip of land being the easterly (55) feet of the westerly (75) feet of Lot 19, Amended Magic View Subdivision, being a portion of the E 1/2, Section 17, T.3N., R.1 E., B.M., Ada County, Idaho, and as recorded in the office of the Ada County Recorder at Book 52 at pages 445 and 446, as shown on Exhibit A. Since the construction easement is fifty-five (55) feet and the permanent easement is twenty (20) feet, the City shall have seventy-five (75) feet within which to perform construction. The Construction Easement shall expire when the construction contract terminates. c. Exercise of Rights through Third Persons: The Grantor understands and agrees that the City shall be entitled to exercise the rights hereby granted by the employment or other arrangement for employees, agents, consultants, independent contractors and other persons engaged for any portion of the Construction Work or, m connection with the permanent Sewer Line easement, to excavate, grade and backfill for the ikon, repair, maintenance, alteration, support, lowering or raising of, and to install, repair, maintain, alter, support, and lower or raise the Sewer Line and related service road. 2. Grantor's Title and Authority The Grantor hereby covenants, represents and warrants to the City that such Grantor has fee title to Grantor's Panel, described in Exhibit "A" and-full power and authority to grant the. Sewer Line Easement and the ConstrucfiOn Easement. 3. r~1,- ~-!" `;,~~~rpretation a. Existence and Course of Sewer Line. The description of the proposed Sewer Line is not a promise by the City to build such a sewer line. b. Benefits and Burdens to Run with the Land. The benefits and burdens of this agreement shall run with the land. The City is authorized to record this Agreement in the records of Ada County, Idaho. c. Entire Agreement- Modfications. This Agreement represents the entire agreement between the Grantor and the City covering the subject-matter hereof, replacing and superseding all prior and other contemporaneous discussions, representations, understandings and agreements. This Agreement shall not be modified except by a written instrument executed by the party or parties to be bound. EASEMENT AGREEMENT -950904 Page 2 • d. Other Uses within the Easements. The Grantor reserves the right to use the land within either easement (the Construction Easement and the Sewer Easement) for any use that does not interfere with the full enjoyment of the easements hereby granted; provided, however, the Grantor covenants, for himself, his successors and assigns, not to build, erect or construct any structure, improvement, well or other obstruction or either strip, or to diminish or substantially add to the ground cover over the Sewer Line, or to excavate within the bounds of either easement; provided, further, the Grantor's covenant not to build, erect or construct within the Construction Easement shall cease when the Construction Easement expires. e. Consideration for Diminution in Value. The Grantor agrees that the consideration recited herein is for the rights granted and includes as well full compensation for any damage to or diminution in value of the Grantor's Parcel. Gender and Number. Unless the context specifically requires otherwise, the singular includes the plural, and vice versa, and each gender includes every other gender. In particular, but not by way of limitation, the term "Grantor' includes jointly and severally each and every person or legal entity who executes this Agreement in that capacity. g. Special Provisions. In addition to the foregoing, this Easement Agreement incorporates herein Exhibits A, B and C, and particularly those special provisions set forth in Exhibit C, all of which Exhibits are attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. h. Binding. This agreement shall not be binding upon the parties until all of the parties have signed and the Meridian City Council shall have authorized, or ratified, the signatures of the Mayor and City Clerk. In witness whereof, the Grantor has caused this Easement Agreement to be duly executed and delivered on the date first above written. Grantors: Cl~~v~~,e p!r~ ~l~fA:~a,~,6 Y EASEMENT AGREEMENT - 950904 Dean Buffington 'm Furman City of Meridian: By: Grant P. Kingsford, Mayor By: William G. Berg, Jr., City -Clerk Page 3 STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) On this a~day of~_, 1995, before me ('oAR~tZ_~T S. Z-oNGfiTR.~~ersonally appeared Dean Buffington ,known or identified to me (or proved to me on the oath of ), to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me 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. ~` ~ Notary Public for Ida l Residing at~,_..~_ My Commission Expires ~ O^ 1S' ~"L. STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~On this ~ day of ~2, 1995; before me s . ~.ON6 LAG t -~ ~C ,personally appeared Jim FdGraaa ,known or identified to me (or proved to me on the oath of ), to be the person whose name is subscribed to the within instrument, and acknowledged to me 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. ,_ Notary Public for Id o ) Residing at ~JY,nQ n~r~.a.~.~, My Commission Expire_,~~ t ~-- cjT STATE OF IDAHO ) ss. County of Ada ) On this _ day of , 1995, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for said State, ~~~r~nn?lly appeared _ Grant P. Kingsford and Wih~°~,~ '"; ;,~,ru to me to be the Mayor and City ('I ~~°; f '~ the City of Meridian, Idaho, and who executed the tivithin instrument, and acknowledged to me that the City of Meridian executed the same. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my official seal the day and year in this certificate first above written. Notary Pubiic for Idaho Residing at My Commnission Expires EASEMENT AGREEMENT -950904 Page 4 • EXHIBIT A LOTS 19 & 20 OF THE AMENDS ]MAGIC VIEW SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN BOOK 52 OF PLATS AT PAGE 445, ADA COUNTY RECORDERS OFFICE CENTER 1/4 CORNER SEC. 17 REAL POINT OF BEGINNING LOT 20 .m 20' PERMANENT SANITARY SEWER EASEMEN (INCLUDES EXISITING i0' EASEMENT) w w. 10' PUBLIC. UTILITIES, DRAINAGE & IRRIGATION EASEMENT ii :_ -a t ' __ 20 ;;: .:: •- ~, . :- REAL POINT OF BEGINNING LOT 19 ~ :~:~ ~ 1 v~ U 1 0 1 _ it ' __: ~. II :. - l ~ :~~~~: SCALE 1 " = 200.' 19 OWNERS Ot~' e~ECORD LOT 20---WAI~~~. L. BUCKERT LOT 19---B & ~ ENTERPRISES 8R1GG5 ENC~VEEIt~NCr MC. g~jjTj~y 9511 ~ C.TION SA~4>~N'!g REVISION ~ L~P18 ~Bi~ LOC~'J®~)@~4 isi At 80 BRIGGS ~ .>,mm® u.~ .gr pox sHEEr rocar>ec ai ~ ~r i/s a~ s~ rr r.~x., sss., a>~r. (zos)3++-900 1 OF 1 ~»~ S. ORCHARD, 5ui7E aoo DESIGN DRAFT SCALE .DATE DWG.NO. easE. ioaao sa~os MM RS 1=200 12/(*~~35 1 OF 1 C£ DWGNAME 940813 ~3IT ~~~~~ 20 FOOT SANITARY SEYVER EASEMENT &_ 5S FOOT TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT December 7, 1995 An easement being a portion of Lot 19 of Amended Magic Vew Subdivision, lying in the SE 1/4 of section 17, Township 3 North, Range 1 East, Boise Meridian, Ada County, Idaho; Commencing at the northwest comer of the SE 1/4 (center 1/4) of the above said Section 17 being the northwest comer of Lot 20 of the Amended Magic Vew Subdivision as recorded in Book 52 of Plats at page 4445 at the Ada County Recorders Office; Thence S 00°21'02" W a distance of 795.89 feet to the northwest comer of Lot 19 of said Amended Magic Vew Subdivision, the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description; Thence S 00°21'02" W 410.13 feet along the west line to the southwest comer of said Lot 19; Thence N 74°48'19" E 20.76 feet along the south fine of said Lot 19 to a point; Thence N 00°21'02" E 404.81 feet to a point on the north tine of said Lot 19; i Hence N 89°17'1T' 1N 20.00 feet to the REAL POINT OF BEGINNING of this description. This easement contains 8,149 square feet (0.187 acres), more or less. 55 FOOT TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT A 55 foot temporary construction easement which is described as follows: The east 55 feet of the west 75 feet. of Lot 1.9 of the Amended Magic mew Subdivision as recorded at the Ada County Recorde Michael E. Marks, L.S. - No. 4 940815 • • REVISED EXHIBIT C ADDITIONAL EASEMENT LANGUAGE FOR THE B & F ENTERPRISES EASEMENT AGREEMENT (a) One 8 inch diameter sewer service line opening in a manhole base will be provided at no cost to the property owner. This sewer line manhole openag will allow future sewer connection for the property owner into the Sewer Line. Selection of which rr~nhole location to be designed for the sewer service line open~g will be determined by the property owner with confirmation by the City Engineer's office. To expedite design of this sewer service line manhole opening, the property owner needs to select the preferred manhole location within ten (10) days after signing this easement agreement. The 8 inch sewer service manhole opening will be plugged in the manhole. A drawing will be provided to the property owner showing the field location and appropriate elevation of the sewer service manhole opening. (b) During construction of the Sewer Line project, temporary fencing will be installed to mark and isolate the constnuction area and prevent livestock and children from entering the active construction zone. Temporary fencing will be a five foot high gatvan¢ed chain link fence fabric securely mounted on steel tee-bar fence posts. (c) During construction of the Sewer Line project, the property owners' livestock will be allowed safe access l~ Fve Mile Creek for stock water. (d) During construction of the Sewer Line project, all property corners within the construction area will be estab~hed or re-established with appropriate survey pins and markers. A drawing will be provided ~ the property owner showing field locations and appropriate dimensions of all property pins and marilaers. (e) To provide tlior routine sewer maintenance by the City of Meridian, the property owner must allow the City permanent all-weather access to each manhole that is constructed on the grantor's property. Access to each manhole that is constructed on the grantors property must be available to the City as follows: Prior b Future Development or Current Properly Situation: By signing this easement agreement, the property owner agrees to allow the City of Meridian to construct an all-weather access road a anc! through the grantor's property to ~drtiore City owned sewer maintenance equipment to access the manhole locations. City agrees 'to contact grantor by phone or mail to coordinate access arrangements prior to actual use. City will take precaution to close all gates and minimize rrraperty disturbance to livestock and f~?rm -: b. Futur9e I?rooerty Development or Redevelopment Situation: By signing this agreement, the property owner agrees to incorporate permanent all-weather access to each manhole that is constreat on the grantor';s property, into any future development or redevelopment plans of the property_ As part of this agreement, the City will cooperate with the property owner to determine -roorkaibrfrr and neasonabte permanent access albematives as part of the future development plans for the arty. And after the property is developed or redeveloped, the City shall allow the Granfioiilo remove the all-weather gravel access road above the sewer line. EASEMENT AGREEIi~ENT - 950904 Page 5 1 • (1] The City of Meridian and the property owner mutually understand and agree that permanent all- weather access to each manhole is absolutely required for sewer line maintenance. The City of Meridian and the property owner mutually understand and agree that permanent alf-weather access to each manhole must be incorporated into any future redevelopment plans or subdivision design of the grantor's property. (g) A 20 foot by 20 feet area surrounding each manhole, within the permanent easement, will be improved with a 10" thickness of compacted 3/4" (-) road mix gravel on a stable subgrade to support City owned sewer maintenance equipment in all-weather field conditions. (h) The property owner fully understands that sheds, buildings, fences, trees and other types of improvements cannot be placed within the permanent easement as specified within this easement agreement. After construction of the Sewer Line project, the Grantor's property will be returned to its current state, design, and elevation including removal of any surtace rock raised by constructing the sewer line and the area reseeded with pasture grass as reasonably specified by the Grantor, except as provided in paragraph 1.a. (vi) of the Easement Agreement. (i) The City will provide a 6 inch sewer stub-out for the property owner. The end of the 6-inch sewer stub-out shall be plugged and marked in accordance with the City of Meridian Standards and Specifications. EASEMENT AGREEMENT - 950904 Page 6 ~~ s-ANl'1'ARY SI~'wEtt Recr~-~.r., i j .' ~ ~ 'day of ~P.ei~-~1~19~~bctRre~ Cena>QOn 1oc-, a~.Idah6 ~COrpotacion, the:party of ~ fast Part together with its suooessors and assi ~ hel~ceina~er Called ' j ~ the Gr~uttof„and the ~- of Merrdian, . Idaho, a mu .. ~ PAY of;tl~ second part, toge~er with its successors wad nxcrpal corporation, the ~ ~ I ; assigns, ~ called the Grantee. ~ ~ ~ $iTNESS~`1'~r i ~ I ; . raatb>r desires >~ tovide ' `iM~ the G ~ p a sanitary sewer -of-wa ' premises{ atod P;opett3'r it p~ti~ly bounded and described; ~ Y across die ;~ ~ . ; ~~, the sanitary sewer' is so be provided tluough an oudexgtna>ad construcFed by others; grid ~ ~ pipeline to be I .i ~RFAS, it wi11(~ rn . by ~ q~attee- ~ °` ,D ~~ and service said pipeliac from time co time .Now, ~, . ~ ~?oDSOidera>~ of Grsntce s covenants and warranties c~atai>acd ttieclein, t~ sufficiency of which~is itetdiy actrnowledged by the Grantor, the Qrantbr does hereby &Ve, gzmzt and convey onto the Grantee a ~t~f--way for a permanent ~~ Iii ~~ and for the tioti aria .maintenance of a seer line and a constiu , on of ~ sewer line ovea~'' end across the folloau~g ~ °q ~meut fOr the ~ ~ - ' ! ~ (SSE A~`lIACI~ EXI:~TT ~'q^ ~ S r~ B~s~r., j ~ (SSE AZ'7AC~ SIT »g» p.NT1.1LfiD i ~ 'T~O~ARY CONhTRUCrION EASB'iViF.NT") ,, .. p nept ~ er li~e~aund tempo~y canstniction easamcnts the u on and:' ~Y IP~~ are f©r together ~itb their maintenance ~ n ~ a ~~ ~~~ line and their allied facilfties, the.fi+ee >r~•ght of access to such t a td t at the convcaienoe of thcGiarrtee, with easeameat ~' and all times, except the temporary coastcuctio>a is tom ~ ~ expire when thei~giitial constriction of facditics in the pe~nent icascoaeat area pl~~- _ __ _ < ~a L~~eturn for Grantor pro .~ridmg f~ ~~~ Gzaatee agrees to au cow ~ ~J manhole lids to grade for any maahoIe installed is Gzanbor"s propcrtyassoc>tated devel ~ reghu+es said ~adjus!Oo~t. . ~ iiiture _ __ . SAr1rI'ARa( SEwHR SASF.MENT - per,"1; MM&C 81.UOd t?lZ'7f95 ~~ DEC 29 '95 08 33 20888??998 PAGE.02 • TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, the saii~ permanent easement and right-of--way unto the said Grantee, its successors and assigns forernea_ IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOGD AND AGREED, by and between the parties hereto, that all facilities installed pursuant to this ~,sement shall be and remain the property of Grantee, that the Grantee shall at all times safely u~sate and maintain Grantee's property and facilities within the easement area and that the ~ntee, in making use . of the easement, shall not unreasonably interfere with Grantor's use ~ the surface and shall expediently replace and restore the premises to a condition comparable to itl~at existent prior to undertaking such use. However, ~..~ ~ ~w~~~ea will not be responsible f~ repairing; ~i; ~;t;~ c~ restoring any' permanent structures, .large trees or bushes placed within the permanent easement area described in this easement. THE GRANTOR retains the rigla~ for full use of the surface except that the Grantor hereby covenants and agrees that it will natplace or allow to be placed any permanent structures (other than street improvements), large t~s or bushes within the permanent easement area described herein, which would interfere Keith the use of said easement area, for the purposes stated herein. THE GRANTOR does hereby cove~nt with the Grantee that it is lawfully seized and possessed of the aforementioned and described tract of land, and that it has a good and lawful right to convey said easement, and that it gill warrant and forever defend the title and quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims of all persons whatsoever; provided, however, that all of the foregoing covenants and warranta~x ~ Grantor are subject to all easements, restrictions and other encumbrances of record or appearing on the land on the date this instrument is recorded. FURTHERMORE, Grantor shall hive the right, without incurring any extraordinary expenses (other than standard connection aid usage fees), to connect sewer facilities serving property currently owned by Grantor wi~l6in a one (1) mile radius of the easement area ("Grantor's Property") to Grantee's existing or future sewer system at a location convenient to Grantor (whether within or without the easement area described herein). Grantee covenants and warrants that Grantee's use of this easement, iaacluding the extension of sewer facilities through this easement and beyond, shall not in a~ way diminish or adversely affect the amount of capacity in Grantee's sewer system availablle to serve Grantor's property. ~,lrls~" S~~c~2 . 7 , SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT -Page 2 MM&C 2981.004 12/27/95 . ~ ~~. ~ ~~ ~ITNF-SS RAF, dre said of the fu~st ~ their da and ear Stilt P~ P~ ha•-a hemaupnto subscribed lures ~ the y y . I~reinabove written. This easemesu shall be iaeeffective ' unless i I is executed and acltaoariet~ei; Ly the (3raatee. I , - , ~ GbNYi~TE, INC. an ;Idaho corporation 1 i ,' i I ~ I Bp ~'iomas T. Wright j itS: Ptt~dent i ~ i ~ ' I ~ ~ L_ Bows ~ .. ~ Its: Scary ' ' ~ i. ' ca~~a~.o~.aw~cm~ ~ ~ ~~ i i . S~'ATB IOF ~ax0 , , , )ss. C~ouaty ~ f Ada ~~ ~ ~~ ` ~ '; tkuis . 7 day , of ~ ~ e c e « r , 195, before me, the ~sigaed, a Notary Public in 'aad four said state, personally Wired Thviaas T: Wright and B+~ard L. Bess, known o8ridettcifed to me to beibe A'esideat swd Secretary, respectively, of ~antone, Iac., We cotp®nation drat racecuted nc~ insaaat+e~ or the pezsoct woo executed the i~rumeat on behalf of said ~doiporatfon, and ~aczoaowledgod bo me that such corporation cxe~tod the same. i 1~ WITI~JESS ''~.REOF; X Lave htuetuato set my hand and affixed my official seal the dax and ear in ~ this certificarc ~ fast above-w +~ ~, a~ ~ ~O;~p, d„e,~ NOTARY for Idaho .~ .M~, ~~ = Residing at ` ~ i My commission cxpirzs: }!' v'+ '~''dHT,1G Q i .. *~,~C ' . . 1 ~ I ' '~ I i ~ I i ~ SANITAR SEWER EnSEMPM - P~gp 3 I~IIaI&C 81.004 ~ l2R7/95 i DEC 29 '95 08 34 20888??998 PAGE. 04 i AC' a mucus ~~ $~~ ~P,u~nt: 17LC; . S'TiA1~3 i Cou~n~ty Public i o~ `bell c4~~ I ~ day and i i. i ;. i~ I' . ' ~. ~~~ i i ~ A1~D AGR~: OF ~RIDIATI', IpAHO, cor~oratwn ~ ; i• ~ r ~• i )SS. f Ada ~ ~ ~~ , n this , day of ~ ~ 19,, before me, the urcdersigaed, a Notary • ~ and fir said stazc, p~~Y aPP~'~ ~ ~ tangwn or ''to m~ to be tl~e ~ of The City of Ma~elis~p, Ydaho, the l :CO'cpocaaQn that eacecuted the instrument or the person who exaaued ~ instrument F' arf said muuic~al ' ooipocadon, and aclcnowled~d to me that ~h mumci~l xn exa~ted the same.; ~ , ~: f~ aVJCflwF.~SS WI~ffitEO~ I halve hereunito set my hand and affnted my official seal the qtr is j ibis cettificat~ "fiist above-written. NOTARY PUBLIC for Idaho i ' Residing at My commissiaac anpirea: .~ ~' . , , r. ~' ., . ~ . • ~•S~wE~ ~ - ~d ~a.ao~ ~~~~5 ,; DEC 29 '95 08 35 ~, • 2088877998 PAGE.05 ' DA i I R1 ~Rl 2631 ~ 1981 . said suss 14tnd. I 1 i I I :I I 1 1 DGP I ~ ,' ~ ~ ~ i~ 290' Naoixlt Maple (lr`ava Rom Berme, ]D 83704 (208) s78-6680 Fay (208) a78-002a nECEl~riBER ~, 199s I : ; ,' •' . ' ' P'E~tMANENT SEKIER LIIVE EASEIuMENT LOCATID W ?HE 50VCHWFaS'~' QUARTER OF THE NOR'I~AST QUARTER OF SF~QN 8 T. 3 N.. R 1 E.. B.M ~ ' ' ~ ADA OO'UMY, IDAHO ~I,. ~: A ' ~: ~ )w....wa b~~Rti- :7'i~SFiir a7Wtu{~ Q{~r~rt W fiR N , ; T ~ pa~ Qtsel~r sew ~;.., z~., B.M.. Ada Ccttttty," Idaticsobd mgr+t partiarlarly des?csibod as follows: . i Beginyting at a brRss caD~n#adciag tee Southeass ootioer of the Southeast Quarto of Sectioa 8, T. 3.N.. . H.M., Ada Carney. Idaba~ I thenodalong tec~ Dtritndaty otssrld Sowltttast Quarter of Sewon 8, None 1°2TO5` west feet so la bass cap enadclag;t!!in South~st Dorset of tee Northeast Qttar>Der of said Station 8; theaogalong the Sox~oun9ary aat'8aid Norteesat Quarter of Section 8, Noah 89°sS43' Weal foa a ~ pttia~ acid poim~beirR roC REAL POINT OP BEt;ll+IN1NG of a tweary (ZO) ~oa.wide eaeemoear, eat Ding tea ,(l~ feet.eadi she of the ~Ilawing dtaacibed txnterlia~ ' I thenoq along raid oNotth 0°33'54" F.aat 450.00 feet to the point of ending of said eaacmdtt. CT Y+O: ~ ! ~ • i j , . , Atl existittE easements ~ tv~ rigAts-of-way of record or appearing oa the above-dacribe4 parne~ ~' ~ ~ 1 1 . 1 r ~ Lead 5t1[VC~OtS • ~ ~ _ I f i; I ft . j I `i ~ ~ f ; i , ~~ ' ~ 1 1 I' ' ~ ' I I 1 I ~ ~ [ ~ j ~I . ~ ~ ~ ~ .j , Don Q Payne, RL.S. '` i ' ~, ~ ~~ . ~ ~ . I ~ I ~: I~ . ;I~ ~.~ ., a divfeiou et POWER Esy~ineers, Ise., an [dabo Ca~poratioc , TOTAL P.06 TOTAL P.07 DEC 29 '95 08=36 2088877998 PAGE.07 • • ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL COFFER INVESTMENTS, INC. APPLICATION TO VACATE 20' EASEMBNT CENTRAL VALLEY CORPORATE PARK NO. 1 LOT 6, BLOCR 1 WEST 1/2, SECTION 18, T.3N., R.lE., B.M. MERIDIAN, IDAHO FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled matter having come on for public hearing November 21, 1995, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, tabled until December 5, 1995, and tabled again until December 19, 1995, the Petitioner appearing through his representative, Charlie Gongre, of Roylance Engineering, the Meridian City Council having heard and taken oral and written testimony, and having duly considered the matter, the Meridian City Council makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. That notice of the public hearing on the vacation of the utility easement was published for two (2) consecutive weeks prior to the said public hearing scheduled for December 19, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the December 19, 1995, hearing; that the public was given full opportunity to COFFER INVESTMENTS, INC. Page 1 • express comments and submit evidence; and that copies of all notices were available to newspaper,. radio and television stations. 2. That this property is located East of Meridian Road and North of East Corporate Drive and is described as the Northerly 20 feet of Lot 6, Block 1 of Central Valley Corporate Park No. 1 (a recorded subdivision on file in Book 57 of plats at Pages 5332 and 5333, records of Ada County, Idaho.) and is owned by Applicant; that a note on the plat creates a 20' (twenty-foot) easement for drainage and utilities on the North and West of Lot 6 Block l; that the Applicant proposes a vacation of the 20' utility and drainage easement situated on the North line of Lot 6 Block 1 and create a new fifteen-foot (15' ) easement along the North line of Lot 6 Block 1. 3. That the Applicant's submitted before the City Council an amended application showing the change from Central Valley Corporate Park No, 1 Lot 5 to Lot 6 in the vacation of the 20 foot easement and rededication of a 15 foot easement on the North by Coffer Investments, Inc. 4. That Idaho Power submitted partial release of easement; that the other utility companies, namely TCI Cable, U.S. West Communications, and Intermountain Gas Company 'and Nampa and Meridian Irrigation submitted no comments which objected to the vacation of the easements. 5. That the property is currently zoned C-G, General Retail & Service Commercial. 6. That Mr. Gongre testified before the Planning and Zoning COFFER INVESTMENTS, INC. Page 2 • Commission public hearing, September 12, 1995, that as far as he is aware of the storm water drainage system at the site is an open ditch that is next to the service road that is on the same property as the canal, in which case it can be relocated if it needs to be, if the developer really feels like it is necessary to do so; that if it is found that the actual location of the pipe is outside of the easement that the developer is proposing to relocate any piping and that would remain as an easement. 7. That Gary Smith, Meridian City Engineer, testified before the Planning and Zoning hearing, September 12, 1995, that the piping is in existence according to the design drawings; that it is the opinion of the Public Works Department of the City of Meridian that the easement needs to be maintained for the maintenance of the pipe; that it does drain a portion of the street to a catch basin and that pipe then runs to the east and then to the north along this easement then to the east continuing along the north side of this property to Nine Mile Drain; that if the easement is to be vacated then the pipe needs to be relocated in another easement. 8. That Larry Sale, of the Ada County Highway District, testified before the Planning and Zoning Commission, September 12, 1995, that the design plans for the storm drains indicate that it varies in depth from 8 feet in the street to about 10 feet deep along the property line; that the recommendation of the District is that the Applicant search for another means to reach their goals other than to vacate the easement and relocate the pipe. 9. That there was no public testimony objecting to the COFFER INVESTMENTS, INC. Page 3 • vacation of the easements. 10. That the Assistant City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton submitted earlier comments to the Planning and Zoning Commission; that in his opinion, the existing 20 foot wide easement needs to remain in place; that the City of Meridian does not have jurisdiction on the operation and/or maintenance of the storm drain pipes; that consent for the easement relocation was not sought from the Ada County Highway District nor the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District; that since the storm drain carries street runoff water directly to the Nine Mile Creek, that the consent of these two entities should be sought since the Ada County Highway District and possibly the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District have jurisdiction over the operation and maintenance of this storm drain pipe; that if it is decided to approve this application, the easement along the westerly boundary should not be reduced in width to anything less than 10 feet. 11. That the Meridian Police Department, Meridian Fire Department, and Central District Health Department, submitted comments and such are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 12. That the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District submitted comments regarding Lot 6, Block 1; that the District has no facilities within the Lot 6, Block 1 of Central Valley Corporate Park #1, Drainage Easement and therefore, has no objection with the reduction in the width of this easement since it does not impact or encroach on any of the Irrigation District's facilities. 13. That approval was received by the Ada County Highway COFFER INVESTMENTS, INC. Page 4 • District which considered this easement at their regularly scheduled meeting, November 8, 1995; that the release and dedication of the new storm drainage easement were approved. 14. That proper notice was given as required by law and all procedures before the Meridian City Council were given and followed. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian and of Idaho Code, Section 50-1306A have been met. 2. That the City of Meridian has authority to vacate easements pursuant to Idaho Code, Section 50-1306A and Section 11- 9-611A, Vacations and Dedications, of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian. 3. That since the Ada County Highway District recommended approval of the amended application to release the South 5 feet of an existing 20-foot wide drainage easement in a portion of Lot 6, Block 1 and since the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District submitted a letter to the Assistant City Engineer, Bruce Freckleton, stating that the District has no facilities within the Lot 6, Block 1 of Central Valley Corporate Park #1, Drainage Easement and therefore, has no objection with the reduction in the width of this easement since it does not impact or encroach on any of the Irrigation District's facilities, the easement should be vacated. COFFER INVESTMENTS, INC. Page 5 • • APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The Meridian City Council hereby adopts and approves these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL COUNCILMAN MORROW VOTED COUNCILMAN BENTLEY VOTED_~,p~ COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE VOTED COUNCILMAN TOLSMA VOTED~GQ~ MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED DECISION AND RECOMMENDATION The Meridian City Council hereby approves of the vacation of easement requested by the Applicant based on the above Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. MOTION: APPROVED: ~ DISAPPROVED: COFFER INVESTMENTS, INC. Page 6. • • ORIGINAL BEFORE THE MERIDIAN CITY COUNCIL APPLICATION OF INTERWEST DEVELOPMENT FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE CUL-DE-SAC MAXIMUM BLOCK LENGTH REQUIREMENTS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The above entitled variance request having come on for consideration on December 5, 1995, was tabled until December 19, 1995, at approximately 7:30 o'clock p.m. on said date, at the Meridian City Hall, 33 East Idaho Street, Meridian, Idaho, the Applicant appearing through David Collins, Collins Engineering, 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 1. That notice of the public hearing on the variance was published for two consecutive weeks prior to the scheduled hearing for December 19, 1995, the first publication of which was fifteen (15) days prior to said hearing; that the matter was duly considered at the December 19, 1995, hearing; that copies of all notices were available to newspaper, radio and television stations. 2. That 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., 11-2-419 D., and 11- 9-612 B. l.b. of the Revised and Compiled Ordinances of the City of Meridian; that this requirement has been met. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW HAVEN COVE NO. 5 Page 1 • • 3. That Ordinance 11-9-605 B 6., STREETS, requires that a street that ends in a cul-de-sac or dead end shall be no longer than four hundred fifty feet. 4. That the Applicant has requested that it be granted a variance from the above cul-de-sac requirement and be allowed to exceed the maximum length of cul-de-sacs on the subject property at 2470 W. Pine Avenue, in Haven Cove No. 5 Subdivision. 5. The entire property in question is described in the subdivision application and is incorporated herein as if set forth in full. 6. That the property is currently zoned R-4 Residential. 7. That the Applicant requests a variance from the Ordinance requiring maximum length of cul-de-sacs of 450 feet long to allow the Applicant a cul-de-sac length of 476.50.' feet long; that afire hydrant has been placed approximately 195' from the end of the cul- de-sac for fire protection of the lots. 8. That the Applicant states that the special conditions and circumstances which are peculiar to the land are that due to the dimensions of the property, the layout of the cul-de-sac, as is shown, is the best design when re-designing the subdivision to put the entrance road to the West, which has been done; that the difficulty in complying with this Ordinance is that the project would have to be totally re-designed to make maximum use of the. South East corner of the property; that in order to reduce the number of entrances on Pine Avenue, a collector, the Applicant FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW HAVEN COVE NO. 5 Page 2 moved the entrance from Pine to their subdivision to the West so it could service property to the West in the future; that with the re- design and the physical constraints of construction on the property to the North and the location of an existing house on the property at the South end, the best way to utilize this corner of the property was to put in a cul-de-sac; and Applicant represents that the existing house on the South, existing construction to the North, and planning to reduce the number of entrances on Pine Avenue, are circumstances which make this design optimal. 9. That the Applicant, Interwest Development, is the owner of the property and request this variance; that Applicant and a property owner to the south and west, John Eddy, have combined their properties to add lots and make an additional subdivision, Haven Cove No. 6 and some lots have been created and land added to Haven Cove No. 5. 10. That there was no public testimony. 11. That a letter was submitted by Thomas Geile requesting that the construction of a permanent fence between his property and Haven Cove No. 5 be a pre-condition to any construction in this subdivision; that a perimeter fence has been required for other applications. 12. That the City Engineer's Department, the Planning and Zoning Director, Ada County Highway District, may submit comments, and such comments shall be incorporated herein as if set forth in full. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW HAVEN COVE N0. 5 Page 3 • •. 13. That the Meridian City Police Department, Meridian City Fire Department, the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District and the Water Department reviewed and submitted comments and they are incorporated as if set forth in full. CONCLUSIONS 1. That all the procedural requirements of the Local Planning Act and of the Ordinances of the City of Meridian have been met including the mailing of notice to owners of property within 300 feet of the external boundaries of the Applicant's property. 2. That the City has authority to grant variances pursuant to Section 11-2-419 of the Zoning Ordinance and pursuant to Section 11-9-612 of the Development Ordinances. 3. That the City Council has judged this application by the guidelines, standards, criteria, and policies contained in the Subdivision and Development Ordinance and upon the record submitted to it and the things upon which it may take judicial notice. 4. That 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. That the following provision of Section 11-9-612 A. 1., of the Zoning Ordinance is noted which is pertinent to the Application: FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW HAVEN COVE N0. 5 Page 4 • • 11-9-612 A. 1. PURPOSE The Council, as a result of unique circumstances (such as topographic - physical limitations or a planned unit development), may grant variances from the provisions of this Ordinance on a finding that undue hardship results from the strict compliance with specific provisions or requirements of the Ordinance or that application of such provision or requirement is impracticable. 6. That the specific requirements regarding a variance that must be evidenced and found by the City Council are as follows: 11-9-612 A. 2., FINDINGS No variance shall be favorably acted upon by the Council unless there is a finding, as a result of a public hearing, that all of the following exist: a. 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; in such cases, the subdivider shall first state his reasons in writing as to the specific provision or requirement involved; b. That the strict compliance with the requirements of this Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the subdivider because of unusual topography, other physical conditions or other such conditions which are not self-inflicted, or that .these conditions would result in inhibiting the achievement of the objectives of this Ordinance; c. That the granting of the specified variance ,will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the property is situated; d. That such variance will not violate the provisions of the Idaho Code; and e. That such variance will not have the effect of nullifying the interest and purpose of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Development Plan. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW .HAVEN COVE N0. 5 Page 5 7. That there does appear to be a specific benefit or profit, economic gain or convenience to the Applicant; design of the subdivision was totally within the control of the Applicant but the addition of Haven Cove No. 6 has caused a need for different access routes; that the failure to meet the cul-de-sac maximum length was partially self-inflicted; that it would be in the best interest of the City to grant the variance. 8. That regarding Section 11-9-612 A. 2. it is specifically concluded as follows: a. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that. the strict application of the provisions of the cul-de-sac street Ordinance would clearly be unreasonable. b. That strict compliance with the requirements of the cul-de-sac street Ordinance would result in extraordinary hardship to the applicant as a result of factors not self-inflicted, however a redesign of Haven Cove No. 5 and adding Haven Cove No 6 could have solved the cul-de-sac problem that exists now; that such redesign would have caused more expense. c. That the granting of a variance would not be detrimental to the public's welfare or injurious to other property in the area in which the property is situated. d. That the variance would not have the effect of altering the interests and purposes of the Subdivision and Development Ordinance or the Meridian Comprehensive Plan. 9. That it is concluded the Application for a variance should be granted; that as a condition of the grant of the variance shall be to equally share the cost of fencing between the land of Applicant and Thomas Geile. FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW HAVEN COVE NO. 5 Page 6 • • 10. The City has in the past granted similar variances as requested by the Applicant but has also denied such variances;. each application must stand on its own merits and the granting of one variance is not a precedent for granting others. APPROVAL OF FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS The-City Council of the City of Meridian does hereby approve these Findings of Fact and Conclusions. ROLL CALL: COUNCILMAN MORROW COUNCILMAN BENTLEY COUNCILMAN ROUNTREE COUNCILMAN TOLSMA MAYOR CORRIE (TIE BREAKER) VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED VOTED DECISION That it is decided the Application should be granted as to the cul-de-sac on W. ~e Avenue. Sett. ~ a. M.s~q~. APPROVED: ~/ FINDINGS OF FACT & CONCLUSIONS OF LAW HAVEN COVE NO. 5 DISAPPROVED: Page 7